...:I‘4\
a...

wiwwwwu

.5; :1 Lu"

in,“ ‘ 3...
Lina“ k”
g.

fat...

‘ .fiflmmfl

:. . .

. i. 2.;
ii“;-

>Sru :1...

“mum”... t. I‘nltnfltf.
v.61} . 7:12:45”. .31.. .v.K a. x&
J... a 4.5!. 5.} ~... 13w. 8 I. .33”...-
zC: {CHEM :an1; .H d .1 .
, 1%..» .11. .

ifiwsy... .
mm”.
3%.»? .3.

. .0 ~lu ‘\vvv£a
1!. c... 4311...?
3:! :3:

., ofigurfis.
. : 2. its}: 1...:
.Nnu. r.

.1

£3 .{Jw

.z .:.kh.fl¢.|...kll

Hindi“: 21......
1. o. 1.3. 228%“.

(.(
.5155!- .31.

. 592535..)
:1 31 =
.lorlln

 

:rgégirfi 3 , , z A? w

 

 

THCSlS

o7
Dooi
5400 5"] IO

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Assessing Behavior Change Towards
Groundwater Stewardship In Adults After
Attending A Home*A*Syst Program

presented by

Kristin L. Linderman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. S . degree in Extens ion Education

 

 

A£ { {/L/LVC We

Major professor

 

Date August 10, 2001

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

L 353% 3 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuopss-sz

ASSESSING BEHAVIOR CHANGE
TOWARDS GROUNDWATER STEWARDSHIP IN ADULTS AFTER ATTENDING
A HOME*A*SYST PROGRAM
By

Kristin L. Linderman

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems

2001

Professor Dr. Murari Suvedi

TO W A R ~

studj» {ocu-
intencmiort
consistent.

lndid
wards grrv
pregrams. .~‘
Which .5:an

10 Michigan

The r

0” groundwa

gmL'ildii'aler

 

ABSTRACT
ASSESSING BEHAVIOR CHANGE
TOWARDS GROUNDWATER STEWARDSHIP IN ADULTS AFTER ATTENDING
A HOME*A*SYST PROGRAM
By

Kristin L. Linderman

In the year 1999 alone, over 145,000 people nationally were reached by a
groundwater education program called Home*A*Syst (HAS). The national HAS
program began in the 1980’s and Michigan joined in the efforts in the early 1990’s. TO
date, there has not been a comprehensive study of the HAS program in Michigan. This
study focuses on what types of changes people are or are not making because of the HAS
intervention. In addition, who is the audience attending the programs and is the message
consistent.

Indications from this study suggest that those who already have a propensity
towards groundwater quality education are those that are attending the Home*A*Syst
programs. As well, a change in behavior was statistically noted on several questions
which seems to indicate that the Michigan Home*A*Syst program is providing education
to Michigan residents.

The majority of the posttest respondents indicated that they have a better
understanding of pesticide and fertilizer usage, storage, and dispOSal, effects of behavior
on groundwater quality, and seem more empowered when it comes to improving

groundwater quality or preventing groundwater pollution.

This thesis is dedicated to Andrew Esch, who provided me with
endless support throughout this process.

iii

dcxclopaf.
accomplzx
Rundhi.
Jarret Iii) .
prt'licmir.
endsu or.
pending 2
Impondnl

\.

Heisman. I

MDAEUdKT
an the 2001 ‘
Fina:

?' ‘v
‘55? hd‘ve dIv

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For me the process of obtaining my masters degree has been a great learning,
developing, and growing period. Without the assistance of several people, this
accomplishment would not be as powerful as it turned out to be. First and foremost, I
would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Murari Suvedi, Dr. Robert Holsman, Dr.
Janet Lillie, and Dr. Kirk Heinze. A Special thanks to Dr. Murari Suvedi, my major
professor, who provide me with guidance, encouragement, and support throughout my
endeavor. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Janet Lillie for joining my committee and
providing valuable ideas and insight to my project and to Dr. Kirk Heinze for his
important and helpful editorial input. My Sincere appreciation goes to Dr. Robert
Holsman. Dr. Holsman became my friend and my mentor. Thank you.

In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Joe Levine for always keeping his door and
his listening ear open. Dr. Levine enabled and encouraged me to grow in many different
directions, thanks Joe! Also, my gratitude is extended to Dr. Dave Krueger and Patty
Farrell.

A big thank you to those who provided additional assistance with my project from
MDA and MSUE, including Allen Krizek, Rob Glazier, Jack Knorek, Roberta Dow, and
all the 2001 Americorps members.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and the Esch family for the many things

they have done over the years that allowed me to get this far.

iv

 

LETUJ
USIOE
CHAPI

INTROI
l

I
§
(

I

CHAPT
REVHA

2/ ’7".r—"4

CHAPT
METHL

‘r-m-4~T—1r—1

r—-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Introduction ...................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Problem ................................................................. 4
Need for the Study ............................................................................ 5
Objectives ..................................................... I .................................... 6
Definition of Terms .......................................................................... 6
Assumptions ..................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Environmental Education ................................................................. 9
Environmental Literacy .................................................................. l 1
Responsible Environmental Behavior ............................................ 13
Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program ............................... 16

Home*A*Syst ........................................................................... l7
Home*A*Syst and Environmental Education .......................... 19

Groundwater Education .................................................................. 21

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY
Design of the Study ........................................................................ 24
Population and Sample; .................................................. 24
Instrumentation ............................................................................... 26
Collection of Data .......................................................................... 28
Analysis of Data ............................................................................. 30
Limitations of the Study ................................................................. 30

9

CHAT
I FIND!

 

 

CHAPT
SL'XIM;

 

 

 

mat/JV)

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS
Findings from the Pretest ............................................................... 32
Yard and Garden Management Practices .................................. 32
Groundwater Quality ................................................................. 34
Opinions on Empowerment and Ownership Issues ................... 36
Respondent Comments .............................................................. 40
Findings from the Posttest .............................................................. 40
Yard and Garden Management Practices .................................. 41
Comments ............................................................................. 42
Groundwater Quality ................................................................. 42
Comments ............................................................................. 44
Opinions on Empowerment and Ownership Issues ................... 44
Comments ............................................................................. 45
Participant Experiences Prior and During an HAS Program ....45
Overall Comments ................................................................ 51
Pretest and Posttest Comparison .................................................... 52
Yard and Garden Management Practices .................................. 52
Groundwater Quality ................................................................. 54
Opinions on Empowerment and Ownership Issues ................... 57
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary ......................................................................................... 62
Summary of Findings ...................................................................... 63
Conclusions ..................................................................................... 66
Recommendations .......................................................................... 67
Recommendations for Home*A*Syst ....................................... 67
Recommendations for Further Study ........................................ 69
Reflections ...................................................................................... 70

vi

APP:\'

APPENDICES

Appendix A .................................................................................... 72
Human Subjects Approval Letter .............................................. 73
Appendix B .................................................................................... 74
Pretest Consent Form ................................................................ 75
Pretest Instructions for Americorps ........................................... 76
Pretest Questionnaire ................................................................. 77
Appendix C .................................................................................... 81
Posttest Questionnaire ............................................................... 82
First Cover Letter ...................................................................... 88
Second Cover Letter .................................................................. 89
Postcard ..................................................................................... 90
Incentive Entry Form ................................................................ 91
Appendix D .................................................................................... 92
Additional Tables ...................................................................... 93
Appendix E ..................................................................................... 95
Figure l ..................................................................................... 96
REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 97

vii

 

(n

. V

1151»: l
Prczest IC>

TM 1

Au»). .

(9'31 9 .
P.51L}; r;_\.
I

 

Tallef

.\ ~ .
R\5pk\FI)C\
.3,-
Thk If {I
Posttest R.

TAITE 7

CR1 Wn- ..
kn.k,\irh\‘

LIST OF TABLES

Table l

Pretest responses on yard and garden management practices .................... 33
Table 2

Pretest responses to opinions of groundwater quality issues ..................... 35
Table 3

Pretest responses on empowerment and ownership issues ........................ 38
Table 4

Responses to posttest on yard and garden management practices ............. 41
Table 5

Responses to posttest questions on groundwater quality issues ................ 43
Table 6

Posttest responses on empowerment and ownership issues ....................... 44
Table 7

Comparison of responses on yard and garden management practices ....... 53
Table 8

Noted differences when comparing pre and posttest yard and garden management
practices ..................................................................................................... 54
Table 9

Comparison of responses on groundwater quality issues .......................... 55
Table 10

Noted differences when comparing pre and posttest groundwater

quality ........................................................................................................ 56
Table 11

Comparison of responses on empowerment and ownership issues ........... 57
Table 12

Noted differences when comparing pre and posttest empowerment and
ownership issues ........................................................................................ 59

viii

 

mu

 

 

IlST OF

L
~
v .
‘ e‘lku\
F"YVIP.)“
ALLA 5-

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1

Behavior flow chart: Major and minor variables involved in environmental
citizenship behavior ................................................................................... 96
Figure 2

Previous training regarding pesticide and/or fertilizer use ........................ 46
Figure3

Change in pesticide and/or fertilizer use .................................................... 47
Figure 4a

Pesticide and fertilizer education in the Home*A*Syst program .............. 48
Figure 4b

Education of pesticide or fertilizer risks to groundwater ........................... 49
Figure 5

Change in pesticide and/or fertilizer use due to Home*A*Syst ................ 50
Figure 6

Medium through which the HAS program was offered ............................. 51

 

 

C7

resources.

help mere.
i0CU5Cd or
(HAS).

Tilt
poremial n
Wfihbl H:

‘tun.

63110811011 [I

'3“ 1‘ \
kbbe§5mclr

“’hct

b2. .
mnEPUIU:

[he diretllor

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

Changes in the way and how much people use the environment’s natural
resources, have been occurring more frequently over the course of the past few decades,
resulting in a higher number of negative impacts on the environment. AS a result, an
abundance of environmentally focused educational programs have been developed to
help increase awareness of these changes as well as to reduce further damage. This study
focused on one environmental education program in particular called Home*A*Syst
(HAS).

The Home*A*Syst program concentrates its efforts on educating homeowners of
potential risks that are in and around their home that could compromise groundwater
quality. HAS is a national program, however, this study strictly focuses on HAS in
Michigan. The Michigan HAS project has been promoting groundwater quality
education to homeowners for over seven years without a comprehensive needs
assessment. Evaluation of this program is imperative in understanding, most importantly,
whether or not the messages have reached homeowners and if so, are these messages
being put into practice. The information gathered through this study would help guide

the direction of HAS as well as help develop future programs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

citizens'
that mos

hand. :7:

ho“ n: “I

Background

Awareness of water quality issues, drinking water sources, and local water
resources are issues that affect each person and all people should be aware of these issues
(Suvedi, Krueger, Shrestha, and Bettinghouse, 2000). A recent study assessing Michigan
citizens’ knowledge and perception about groundwater and issues associated, discovered
that most people had a good understanding of groundwater in Michigan. On the other
hand, most respondents were unaware of such important aspects of groundwater such as
how much of the earth’s water that is available for drinking, and the average amount of
water an American uses every day (Suvedi et al., 2000, and Holsman, Linderman,
Krueger, and Suvedi, 2000). In other words, people generally understand where
groundwater comes from and how it gets there, but they do not understand how it is being
affected or used. Considering the limited supply of this natural resource, and the lack of
knowledge and understanding of groundwater usage and affects people have on it, the
need for groundwater education programs is crucial.

Over the past seven years in Michigan the Home*A*Syst (HAS) program has
been attempting to educate homeowners on the risks of groundwater contamination.
Specific objectives of HAS are to help facilitate groundwater education and to provide
information about groundwater risks that will allow the individual homeowner to assess a
Situation on their own with the aid of a manual after an initial consultation. The HAS
manual provides specific details about particular risk categories as well as how to lower
risks (Home Assessment Guide, 1999). Each HAS program is provided to help assist

participants with groundwater education. In other words, basic information is provided

(J11)

 

 

that till

 

f , . ‘
.Itlm 33C

‘ 1' it
UK emu A ..

v
6113.128 if;
~ »

program :5

 

_)

1’)

that will help the participant understand what groundwater specifically is, where it comes
from and what types of risks are in and around their home that are associated with
groundwater. The manual is a supplement to the personal training to help the participants
engage in their own risk assessment when they are at home. Participation in the HAS
program is expected to help hOmeowners in these Six Specific ways:

1. Protect your drinking water well.

2. Learn the basics about your home septic system.

3. Reduce runoff, which may harm lakes and streams.

4. Gain information on the health and environmental impact of your yard and
gardening activities.

5. Lower risks from hazardous household products.
6. Safely manage liquid fuels and their storage (gas, fuel oil, kerosene).
(Home Assessment Guide, 1999).

A comprehensive study that examined the extent to which HAS affects the
knowledge, attitude, and behavior changes of the homeowners would allow those who
administer the programs to establish which teaching tools and methods are effective,
which ones need to be fined tuned, and which are just not working at all. Do participants
change as a result of the training they receive? Have homeowners developed an
awareness of groundwater issues? Have homeowners acquired the Skills and knowledge
necessary to be good stewards? Do the homeowners adopt safer groundwater practices?
These issues are very important for those involved with HAS groundwater education.

In order to understand whether or not these questions can be answered,

understanding what drives positive environmental behavior is important. The possession

 

 

 

 

of Mm

1 I
that than

112:: h’J‘I L
is afso m
31:ch or:
these 2m
exaluatx'

O‘I‘sncrstz

(I)

of particular traits must accompany any type of change through education in order for
that change to affect a person’s behavior.

It is expected that empowerment, a personal sense of being able to make a change,
will have a positive affect on behavioral change in regards to groundwater risk issues. It
is also expected that ownership, a personal investment in an issue, will have a positive
affect on behavioral changes in regard to groundwater risk issues. The ability to affect
these two variables and to change behavior towards groundwater issues will allow for the
evaluation of an intention to act. In other words, if the variables empowerment, and
ownership are positively influenced it can be determined to what extent an individual will
take action towards implementing safe and preventative groundwater practices and
becoming an environmentally responsible citizen. An environmentally responsible
citizen can be operationally defined as one who possesses these five traits:

1. An awareness and sensitivity to the total environment and its allied problems
and /or issues.

2. A basic understanding of the environment and its allied problems and/or issues.

3. Feelings of concern for the environment and motivation for actively
participating in environmental improvement and protection.

4. Skills for identifying and solving environmental problems and/or issues.
5. Active involvement at all levels in working toward resolution of environmental
problems and/or issues. :
(Hungerford et al., 1990, p. 9)
Statement of the problem
To date there have been no comprehensive studies of the Michigan HAS program.

This is a problem for several reasons, first, Home*A*Syst is a grant based system.

