Noxious Weed Survey: Awareness and Attitudes in Montana

Noxious Weed Survey: Awareness and Attitudes in Montana Author(s): Roger L. Sheley, James S. Jacobs and Joe W. Floyd Source: Weed Technology, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1996), pp. 592-598 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3988160 Accessed: 04-03-2018 14:45 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Cambridge University Press, Weed Science Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Weed Technology This content downloaded from 49.151.216.17 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 14:45:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Extension/Survey Noxious Weed Survey: Awareness and Attitudes in Montana ROGER L. SHELEY, JAMES S. JACOBS, and JOE W. FLOYD2 Abstract. A telephone survey of Montana residents was undertaken to determine their knowledge of noxious weeds, their attitudes toward noxious weeds, how they use the outdoors with respect to spreading noxious weeds, and the best methods to distribute information to those most unaware about noxious weeds. Most Montanans (76%) thought that noxious weeds were a serious or very serious problem. Respondents from central (67%) and southwestern (59%) Montana were more likely to evaluate the noxious weed problem as serious than respondents from western (37%) or southeastern (33%) Montana. Most Montanans (80%) could name a problem associated with noxious weed invasion. Farmers and operators of non-farm machinery knew more problems associated with weeds than people not involved in these activities. Respondents knew ways weeds spread (89%) but many could not think of ways to prevent weed spread (70%) or identify activities they participate in that might spread weeds (64%). Television (89%) and newspaper stories (85%) were mentioned most often as the most effective ways to distribute information about noxious weeds. Additional index words: Educational programs, information distribution, questionnaire, telephone survey. INTRODUCTION Adult awareness and educational programs are often developed and delivered without consideration of the level of interest and knowledge of the audience. Accurate iden tification of the target audience, combined with an under standing of their knowledge, beliefs, and interests can provide essential information for the development of ef fective educational programs (2, 4). The Montana Weed Control Association and Montana State University Extension Service are developing a state wide noxious weed awareness and educational plan for the general public of Montana. The objective of this plan is to enhance understanding of how weeds impact the public and how Montanans can minimize the spread of noxious weeds. The plan is also aimed at increasing support for noxious rangeland weed management programs. Before this plan can be developed, it was deemed important to understand the level of public knowledge about noxious weeds, including how weeds spread, the impact of weeds on the environment, and how public land use affects weed management. Without this knowledge, educators may 'Received for publication Aug. 10, 1995 and in revised form Jan. 29, 1996. 2Ext. Noxious Weed Spec., Post-Doctoral Res. Assoc., Dep. Plant, Soil and Environ. Sci., Montana State Univ.-Bozeman, Bozeman, MT 59717; and Prof. of Sociol., Computer Assisted Telephone Interview Lab., Montana State Univ.- Billings, Billings, MT 59101. Published with approval of the director, Montana Agric. Exp. Stn., as Journal No. 4029. make false assumptions about levels of public awareness or understanding of the issues, which could result in the development of ineffective programs. Recently, two surveys were conducted to assess the knowledge and educational needs of urban homeowners for pest and weed management (1, 3). However, no infor mation exists regarding the level of awareness and educa tional needs of Montanans regarding noxious rangeland weeds. The purpose of this survey was to assess the pub lic's knowledge about noxious rangeland weeds. Specific objectives were to determine: 1) the knowledge level of people in Montana about noxious weeds, 2) their attitudes about noxious weeds, 3) how they use the outdoors with respect to spreading noxious weeds, and 4) the best meth ods of distributing information to persons most unaware of noxious weeds. MATERIALS AND METHODS A telephone survey was conducted with assistance from the Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing Laboratory at Montana State University-Billings. Questions asked in the survey were developed by 20 weed professionals in Montana (Table 1). A random digit dialing sampling tech nique was used to generate the sample of telephone num bers used for the survey, and included unlisted telephone numbers in the sample. The survey was conducted over one 592 Weed Technology. 