Without evaluation of the program to provide stakeholders with evidence that HAS is

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.
CC‘JCQIR‘I:
em imam
is W"

.IdI h

0

continuing to provide Michigan residents with groundwater education, there will not be
funds available to continue the program. Second, without knowledge of successes or
failures in the system, there cannot be improvement or understanding of the current status
of groundwater education. Finally, it is imperative to have knowledge of the type of
audience that is actually being accessed with the current program. Due to the voluntary
nature of the program,is it unclear if HAS is targeting those whom already have a
propensity towards groundwater education or if the program is reaching all facets of

Michigan residents.

Need for the study

According to Magnus et al. (1997) the most important goal of environmental
education is to find practical solutions to environmental issues to create positive
environmental behavior. In order to assess this goal it is imperative to understand if this
is what is really happening in a particular program.

Over the course of the seven years that Home*A*Syst has been educating
homeowners about groundwater, there has not been a study that focused solely on
identifying whether or not the program is actually meeting the intended goal of behavior
change. This is not only the case in Michigan, but also in the thirty-seven other states
that HAS is being implemented. A few studies have evaluated the program participants
to determine if they intend to make physical changes around their home and property as a
result of the assessment, but this is a weak approach and cannot determine attitudes,
knowledge levels, or behavior changes. Other studies attempted to evaluate knowledge

change, but recent research has suggested that educating people to become more

a.
5.

 

 

lroa;c;:

behixicr
l . .

be ~‘e'r

» US$5.1-

. , .
1"}1 HUI
11.; .Iu‘l

J

')J

#77

knowledgeable about the environment and its issues is not sufficient by itself to change
behavior (Hungerford et al., 1990, Pooley et al., 2000, Savina, 1997). Therefore, it must
be determined what it is about the assessments that may or may not be causing a change

in behavior viS-a-vis causing or preventing a positive environmental action.

Objectives
1. Assess what type of audience is being reached by the Home*A*Syst program.
2. Determine if pesticide, fertilizer, and groundwater messages are expressed
through the HAS program.
3. Determine whether or not the audience makes behavioral changes due to the

HAS program messages.

Definition of terms

Americorps Member: A person that provides a domestic Peace Corps service that

 

helps to strengthen communities through national service programs.
Behavior change: A personal decision to alter an existing behavior in order to
comply with the new desired behavior.

Empowerment: “giving human beings a sense that they can make changes and

 

help resolve important environmental issues” (Humerford et al., 1990, p. 12).
Environmental education: The interdisciplinary process of developing a citizenry
that is aware of and knowledgeable about the total environment, in its natural and
built aspects, that has the capacity for, and the commitment to engage in inquiry,

problem-solving, decision-making, and action that will assure environmental

 

 

 

r/

1".“ 8:

IT:

 

Ti
Siddy l i
[G 1%th

C0 » .
BECQI it.

min .

quality (Marzek, 1993, p. 11).

Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program: A program that provides
information and tools for pesticide and fertilizer users in order to help them
identify potential risks to groundwater associated with the pesticide and fertilizer
use.

Ownership: Having a personal interest in an environmental issue.

Home*A*Syst: A national program that strives to educate homeowners about the

 

potential risks to groundwater.

Participants: Those people that choose to take part in a Home*A*Syst program.

Assumptions

There are five guiding assumptions that must be made when considering this
study: 1) The Americorps Agents will hand out the pretests to the participants according
to instruction in all appropriate Home*A*Syst programs. A letter was sent to the
Americorps agents along with the consent forms and pretests that explained how the
consent forms and pretest must be delivered to the HAS participants (see Appendix B).
2) The participants will answer all questions truthfully. It is assumed that each of the
participants will answer all of the pretest and posttest questions without regard to social
pressures. Some people have a tendency to answer in a way that they feel they are
“supposed” to answer according to social norms. 3) The participants will be given
enough time to finish the pretests prior to the HAS program without the pressure of
urgency. Each HAS program lasts a different length of time. Some may last twenty

minutes While other may last a couple of hours. Urgency to complete the questionnaires

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

P781655. 1..
i“ 515 Orig; ..
Mimi :13;

5‘371i 3H

:‘ll. 5‘) 0:

 

fiii (1m 3 p

Present,“

in a timely manner may be due to pressure from the Americorps agent because of a
limited amount of time to present, or because there is a large amount of material that the
Americorps agent feels they need to cover. 4) The Americorps agents will return the
pretests to the researcher in a timely manner, guided by a previously set time frame. It
was originally assumed that the Americorps agents would send in the completed consent
forms and questionnaires by March 31, however, as the collection date was extended to
April 30 it was expected that the completed forms would be returned no later than April
30. 5) Only those participants that did partake in a group Home*A*Syst program will
fill out a pretest. It was assumed that no children under the age of eighteen or one on one

presentation participants would fill out a consent form and pretest.

 

3'

TGIF-III

 

E \
education

Vision for

 

It I
Ilmiiie 31H
CleVeland
”1 MACS
hundmi

i‘bffi

.\

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Establishing an understanding of Home*A*Syst, MGSP, and environmental
education in accordance with groundwater education, will help to bring together a clear

vision for the direction of this study.

Environmental Education

It has not been until the last few decades that people have seen global
ramifications due to environmental destruction. For example, the Cuyahoga River in
Cleveland caught fire as a result of pollution (Chafee, 1995). “Forty percent of our rivers
and lakes are not suitable for drinking, fishing, or swimming. In Milwaukee in 1993,
hundreds of thousands of people got sick form contaminated drinking water; 100 died”
(Browner, 1995).

Most people believed that there was an abundance of resources that allowed for
unlimited use and abuse (Trisler, 1993). Because of the additional burdens put on the
environment from chemicals, increased use of resources, and an ever-growing
population, environmental education has become an important vehicle for alleviating
negative human impacts on environmental quality. As such, environmental education
(EE) has only recently begun to be a focus of enough concern to warrant an increase in
research.

Environmental education has been defined in many ways. For the purposes of

this study EE is defined as “the interdisciplinary process of developing a citizenry that is

 

 

3113.? OI ..

 

that 1135 If
decisions
lr.
created It
Ennronni
INEEAC .
local and t
education 1
.\'o

-“1‘ .-“ ‘

 

”150an h

aware of and knowledgeable about the total environment, in its natural and built aspects,
that has the capacity for, and the commitment to engage in inquiry, problem-solving,
decision-making, and action that will assure environmental quality” (Mrazek, 1993).

In 1990, the National Environmental Education Act was developed. This Act was
created to “strengthen and expand environmental education as an integral part of the”
Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA) whose mission is to protect the environment
(NEEAC, 1996). The purpose was to develop a program that provided guidance to the
local and state agencies and governments to help them build and sustain environmental
education programs (NEEAC, 1996).

Non-formal environmental education activities aimed at adults usually target
solutions to specific environmental problems, but the challenge generally is, how to best
reach a non-captive audience with a meaningful and effective program (NEEAC, 1996).
Chaffee (1995) states that by using an expansive interdisciplinary approach, providing a
less structured environment as well as involving the community, people can be more
informed to make decisions based on science, not on arbitrary announcements.
According to Carol Browner (1995), an informed and involved community always has a
better understanding of what types of environmental education are best suited for their
area and they also do a better job of environmental protection. This is why Congress,
when creating its National Environmental Education Act, implemented by the EPA
decided that there must be involvement at the state and local level in the programs

developed.

10

Ga
54

 

 

 

 

attain;
’RCCISIJI’
thenr :\ E
concernln:

tuooutof

 

 

E\nenrtc
underscore

tocontev.

'1:
1A

[y

P.
.‘

on. the
’xilt‘ll' en“:
midi} 311's“
en

II'II’QnI-nL

enlernmi

Environmental Literacy

According to the National Environmental Education Advisory Council (NEEAC),
the American public “lacks sufficient knowledge, Skills, and motivation to understand
and implement the kinds of solutions needed to address today’s environmental
challenges” (1996, p. i). Mainstream America’s understanding of environmental issues is
a very important concern when discussing environmental education. Educators must first
understand the level of knowledge that their audience has before attempting to educate
them. A 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey discovered that there is “persistent misinfOrmation
concerning the environment in America”. The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey found that
two out of three American’s failed to correctly answer nine or more simple
environmental questions out of twelve. This lack of information can potentially
underscore more immediate awareness and skills that environmental educators are trying
to convey. The lack of public environmental knowledge has thwarted policy makers’
ability to address important environmental issues, as well as made it difficult to achieve
solutions to problems due to the fact that the public is not aware real issues
(NEETF/Roper Survey, 1997). Using a quiz style survey distributed in 1998 across the
nation, the NEETF/ROper Survey discovered that while most Americans felt confident of
their environmental knowledge a majority of the survey respondents gave the incorrect
myth answer. It became increasingly clear that educators needed to increase
environmental literacy in the American public. UNESCO/UNEP (1989) define
environmental literacy as follows: 1

"Environmental literacy Should be basic functional education for all people, which

provides them with the elementary knowledge, skills, and motives to cope with

11

Th

3C.

.7

 

 

(b

(D

 

 

In
theidcal:
the 0\er;
theenxi:
anthems
31.. WW?

bytheni

environmental needs and contribute to sustainable development. Achieving

environmental literacy entails a systematic approach to articulating the purpose of

education, defining objectives, redesigning curriculum and institutional programs,
and evaluating results. Within this framework, approaches to teaching and
learning are fundamental”.

In a comparison study between the current status of environmental education and
the ideal aims and goals of environmental education done by Volk and McBeth (1996),
the overall measure of environmental literacy was moderate to low. This suggests that
the environmental education programs are not meeting their goals. Lack of success was
attributed to efforts to increase attitudinal dimensions of environmental literacy (Volk et
al., 1996). Volk and McBeth (1996) go on to say that scientific and ecological concepts
by themselves will not provide the learner with enough to understand societal
implications, use of instructional methods and models that develop knowledgeable and
thinking individuals that are willing to make decisions in their personal lives as well as
society. In addition, the specific environmental education program must be an on going
process that allows individuals to integrate the information into their working knowledge
(Volk et al, 1996).

Environmental literacy is a very complex discipline. With so many components
to environmental education, the fact that educational programs are not meeting their goals
may be in part because educators do not know to make EE meaningful for the learner
(Trisler, 1993). An environmental educator needs to learn to balance personal needs of

the learner with their environmental message. Needs and wants are increasing in today’s

12

Q t.

 

 

SOCIGI‘v. If

Incorpcr;

C

ttIpIc 01 a“

Rit‘iiSQn. 1t
Chiilt‘figcd

that know I;

 

refitted [0 a

he

society, thus careful consideration must be taken by the educator to understand and

incorporate those needs and wants with environmental education.

Responsible Environmental Behavior
Changing adult learner behavior through environmental education has been a
topic of research for many years based on the need to help combat the growing severity
of environmental degradation. In earlier years, traditional thinking linked knowledge
with attitudes and attitudes with behavior (Hungerford et al., 1990, Pooley et al., 2000).
It was believed that if knowledge could be increased then this would increase positive
attitudes, in turn leading to action towards better environmental quality (Ramsey and
Rickson, 1977, Pooley et al., 2000). However, this simplistic linear model has been
challenged over the years. Research that is more recent has brought to attention the fact
that knowledge appears to Simply be a prerequisite to action, it is not the main cause of
behavior change (Hines et al., 1987). It is true that at least some portion of knowledge as
related to a particular environmental issue must be known before an individual can act,
however, much more is needed in addition to knowledge in order to lead to a behavior
change.
What is it that drives people to behave in an environmentally responsible way?
Studies have Shown that environmental knowledge, locus of control, and awareness of the
impact of Specific environmental behaviors as well as social context are the biggest
indicators of responsible environmental behavior (REB) (Grob I995, Borden and

Schettino, 1979, Vining and Ebreo, 1990, Oskamp et al., 1991, Schultz et al., 1995,

Lansana, 1993, and Derksen and Gartrell, 1993).

13

 

 

 

that the f

I -\
‘ ”I'M \.
SOmA. -

 

m-

21131111,, ,

and Crap.

a3 01%

iv)

l\rb

£2 .

u‘p‘ifiiifisz

Etamjned

Results from a meta-analysis of 128 studies by Hines et. al (1986/87) indicated
that the following variables were associated with REB: 1) expressed intention 2) locus of
control 3) attitudes 4) personal responsibility and 5) knowledge. A model was also
developed through the meta-analysis, which described the above variables interactions:

1. It appears that intention to act is merely an artifact of a number of other
variables acting in combination (e.g. cognitive knowledge, cognitive Skills,
and personality factors).

2. Before an individual can intentionally act on a particular environmental
problem, that individual must be cognizant of the existence of the problem.
Thus, knowledge of the problem appears to be a prerequisite to action.

3. An individual must also possess knowledge of those courses of action which
are available and which will be most effective in a given situation.

4. Another critical component ...is skill in appropriately applying this knowledge
to a given problem. . .despite the fact that a Skill variable was not... meta-
analyzed.

5. In addition, an individual must possess a desire to act. One’s desire to act
appears to be affected by a host of personality factors. These include locus of

' control, attitudes, personal responsibility.

6. Situational factors, such as economic constraints, social pressures, and
opportunities to choose different actions, may serve to either counteract or
strengthen the variables in the model. (Hines et. al, 1986/87)

From this meta-analysis of REB, Hungerford and Volk (1990) surmised that there

are three variables that would lead to REB, entry-level variables, ownership variables,
and empowerment variables. These three variables include the above indicators as well
as Others are described in detail below.
A model (see Figure 1 in Appendix E) provided by Hungerford and Volk (1990)
explains a recent perspective for behavioral change. Contributions from studies that

examined REB aS well as the model developed by the Hines et al. (1986/87) meta-

9
5

 

 

 

1 _
tr 1‘ '1
\
$.11! iv‘
.

I 1
.J" .1 ’
b».1u‘t\

elihilru:
am: at:

Oivh Her:

01 the 1

most p.

‘I’I‘ ,
pbgr~

analysis, “revealed that there are probably three categories of variables that contribute to
behavior” (Hungerford et al., 1990). These three variables are:

1. Entry Level Variables

2. Ownership Variables

3. Empowerment Variables

These three variables also act in a linear manner, however, it is more complex
than the earlier models. Each variable has a subset of variables (called major and minor
variables) that usually need to be present to influence the next main variable. For
example, the main variable “Entry Level” encompasses one major variable,
environmental sensitivity, and three minor variables, knowledge of ecology, androgyny,
and attitudes toward pollution, technology, and economics. The model suggests that
ownership of a given environmental problem and its solution depends on the combination
of the three variables, entry-level, ownership, and empowerment, acting in concert.

In regards to the Home*A*Syst groundwater education program it is assumed that
most people come into the assessments with the “Entry Level” variables already intact.
HAS is a voluntary program which is why there is the assumption that the participants
already possess the entry level variables such as environmental sensitivity, and positive
attitudes about the environment.

Home*A*Syst (HAS) is a program that was developed to help educate
homeowners about potential risks associated with pollution sources that exists in and
around their home as it pertains to groundwater (Home Assessment Guide, 1999). The

program focuses on three objectives:

1. Identify environmental risks, concerns or problems in or near the home.

15

 

 

 

 

"Empeu

4.
I ?. ‘
CLECC c.~

Imponant

 

Hunjgwf
:51 1k“:
C'I'le ‘
Liens 1!?
(thch.

v I.d\
ed«v '

«editor-

ll

”9"?"

2. Learn how to better manage home and property and how to find further
information.

3. Take preventive actions to safeguard your health and the environment.

Currently it is important to decipher whether or not “Ownership” and
“Empowerment” variables are incorporated into the HAS programs. Empowerment is
defined as “giving human beings a sense that they can make changes and help resolve
important environmental issues” (Hungerford et al., 1990, p. 12). According to
Hungerford and Volk (1990), empowerment is crucial for the training of responsible
citizens in the environmental dimension. They go on to say that as crucial as this Step is
for behavior modification, most educators fail to develop this attribute in their
educational practices.

The Ownership variable is also important because it gives the HAS participants a
personal investment in what they are learning. Ownership is defined as having a personal
interest in an environmental issue. This is important because when an issue becomes
personal, it causes individuals to seek and understand the situation as well as become
something like a stakeholder in the issue. Then it is more likely that behavior will change
and action will be taken. In studies done by a variety of different researchers, when
positive behavior change was an outcome it was due to instruction that focused on

ownership and empowerment (Hungerford et al., 1990).
Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program

The Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program (MGSP) is a project

focused on providing tools and information to help people identify risks to groundwater

16

 

 

I
5011111100.

4 "IV
glib, IUI .

‘ Twit |
hinki A11\r\ _
\

\
1"““0 11‘,
11LLA.)L £1114

 

menus h

h

associated with their pesticide and fertilizer use. The program strives to help reduce
these risks while maintaining a focus on “real world” financial and technical constraints.

Many local programs are funded and sustained through MGSP such as
commodity programs, Farm*A*Syst, Field*A*Syst, Groundwater Stewardship Teams,
and, Home*A*Syst.

The majority of these programs are funded through a Specialized tax on pesticides
and nitrogen fertilizers. A registration fee is added to those companies that wish to
license their product for use in Michigan, and that accounts for approximately 72% of the
revenue by nitrogen fertilizer (Funding: Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program,
n.d.). In the case of pesticides, household products generate close to 40% while the rest
is attributed to agricultural use (Funding: Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program,

n.d.).

Home*A *Syst
Home*A*Syst is a national program jointly supported by the United States

Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service. HAS began in the 1980’s and currently 37 states across America participate in
the program.

Michigan HAS is currently in its eighth year and has the highest budget of all the
state programs due to a tax on both farm and residentially used pesticides and nitrogen
fertilizers. Because HAS is supported by money from taxes on the pesticides and

fertilizers, as well as being supported by the MGSP, the focus of the Michigan HAS is on

um.)

such as '

1‘5 \\ el".

groundwater risks in and around the home associated with pesticide and fertilizer use. A
HAS program is administered to an individual, groups, or through demonstrations, such
as at a fair or exposition. HAS is a voluntary program that provides a service when
requested by one or more participants. The goal of each program is to provide the
participants with a general overview of risks to groundwater in and around their home
that are associated with pesticides and fertilizers. In addition, other environmental risks
such as managing household trash, storm water management, managing septic systems,
as well as others may be part of the HAS presentation.

Currently, there are nineteen Americorps Agents around the state of Michigan that
provide HAS programs on a full time basis. Each agent has an area on average of three
counties in which they travel to provide the groundwater education services. At this time,
the Americorps have the freedom to develop individualized methods for their programs to
meet their local environmental education needs. Additionally, some of the HAS
programs do not provide groundwater education as it relates to pesticides and fertilizers,
which is the main focus of HAS. One cause of this may be because the Home
Assessment Guide (supplement manual) has eight different chapters, each providing
different environmentally focused information. Another cause may be due to the
variances in audience. Some groups may be interested in pesticide and fertilizer risks to
groundwater while others may not.

In response to the non-standardized delivery methods and a critically needed
needs assessment, a study was done by Holsman (2000) comparing knowledge and
attitudes of HAS participants and a random sample of Michigan residents. In addition,

the study aimed to assess the different information delivery strategies employed by the

18

 

 

{ll EIGHTH:

1:9,...“

.Ll\II.L~1..
w

 

”“21.“ 61‘1“.

 

Americorps agents. The study indicated that the HAS participants had fairly high levels
of groundwater literacy and stewardship behaviors as compared to the sample of
Michigan residents (Holsman, 2000). AS was asked in the Holsman (2000) study, is this
difference of knowledge and pro-environmental behavior a result of the HAS program?
This question could not be answered, thus the recommendation from Holsman was “to
develop a more stringent, experimental design to test for differences in pre- and post-

intervention scores on knowledge and behavior items” (Holsman, 2000, p. 15).

Home*A *Syst and Environmental Education

As is true with most educational programs, an environmental education program
can only be as effective as its implementation and follow-up (Ruskey, 1995). Therefore,
the Home*A*Syst program must be closely administered and evaluated, otherwise the
citizens do not receive maximum benefit and the funding and other support is no longer
there.

As stated previously, the purpose of Home*A*Syst is to educate homeowners
about groundwater issues in and around their home. When discussing homeownership it
is commonly known that the home is one of the largest investments that people make.
This fact alone usually substantiates why people may have ownership with the
groundwater issue. If a person does not feel ownership towards this issue thus far, HAS
provides materials that tries to explain and develop why homeowners should have
ownership to this issue. For example, “knowing about potential risks or problems can
help prevent costly cleanups, repairs, and legal troubles” as well as protecting your

family and yourself from harmful contaminants in your drinking water (Home

 

9t
5t

 

prover

0i 01h;

charac

€331rg

Assessment Guide, 1997). In addition, it is good to not only take care of your own
property but also to make sure your neighbors are using good management practices,
because property values and tax burdens can be affected by pollution problems on your
property and in your neighborhood or city. As well, taking steps to cut your use of water
or other resources can save you money (Home Assessment Guide, 1997).

An environmental education program that encourages any or all of the
characteristics of the variable model will have a higher expectation to create
environmentally responsible behavior (Hungerford et al., 1990; Negra & Manning, 1997).
Assuming that the HAS program participants already have some or all of the entry level
and ownership variables the focus on empowerment is essential to this study.

The major sub-variables of empowerment are knowledge of and Skill in using
environmental action strategies, locus of control, and the intention to act. The minor sub-
variable is in-depth knowledge about issues. Knowledge Of and skill in using
environmental action strategies gives a person the perception of wielding the “power” to
help resolve environmental issues. Intention to act is believed to share a synergistic
relationship with the latter two variables. If the person intends to take action, then the
likelihood of that action actually happening is increased. Locus of control in this
particular model is defined as the expectation of success or reinforcement for a person’s
behavior (Hungerford et al., 1990).

. One important part of the HAS program provided to groups is a manual supplied
to each individual. The manual contains essential topics that every homeowner Should
understand along with worksheets that Should help with understanding risks that apply to

an individual’s situation (Home Assessment Guide, 1997). Normally a portion of the

20

9
5

t
D]

11117....“

:lxx’Jtt

I 1
Vt ,‘l‘ 'l‘
\‘.L.l \l.

kl: 0 \\ l

 

”‘V‘
12.4.,
.

CECIAC;

manual is discussed and demonstrated to the assessment participants. It is then with
Strong optimism that this has provided the individuals the ability to go home and continue
with the rest of the manual at their own pace. For one, by providing the participants with
the ability through a take home manual to use their new knowledge and Skills to take
action and implement the new environmental action strategies at home, on their own, has
an empowering quality. A second intention of the assessment is to provide in-depth
knowledge of groundwater risks. A locus of control in this case may not be
manipulatable, however, reinforcement of a positive outcome due to changes a person

makes could provide enough incentive to take action.

Groundwater Education

The 1997 NEETF/Roper Starch Worldwide Survey is a culmination of data
gathered over a six year time period that obtained Americans’ views of the environment.
One particular area of interest was that of water knowledge. “Nearly half (of survey
respondents) think the leading cause of water pollution is factories. Pollution running off
the land (our leading problem) is not identified by four of five Americans. A majority of
Americans think the water utilities routinely test for these pollutants (animal waste and
pesticides), when only a few test for these pollutants” (N EETF/Roper Survey, 1997).

It is clear that Americans do not understand the source nor the impact of water
pollution. Over the course of the twenty-five years since the inception of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, unprecedented amounts of new information are becoming available
about drinking water (NEETF/Roper Survey, 1998). However, the results of the

NEETF/Roper water survey found that most Americans are not aware of their water

21

9

 

~ ur‘p‘ Y‘-
_\0uiL»> A-

‘ ‘ 7’
1131110351. ..

percentig.
Tl
their tap

tiff-1313.111.

gill U35 \K 'C

to take act

a mail stir

 

sources nor the threats to those local water sources. In addition, although Americans
demonstrated a basic trust of their public drinking water supplies, there was a high
percentage of respondents that either boil their tap water or use bottled water.

The 1998 NEETF report also found that the public wants more information about
their tap water and said they will use it; they want to act. Some of the ways that water
information is disseminated is through the media, government, and water companies, but
these sources were considered to be the least credible. Environmental or public interest
groups were thought to be more credible. Therefore, more water education groups need
to take action and start getting information out to the people.

In Michigan, a baseline study, which first polled Michigan residents using
a mail survey in 1996 and again in 2000, discovered that most people are aware of the
affect that land use has on groundwater, however, people perceived a lower risk of
affecting groundwater quality from land use around their own homes and property
(Suvedi, et. al in 2000).

Home*A*Syst (HAS) is a national program that strives to educate people about
the potential risks to groundwater, specifically those risks relating to pesticides and
fertilizers. Currently HAS is operating in 37 states across the United States, Michigan
being one. In Michigan the ability to provide more money to the HAS program due to
the taxes on pesticides and fertilizers means that there is the potential to reach more
people with groundwater education. One problem faced by the HAS educators is the fact
that a study done in 2000 indicated that HAS may be reaching those that already have

adopted many of the practices (Holsman et al.). The program does not seem to be

22

Q
5

I ‘ ‘
0'7” ‘hlr‘
Lurrku.r.-
»

TIL

sector of ‘

IfDOI‘l. ll ..

 

 

branching out. to the Michigan residents that really need, and according to the NEETF
report, want the information.

The focus then of this study iS twofold. First, to identify whether or not a diverse
sector of Michigan is being reached by the HAS program and second, of those people

being reached, what is their level of behavior change.

23

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Through observation of Home*A*Syst programs, expert assistance, and prior
studies, a pretest and posttest was developed that attempted to enable the researcher to
understand towhat degree participants are both coming in with, and acquiring,
knowledge, empowerment, and ownership of groundwater stewardship issues.

Following analysis of the data from the pretest and posttest, results will be used to

assist in the development of future HAS programs.

Design of the Study
The study applied a quasi-experimental pretest posttest comparison group design.
Specifically, the apprOach utilized multiple measures comparing intact groups. In other
words, because there cannot be randomization, different intact groups that have Similar
characteristics were compared. Pretest surveys were delivered to each Americorps agent
for them to distribute prior to each HAS program. Posttests were then mailed to the same

participants from the original pretest programs.

Population and Sample
The target population of the study included current HAS participants. More
specifically, those participants that chose to attend an HAS outreach during March and
April of 2001.
Due to the voluntary nature of the Home*A*Syst program, the researcher

did not have the capability to randomly choose the sample from the population. It would

24

otherwise have been very difficult to acquire a large enough random sample of the target
population. A total of 146 pretests were returned which made up the sample. Ten surveys
were deemed unusable because the HAS program was delivered by someone other than
an Americorps member, eleven pretests were returned after the cut off date, and twenty-
two respondents did not fill out a consent form. This brought the total of posttests to be
sent out to 124.

A total of 79 usable posttests were returned, yielding a return rate of 64%. Of the
non-usable posttests, one was returned incomplete, another was returned having been
filled out, but by a person who indicated they had not gone to a Home*A*Syst program,
and six packets were returned undeliverable.

Traditionally, a program takes place when a group or individual requests an HAS
educator (usually an Americorps agent) to provide one. This is usually based upon word
of mouth and the reputation of the Home*A*Syst program in that particular area as well
as aWareness of HAS through local fairs and expositions.

Although random assignment of subjects to groups is the ideal, in this case,
problems with acquiring a random sample for the purpose of presenting the groundwater
information is not practical. Intact groups such as Rotary Clubs, Sierra Clubs, Women’s
Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs, and so on, are the only efficient way to gather a group of people in
order to present a Home*A*Syst presentation.

Sample size depended on each program’s attendance. Individual program
attendance depended on three factors: 1) the relevance of the HAS program to a specific

intact group affected how many people associated with that group decided to attend the

25

program 2) the time of day and week that the program was offered 3) reputation of the
program in that particular area.

Although group presentations are not the only way that Americorps agents get
their message out, as information is shared through one on one hOme visits, fairs, and
expositions, due to sample Size issues presentation consistency issues, and ease of contact
for follow up posttests, the intact group was the only effective manner in which to gather
data for this study.

In order to contact the program participants for posttest purposes, a voluntary
consent form (see appendix) was given to the participants (at the same time as the pretest)
that provided a place to write in their address. This eliminated any connection of the
questionnaire to the participant by keeping all names and addresses off of the
questionnaire. In addition, by providing the participants the understanding that they will
be receiving a posttest in the near future regarding HAS, the researcher believed that it
would help obtain a higher return rate. All of those participants that wrote in their name

and address on the consent form did receive a posttest.

Instrumentation
Data was gathered using pretest and posttest questionnaires following
recommendations from Salant and Dillman (1994).
Three Americorps members delivered the pilot test. The pilot tests were handed
out to the participants by the Americorps member prior to the HAS program, collected,

and sent back to the researcher. A total of thirty pilot tests were returned to the

26

researcher. Based on the results of the pilot test, the pretest and posttest items were
developed.

The pretests were kept short due to time constraints at many of the programs.
TherefOre, the pretests contained three Short sections consisting of Six questions in each
of the first two sections and ten questions in the third and final section. Each section was
based on a five point Likert-type scale. The main body of the pretest was kept to close-
ended questions for time, however there was additional space on the back of the pretest
for the participants to write in any comments.