1996. Volume 10:592-598 This content downloaded from 49.151.216.17 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 14:45:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms WEED TECHNOLOGY Table 1. Telephone survey questions and response choices when provided. 1. Hello, my name is and I am calling from MSU-Billings. MSU-Billings is conducting a study of the attitudes toward and knowledge of noxious or damaging weeds in Montana. Your telephone number was randomly selected by computer. All of your answers are anonymous and the questions I have to ask should take 5 to 10 minutes. In order to interview the right person, I need to speak to the member of your household who is at home, has had the most recent birthday and is over 18. Would that be you? 2. How knowledgeable would you say you are about noxious or damaging weeds in Montana? a) not knowledgeable at all b) know a little c) know something about them d) know a lot e) don't know or no response 3. In your opinion, how serious a problem are noxious weeds in Montana? a) not serious at all b) somewhat serious c) serious d) very serious e) don't know or no response 4. In your opinion, what are the two worst or most damaging weeds in Montana? Please tell me the most damaging weed first. 5. Can you tell me any of the major problems associated with noxious weed in Montana? (Up to three answers were accepted.) 6. Can you tell me any of the ways in which noxious weeds are spread? (Up to three answers were accepted.) 7. Can you think of anything you currently do which might spread noxious weeds? (Up to three answers were accepted.) 8. Can you think of anything you could do to help prevent the spread of noxious weeds? (Up to three answers were accepted.) 9. Can you tell me why noxious or damaging weeds are spreading so fast in Montana? 10. How often do you engage in each of the following activities: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, staying in a recreational vehicle at campgrounds, boating or rafting, working out of doors in open fields or forests, riding an ATV or dirt bike across country, snowmobiling, cross country skiing, cutting firewood, driving an automobile on dirt roads or across fields, driving or operating farm machinery on dirt roads or across fields, and driving or operating other types of machinery on dirt roads or across fields or open country. a) never or seldom b) a few times per year c) once per month or 12 times per year d) 2 or 3 times per month 24-36 times per year e) weekly or more frequently or 50 or more times per year) f) don't know or no response 11. We are interested in knowing how to get information about preventing the spread of noxious weed to people like you. Please rate each of the following methods of distributing information in terms of how effective it would be in adding to your knowledge: newspaper ads, newspaper stories, newspaper inserts, brochures sent to your home, brochures distributed with hunting and fishing licenses, brochures distributed at sporting goods or outdoor shops, brochures distributed at feed stores or agricultural supply stores, brochures distributed in utility bills, brochures distributed with vehicle registrations, television ads and public service announcements, community access cable TV programs, radio ads and public service announcements. 12. Is there any other way we could get information about noxious weed to you? 13. As you probably know, different types of people have different types of opinions. The following questions are for statistical purposes only. What is your age? 14. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 15. Respondent's sex (not asked) 16. Do you have a 1995 hunting license? 17. Do you have a 1995 Montana fishing license? 18. Do you own an off the road motor vehicle of any type? 19. Do you own a 4 wheel drive off road vehicle (pick-up, Jeep, Blazer, etc.) 20. Do you own a dirt or trail motorcycle? 21. Do you own an ATV? 22. Do you own a snowmobile? 23. Do you own a travel trailer? 24. Do you cut your own firewood? 25. Do you work in farming or ranching operations? weekend in December, 1994. A total of 2,212 telephone calls was made to 1,698 telephone numbers, resulting in 411 interviews with Montana residents 18 yr old or older. Unanswered calls were re-dialed up to five times in order to attempt to complete interviews. Analysis. Data were subjected to two bivariate analyses; cross-tabulation, including the Chi-squared statistic, or ANOVA (cx = 0.05). Answers to individual questions and overall knowledge of respondents were compared among different regions of Montana. The regions were chosen by Volume 10, Issue 3 (July-September) 1996 593 This content downloaded from 49.151.216.17 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 14:45:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms SHELEY ET AL.: NOXIOUS WEED SURVEY Figure 1. Weed areas and counties in Montana. weed area; Western, Triangle, Northeast, Southwest, Cen tral, Southeastern, and Southcentral (Figure 1). Respon dents' overall knowledge was determined by compiling numbers from the questions asked in the survey: the num ber of weeds known (max. = 2), the number of problems associated with weeds (max. = 3), the number of ways weeds are spread (max. = 3), and why weeds spread so fast (max. = 1). The frequency with which respondents engaged in out door activities was compared with their knowledge of noxious weeds to determine if relationships existed. For this analysis, responses were reduced to two categories; a few times per year or less, and once per month or more. These two categories were compared using a t-test (x = 0.05). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Demographics. Respondents were equally represented by sex, the mean age was 47 yr, and the mean education level was two years of college. Respondents were from 46 of Montana's 56 counties and all seven Montana weed areas. 3Cooksey, D. and B. Mullin. 1991. A Summary of the 1991 Montana Noxious Weed Questionnaire. Montana State Univ. Coop. Agri. Pest Survey. 1 p. Responses. Respondents' self rated level of knowledge and assessment of the seriousness of noxious weeds show that Montanans are aware that noxious weeds are a prob lem, but feel they lack knowledge about noxious weeds. Over three-quarters (76%) of the respondents said noxious weeds were a serious or very serious problem. Two-thirds (67%) indicated that they knew little or nothing about noxious weeds. Although there was no difference between weed areas in how respondents evaluated their knowledge of weeds, those in the Central (67%) and Southwestern (59%) areas were more likely to evaluate the noxious weed problem as very serious, while Southeastern (33%) and Western (37%) area respondents were least likely to evalu ate the problem as serious. Of these areas, the Southeastern area is least affected by noxious weeds, and the Western area is the most affected3. Respondents from areas with either minor or major weed infestations did not perceive weeds as a serious problem. In the former case, we specu late that the perceived seriousness of the problem is low because weed awareness is low. In the areas most affected by weeds, the people may have become indifferent to their seriousness. When asked to name the two worst or most damaging weeds in Montana, 73% of the respondents could name one damaging weed, and 46% of the respondents could provide 594 Volume 10, Issue 3 (July-September) 1996 This content downloaded from 49.151.216.17 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 14:45:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms WEED TECHNOLOGY a second damaging weed. Respondents mentioned spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.) most often (43%), followed by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) ( 14%), and Canada thistle [Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.] (9%). Weed inventories in Montana show spotted knapweed is the most widespread noxious weed infesting 2,000,000 ha, followed by Canada thistle (350,000 ha), and leafy spurge (150,000 ha)3. Most respondents could identify one major problem associated with noxious weeds (80%), and 55% could