The first section, included questions regarding the participants yard and garden
management practices, specifically those relating to pesticide and fertilizer use. The
second section asked the participants to indicate their opinion concerning certain
groundwater quality issues. These questions delved into such matter as how they felt
their particular actions affect groundwater, how they discard leftover or unused pesticides
and fertilizers, as well as if they feel their actions affect other peoples groundwater
quality. The third section was measured how much ownership and empowerment the
participants had regarding the groundwater quality issue. Questions such as if they felt as
an individual they can make a difference in groundwater quality and how willing they
were to spend additional money to enhance their environment to better protect
groundwater quality. In addition, questions regarding current pesticide and fertilizer
practices, and how confident the participants were in their environmental practices was a
portion of the third section.

In order to obtain comparable data for impact analysis of HAS, the posttest

contained the same sections with the same questions as the pretest. In addition, the

27

questions that were eliminated in the pretest for time, were added back into the posttest,
along with a fourth section. The fourth section was developed post hoc in order to gain a
better understanding of HAS participants and their level of pesticide and fertilizer uses
prior to the HAS intervention. This came into development after discussion and analysis

of the pretest results.

Collection of Data

The pretest and posttest were developed using information gathered from
observations of HAS programs by the researcher as well as input from the Americorps
agents, HAS experts, as well as prior studies and a pilot test.

There were nineteen Americorps agents providing HAS programs across
Michigan. Each agent was sent twenty-one questionnaires, consent forms, and .
instructions for administration. They were directed to administer the pretests over the
course of the month of March, 2001. The deadline, however, had to be extended an
additional month due to low return rates. Over the course of the two month period, the
Americorps agent was to administer and collect the pretests at each adult group program
they presented. No one on ones, or children groups were allowed due to timeliness in
gathering a sample size and the fact that programs delivered to children are different than
those delivered to adults.

The HAS outreach programs were to be presented as they had been previously,
each Americorps agent was to provide the presentation in their normal individualistic
fashion. This is a very important factor because Since the inception of HAS in Michigan,

there has not been a set method that all the Americorps agents use. At the beginning of

28

the year, the Americorps agents attend a three-day seminar, which provides them with
ideas as to what may work, or what has worked in the past. They also have access to the
files of the previous educator, which may include visual aids, handouts, and so on.

The only change in the normal routine of the Americorps agents is the fact that
prior to each of their presentations they diStributed the consent form and pretest to all
participants and allowed time for them to finish prior to beginning their presentation.
The consent forms and pretests were collected directly after the participants completed
' them prior to the start of the presentation.

The posttests were sent by mail following the end of the pretest distribution
period. There may be some differences in responses due to the time span between the
first pretests collected and the last, because of the unforeseen extension of a second
month. Those participants that attended an HAS program near the beginning of the first
pretest collection month had a considerable amount of time pass between the pretest and
posttest versus those participants that attended an HAS program near the end of the
second pretest collection month.

The posttest consisted of three mailings that were mailed to the participants of the
HAS program who indicated voluntary participation in this study. The first mailing
included a cover letter, the questionnaire, a self addressed stamped return enveIOpe, and a
bag of tea for incentive. Approximately two weeks after the first mailing, a reminder
postcard was sent to the non-respondents urging them to return the questionnaire. The
third and final mailing was sent to those who had not yet responded and contained a new
cover letter, questionnaire, return envelope, and as an added incentive, an entry form to

win an MSU sweatshirt. For the sweatshirt entry form to be considered valid, the

29

respondents had to have the questionnaire filled out along with the entry form and
returned by a Specific date.

Altogether, a total of 146 completed and usable pretests were collected. There
were ten surveys that were returned to the researcher by a person other than an
Americorps member, eleven pretests that were returned after the cut off date, and twenty-
two respondents did not fill out a consent form. This brought the total of posttests that
were able to be sent out to 124. With 79 posttests returned, there was a return rate of
64%. One posttest was returned incomplete, one was returned having been filled out, but
by a person who indicated they had not gone to a Home*A*Syst program, and six packets

that were returned undeliverable.

Analysis of Data
The data in this study were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS). The data were analyzed using frequencies, percentages, means,
standard deviations, and t tests. Any incomplete questions, or confusing marks were

treated as missing values and were not included in the statistical analysis.

Limitations
The researcher recognizes the following limitations of this study. 1) This Study
was self-selected on the part of the participants, therefore, there could not be a random
sample of the population. HAS is a voluntary program, only those that are interested in
the program are those that will come. 2) These findings can only be generalized to those

people who participated in this study. Because of the unique nature of each individual

30

program, as well as the fact that the Americorps agents will not be the same, there cannot
be any generalizations to other programs. 3) The low number of pretest questionnaires
did not allow for a very large sample, thus the statistical power is also low. AS was
previously stated, due to the voluntary nature of the program, it was unforeseeable how
many programs would be offered and how many people would attend these programs.
Consequently, over the course of the two month pretest collection period, few adult group
presentations were administered that included the consent form and pretest. 4) Because
HAS is a voluntary program, those that already have a propensity towards learning about
the environment and groundwater quality could be the majority of those that attend the
program. 5) The educational intervention provided by the HAS programs may have
varied. Some of the programs are limited to twenty minutes in length, others can last as
long as two hours. If a particular program is limited to a short time period, the five to
seven minutes needed by the participants to fill out the consent form and pretest is
valuable time that is lost by the Americorps agent for education. Accordingly, the longer
the allotted program time, the more in depth the information provided can be thus
providing a better chance for education. 6) Because the HAS program may be more
established in a particular area, more pretests could be sent in from those areas, not
allowing for an overall representation. From year to year the number of Americorps
agents varies, causing some areas in Michigan to have more consistent representation
than other areas. Due to this a more developed program could provide more programs

thus producing more pretests causing a skewed representation of the areas in Michigan.

31

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

The purpose of this study was to discover if the Michigan Home*A*Syst program
was developing groundwater education in homeowners, as well as to learn what type of
audience is attending the HAS programs. The data was collected from 146 pretests that
were handed out directly to HAS participants, and 79 posttests, received through mail
questionnaires. The posttests were collected from the same group of individuals who
participated in the pretest. The pretests contained 22 questions, all close-ended, and the
posttests contained 42 questions, including the questions from the pretest and some open-
ended questions as well. The surveys contained questions that would get to the
understanding of yard and garden management practices, opinions about the environment
and how the participants interact in that environment, and finally, questions to help
understand how much empowerment and ownership a participant feels about the

groundwater quality issue.

Findings from the Pretest
Yard and Garden Management Practices
The first section of the pretest asked Six questions regarding the respondent’s yard
and garden management practices in association with pesticides and fertilizers.
Respondents were asked on a 1-5 scale (with 1 being Never, and 5 being Always) to
indicate the extent to which they follow certain yard and garden management practices.

For all six questions, the responses were a scale mean of 4.09 out a five-point scale. This

32

suggests that the majority of the participants already use pesticide and fertilizer practices

that minimize risks to groundwater quality (see Table 1).

Table 1. Pretest responses on yard and garden management practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% Responding
Survey Statements (N) Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

(0/0) (%) We) 1%) We)
1. I identify the type of pest I 141 6.4 3.5 14.2 36.2 39.7
am trying to control before
applying pesticides or
fertilizers.
2. I carefully read and follow 141 4.3 .7 6.4 29.1 59.6
the directions before applying
pesticides or fertilizers.
3. Any spills of pesticides or 141 2.8 .7 12.1 22.0 62.4
fertilizers are quickly cleaned
In).
4. I try to control pests with 138 2.9 3.6 10.1 33.3 50.0
limited amounts of
chemicals.
5. All leftover pesticides and 139 2.2 3.6 14.4 25.2 54.7
fertilizers are stored in safe
containers.
6. I take unwanted and 135 17.8 17.0 15.6 20.7 28.9
unused pesticides to a local,
safe disposal site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale mean = 4.09, Standard Deviation = .43

As Shown in Table l, the question regarding taking unused or unwanted pesticides
to a local, safe disposal Site is the only question that the respondents showed a Slightly
negative response. Almost one third of the respondents indicated that they never or
rarely take their unwanted or unused pesticides to a local disposal site, with only 28.9%
percent indicating that they always do. In addition, the overall response rate of 135 was a
bit lower than the other questions. This, along with the strong never and rarely responses
indicates four possibilities. The respondents do not have unwanted or unused pesticides

to discard, they do not know where a local disposal site is located, they were unaware of

33

such a disposal for pesticides, or they do not care to take their unwanted or unused
pesticides to a disposal site. Overall, questions one through five all Show that a majority

of the respondents use safe, pro environmental pesticide and fertilizer practices.

Groundwater Quality

In section two, the participants were asked to indicate their opinions about
particular groundwater quality issues. The scale consisted of Six statements. Again, the
scale mean was high at 4.09 on a five-point scale with a majority that they were likely to

“very likely” to act or know how to act in a pro-environmental fashion (see Table 2

below).

34

Table 2. Pretest responses to opinions of groundwater quality issues

 

% Responding

 

 

Survey Statements Very Unlikely Undecided Likely Very
(N) Unlikely (%) (%) (%) Likely
(%) - (%)
7. Do you act in the same 134 3.0 6.7 14.9 32.8 42.5

manner towards
groundwater quality at work
as you do at home?

 

8. Do you think your 141 2.8 6.4 7.1 19.1 64.5
neighbors groundwater
quality can be affected by
your behavior?

 

9. Do you feel that actions 142 3.5 5.6 8.5 33.1 49.3
you take towards
groundwater quality will
make a difference?

 

10. Do you feel that you 143 4.2 11.9 7.7 24.5 51.7
would know how to get your
soil tested?

 

11. I know how to safely 143 4.9 14.7 13.3 30.1 37.1
discard my leftover or
unused pesticides and
fertilizers.

 

12. A take home 142 2.8 4.9 11.3 36.6 44.4
groundwater assessment
booklet would help me to
identify groundwater quality
risks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale mean = 4.09, Standard Deviation = .19

In correlation with question six in section one “I take unwanted and unused
pesticides to a local, safe disposal site”, question eleven in section two asked if the
participants know how to safely discard their leftover pesticides. This question yielded a
Somewhat different perspective than did question Six. A majority (67.2%) stated that
they do know how to safely discard their pesticides whereas, as stated above, only 49.6%
of the respondents indicated that they do take their unwanted or unused pesticides to a

local, safe disposal site. This response eliminates the conclusion that the respondents do

35

not know how to safely discard their unwanted or unused pesticides, however it can still
not be concluded as to how they discard the pesticides.

Overall, a majority of the respondents indicated that they know how to get their
soil tested (76.2%), felt that their actions would affect their neighbors groundwater
quality (83.7%), felt that their individual actions would make a difference towards

groundwater quality (82.4%), and most respondents acted in the same manner at work

towards groundwater quality as they do at home (75.3%).

Opinions on Empowerment and Ownership Issues

Section three took a look at empowerment and ownership issues. The questions
attempted to find out how knowledgeable the respondents felt they were about “Clean
Sweep” sites as well as the relationship between excess nitrogen in the soil and water
quality. Also, it was attempted to determine if the respondents felt that they could make a
difference in overall groundwater pollution as an individual. The respondents were asked
whose concern groundwater contamination is concerning private wells, and also if they
felt they would Spend additional money in order to make changes to better protect
groundwater. ’

Once again, the scale mean was high at 3.89 on a five-point scale (with 1 being
Strongly Disagree and 5 being Strongly Agree). Although most respondents answered
that they felt they could make a difference in groundwater quality as an individual and
that they were somewhat knowledgeable about pesticide and fertilizer use, it is still
unknown how the respondents actually do use pesticides and fertilizers and what they

believe makes a difference in groundwater quality. Therefore, it cannot be determined if

36

in fact the correct ways to minimize risks to groundwater are actually those practices that

are currently being followed (see Table 3 below).

37

Table 3. Pretest responses on empowerment and ownership issues.

 

 

 

% Respondin
Survey Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
' (N) Disagree (%) (%) (%) Agree
(%) (%)
13. I tend to hold 142 3.5 5.6 14.8 35.9 40.1

environmental quality as
important as economic
development issues.

 

14. The ways I take care of 140 2.9 5.0 6.4 39.3 46.4
my lawn and garden can have
a direct effect on the quality
of local groundwater.

 

15. When it comes to taking 138 1.4 9.4 15.2 47.8 26.1
care of my yard, I am
confident in my ability to
apply fertilizers and
pesticides in ways that
minimize threats to water

quality.

 

16. I am knowledgeable 131 16.0 23.7 40.5 13.7 6.1
about Clean Sweep Sites.

 

17. There is little an 141 38.3 39.0 6.4 10.6 5.7
individual can do to stop
water pollution

 

18. Water pollution is usually 143 41.3 40.6 6.3 7.7 4.2
the result of an accident that
cannot be prevented.

 

19. Groundwater 141 53.2 31.9 7.1 4.3 3.5
contamination is only a
concern for people whose
water source is a private well.

 

20. I understand the 142 3.5 8.5 31.0 33.8 23.2

relationship between excess
nitrogen in the soil and water

 

 

quality.

21. I worry about the safety 143 2.8 9.1 13.3 34.3 40.6
of my drinking water.

22. I would be willing to 142 3.5 4.2 20.4 43.0 28.9

spend additional money to
make changes in the way I
take care of my yard in order
to better protect groundwater.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale mean = 3.89, Standard deviation = .45

38

The question regarding how important the respondents feel environmental quality
is as compared to economic development yielded a strong response towards agree and
strongly agree with 76% of the responses. When asked whether or not the respondents
felt that they knew that the ways they take care of their lawn and garden can have a direct
affect on the quality of local groundwater, again the responses indicated that the majority
(85.7%) either agreed or strongly agreed. In addition, 73.9% of the respondents indicated
that they felt confident in their abilities to apply pesticides and fertilizers in way that
minimize threats to water quality.

When the respondents were asked about water pollution, many of them responded
favorably towards preventing water pollution. Over 38% strongly disagreed when
responding to the statement that there is little and individual can do to stop water
pollution. In addition, 41.3% strongly disagreed to the statement that water pollution is
usually the result of an accident that cannot be prevented. Out of the ten questions and
statements in the empowerment and ownership section, the statement stating that
groundwater contamination is only a concern for people whose water source is a private
well garnered the strongest response with 53.2% stating they strongly disagree.

On an interesting note, 74.9% of the respondents indicated that they worry about
the safety of their drinking water, and 71.9% indicated that they would be willing to
spend additional money to make changes in the way they take care of their yard in order
to better protect groundwater.

Finally, it is important to discuss that the statement regarding knowledge of Clean

Sweep sites received the lowest number of responses with 131, and of those 40.5% were

39

neutral responses and only 6.1% strongly agreed that they were knowledgeable about

Clean Sweep.

Respondent Comments from the Pretest
The following quotes are examples of comments from respondents prior to the
HAS program about the questions in the pretest as well as related items.
“It made me think a lot more on how I take care of our water. We all have to take
care of our neighbors also we have to educate them and hOpe that they will listen.
Thank you very much for taking the time.”
“Education is the key to water quality. Most people (city and rural) take their
water quality for granted including myself. After this class, I will try to educate
my family, friends, and neighbors. Thank you for Opening my eyes!”
“Pesticides bad, people good.”
These quotes are all positive towards the environment, water quality, and
pesticide/fertilizer use. Either those that felt negatively about these subjects did not feel
that they wanted to take the time to write any comments, or those that chose to attend

these voluntary programs were only people that feel education and groundwater quality

are a good thing.

Findings from the Posttest
The response rate. for the posttest was 64%. Although there were 146 returned
and useable pretests, only 124 consent forms were Signed and addressed for use in

sending the posttests. Therefore, out of 124 posttests, 79 were returned.

40

Yard and Garden Management Practices

The first section of the posttest contained the same Six questions as the pretest

with an additional four questions; the additional questions were taken from the pilot test.

The posttest contained more questions than the pretest because the researcher felt that the

respondents would have more time to complete the posttest. Moreover, it iS important to

obtain as much information concerning the Home*A*Syst program as is feasible in order

to provide valuable information for future development. The additional questions. added

to section one included statements pertaining to how frequently the respondents tested

their soil for nitrogen, if they use other methods for weed control other than pesticides,

and how they take care of their lawn.

Of the four questions not asked on the pretest, three were rated positively, with a

majority selecting “usually” or “always” when asked about pro-environmental practices

(see Table 4). However, the question regarding soil testing was rated low with 56.3% of

respondents stating that they either “never” or “rarely” get their soil tested for nitrogen

content.

Table 4. Responses to posttest on yard and garden management practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

regularly to that the grass
length usually stays around
2.5-3.0 inches high.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% Responding

Survey Statements Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

' (N) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
7. I test my soil frequently 71 33.8 22.5 32.4 8.5 2.8
to identify nitrogen content.
8. I manually pull weeds 75 0 2.7 17.3 40.0 40.0
from my lawn or garden.
9. I rake, bag or remove my 67 17.9 22.4 23.9 14.9 ’ 20.9
lawn clippings from the
lawn.
10. I mow my lawn 68 0 1.5 11.8 47.1 39.7

 

41

 

Those respondents that indicated that they “never” or “rarely” remove their lawn
clippings from their lawn are those that are practicing pro—environmental behavior. By

leaving the clippings, the lawn acquires nutrients.

Comments about Lawn and Garden Management Practices

In the posttest, the researcher provided an area for the respondents to make
comments for each section. The following are comments for section I:

“I prefer not to use pesticides and fertilizers whenever possible.”

“We had been cutting our grass too Short. Now we have changed to 2 ‘/2 - 3
inches! We pull tons of weeds and then compost them.

“I don’t really dispose of pesticides. What little we have gets used. This makes
me aware that I Should check the labels for expiration dates.”

Groundwater Quality

Section two of the posttest also included all of the same six questions from the
pretest aS well as six additional questions. These additional questions related to the
respondents behavior and how they felt it affected their groundwater quality. Other
questions related to safety of future groundwater and knowledge of risks around their
home that may have a negative affect on groundwater.

Over one-half (53.9%) felt that their behavior was not likely to be harmful to
groundwater quality. They also felt confident that they knew what risks there were
around their home that may haVe a negative affect on groundwater, over 81% indicated
they knew their risks. On the other hand, almost three fourths (74.1%) of the respondents
felt that they would have to worry about the likelihood of limited amounts of

groundwater within the next ten years, and over one half (50.7%) indicated that at some

42

point they feel getting clean, fresh water for themselves and their families will be a valid

concern (see Table 5).

Table 5. Responses to posttest questions on groundwater quality issues.

 

 

 

% Responding
Survey Statements Very Unlikely Undecided Likely Very
(N) Unlikely (%) (%) (%) Likely
(%) (%)
17. Do you feel that 76 17.1 36.8 19.7 21.1 5.3

some of your behaviors
are harmful to
groundwater quality?

 

18. Do you think that 77 2.6 5.2 18.2 36.4 37.7
limited amounts of
groundwater will be an
issue within the next 10
years?

 

19. Will you and your 77 6.5 18.2 24.7 37.7 13.0
family ever have to
worry about getting
clean, fresh water?
20. I know why it is a 76 1.3 7.9 15.8 32.9 42.1
good idea to test my
soil.

21. I know what risks 77 3.9 11.7 2.6 55.8 26.0
there are around my
home that has a negative
affect on groundwater
quality.

 

 

 

 

22. I plan to consult the 75 1.3 6.7 17.3 50.7 24.0
take home groundwater
assessment booklet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although as indicated above in section one of the posttest, a high majority
(56.3%) of respondents do not get their soil tested, it is notable that in section two, the

majority (75.0%) of the respondents indicated that they know why it is a good idea to get

their soil tested. .

43

Comments on Groundwater Quality

The following are comments from section II on the posttest regarding

groundwater quality:

“If some of my behaviors were harmful to groundwater quality it was due to
ignorance. Now that I am more aware of certain things I don’t plan on having

behavior harmful to groundwater.”

“My current actions can be harmful if I am unaware of contributing factors.
These actions may be more extensive than presently known and a serious
groundwater problem, perhaps when it is very serious.”

“ I will call the Macomb county hotline for‘info on safe pesticide disposal.”

Opinions on Empowerment and Ownership Issues

Section three of the posttest, once more, contained the same ten questions as the
pretest, with three additional questions. These questions pertained to whose issue and
how important of an issue is groundwater. Also, there was as question regarding whether

or not the respondents felt there is a relationship between surface and groundwater

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

quality.
Table 6. Posttest responses on empowerment and ownership issues.
' % Responding
Survey Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
(N) Disagree (%) (%) (%) ' Agree
. (%) (%)
33. Safeguarding my 77 46.8 46.8 3.9 1.3 1.3
drinking water from
pollution is the
responsibility of businesses
and governments, not mine.
74. Groundwater quality is 77 7.8 0 0 32.5! 59.7
an important issue.
3 5 , There is no relationship 77 55.8 39.0 1.3 0 3.9
between surface water
quality and groundwater
germ;

 

 

44

 

A staggering 92.2% of the total respondents (n = 77) agreed or strongly agreed
that groundwater quality is an important issue, with absolutely zero disagree and neutral
responses. As well, 93.6% of the respondents believe that safeguarding their drinking
water iS not just the responsibility of businesses and governments in addition, well over
half (55.8%) of the respondents understand that there is a relationship between surface

water quality and groundwater quality.

Comments on Empowerment and Ownership Issues
The following arecomments from section 111 from the posttest regarding empowerment
and ownership issues:

“I don’t think one has to spend more in order to make changes, just be better
educated.”

“Water quality is the responsibility of everyone, individuals, businesses, and

government. But sometimes one individual can’t do much or at least that’s the
way it feels.”

“Not very clear on Clean Sweep sites and I don’t fully understand the relationship
between excess nitrogen in the soil and water quality.”

“Keeping our lakes and rivers clean is everyone’s job, not a few people.”

Participant Experiences Prior and During a Home*A *Syst Program

The posttest contained an additional section that was added for several reasons.
First, after reviewing the pretests it became noticeable that because of the voluntary
nature of the HAS program, it may be that only those that already have a propensity
towards the environment and groundwater quality are attending the programs. Therefore,

section four contained questions that attempted to ascertain if the HAS participants came

45

into the program already having knowledge of pesticides and fertilizers (Figure 2), if they
did where they obtained their knowledge, and if that knowledge changed the way they
used pesticides and fertilizers (Figure 3). In figure two out of 73 responses, 58.9%
indicated that yes, indeed they did receive training using pesticides or fertilizers prior to
attending the Home*A*Syst program. Of those, 59.1% Specified that their previous
pesticide and fertilizer training had changed the way they used pesticides and fertilizers.

Figure 2.
Previous training regarding pesticide and/or fertilizer use. (N = 73)

 

46

F igure3.
Change in pesticide and/or fertilizer use. (N = 67)

No change needed

33.3%

 

 

In addition, questions regarding whether or not knowledge about pesticides and
fertilizers was addressed in the HAS program and their risks to groundwater are shown in
figures 4a, 4b, and 5 respectively. As well, what type of activity Sponsored the HAS
program they attended such as a Lion’s club, Master Gardener class is illustrated in figure

Six.

47

Figure 4a.
Pesticide and fertilizer education in the Home*A*Syst program. (N = 69)

 

Figure 4a shows that although the focus of the HAS program is mainly risks to
groundwater associated with pesticides and fertilizers, 37.7% of the respondents say that
there was no mention of pesticide and fertilizer risks in the HAS program they attended.
Although that percentage may seem low, the total number of respondents that answered
that question was only 69. That equals just about 26 people out of the possible 69 that
did not receive pesticide and fertilizer education. Figure 4b Shows that even if pesticides

and fertilizers are discussed, not all HAS programs discuss them in association with risks

to groundwater.

48

Figure 4b.
Education of pesticide or fertilizer risks to groundwater. (N = 68)

 

 

 

Almost 8% of the HAS program participants did not receive any education of
risks to groundwater in association with pesticides and fertilizers. This is troubling

considering that this is the main focus of the HAS program.

49

Figure 5.
Change in pesticide and/or fertilizer use due to Home*A*Syst. (N = 67)

 

  
   

No change needed

    

«a

51) . ..

Figure five shows of those respondents that did receive the pesticide and fertilizer
information, 50.7% claimed that they did not have to make any changes in their pesticide
and fertilizer use, 31.3% said they did make a change in their use of these products, and
17.9% said that they did not make any changes in their pesticide and fertilizer use due to
the HAS program. This indicates that over half of those that participate in the HAS
programs already bring a certain level of knowledge in pesticide and fertilizer use.

The last question in section four of the posttest asked the respondents to indicate

through which medium the HAS program was offered.

50

Figure 6. .
Medium through which the HAS program was offered. (N = 71)

 

40

 

 

Frequency ofmention

 

Master Gardener Lion/Elk Kiwanis Other

Medium through which the HAS program was offered

Respondent Overall Comments from Posttest
The following quotes are examples of overall comments of the HAS program the
pretest, and the posttest as well as any other related items:
“I’ve participated in HAS not only through MG (Master Gardener) programs but
also garden club programs. Also, used a video borrowed from Extension office to

Show at a club meeting.”

“I see the HAS as an important program and am glad to have had some
experience in it.”

“I think you should make sure that your presenters are reaching the right people.
This presentation was given to a political science class.”

51

“You are asking the wrong people on this. I don’t work and I am not concerned
about groundwater.”

“People in general are ignorant to the effects of pesticides. No matter how many
warnings are put out, they still seems to think that the chemicals will not affect

them or ham the environment. Perhaps by presenting more natural types of pest
prevention such as inviting birds and certain insects to the gardens and lawns

along side of the warnings people may pay more attention.”

Pretest and Posttest Comparison

Yard and Garden Management Practices

When comparing the findings from both the pretest and posttest, 97% of
respondents on the posttest indicated that they “usually” or “always” identify the type of
pest before applying pesticides, and 100% of the posttest respondents indicated that they
“usually” or “always” carefully read and follow the directions before applying pesticides
and fertilizers as well as quickly clean up any fertilizer and pesticide Spills. There was
also a slight change from 83.3% to 94.4% in those that indicated that they use limited

amounts of chemicals to control pests. In addition, significant differences (p<.05) were

noted on many of the questions.

52

Table 7. Comparison of responses on yard and garden management practices

 

% Respondents

Survey Statements (N) Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

 

 

1. I identify the Pretest 141 6.4 3.5 14.2 36.2 39.7
type of pest I am
trying to control
before applying
pesticides or
fertilizers.

2. I carefully Pretest 141 4.3 .7 6.4 29.1 59.6
read and follow
the directions
before applying
pesticides or
fertilizers.

3. Any spills of Pretest 141 2.8 .7 12.1 22.0 62.4
pesticides or
fenilizers are Posttest 68 0 0 0 22.1 77.9
quickly cleaned
up.

4. I try to control Pretest 138 2.9 3.6 10.1 33.3 _ 50.0
pests with limited
amounts of Posttest 71 1.4 1.4 2.8 32.4 62.0
chemicals.
5. All leftover Pretest 139 2.2 3.6 14.4 25.2 54.7
pesticides and
fertilizers are Posttest 69 1.4 2.9 7.2 20.3 68.1
stored in safe
containers.
6. I take Pretest 135 17.8 17.0 15.6 20.7 28.9

unwanted and
unused pesticides POSIICSI 61 9.8 l 1.5 14.8 31.1 32.8

to a local, safe
disposal site.

 

Posttest 68 O 0 2.9 27.9 69.1

 

 

Posttest 70 0 0 0 12.9 87.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions one, two, and three seemed to have the most change overall as they also

have noticeable differences in the means.

53

Table 8. Noted differences when comparing pre and posttest yard and garden
management practices

Survey Statements Groups (N) Mean Standard t- Probability
Deviation value
1. I identify the type of Pretest 141 3.99 1.12
pest I am trying to
control before applying Posttest 68 4.66 .54 4.65 .000*
pesticides or fertilizers.
2. I carefully read and Pretest 141 4.39 .96
follow the directions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

before applying Posttest 70 4.87 .34 4.06 .0004:
esticides or fertilizers.

3. Any Spills of Pretest 141 4.40 .93

pesticides or fertilizers 3.16 .002*

. Posttest 68 4.78 .42
are quickly cleaned up.
4. Itry to control pests Pretest 138 4.24 .98

 

 

 

 

wrth limited amounts Posttest 71 4.52 .75 2.13 .035*
of chemicals.

5. All leftover Pretest 139 4.27 .98

pesticides and

fertilizers are stored in 13081168t 69 4-51 ~87 1.73 .085

safe containers.
6. I take unwanted and Pretest 135 3.26 1.48
unused pestrcrdes to a Posttest 61 3.66 1.32 1.79 .074
local, safe disposal Site.

* Significant Difference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Groundwater Quality

Posttest responses to statements about groundwater quality were similar to those
of the pretest. However, one significant difference (t = .018, p<.05) regarding the
question concerning the safe discarding of unused and unwanted pesticides. The posttest
respondents indicated a higher knowledge level and would be “likely” to “very likely” to

know how to discard of their unused or unwanted pesticides.

54

Table 9. Comparison of responses on groundwater quality issues

 

Survey Statement

N

Very
Unlikely
(%)

Unlikely
(%)

Undecided

(%)

Likely
(%)

Very
Likely
(%)

 

7. Do you act in
the same
manner towards

Pretest

134

3.0

6.7

14.9

32.8

42.5

 

groundwater
quality at work
as you do at
home?

Posttest

69

1.4

5.8

5.8

34.8

52.2

 

8. Do you think
your neighbors
groundwater

Pretest

141

2.8

6.4

7.1

19.1

64.5

 

quality can be
affected by your
behavior?

Posttest

77

2.6

2.6

2.6

24.7

67.5

 

9. Do you feel
that actions you
take towards

Pretest

142

3.5

5.6

8.5

33.1

49.3

 

groundwater
quality will
make a
difference?

Posttest

76

1.3

2.6

5.3

40.8

50.0

 

10. Do you feel
that you would

Pretest

143

4.2

11.9

7.7

24.5

51.7

 

know how to get
our soil tested?

 

Posttest

77

2.6

6.5

11.7

27.3

51.9

 

1 l. I know how
to safely discard

Pretest

143

4.9

14.7

13.3

30.1

37.1

 

my leftover or
unused
pesticides and
fertilizers.

Posttest

77

2.6

5.2

7.8

40.3

44.2

 

12. A take home
groundwater
assessment

Pretest

142

2.8

4.9

11.3

36.6

44.4

 

booklet would
help me to
identify
groundwater

 

 

quality risks.

Posttest

 

76

 

2.6

 

5.3

 

9.2

 

46.1

 

36.8

 

55

 

Table 10. Noted differences when comparing pre and posttest groundwater quality.

 

Survey Statement

Group

(N)

Mean

Standard
Deviation

t-
value

Probability

 

7. Do you act in the
same manner towards
groundwater quality
at work as you do at
home?

Pretest

134

4.05

1.06

 

Posttest

68

4.31

.93

1.69

.092

 

8. Do you think your
neighbors
groundwater quality
can be affected by
your behavior?

Pretest

141

4.36 .

1.05

 

Posttest

76

4.53

.89

1.61

.247

 

9. Do you feel that
actions you take
towards groundwater
quality will make a
difference?

Pretest

142

4.19

1.04

 

Posttest

75

4.36

.81

1.22

.222

 

10. Do you feel that
you would know how
to get your soil
tested?

Pretest

143

4.08

1.20

 

Posttest

76

4.21

1.05

.82

.415

 

11. I know how to
safely discard my
leftover or unused
pesticides and
fertilizers.

Pretest

143

3.79

1.23

 

Posttest

76

4.18

.98

2.38

.018*

 

 

12. A take home

groundwater

assessment booklet

would help me to

identify groundwater
uality risks.

Pretest

142

4.14

.99

 

 

Posttest

 

75

 

4.09

 

.96

 

.39

 

.698

 

* Significant Difference

 

 

Opinions in this section did not change over the course of the study, except in the
case of pesticide and fertilizer disposal. There is not a large change but a statistically
significant one, and because of the fact that section two is Similar in all other ways from

pretest to posttest it is possible that this change may be due to the intervention.

56

Opinions on Empowerment and Ownership Issues

There were many differences in section three from pretest to posttest. Six out of
ten questions had Significantly different mean scores, and these were the questions
regarding knowledge, empowerment, and ownership of the issues. Ninety percent of the
posttest respondents versus 76% of pretest respondents indicated that they feel
environmental quality is as important as economic issues. Almost all (97%) of the
posttest respondents said they believe that lawn care can have an effect on groundwater
quality versus 85% of the pretest respondents. On a different note, it seems that after a
HAS program, people are less confident in their abilities to apply fertilizers and
pesticides in ways that minimize risks to water quality. Nine percent of the posttest

respondents versus only 1% of the pretest respondents indicated this.

Table 11. Comparison of responses on empowerment and ownership issues

 

Survey Statements Group (N) Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

 

 

 

Disagree (%) (%) (%) Agree

(%) (%)
13. I tend to hold Pretest 142 3.5 5.6 14.8 35.9 40.1
environmental ' ,
quality as {mportam Posttest 77 0 0 10.4 28.6 61.0
as economic
develtmment issues.
14. The ways I take Pretest 140 2.9 5.0 6.4 39.3 46.4

care of my lawn

and garden can
have a direct effect Posttest 76 1.3 0 1.3 47.4 50.0

 

on the quality of
local groundwater.

 

 

15. When it comes Pretest 138 1.4 9.4 15.2 47.8 26.1
to taking care of my
yard, I am confident
in my ability to
apply fertilizers and
pesticides in ways
that minimize
threats to water

quality.

 

Posttest 76 0 0 9.2 52.6 - 38.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

 

16. I am
knowledgeable
about Clean Sweep
sites.

Pretest

131

16.0

23.7

40.5

13.7

6.1

 

Posttest

4.0

18.7

33.3

30.7

13.3

 

17. There is little an
individual can do to
stop water

ollution.

Pretest

141

38.3

39.0

6.4

10.6

5.7

 

Posttest

77

46.8

46.8

2.6

1.3

2.6

 

18. Water pollution
is usually the result
of an accident that
cannotbe
revented.

Pretest

143

41.3

40.6

6.3

7.7

4.2

 

Posttest

76

56.6

39.5

2.6

1.3

 

19. Groundwater
contamination is
only a concern for
people whose water
source is a private
well.

Pretest

141

53.2

31.9

7.1

4.3

3.5

 

Posttest

76

61.8

36.8

1.3

 

20. I understand the
relationship
between excess
nitrogen in the soil
and water quality.

Pretest

142

3.5

8.5

31.0

33.8

23.2

 

Posttest

75

4.0

12.0

20.0

44.0

20.0

 

21. I worry about .
the safety of my
drinking water.

Pretest

143

2.8

9.1

13.3

34.3

40.6

 

Posttest

77

2.6

16.9

13.0

39.0

28.6

 

 

22. I would be
willing to spend
additional money to
make changes in the
way I take care of
my yard in order to
better protect
groundwater.

Pretest

142

3.5

4.2

20.4

43.0

28.9

 

 

Posttest

 

74

 

2.7

 

6.8

 

18.9

 

45.9

 

25.7

 

 

Those that responded to the posttest seem to be more knowledgeable, empowered
and have a higher sense of ownership of the issues when compared with the pretest
scores. The largest overall change was on the question regarding how knowledgeable the
respondents are about Clean Sweep Sites. F orty-four percent of the posttest respondents
indicated that they either “agree” or “strongly agree” that they are knowledgeable about

Clean Sweep sites, versus only 20% of the pretest respondents. When that same question

58

is compared with questions Six from section one regarding taking unwanted and unused
pesticides to a local, safe disposal Site, and question fifteen from section two regarding
knowledge of how to safely discard leftover or unused pesticides and fertilizers, on the
posttest, there is an indication that the name “Clean Sweep” does not hold any Special
meaning. Question Six, whether or not the participant takes unwanted or unused
pesticides and fertilizers to a safe local deposit site, indicated that a majority (over 50%)
of both groups (pretest and posttest) do take unwanted or unused pesticides and fertilizers
to a safe local disposal site. Question fifteen, knowledge of how to safely discard
unwanted or unused pesticides and fertilizers, again indicated the majority know how to
safely discard unwanted or unused pesticides and fertilizers. So, it is clear that a majority
of those citizens that attend HAS programs know how and where to discard unwanted or
unused pesticides and fertilizers, however, they do not recognize the “Clean Sweep”

name as a place that they can dispose ofthose chemicals.

Table 12. Noted differences when comparing pre and posttest empowerment and
ownership issues.

 

Survey Statement Group (N) Mean Standard t- Probability
Deviation value

 

 

 

 

 

13. I tend to hold Pretest 142 4.04 1.05

environmental

quality as important 3.36 .000*

as economic P0511681 77 4.50 .68

develgpment issues.

14. The ways I take Pretest 140 4.21 .97

care of my lawn and

garden can have a 1.87 .063
Posttest 76 4.44 .66

direct effect on the
quality of local
groundwater.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

 

15. When it comes to
taking care of my
yard, I am confident
in my ability to apply
fertilizers and
pesticides in ways
that minimize threats
to water quality.

Pretest

138

3.88

' .95

 

Posttest

76

4.29

.63

3.38

.001*

 

16. I am
knowledgeable about
Clean Sweep Sites.

Pretest

131

2.70

1.09

 

Posttest

75

3.31

1.05

3.89

.000*

 

17. There is little an
individual can do to
stop water pollution.

Pretest

141

3.94

1.18

 

Posttest

77

4.34

.82

2.66

.008*

 

18. Water pollution is
usually the result of
an accident that
cannot be prevented.

Pretest

143

4.07

1.08

 

Posttest

76

4.51

.62

3.30

.001*

 

19. Groundwater
contamination is only
a concern for people
whose water source
is a private well.

Pretest

141

4.27

1.01

 

Posttest

76

4.61

.52

2.70

.007*

 

20. I understand the
relationship between
excess nitrogen in the
soil and water

uality.

Pretest

142

3.65

1.04

 

Posttest

75

3.64

1.06

.05

.958

 

21. I worry about the
safety of my drinking
water.

Pretest

143

4.01

1.08

 

Posttest

77

3.74

1.13

1.72

.086

 

 

22. I would be
willing to spend
additional money to
make changes in the
way I take care of my
yard in order to better
rotect groundwater.

Pretest

142

3.89

.99

 

 

Posttest

 

74

 

3.85

 

.97

 

.31

 

.761

 

* Significant Difference

 

AS indicated in table 12, the significant differences tend to correlate with the
questions regarding the ownership and empowerment issues rather than those questions
dealing with knowledge based responses, which are in effect entry-level variables. This

phenomenon could again suggest that those people who were provided the HAS program

60

through non-environmentally based activities (Lions, Elk Clubs) responded to the pretest
but were not inclined to respond to the posttest. This poses the question Should then the

entry-level variables be assumed as was previously stated in this study?

61

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study began its focus in a more grandeur style hoping to measure
empowerment and ownership but instead ultimately the path lead to Simply discovering a
little bit about the HAS program. Having been in existence for over seven years, a
review of where the program is now and where it iS headed was needed. Because of this
need, this study developed accordingly.

This study was guided by the following three objectives:

1. Assess what type of audience is being reached by the Home*A*Syst program.

2. Determine if pesticide, fertilizer, and groundwater messages are expressed

through the program.

3. Identify whether or not the audience makes changes due to the HAS program

messages.

Due to the voluntary nature of the program, the sample Size was unknown until
the pretests were returned during a specific time period. The self-selected sample from
the programs came to 146 after the-two-month collection period. Of those, only 124 had
Signed and addressed the consent form, all of which were sent a posttest.

Twenty-one copies of the pretest were sent out to each of the nineteen Americorps
agents. They were to set aside five to ten minutes prior to their program to hand out the
pretests and consent forms and allow the participants to complete them. The forms were

then to be collected and sent back to the researcher.

62

 

The posttest consisted of three mailings. The first mailing consisted of a cover
letter, the questionnaire, an addressed stamped return envelope, and a bag of tea for
incentive. Approximately two weeks after the first mailing, a reminder postcard was sent
to the non-respondents. The third and final mailing was sent to those who had not yet
responded and contained a new cover letter, questionnaire, return envelope, and an entry

form to win an MSU sweatshirt. The sweatshirt entry form was sent as an incentive and
the respondents had to have the questionnaire filled out along with the entry form and
returned by a Specific date. All of the respondents that sent in a completed questionnaire,
including those from the first and second mailing, will have a fair chance to win the
sweatshirt.

Altogether, a total of 146 completed and usable pretests were collected. There
were ten returned surveys that were handed out by someone other than an Americorps
member, eleven pretests that were returned after the cut off date, and twenty-two
respondents did not fill out a consent form. This brought the total of posttests to be sent
out to 124. With 79 posttests returned, there was a return rate of 64%. One posttest was
returned incomplete, one was returned having been filled out, but by a person who
indicated they had not gone to a Home*A*Syst program, and Six packets that were

returned undeliverable.

Summary of Findings
The results suggest that HAS is indeed reaching those who already have a
tendency to have environmental knowledge, Specifically in relation to risks to

groundwater in association with pesticides and fertilizers. Twenty eight respondents out

63

of seventy one stated that their HAS program medium was a Master Gardener program.
A complete list of all the mediums can be found in the appendix.

Floyd J. Fowler, J r. (1993) found that people with an interest in the survey subject
matter will be more likely to return the surveys. In this study, it is conceivable that those
who chose to respond to the posttest chose to do so because of their interest in the subject
matter. The results showed that the posttest means were higher on almost every question,
than those of the pretest. One assumption is that those who returned the posttest had a
higher interest in the Home*A*Syst program contents. Another assumption could be that
the HAS program is working.

The goal of the HAS program is to educate homeowners about the risks to
groundwater quality in and around their home in relation to pesticide and fertilizer use.
Objective two was to learn what types of messages were being delivered by the
Americorps members in the HAS programs. Clearly, aS Shown by the data, a majority
(62.3%) of the programs did cover pesticides and fertilizers, however, the fact that almost
forty percent of the programs did not discuss pesticides and fertilizers, means that HAS is
not reaching its goal of addressing risks to groundwater in association with pesticide and
fertilizer use. In addition, of those respondents who indicated that there was pesticide
and fertilizer discussion in the HAS program, 7.7% noted there was not any association
of pesticide and fertilizer use with risks to groundwater. However, it must also be noted
that out of 68 respondents 7.7% only equals approximately 5 people. If those five
respondents happened to have attended an HAS program at the beginning of the two

month pretest collection period, they may have forgotten some items that were discussed

64

 

during that program. Also, differences in teaching and learning styles could add to
confusion as to what was being taught by the Americorps agent.

The third objective was to understand whether or not the program was making a
difference, and although there was a tendency for the programs to get Slightly off course,
the fact remains that out of a total of 67 respondents, 31.3% of them made a change in the
way they use pesticides and fertilizers and they attributed this change to the HAS
program. The question remains, is that enough? IS it worth the money and the effort to
reach 21 people over the course of a two-month period? Would the program change the
minds of those that don’t already have an environmental predisposition?

In addition to the third objective was to learn if there had been any changes in
behavior between the pretest and'the posttest, more specifically, did the HAS program
make a difference. Although the data did Show that there were Significant differences
between the pretest and posttest, due to the fact that it is very possible that those who
were already interested in the environment and the HAS program, are the highest
percentage of those that returned the posttest. When asked through which medium the
HAS program was offered, the majority said the Master Gardener program, and the
“Other” category was filled with many additional environmentally focused programs
such as garden clubs, West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC), and a
neighborhood workshop. Responses from non-environmentally focused mediums such
as Lion, Elk, or Kiwanis clubs received only nine replies.

Over the course of reading through the open-ended comments, it became apparent
that some of the survey participants might have actually gained some knowledge from the

surveys. Although the “before and after” change in behaviors cannot be formally

65

determined, there were Specific references made by the respondents that coincided with

the survey material

Conclusions

Changes are inevitable. Over the course of this study it became clear that it is
difficult to measure how much empowerment and ownership a person perceives of a
particular issue if in fact the researcher cannot even measure knowledge levels. Although
' a small portion of the surveys contained questions regarding empowerment and
ownership issues, the focus of this study Shifted from empowerment and ownership
perception towards a more basic look at the Home*A*Syst program. Who is attending
the program, what type of knowledge do they already have concerning pesticides and
fertilizers, is HAS “preaching to the choir” so to Speak? These questions among others
needed to be answered before an assessment of empowerment and ownership issues.

First, it was clearly identified that many of the HAS participants in this study
came into the program with prior knowledge of pesticides and fertilizers. In addition,
many of the participants also showed a propensity towards pro environmental behavior.
Second, it also became apparent that HAS is a valuable program that did educate and
change the way 31.3% of the participants use pesticides and fertilizers. However, as was
discussed previously, many of the people that attended the HAS programs were those that
had a predisposition towards pro environmental behavior. If it is the goal of the HAS
program to focus its efforts towards changing behavior in only those homeowners that
have a pro environmental focus, it seems that the program is well on it’s way to achieving

its goal. If, however, the goal is to target all homeowners in Michigan regardless of

66

environmental feelings, there is a lot of work to be done. Third, the HAS program does
not provide a consistent message. Regardless of the target audience, the program Should
have a message that is clear and understood by everyone involved, the Americorps
agents, the HAS coordinators, and the HAS participants. If the message is unclear at the

beginning, then the outcome will be unclear as well.

Recommendations
Recommendations for Home *A *Syst
It is very difficult to get people motivated and interested in programs that

they feel are not important. If it iS the goal of the Home*A*Syst program to. reach the
average homeowner in Michigan a few changes need to be made. First, the fact that each
of the Americorps agents can address each group differently, with their own tools,
materials, and messages makes it very difficult for HAS to be as effective as it needs to
be in order to reach the average Michigan resident. Because of the inconsistencies‘there
cannot be any type of recognition of HAS by an average person. There is no clear,
consistent message for people to associate HAS with groundwater quality educatiOn.
Additionally, by allowing the Americorps agents the ability to make up their own
materials, there cannot possibly be any type of control as to what message is being
delivered.

Second, training provided to the Americorps agents needs change. There should
be a more concise message about what is expected, what messages should be delivered,
what the outcome of each HAS program Should be, and who is their target audience. The

training Should also include ways to connect with the average Michigan resident, those

67

 

that may not have as much a tendency towards environmental education, as well as those
already being reached.

Third, a mentor program should be developed. Americorps members are allowed
to work for two years in the program. Each year in the Michigan Home*A*Syst
program, a few of the Americorps agents return for a second year of service. If funding
allows, the second year Americorps should be mentors for the first year Americorps.
Each returning member Should be there to answer questions, help in the development of
programs, and provide overall assistance to the first year Americorps agents.

It is not known exactly why there was such a low pretest return rate. It is known
however that the Americorps agents do work fulltime and a majority of their job is to
deliver HAS programs. Although this study did not focus on programs for children under
age eighteen, or one on one programs, for each of the Americorps agents to provide the
researcher with twenty-one surveys within a month was a feasible task. Even so, the
return date did have to be extended an additional month because of such a low return rate.
The low return rate cOuld be related to local support. Support at the local and state level
needs to be expressed so that there is an awareness of any problems, progress, or any
questions the Americorps agent might have.

Americorps agents need to return to the same participants in a timely manner to
review and repeat the messages. Based on talking with the Americorps agents as well as
observing some HAS programs, it is very infrequent that the same HAS participants are

targeted again. This is key to having the participants make a change.

68

Recommendations for Further Study

Based on the findings of this study, these areas are in need of immediate research:

1. Who do the Americorps agents feel is their target audience and what do they
believe are the core messages. By holding one on one meetings or focus groups, it can be
quickly learned if the Americorps share Similar educational needs and priorities as the
goals of the HAS program in relation to target audience and core messages.

2. Who do the HAS coordinators feel is the target audience and what do they
believe are the core messages. This is obviously the key to guiding the program and
helping the Americorps understand what their role is in the Home*A*Syst program.

These are areas in need of ongoing and long-term research:

1. Continue to evaluate what types of people are attending the HAS programs.
Identify if they already have a tendency towards environmental action.

2. Examine what types of messages the participants feel are being delivered in
the HAS programs in order to understand if that coincides with the goals of the program.

3. After everyone involved with HAS (Americorps, MDA, MSUE) has a clear
understanding of the goals and changes in the HAS program have been made, carry out
another comprehensive needs assessment.

4. Once it can be established whether or not the program is reaching its new
goals, identifying the levels of empowerment and ownership can then be used to assess

what degree of impact that HAS program is having regarding behavior change.

69

Reflections

From this study, it was realized that the Home*A*Syst program has good
environmental intentions. Although all involved worked diligently to make this a great
program, there were some obvious problems. Understanding whom the audience is and
what the core messages are is very important and over the course of the seven years that
HAS has been in Michigan everyone involved began to envision their own audience and
messages. Regardless, it is true that the program was still reaching people and awareness
of pesticide and fertilizer risks to groundwater, among other things, was increased.

The researcher is happy to note that a committee was set in place to review the
Home*A*Syst program. Realization of an overhaul came in part from a longitudinal
baseline study assessing residential homeownersgroundwater knowledge (the study
noted no overall change), as well as in part from this particular study.

Hopefully, these results will help in the development of a long-term program that
works to provide Michigan residents with the Skills, knowledge, and commitment to

understand and resolve the environmental challenges relating to groundwater quality.

70

 

 

APPENDICES

71

APPENDIX A

Human subjects approval letter

72

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
245 Administration Building
East Lansing, Michigan
488244046

51 7/355-2180

FAX: 517/353-2976

Web: m. msuedU/usei/uuihs
E-Mail: ucrihstémsuedu

fhe Midirgan State University
IDEA is Institutioml 0mm
Exarlena in Adrian.

MS U is an Moraine-3am.

equal-0000111101” momma.

MICHIGAN STATE

 

UNIVERSITY

February 1, 2001

TO: Murari SUVEDI
409 Ag Hall
MSU

RE: IRB# 01-035 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-C
APPROVAL DATE: January 25, 2001

TITLE: ASSESSING INTENTION OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE TOWARDS
GROUNDWATER STEWARDSHIP IN ADULTS AFTER A HOME'A'SYST
PROGRAM ‘

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green
renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to
continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's lRBt:
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments,
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise’during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints. etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355—2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http://www.msu.edu/user/ucrihs

Sincerely,

  

Ashir Kumar, MD
Interim Chair, UCRIHS

AK: rj

cc: Kristin Linderman
409 Agriculture Hall MSU
East Lansing, Mi 48824

73

 

 

APPENDIX B

Pretest consent form
Instructions for Americorps

Questionnaire

 

74

Michigan State University Research Consent Form

By signing this form, you are acknowledging your voluntary participation in the
Home*A*Syst study which includes participation in a pre and posttest. Any comments
or opinions that you share will remain confidential, as references to your identity (name)
will be deleted from any reports generated by these questionnaires.

These questionnaires will provide information that will be used for future Home*A*Syst
development. The questions are regarding general knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
towards groundwater stewardship. Each test should take approximately 15 minutes to

complete.

Your participation in the questionnaires will provide valuable input for the development
of the Home*A*Syst program. Through this program, Michigan homeowners and renters
can gain valuable information to help them learn ways to promote voluntary groundwater
pollution prevention in and around their home.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this project, please
feel free to contact:

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)

Dr. David Wright

246 Administration Building

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1046

(517) 355-2180

Print Name Date

 

Sign Name

 

Address

 

Principle Researcher:

Kristin Linderman

406 Agriculture Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 355-6580 ext 234

75

 

Dear Americorps Agents,

For those of you that were at the restaurant Harpers after the pesticide/ fertilizer program, a lot of
this may be review. However, for those of you who were not able to attend, I wanted to make
sure that everything was understandable. The following are answers to questions and comments
about the HAS pretest from those Americorps agents during the Harpers discussion. I hope that
this will address any questions you might have, if anyone does have a question or comment,

please feel free to contact me.
1. Please only give the pretest to those people that are 18 and over.

2. Please encourage participants to sign and address the consent form and give it back to you
with the pretest. This is how I plan to get participants addresses for the posttest. If for some
reason someone does not want to put their address down that’s okay, but please encourage them

to still fill out the pretest.

3. I understand that during most programs you do not have a lot of time. If you could hand out
the pretest and consent form to the participants as soon as possible maybe even while you’re
setting up, this may provide for more time. All pretests need to be filled out prior to your
program.

4. The pretests will need to be filled out by your entire adult HAS participants form now until
March 31, 2001. Please send your filled out pretests back to me as you get them if possible.

5. I have sent 21 questionnaires with consent forms stuffed in each to every Americorps agent. If
you need more, please either contact me or feel free to make your own copies. Remember, due to
University regulations, each person that fills out a survey must get a consent form.

6. I realize that some of you do other programs besides HAS, this pretest is only for the HAS
programs. Also, please only give the pretest to group programs. One on one discussions cannot
be added to this study because of the entirely different dynamic that happens in one on ones.

DOn’t forget to encourage all of your HAS participants to take the time to fill out this
questionnaire. Make sure they realize their contribution is very important.

Thank you all for your effort, and again, if you have any questions at all, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Kristin Linderman

409 Ag Hall MSU

East Lansing, MI 48823
Iinderm l @msuedu
(517)355-6580 ext 234

76

 

 

 

he]; vino; hurt/commons“ ['4‘ Joint." .s!¢.'W.':.m’.s 0/31 1.1 11(an is war/a rcletrrttzs

Learning through Home*A*Syst:
An Analysis of Groundwater Issues

Please retum your completed survey to your Home*A*Syst Educator

The Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Agriculture Hall Room 4096
East Lansing, MI 48824

77

Directions: Answer each question as accurately as possible. The questions can be completed by
checking the appropriate box. Your answers will be kept completely confidential.

SECTION I: Indicate the extent to which you follow these \- 5 $6
° c ‘ 0“: \\/\\ /‘3

yard and garden management practices: $/ VD €30 \3/ \‘

1. I identify the type ofpest I am trying to control before

applying pesticides or fertilizers.

2 . I carefully read and follow the directions before applying
pesticides or fertilizers.

3 . Any spills ofpesticides or fertilizers are quickly
cleaned up.

 

4. Itry to control pests with limited amounts ofchemicals.

5. All leftover pesticides and fertilizers are stored in safe
(i.e. spillproof, child resistant) containers.

1:] 1313131313
E] DUDE]

CI DDDDD\
D DODGE;

6. I take unwanted and unused pesticides to a local, safe
disposal Site.

SECTION II: Indicate your Opinion about the following
groundwater quality issues:

 
 

(b,
"/
"’1
a,
*3»

7. Do you act in the same manner towards groundwater
quality at work as you do at home?

8. Do you think your neighbors groundwater quality
can be affected by your behavior?

9. Do you feel that actions you take towards groundwater
quality will make a difference?

10. Do you feel that you would know how to get your
soil tested?

11, I know how to safely discard my leftover or unused
pesticides and fertilizers.

DDDDDDz
1301313013

12. A take home groundwater assessment booklet would
help me to identify groundwater quality risks.

78

SECTION III: Indicate your agreement/disagreement with
the following environmental and water quality issues

13. I tend to hold environmental quality as important as
economic development issues.

14. The ways I take care of my lawn and garden can have
a direct effect on the quality of local groundwater.

15. When it comes to taking care of my yard, I am confident
in my ability to apply fertilizers and pesticides in
ways that inimize threats to water quality.

16. I am knowledgeable about Clean Sweep sites.

17. There is little an individual can do to stOp water pollution.

18. Water pollution is usually the results ofan accident that
cannot be prevented.

I9. Groundwater contamination is only a concern for people
whose water source is a private well.

20. I understand the relationship between excess nitrogen
in the sort and water quality.

21. I worry about the safety ofmy drinking water.
22. I would be willing to spend additional money to make

changes in the way I take care ofmy yard in order
to better protect groundwater.

79

 

D

DDDDDDD

DDCICIDCID

 

D

DDDDDDD

D

DDDDDDD

 

Please use the space below to share any other thoughts or concerns you may have regarding
the topics covered in this questionnaire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Your participation will provide useful information that will guide future groundwater quality
educadon.

8O

APPENDIX C

Posttest questionnaire
Cover letters
Postcard

Incentive

81

 

 

 

 

 

I Home *A* Syst

helping hommwncnr be active stewards of Midr{ern 3‘ water rats-(Jams

 

Learning through Home*A*Syst:
An Analysis of Groundwater Issues
Follow-up

 

The Department of ANR Education and Communication Systems
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Agriculture Hall Room 409G
East Lansing, MI 48824

82

Directions: Answer each question as accurately as possible. The questions can be completed by
checking the apprOpriate box. Your answers will be kept completely confidential.

 

SECTION I: Indicate the extent to which you follow those .( 25.99% $ 5
. e i e-
yard and garden management practices: V ‘22 9‘ :y 9.3

\
93
1. I identify the type of pest I am trying to control before C] a C] C]

 

applying pesticides or fertilizers. - C] D
2 . I carefully read and follow the directions before applying D Cl C] D Cl 0
pesticides or fertilizers.
3 . Any Spills of pesticides or fertilizers are quickly D C] D C] D [I
cleaned up. ‘
4. I try to control pests with limited amounts of chemicals. [:1 Cl C] C] C1 C1
5. All leftover pesticides and fertilizers are stored in safe C] C] a D D D
(i.e. spillproof, child resistant) containers.
6. I take unwanted and unused pesticides to a local, safe C] D D D C] D
disposal site.
7. I test my soil frequently to identify nitrogen content. [3 C] C] C] Cl C]
8. I manually pull weeds from my lawn or garden. C] C] D D D [:1
9. Itake.bag or remove my lawn clippings from the lawn. C] C] D a C] C]
10. I mow my lawn regularly so that the grass length a D a a a D

usually stays around 2.5 - 3.0 inches high.

Comments About this Section:

83

SECTION II: Indicate your opinion about the following
groundwater quality issues:

 
   

0/
(y

I,
x
"’2
0*
(bi.
0/

11. Do you act in the same manner towards groundwater
quality at work as you do at home?

12. Do you think your neighbors groundwater quality a
can be affected by your behavior?

13. Do you feel that actions you take towards
groundwater quality will make a difference?

 

14. Do you feel that you would know how to get your

soil tested?
15. I know how to safely discard my leftover or unused

pesticides and fertilizers.

16. A take home groundwater assessment booklet would
help me to identify groundwater quality risks.

17. Do you feel that some of your behaviors are
harmful to groundwater quality?

DD D [313 131306,,

18. Do you think that limited amounts of groundwater
will be an issue within the next 10 years?

\

19. Will you and your family ever have to worry about
getting clean,fresh water?

20. I know why it is a good idea to test my soil.

21. I know what risks there are around my home that has
a negative affect on groundwater quality.

DC,
DDDDDD D DDDDDK
/.
tr
"‘4.

[30013013 13 DDDDD

DDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDUDDDDDDD

DUDE]

22. I plan to consult the take home groundwater
assessment booklet.

Comments About This Section:

 

 

84

SECTION III: Indicate your agreement/disagreement with

C C I O c
the followmg envrronmental and water quality issues ge‘
c\‘ \
\\ <2»
(0 \\ r.-
9/ $9

 

23. I tend to hold environmental quality as important as
economic development issues.

24. The ways I take care of my lawn and garden can have
a direct effect on the quality of local groundwater.

25. When it comes to taking care ofmy yard, I am confident
in my ability to apply fertilizers and pesticides in
ways that minimize threats to water quality.

26. I am knowledgeable about Clean Sweep sites.
27. There is little an individual can do to stop water pollution.

28. Water pollution is usually the results of an accident that
cannot be prevented.

whose water source is a private well.

30. I underStand the relationship between excess nitrogen
in the soil and Water quality.

31. I worry about the safety of my drinking water.

32. I would be willing to spend additional money to make

changes in the way I take care of my yard in order
to better protect groundwater.

'\

DDDDDDDDDDDDDV’Q

33. Safeguarding my drinking water from pollution is the
responsibility of businesses and governments, not mine.

34. Groundwater quality is an important issue.

DDD DDDDDDD DDD
DDD DDDDDDD E10130,-

CI
Cl
Cl
D
Cl
[:1
E]
El
D
Cl
Cl
C]
C]

C]
D
Cl
E]
El
Cl
29. Groundwater contamination is only a concern for people E]
Cl
[3
Cl
Cl
[:1
CI

35. There is no relationship between surface water quality and
groundwater quality.

Comments About This Section:

 

 

 

85

SECTION IV: Please indicate which answer best describes
your situation.

37. Prior to the Home*A*Syst program have you
had training or past experience in using
pesticides or fertilizers?

DYes C] No

38. Ifyes. how did you obtain your experience or training?

 

 

 

39. Has your previous training or experience changed the
way you use pesticides or fertilizers?

DYes DNO DNO Change Needed

40. Did you learn about pesticides or fertilizers in the
Home*A*Syst program?

C] ch C] No

41. If yes, did you learn about pesticide or fertilizer risks
to groundwater?

DYes END

42. Did the Home*A*Syst information change the way you
use pesticides or fertilizers?

CIYes CID-Io CINO Change Needed

43. Your Home*A*Sysprogram was offered through
which of the following:

I

D Master Gardener

D Lion/Elk/Kiwanis Club
CI Sierra Club

CI Nursing Home

D Other

 

-4-

86

 

Please use the Space below to share any other thoughts or concerns you may have regarding
the t0pics covered in this questionnaire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Your participation will provide useful information that will guide future groundwater quality
educafion.

87

May 17,2001

(first name) (last name)
(street address)

(city), (state) (zip)

Dear (salutation):

The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University is conducting a
survey of the Home*A*Syst program in which you recently participated. The input we receive
from you will be extremely valuable in evaluating the effectiveness of the HAS program and its
effect on Michigan groundwater quality. With your feedback, the appropriate changes and
recommendations may be made to improve the program.

Enclosed you will find a survey, along with an addressed stamped envelope, for you to fill out
and return. Please complete the questionnaire and return it by June 8, 2001. Your participation in
this survey is completely voluntary; however, your participation is crucial, as the results of this
study are very important to future Home*A*Syst participants and our groundwater quality.

Your responses will remain completely confidential. The return envelope has an identification
number that will enable us to check your name off the mailing list when the questionnaire is
returned. The envelope will then be discarded. Your name will never be placed on the answer
sheet or the questionnaire. In order to maintain your confidentiality, please do not write your
name or return address on the survey. If you have any questions about the confidentiality or
voluntariness of the survey you may contact Dr. David Wright at Michigan State University’s
Office of Research and Graduate Studies at (517) 355-2180.

We appreciate your involvement in this study, and urge you to fill out the questionnaire and
return it by June 8, 2001. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

M. Suvedi, Ph.D. Kristin Linderman

Associate Professor Research Assistant

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Department of Agricultural & Extension

Education

88

 

June 25, 2001

Dear Home*A*Syst Participant:

About four weeks ago, we sent you a survey seeking your opinions about the
Home*A*Syst program in which you recently participated. The input we receive from
you will be extremely valuable in evaluating the effectiveness of the Home*A*Syst
program and thus, the appropriate changes and recommendations may be made for
improvement.

As of today, we have not received your completed questionnaire. We realize you may not
have had time to complete it, however we would genuinely appreciate hearing from you. In
order for information from the study to be truly representative of your opinions, it is essential
that each person in the sample return his/her questionnaire.

In the event that your questionnaire has been misplaced, a replacement is enclosed. Please
complete the questionnaire and return by Friday, July 13, 2001. Your participation in this
survey is completely voluntary and your response will remain completely confidential. The
envelope has an identification number that will enable us to check your name off the mailing
list upon return. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. In order to maintain
your confidentiality, please do not write your name or return address on the questionnaire. If
you have any questions about the confidentiality or voluntariness of the survey you may
contact Dr. David Wright at Michigan State University’s Office of Research and Graduate
Studies at (517) 355-2180.

Additionally, a Michigan State University sweatshirt will be given away to a randomly
selected respondent who fills out the enclosed form and mails it back with the completed
questionnaire by July 13, 2001. Once again, your name on the form will not be associated
with your questionnaire.

Your participation is crucial, as the results of this study are very important to the future of
Home*A*Syst. We appreciate your involvement in this study, and urge you to fill out the
questionnaire and return it immediately.

Sincerely,

Kristin Linderman
Research Assistant
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

89

Center for Evaluative Studies

409 Agriculture Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1039

 

Home ‘A‘ Syst

Dear Survey Participant,

Two weeks ago a follow-up questionnaire seeking your opinions about a Home*A*Syst
program you attended was mailed to you.

If you already returned the questionnaire to us, please accept our sincere thanks. If not,
please do so today. We are especially grateful for your help because we believe your .
response will be very useful in the improvement of the Home*A*Syst program. If you
did not receive a questionnaire, or if it was misplaced, you will receive another one in the
next two weeks.

Sincerely,

Kristin Linderman
Research Assistant, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

90

 

MSU Sweatshirt Giveaway

 

 

Make sure to complete your survey and giveaway form and return
them by July 13, 2001 in order to be eligible to win!

Just fill out the form below and return with your completed survey.

 

Nome

 

Address

 

 

MSU Sweatshirt Giveaway

 

 

Make sure to complete your survey and giveaway form and return
them by July 13, 2001 in order to be eligible to win!

Just fill out the form below and return with your completed survey.

 

Nome

 

Address

 

91

APPENDIX D

Additional Tables

92

Appendix Table 1. How HAS participants obtained previous pesticide and fertilizer
training.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency
of response
“Always read labels 1
“County, family, read I
"Sowmentary programs on farmers pollutiOn l
y animals they own
Educational training, personal experience 1
Environmentally concerned landscaper 1
Extensive gardening over many years and l
jjreading
”Fanning and BS in forestry and agriculture 1
”Gardening classes 1
Graduate school M.S. biology work in 1
”greenhouses I

 

I—Iandouts from MSUE and read instructions
Home ownership for 30 years

I am a farmer and was aware of their uses

I farmed in Wisconsin and took courses to
uget a license

I sold farm chemicals and fertilizer for work 1
land had training

Lifetime of farming and training seminars
Master Gardener

Master Gardener classes and reading labels
Master Gardener MSUE course

Master Gardener MSUE program

Master Gardener program

Master Gardener Program, reading in
jjrnagazmes

[Blaster Gardener, packages from the store,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u—tNu—Au—di—twi—i

 

 

P.‘

ot info from commercials
Master Gardening class
MSU Biological station, newspaper article
Neighborhood workshops
Past experience, following directions
Personal interest and reading
ead the labels
eading books and labels
Reading the instructions
Reading the label
Reading, asking and classes
Speakers and pamphlets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H--HH--

 

 

93

 

Erained in hazardous material handling and 1
isposal for work

Worked at Nursery

Worked at Public Health Dept.

Worked in a garden store and was trained
Working at a golf course

Total 42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 2. Mediums through which the HAS programs were provided.

 

Frequency of Response

 

River of Life speaker series 1

 

WMEAC 4

 

Talk with environmental 1
guy

 

 

Extension Service

 

Garden club

 

County conservation district

 

4s~t>-

Neighborhoods Inc. of
Battle Creek

 

Home show

 

School

 

Church

 

MDEQ

 

Fair

 

MGSP

 

Central UP. water resource

 

p—op—op—i—np—‘pdwp—n

DNR flyer or US Forrest
Dept.

 

 

 

 

Community outreach l

 

94

APPENDIX E

Figure l

 

95

Figure 1. Behavior flow chart: Major and minor variables involved in environmental

citizenship behavior
(Hungerford and Volk, I990)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entry-level l Ownership , l Empowerment , I
variables variables variables C
i
t
i
Major variable Major variables Major variables Z
e
Environmental In-depth Knowledge of and 11
sensitivity knowledge about skill in using S
issues environmental h
action strategies 1
Personal p
investment in Locus of control
issues and the (expectancy of B
environment reinforcement) I'i
Intention to act 3
i
0
Minor variables Minor variables Minor variable r
Knowledge of Knowledge of the In-depth
ecology consequences of knowledge
behavior-both about issues
Androgyny positive and
negafive
Attitudes toward
pollution, A personal
technology, and commitment to
economics issue resolution

 

 

 

96

 

REFERENCES

97

REFERENCES

Axelrod, L. J. 1994. Balancing personal needs with environmental preservation:
Identifying the values that guide decisions in ecological dilemmas. Journal of
Social Issues, 50(3):85-104.

Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Borden, R. J. and A. P. Schettino. 1979. Determinants of environmentally responsible
behavior. Journal of Environmental Education. lO(4):35-39.

' Browner, C. M. 1995. Why environmental education?: It is critical to maintaining our
quality oflife. EPA Journal, 21(2).

Chafee, J.H. 1995. Preparing for the next century: Public understanding is critical. EPA
Journal, 21(2).

Derksen, L. and J. Gartrell. 1993. The social context of recycling. American Sociological
Review, 58:434-442.

Fowler, F. J. Jr. 1993. Survey Research Methods: Second edition. Newbury Park, CA,
USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Funding: Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program. (2001, July 24). [On-line].
Available: http://www.mda.state.mi.us/environm/groundwater/fund/index.html

Grob, A. 1995. A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavior. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 15(3):209-220.

Hammitt, J. P. 1995. Responsible environmental behavior: Metaphoric transference of
minimum-impact ideology. Master’s thesis. University of Montana.

Hines, J. M., H. Hungerford, & A. Tomera. 1987. Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental
Education, 18(2):l-8.

Holsman, R. H. 2000. Groundwater awareness and behaviors among Michigan
homeowners: An evaluation of homeowner programs 2000. Center for Evaluative
Studies, East Lansing, MI.

Holsman, R., K. Linderman, D. Krueger, and M. Suvedi. 2000. Michigan citizens’

knowledge, attitudes, and groundwater stewardship practices: A longitudinal
study. Center for Evaluative Studies, East Lansing, MI.

98

 

Home Assessment System. 1999. Home*A*Syst: Home Assessment Guide. [Manual].

Hungerford, H. R. and T. L. Volk. 1990. Changing leamer behavior through
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3):8-21.

Lansana, F. 1993. A comparative analysis of curbside recycling behavior in urban and
suburban communities. Professional Geographer, 45(2):]69-179.

Magnus, V. J ., P. Maritnez,, & R. Pedauye. 1997. Analysis of environmental concepts
and attitudes among biology degree students. Journal of Environmental
Education, 29(1):28-33.

Mrazek, R. 1993. Through Which Looking Glass? Defining Environmental Education
Research. In Alternative Paradigms in Environmental Education
Research . R. Mrazek (Ed.). Monograph Volume VIII. North American
Association for Environmental Education. Troy, Ohio, 9-18.

National Environmental Education Advisory Council. 1996. Report assessing
environmental education in the United States and the implementation of the
national environmental education act of 1990. Prepared for Congress by the
NEEAC. US. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Education
Division, Washington DC.

National Environmental Education & Training F oundation/Roper Survey. 1997, May.
National Environmental Education & Training Foundation/Roper Survey. 1998, May.

Negra, C. and R. E. Manning. 1997. Incorporating environmental behavior, ethics, and
values into nonformal environmental education programs. Journal of
Environmental Education, 28(2): 10-21 .

Oskamp, S., M. J. Harrington, T. C. Edwards, D. L. Sherwood, S. M. Okuda and D. C.
Swanson. 1991. Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment
and behavior, 23(4):494-519.

Pitzer, R. and S. Meyer. 1996. Older learners and self efficacy. Minnesota Extension
Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.cyfc.umn.edu/Parenting/Familylife/olderleamers.html

Pooley, J .A. and M. O’Connor. 2000. Environmental educatiOn and attitudes: Emotions
and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior; Thousand Oaks,

32(5):711-723.

99

Ruskey, A. 1995. State Profiles in Environmental Education: The trend is toward
comprehensive programs. EPA Journal, 21(2).

Salant, P. and D. Dillman. 1994. How to conduct your own survey. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Savina, Gail. 1997. Affecting behavior change. Pollution Prevention Northwest.
[On-line]. Available: http://www.pprc.org/pprc/pubs/newslets/news0397.html

Schultz, P. W., S. Oskamp and T. Mainieri. 1995. Who recycles and when: A review of
personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
15(2):105-121.

State of Michigan: Consolidate plan for 1995 executive summary. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.hud.gov/cpes/mi/statemi.html

Suvedi, M., D. Krueger, A. Shrestha, and D. Bettinghouse. 2000. Michigan citizens’
knowledge and perceptions about groundwater. Journal of Environmental
Education, 31(2): 16-21.

Trisler, C. E. 1993. Global issues and environmental education. ERIC/CSMEE Digest.
(ED 359 051)

Vining, J. and A. Ebreo. 1990. What makes a Recycler? Environment and Behavior,
22(1):55-73.

Volk, T. L. and W. McBeth. 1997. Environmental literacy in the United States. North
American Association for Environmental Education. Washington DC.

100