identify two or three problems. The most common problem mentioned was that noxious weeds reduce biodiversity (48%). The second most often mentioned problem was reduced crop production (28%) followed by reduced live stock feed and interrupted ecosystem function (23% each). Other problems commonly mentioned include soil and water problems (17%), and reduced wildlife feed (I %). Some people perceived weeds as a problem because they cause allergies (7%) and reduce land values (6%). Nine teen percent of the respondents did not know any major problems. These results indicate that Montanans generally recognize the impacts of noxious weed invasion. To prevent noxious weed invasion, it is important to know how weeds spread and why they are able to spread rapidly. Most of the people surveyed (89%) could name at least one way in which weeds spread, and 56% could name three ways weeds spread. The most common answers were wind (60%), livestock (31%), and wildlife (30%). How ever, 32% of the respondents did not know why weeds spread rapidly, and another 38% gave an answer not rec ognized as a problem by weed professionals. Only 18% thought that weeds were spreading rapidly because they lacked natural enemies, 5% mentioned that weeds were more competitive than desirable plants, and 5% said that vehicle dissemination contributed to rapid weed spread. Most of the respondents did not perceive themselves as being actively involved in spreading noxious weeds. When asked to identify their current activities which might result in the spread of noxious weeds, 64% could not think of an answer. The most common answer given was driving through weeds (21%), followed by walking through weeds (17%), and not controlling weeds (9%). Only 5% of the respondents could name three current activities they en gaged in that might result in the spread of weeds. Many of those surveyed did not perceive themselves as being actively involved in slowing weed spread. When 4Abbreviations: ATV, all terrain vehicle. asked what they could do to reduce the spread of weeds, 36% of the respondents could not think of anything they could do to minimize the spread of weeds, and only 10% of the respondents could think of three activities to prevent weed spread. Killing weeds was the most common method mentioned to prevent the spread of noxious weeds (49%), followed by managing other crops (22%), and not walking in weeds (7%). People from the Central and Southwestern areas could think of the most activities to reduce weed spread (means = 1.3), whereas people from the Western and Southcentral areas could think of the fewest (means = 0.9). Our results suggest that educational programs should focus on the mechanisms and prevention of noxious weed spread. The respondents' overall knowledge about weeds was ranked (0 = low, 9 = high) using the number of weeds known, weed problems known, and the number of ways weeds spread. The mean score was 5.12, 1% scored a 0 or 1, while 21% scored a 8 or 9. Respondents from the Southwest district had the highest overall knowledge (mean = 5.69), while people from the Southcentral and Southeastern district had the lowest (mean = 4.65; P = 0.05). Based on overall knowledge, prevention education should be concentrated in the Southcentral and Southeast ern areas where weed infestations are low and encroach ment can perhaps be prevented by increased awareness. When asked how frequently they engaged in sixteen different outdoor behaviors that might result in the spread of weeds, respondents cited driving on dirt roads most often (48%), followed by working outside (35%), hiking (29%), fishing (28%), camping (23%), and hunting (19%). There were differences in respondents' weed knowledge when compared between those that participated and did not participate in outdoor activities. People who operated farm or non-farm machinery, hunt, fish, boat, drove off-road, or rode horses had a greater overall knowledge of noxious weeds than people who rarely engaged in these activities (Table 2). Of these groups, only persons who operated machinery or worked on farms could name more weeds, problems associated with weeds and the ways weeds spread than those rarely engaging in these activities. Peo ple who camp, ride all terrain vehicles (ATVs)4 or dirt bikes, snowmobile, or mountain bike had no greater knowledge of noxious weeds than people who rarely en gage in these activities. Of all the groups, only cross-coun try skiers and off-road drivers knew reasons why weeds spread so quickly. Since recreational land use is an increas ing environmental disturbance important in weed spread, Volume 10, Issue 3 (July-September) 1996 595 This content downloaded from 49.151.216.17 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 14:45:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms SHELEY ET AL.: NOXIOUS WEED SURVEY Table 2. Relationships between participation and non-participation in activities that might result in spreading noxious weeds and respondents' knowledge of noxious weeds.a Number of Problems asso- Ways weeds Why weeds Overall Activity weeds known ciated with weeds spread spread fast knowledge Operatefarmmachinery 1.3 a 1.9 a 2.6a 0.3 a 6.7 a Seldom operate farm machinery 0.9 b 1.6 b 2.1 b 0.4 a 5.0 b Operate non-farm machinery 1.5 a 2.2 a 2.7 a 0.4 a 6.7 a Seldome operate non-farm machinery 0.9 b 1.6 b 2.1 b 0.3 a 5.0 b Workonfarm 1.4a 2.0a 2.6a 0.3a 6.3a Don'tworkonfarm 0.9b 1.6b 2.1 b 0.3 a 4.9b X-country ski 1.4 a 2.1 a 2.2 a 0.9 a 6.2 a Seldom X-country ski 1.0 b 1.6 b 2.2 a 0.3 b 5.0 b Ride horses 1.3 a 1.9 a 2.6 a 0.2 a 6.0 a Seldom ride horses 1.0 a 1.6 a 2.2 b 0.3 a 5.1 b Fish 1.1 a 1.8 a 2.4 a 0.3 a 6.0 a Seldom fish 0.9 a 1.6 a 2.1 b 0.3 a 5.0 b Hunt 1.3 a 1.9a 2.5 a 0.4a 6.0a Seldom hunt 0.9 b 1.6 a 2.2 b 0.3 a 5.0 b Work outside 1.2 a 1.9 a 2.5 a 0.3 a 5.9 a Seldom work outside 0.9 b 1.5 b 2.1 b 0.3 a 4.7 b Cut firewood 1.2 a 1.8 a 2.3 a 0.4 a 5.8 a Seldomcutfirewood 1.0 a 1.6a 2.2 a 0.3 a 5.1 a Boat 1.1 a 1.8a 2.4a 0.3a 5.7a Seldomboat 1.0a 1.6a 2.2a 0.3 a 5.0b Snowmobile 1.2 a 1.6 a 2.5 a 0.3 a 5.7 a Seldom snowmobile 1.0 a 1.6 a 2.2 a 0.3 a 5.1 a Ride ATV 1.1 a 1.7 a 2.5 a 0.4 a 5.6 a Seldom ride ATV 1.0 a 1.6 a 2.2 a 0.3 a 5.1 a Own off road vehicle 1.1 a 2.4 a 2.4 a 0.4 a 5.6 a No off road vehicle 1.0 a 1.6 a 2.1 b 0.3 b 4.9 b Have hunting license 1.2 a 1.7 a 2.4 a 0.3 a 5.6 a No hunting license 0.9 b 1.6 a 2.1 b 0.3 a 5.0 b Have fishing license 1.1 a 1.7 a 2.3 a 0.3 a 5.5 a No fishing license 0.9 b 1.5 a 2.1 a 0.3 a 4.9 b Stay in recreation vehicle 1.1 a 1.8 a 2.4 a 0.3 a 5.5 a Seldom stay in recreation vehicle 1.0 a 1.6 a 2.2 a 0.3 a 5.1 a Hike 1.0 a 1.7 a 2.3 a 0.3 a 5.4 a Seldom hike 1.0 a 1.6 a 2.2 a 0.3 a 5.1 a Own trailer 1.1 a 1.7 a 2.4 a 0.3 a 5.4 a Notrailer 1.0a 1.6a 2.2a 0.3a 5.1 a Camp 1.0 a 1.7 a 2.2 a 0.2 a 5.2 a Seldom camp 1.0 a 1.6 a 2.2 a 0.3 a 5.2 a Bike on trails 1.0a 1.5 a 2.1 a 0.4 a 5.0a Seldom bike on trails 1.0 a 1.7 a 2.2 a 0.3 a 5.2 a aAreas of knowledge include weeds known (max = 2), problems associated with weeds (max = 3), ways weeds are spread (max = 3), why weeds spread so quickly (max = 1), and overall knowledge (max = 9). Respondents were categorized as seldom participating in the activity (a few times per year or less) or active (once per month or more). Knowledge of active and seldom active respondents were compared using a t-test. Significant differences between pairs of means (P ? 0.05) are indicated by letters (a or b) following the means. 596 Volume 10, Issue 3 (July-September) 1996 This content downloaded from 49.151.216.17 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 14:45:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms WEED TECHNOLOGY Table 3. Means of the number of activities respondents knew that might spread noxious weeds and the number of activities respondents knew that could prevent the spread of noxious weeds for each outdoor activity in which the respondents participated.a Number of activities Number of known that activities prevent known that weed Activity spread weeds spread Operate non-farm machinery 0.9 a 1.8 a Seldom operate non-farm machinery 0.5 b 0.9 b Operate farm machinery 0.8 a 1.7 a Seldom operate farm machinery 0.5 b 0.9 b Ride horses 0.8 a 1.6 a Seldom ride horses 0.5 a 1.0 b Snowmobile 0.9 a 1.6 a Seldom snowmobile 0.5 b 1.0 b Cross country ski 0.9 a 1.5 a Seldom cross country ski 0.5 b 1.0 b Workoutside 0.8 a 1.5 a Seldom work outside 0.4 b 0.8 b Ride ATV 0.7 a 1.5 a Seldom ride ATV 0.5 a 1.0 b Work in farming operations 0.7 a 1.5 a Don't work in farming operations 0.5 a 0.9 b Ride bike 0.8 a 1.4 a Seldom ride bike 0.5 a 1.0 b Hike 0.9a 1.3 a Seldom hike 0.4 b 0.9 b Drive off road 0.8 a 1.2 a Seldom drive off road 0.4 b 0.8 b Stay in recreational vehicle 0.8 a 1.2 a Seldom stay in recreational vehicle 0.5 a 1.0 a Camp 0.8a 1.2a Seldom camp 0.5 b 1.0 b Cut firewood 0.9 a 1.2 a Seldom cut firewood 0.5 b 1.0 a Hunt 0.8a 1.1 a Seldom hunt 0.5 b 1.0 a Own off road vehicle 0.9 a 1.1 a No off road vehicle 0.4 b 1.0 a Fish 0.8a 1.1 a Seldom fish 0.5 b 1.0 a Boat 0.8a 1.1 a seldom boat 0.5 b 1.0 a Own travel trailer 0.8 a 1.1 a No travel trailer 0.5 b 1.0 a Table 3. continued Number of activities Number of known that activities prevent known that weed Activity spread weeds spread Have hunting license 0.7 a 1.0 a No hunting license 0.5 b 1.0 a Have fishing license 0.7 a 1.0 a No fishing license 0.5 b 1.0 a aThe maximum number of activities that spread weeds and activities that could prevent the spread of weeds known by respondents was 3. Respondents were categorized as seldom participating in the activity (a few times per year or less) or active (once per month or more). Means of knowledge of active and rarely active respondents were compared using a t-test, and significant differences between pairs of means (P < 0.05) are indicated by letters (a or b) following means. future educational programs should target these audiences. Educational programs should also include information on the ways weeds spread and why they spread so fast. Results showed that most people who participate in outdoor activities included in this survey know more ways weeds are spread by land users than people who seldom participate in these activities (Table 3). Exceptions are horseback, ATV, dirt bike, or mountain bike riders, or persons who camp in recreational vehicles. Previous edu cational programs have been partially successful in teach ing the public how weeds spread. However, our results show there has been less success in teaching ways to prevent weed spread. There are more groups of land users, mostly recreational (including offroad drivers, hunters, and fisherman) who are no more knowledgeable in pre venting weed spread than people who rarely participate in these activities (Table 3). Future educational programs should teach recreational land users specific ways they can prevent weed spread. When asked what methods are most effective for dis tributing educational information about noxious weeds, television was cited as effective most often (89%). Other methods mentioned were newspaper stories (85%), radio advertisements (79%), newspaper advertisements (78%), brochures distributed with hunting and fishing licenses (77%), brochures sent to homes (71%), brochures at feed stores (67%), community access television (67%), bro chures at outdoor stores (65%), newspaper inserts (64%), brochures with vehicle registration (60%), and brochures with utility bills (56%). Respondents also suggested schools, exhibits at fairs, and speakers at organizations as Volume 10, Issue 3 (July-September) 1996 597 This content downloaded from 49.151.216.17 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 14:45:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms SHELEY ET AL.: NOXIOUS WEED SURVEY less effective ways of distributing information about nox ious weeds. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by the Montana Department of Agriculture-Noxious Weed Trust Fund. The technical assistance of the Headwater Resource Conservation Dis trict is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank Dr. Robert Norris and three anonymous reviewers. LITERATURE CITED 1. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. National Home and Garden Pesti cide Use Survey. Washington DC. No. RTI/5100/17-OlF. 400 p. 2. Hesterman, 0. B., J. J. Kells, and T. G. Isleib. 1986. A grower survey for assessing needs in Extension. J. Agronomic Educ. 15:62-67. 3. Lajeunesse, S. E., G. D. Johnson, and J. S. Jacobsen. 1996. A homeowner survey; outdoor pest management practices, water quality awareness, and preferred learning methods. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. (In press). 4. Straka, T. J. 1993. Forest resource management plans-a landowner-ori ented approach. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 22:111-115. 598 Volume 10, Issue 3 (July-September) 1996 This content downloaded from 49.151.216.17 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 14:45:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms