, _ . . ~ . . .. ._ . . ﬁgﬁmﬂm
. . . wﬂﬁ

5&4): .. .
_ . . . ﬂ

«Jain-“n.

.;

. .1...
. , IO. , 1,.
$153.5.“ invwbn...m..x
$4.6m

..
m“. G

 

.. E is...

a. in 5.931

a. irilzuin .
{$1.1

 

 

 

.. a\ ‘ .3
VIEWBKII I {1.03.151 «17‘! A. 356! .3. ‘Olvallvnﬁt ‘0 “y :1 .
.u‘L: . 3' (11¢:qhézﬂt w: _ . . I... I

‘ . , . . 1 xi:

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Attitudes, behavior, and communication preferences of

Michigan agricultural landowners: Implications for water

quality and the effectiveness of watershed conservation
programs

presented by

Jennifer Leigh Howell

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

 

' V

Major professor

lam/02»

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

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
% University

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOR, AND COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES OF
MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL LANDOWNERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR WATER
QUALITY AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WATERSHED CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS
By

Jennifer Leigh Howell

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

2003

ABSTRACT
ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOR, AND COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES OF
MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL LANDOWNERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR WATER
QUALITY AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WATERSHED CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS
By

Jennifer Leigh Howell

In Michigan, as in many other states, agriculture comprises one of the leading
sources of water quality impairment of rivers and lakes (USEPA, 2000). To address this
concern, landowners ﬁom the Gun River, Lake Macatawa, North Branch Flint River, and
Upper Thomapple watersheds were recruited to complete a survey instrument or
participate in a focus group discussion to determine agricultural landowners’ information
needs, attitudes, behaviors, and communication strategy preferences. Results ﬁ'om this
study indicate that the importance respondents associate with watershed conservation
issues is inﬂuenced by respondents’ age, level of education, and farming status. How
informed respondents feel they are about watershed conservation issues depends on
respondents’ farming status, farm size, and watershed residence. In addition,
respondents’ preference for the Internet as a communication strategy is inﬂuenced by
respondents’ age, level of education, gross annual income level, and Internet access.
Furthermore, respondents’ level of feeling informed about watershed conservation issues
and level of feeling satisﬁed with the water quality in their watershed affect their
adOption 0f speciﬁc best management practices. Results from this study have the
Potential to improve the effectiveness of watershed conservation programs resulting in

imlJl’Oved water quality in Michigan’s agricultural watersheds.

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to those who have fallen victim to my studies: the under-
appreciated provider of cookies and milk; the wise, non-intrusive supporter; and the noisy
dishwasher.

Thanks go out to my loving husband, Ben who sacrificed so much so I could
attend to my life goals and aspirations. Thank you for often holding down the fort and
for providing the joy and proper perspective I needed to maintain my sanity throughout
this project. Thanks also go out to my two devoted and supportive parents. I have never
taken for granted all the times you two did without to make my dreams possible. I thank

you both for always putting my education, my future, and my happiness ﬁrst!

iii

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to sincerely thank my major advisor, Dr. Geoffrey Habron for his
mentorship and commitment to our project the past two years. The time Geoff invested
in weekly meetings and the challenges and encouragement he generously offered have
significantly increased my confidence and wisdom. It has truly been my pleasure and
privilege to take on the adventure of being Geoff’s first graduate student.

Thanks are also due to my committee members, Dr. Angela Mertig, and Dr. Luke
Reese for their critical insights and advise. Throughout the course of this project, I have
valued working with the project team and would like to express my appreciation to each
of them for all the time and work they invested in this research project. Thanks go out to:
Bill Northcott and Sharon Vennix for their work on the agricultural engineering
component of the project; Lois Wolfson for her water quality expertise; Charles Gould,
Jane Herbert, and Doug Carter for their insights about Extension and effective
communication with agricultural landowners; and Ling—Fang Zeng and Ning Liu for
developing the project web site.

I also want to thank the agricultural landowners of the Gun River, Lake
Macatawa, North Branch Flint River, Rice Creek, Stony Creek, and Upper Thomapple
watersheds who shared their experiences and valuable information necessary to meet the
goals of this project. Funding for research, tuition, and a 2+ year stipend was generously
provided by a United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service grant awarded to my major advisor. Lastly, I want to

“give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; His love endures forever” (Psalm 107: 1).

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1
The Problem of Non-point Source Pollution ...................................... 1
Effects Of Sedimentation on Aquatic Ecosystems ................................ 2
Effects of Excess Nutrients and Pathogens on Aquatic Ecosystems ........... 3
Effects of Herbicides and Pesticides on Aquatic Ecosystems .................. 4
Effects of Water Temperature Change on Aquatic Ecosystems ................ 5

J ustifrcation for Research ............................................................ 6
Discussion on how Thesis is Part of a Greater Project ........................... 7

Thesis Objective and Research Questions ......................................... 8
Potential Implications of this Study ................................................. 10
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................... 11
Agricultural Landowners’ Perceptions of Water Quality Issues ................ 11

The Link Between Farmers Attitudes and Behaviors ............................ 12
Management Problem ................................................................ 12
Factors Inﬂuencing Best Management Practice Adoption ...................... 13

Inform Farmers about Existing Environmental Problems and How
They Make Direct Contributions to the Problem ............... l4

Teach Farmers about Existing Technologies and Convince Farmers
that These Farm Technologies and BMPs will Improve

Water Quality ........................................................ 15
Recognize the Value of the Information Source to the Farmer ........ 16
Consider Ability-tO-Act Factors ............................................ 17
Recognize Values and Attitudes Farmers have about

the Environment ..................................................... 19
Consider Farmers’ Perceived Risks Of Adoption ........................ 20

Take Into Account the Relevance of BMPs or Farm Technologies
To Farmer .............................................................. 22
Agricultural Landowners’ Information Needs ..................................... 22
Communication Strategy Preference of Agricultural Landowners ............. 24
Preference for Traditional Communication Strategies ........................... 26
Preference for Computerized Communication Strategies ........................ 27
CHAPTER 3 METHODS ..................................................................... 32
Survey Data Collection ............................................................... 32
Survey Data Analysis ................................................................ 34
Non-response Bias ........................................................... 35

Focus Group Data Collection ........................................................

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS .......................................................................
Watershed Demographics ...............................................................
Overall Survey Respondent Demographics ........................................
Survey Respondent Demographics by Watershed ................................
Farming Operations (by Watershed) ......................................
Farming Status (by Watershed) ............................................
Farm Size (by Watershed) ..................................................
Summary of Findings for Differences Among Watersheds .....................
North Branch Flint River Watershed ......................................
Gun River Watershed ........................................................
Lake Macatawa Watershed .................................................
Upper Thomapple Watershed ..............................................
Non-response Bias ....................................................................
Comparison of Early and Late Respondents .............................
Research Question 1a: How Important are Watershed Conservation
Issues to Survey Respondents? ............................................
Summary .....................................................................
Demographics that have a Si gnifrcant Effect on the
Importance of Watershed Conservation Issues ..................
Demographics that do not have a Signiﬁcant Effect on the
Importance of Watershed Conservation Issues .................
Research Question 1b: How Satisfied are Survey Respondents with
the Water Quality in their Watershed? ....................................
Summary .....................................................................
Research Question 1c: How Informed do Survey Respondents Feel
they are About Watershed Conservation Issues? ........................
Summary .....................................................................
Demographics that have a Si gnifrcant Effect on how Informed
Respondents Feel they are about Watershed Conservation
Issues .................................................................
Demographics that do not have a Significant Effect on
how Informed Respondents Feel they are about
Watershed Conservation Issues ...................................
Water Quality Information Needs of Respondents .....................
Research Question 2a: What Percentage of Survey Respondents
Adopts Best Management Practices? ....................................
Effective Adoption Rate of BMPS .......................................
What Incentives would Encourage Respondents’ Adoption
Of Best Management Practices? ...................................
What Factors would Hinder Respondents’ Adoption of Best
Management Practices? .............................................
Research Question 2b: How does the Perceived Importance of
Watershed Conservation Issues Affect Survey Respondents’
Willingness to Adopt Best Management Practices? .....................

vi

36

40
4O
4 l
42
43
44
45
45
45
46
46
46
47
47

49
49

50

54

56
56

62
62

66

75
75

76

77

79

Research Question 2c: How does Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction

with the Water Quality in their Watershed Inﬂuence their

Willingness to Adopt Best Management Practices? ..................... 81
Research Question 2d: What Effect does Feeling Informed about

Watershed Conservation Issues have on Survey Respondents’

Willingness to Adopt Best Management Practices? ..................... 83
Summary of Research Question 2 .................................................. 85
Research Question 3a: Do Survey Respondents Prefer Traditional

or Computerized Communication Strategies? ........................... 85

Summary ..................................................................... 85
Research Question 3b: What Effect does Watershed Residence have

on Respondents’ Preference for Communication Strategies? .......... 87

Summary ...................................................................... 87

Research Question 4a: Is Computer and Internet Preference Related
to Age, Level of Education, Gross Annual Income,

Farming Status, Farm Size, or Farming Operation? .................... 88
Summary ..................................................................... 88
Demographics that have an Effect on Respondents’ Preference

for Computers and the Internet ................................... 89
Demographics that do not have an Effect on Respondents’

Preference for Computers and the Internet ...................... 94

Research Question 4b: Does Internet Access Inﬂuence Survey
Respondents’ Preference for the Internet as a Communication

Strategy to Learn about Watershed Conservation Issues? .............. 96
Summary ...................................................................... 96
What Effect does Internet Access have on Respondents’

Preference for the Internet? ........................................ 97

What Effect does Location of Internet Access have on
Respondents’ Preference for the Internet as a
Communication Strategy? .......................................... 98
Research Question 5a: What Factors Inﬂuence Focus Group
Participants’ Use of the Internet and Web Sites to Learn
More about Watershed Conservation Issues and Best

Management Practices? ...................................................... 100
Background Information of Focus Group Participants ................. 100
Focus Group Participants’ Overall Impression of the

Project Web Site ..................................................... 101
Positive Attributes of a Web Site .......................................... 101
Negative Attributes of a Web Site ......................................... 102

Research Question 5b: What would Focus Group Participants
Specifically Recommend to Improve Web Site Content

and Usability? ................................................................ 103
Examples of Specific Quotes from Participants on how Web Site

Designers Could Improve Web Site Content and Usability ............ 105
Overall Chapter Summary Results ................................................. 106

Attitudes about Water Quality and Conservation Issues ............... 106

vii

Incentives for BMP Adoption ..............................................
Effect of Attitudes on BMP Adoption ....................................
Communication Strategy Preferences ......................................
Website Design ...............................................................

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................
Limitations of the Study ..............................................................
Generalizability ...............................................................
Over-sampling Bias ..........................................................
Non-response Bias ...........................................................
Self-reported Data ...........................................................
Discussion of Background Information from Survey Respondents ............
Factors Inﬂuencing Survey Respondents’ Attitudes and Perceptions
about Watershed Conservation Issues and the Water
Quality in their Watersheds ................................................
Effect of Demographics on Importance of Watershed
Conservation Issues .................................................
Other Potential Factors Inﬂuencing Respondents’ Level
of Concern for Watershed Conservation Issues .................
Factors Other than Demographics Potentially Inﬂuencing
Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction with the Water
Quality in their Watershed ..................................................
Effect of Demographics on Respondents’ Level of Feeling
Informed about Watershed Conservation Issues ................
Other Potential Factors Inﬂuencing Respondents’ Level
Of Feeling Informed about Watershed Conservation
Issues ..................................................................
Factors Inﬂuencing Survey Respondents’ Adoption Rate of Best
Management Practices ......................................................
Respondents’ Overall Effective Adoption Rate of Best
Management Practices .............................................
Factors Other than Demographics Potentially Inﬂuencing
Respondents’ Effective Adoption Rates of BMPs .............
Effect of Importance Of Watershed Conservation Issues on
Respondents’ Effective Adoption Rate of Best
Management Practices .............................................
Effect of Satisfaction with Water Quality on Respondents’
Effective Adoption Rate of Best Management Practices ......
Effect of Feeling Informed about Watershed Conservation
Issues on Respondents’ Effective Adoption Rate
of Best Management Practices ....................................
Factors Inﬂuencing Survey Respondents’ Preference for
Technological Communication Strategies ................................
Survey Respondents’ Overall Preference for Communication
Strategies .............................................................

viii

106
107
107
108
110
110
110
110
110
112
113
115
115

116

117

119

120

122

122

123

124

125

126

127

127

Effect of Demographics on Survey Respondents’ Preference

for Technological Communication Strategies ................... 128
Other Potential Factors Inﬂuencing Survey Respondents’
Preference for Technological Communication Strategies. . . 131

Factors Inﬂuencing Survey Respondents’ Use of the
Internet to Learn about Watershed Conservation

Issues and Best Management Practices ........................... 132
Recommendations ..................................................................... 133
Increasing Agricultural Landowners’ Level Of Concern for
Watershed Conservation Issues ................................... 133
Increasing Agricultural Landowners’ Level of Feeling
Informed about Watershed Conservation Issues ................ 134
Improving Agricultural Landowners’ Adoption Rates Of
Best Management Practices ....................................... 136
Increasing Agricultural Landowners’ Preference for the
Internet as a Communication Strategy ........................... 141
CHAPTER 6 IMPLICATIONS .............................................................. 144
Implications for the Effectiveness Of Watershed Conservation,
Agricultural Education, and Extension .................................... 144
Implications for Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds ..................... 146
Future Research Needs ............................................................... 150
Thesis Summary ........................................................................ 153
LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................... 156
APPENDIX A: Cover letter and survey instrument .................................... 163

APPENDIX B: Consent forms, background information Sheet and script
for focus group round-table discussion ............................................. 176

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table l. The average mean ranks of the importance of communication strategies
to agricultural landowners in previous studies ...........................
Table 2. Summary of watershed demographics ...........................................
Table 3. Summary of survey respondent demographics .................................
Table 4. Summary of survey respondent demographics by watershed ................
Table 5. Respondents’ primary farming operations by watershed ......................
Table 6. Farming status of survey respondents by watershed ...........................
Table 7. Number of acres in each watershed owned or rented by survey
respondents ....................................................................
Table 8. Comparisons of early and late respondents’ responses to survey
questions to determine non-response bias .................................
Table 9. Additional comparisons of early and late respondents’ responses
to survey questions to determine non—response bias .....................
Table 10. The effect of respondents’ age on the importance Of watershed
conservation issues ...........................................................
Table 11. The effect of respondents’ level of education on the importance
of watershed conservation issues ..........................................
Table 12. The effect of respondents’ farming status on the
importance of watershed conservation issues ............................
Table 13. The effect of respondents’ gross annual income level on the
importance Of watershed conservation issues ...........................
Table 14. The effect of respondents’ farm size on the importance of
watershed conservation issues .............................................
Table 15. The effect of respondents’ primary farming operation on the
importance of watershed conservation issues ............................
Table 16. The effect of respondents’ watershed residence on the
importance of watershed conservation issues ............................
Table 17. The effect of age on respondents’ level of satisfaction with
the water quality in their watershed .......................................
Table 18. The effect of education level on respondents’ level of
satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed ...................
Tab le 19. The effect of gross annual income on respondents’ level of
satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed ...................
Table 20. The effect of farming status on respondents’ level of
satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed ...................
Table 21. The effect Of farm size on respondents’ level of satisfaction
with the water quality in their watershed .................................
Table 22. The effect Of primary farming Operation on respondents’ level Of
satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed ...................
Table 23. The effect of watershed residence on respondents’ level of
satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed ...................
Table 24. The effect of farming status on how informed respondents
feel they are about watershed conservation issues .......................
Table 25. The effect Of farm size on how informed respondents feel

26
4o
42
43
45
45
48
48
51
52
53
54
55
55
56
57
58
59
6o
61
62
62

64

they are about watershed conservation issues ............................
Table 26. The effect of watershed residence on how informed respondents
feel they are about watershed conservation issues .......................
Table 27. The effect of age on how informed respondents feel they are
about watershed conservation issues .......................................
Table 28. The effect of education level on how informed respondents feel
they are about watershed conservation issues ............................
Table 29. The effect of gross annual income level on how informed
respondents feel they are about watershed conservation issues ........
Table 30. The effect of primary farming operation on how informed
respondents feel they are about watershed conservation issues ........
Table 31. Percentage Of respondents who are unfamiliar with various
conservation practices .......................................................
Table 32. The percentage of respondents from each watershed who
requested information pertaining to wildlife habitat
and restoration ................................................................
Table 33. The percentage of respondents from each watershed who
requested information pertaining to crops ................................
Table 34. The percentage Of respondents from each watershed who
requested information pertaining to livestock ............................
Table 35. The percentage of respondents from each watershed who
requested information pertaining to erosion and water quality. . . . . .
Table 36. The number of times respondents sought advise from an
agency or organization in the last year ....................................
Table 37. The effect frequency of seeking advice has on how informed
respondents feel they are about watershed conservation issues ........
Table 38. The effect of importance of watershed conservation issues on
respondents’ effective adoption Of best management practices ........
Table 39. The effect of satisfaction with water quality on respondents’
effective adoption of best management practices ........................
Table 40. The effect of feeling informed about watershed conservation issues
on respondents’ effective adoption of best management practices.
Table 41. The effect of watershed residence on respondents’ preference for
communication strategies ...................................................
Table 42. The effect age has on respondents’ preference for
communication strategies ...................................................
Table 43. The effect education level has on respondents’ preference for
communication strategies ...................................................
Table 44. The effect gross annual income level has on respondents’
preference for communication strategies .................................
Table 45. The effect farming status has on respondents’ preference for
communication strategies ...................................................
Table 46. The effect farm size has on respondents’ preference for
communication strategies ...................................................
Table 47. The effect farming operation has on respondents’ preference for
communication strategies ...................................................

xi

65

66

66

67

68

69

70

71

71

72

72

73

74

80

82

88

90

91

93

94

95

95

Table 48. The effect Internet access has on respondents’ preference for the

Internet as a communication strategy ...................................... 98
Table 49. The effect location of Internet access has on respondents’

preference for the Internet as a communication strategy ............... 99
Table 50. Background information of focus group participants ........................ 100

Table 51. Focus group participants’ most preferred aspects of the

project web site ..............................................................
Table 52. Focus group participants’ least preferred aspects of the

project web site ...............................................................
Table 53. Specific suggestions focus group participants had for improving

the project web site ..........................................................
Table 54. Summary of demographic characteristics having a significant

effect on: level of importance respondents give to watershed

conservation issues, respondents’ satisfaction with the

water quality in their watershed, respondents’ level of feeling

informed about water quality issues, and respondents’

preferences for communication strategies ................................. 109

102

103

105

xii

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Technology Acceptance Model (Hubona & Geitz, 1999) ............... 30
Figure 2. Overall mean importance of various watershed conservation
issues to survey respondents ................................................ 50
Figure 3. Respondents’ level Of satisfaction with the water quality in their
watershed ..................................................................... 57
Figure 4. The level that respondents feel informed about watershed
conservation issues .......................................................... 63
Figure 5. The percentage of respondents who requested more information
about specific watershed conservation practices ........................ 70
Figure 6. The effective adoption rate of various best management practices. . . . . . 76
Figure 7. The percentage of respondents who feel various incentives
would encourage their adoption of best management practices ....... 77
Figure 8. The percentage of respondents who feel various factors
would hinder their adoption Of best management practices ............ 78
Figure 9. Survey respondents’ preference for traditional or technological
communication strategies to Ieam about watershed
conservation practices ....................................................... 87
Figure 10. The location where survey respondents have Intemet access .............. 97
Figure 11: Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) ................... 140
Figure 12. How survey and focus group results ultimately result in
improved water quality within agricultural watersheds ................. 145

xiii

Chapter One: Introduction

The Problem of Non-Point Source Pollution

Water pollution in the United States is a common and widespread ecological
dilemma. Currently most water pollution is attributed to nonpoint sources (US.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1996). Nonpoint source pollution arises across wide
areas, such as agricultural fields throughout a watershed (Nerbonne and Vondracek,
2001). When it comes to assigning blame for nonpoint source pollution, ﬁngers have
been pointed at agriculture more than anywhere else (Lewis, 1996). Agriculture is
currently the leading source of water pollution and a contributing factor to impairment of
70% Of streams considered impaired in the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory (U .8.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1996). According to the Environmental Protection
Agency’s 1992 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress, agriculture also
affects 56% of the assessed lakes which report impairment and 43% of the estuaries.

Some agricultural practices have serious, adverse effects on Michigan streams.
Increased surface water runoff and sediment delivery to streams from tilled lands
probably have the biggest impact (Gaylord et al., 1995). In fact, 1.9 billion tons of soil is
lost to wind or water erosion in the United States each year (USDA National Resources
Inventory, 1997). A significant fraction of this eroded soil is transported into streams
where it adversely modifies water clarity, stream bed type, and channel morphology
before it is eventually deposited in lakes, reservoirs, marshes, harbors, or eventually the
Great Lakes (USDA National Resources Inventory, 1997). In addition, chemical
fertilizers, animal waste, herbicides, and pesticides drain into streams from agricultural

lands (Gaylord et al., 1995). Furthermore, livestock have been implicated in the

degradation of stream bank soils and vegetation, which affect channel morphology, water
chemistry, and ﬁsh and aquatic insect habitat (Kauffman and Krueger, 1984, Strand and
Merritt, 1999).

There are numerous nonpoint source pollutants resulting specifically from
improperly managed agricultural activities that adversely affect surface waters and
overall watershed health. The most prominent of these nonpoint sources are:
sedimentation, excess nutrients (specifically nitrogen and phosphorus) and pathogens,
pesticides and herbicides, and other secondary effects such as increased water

temperature (Lewis, 1996).

Effects of Sedimentation on Aquatic Ecosystems

After bacterial contaminations and pathogens, the most common agricultural
pollutant found in streams is sediment, which impairs 84,503 river and stream miles (US.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). Agricultural practices can contribute sediment
to streams in several ways. In row-crop agriculture, bare soil between rows is easily
eroded and can be transported to streams via runoff (Waters & Hebel, 1982). Grazing in
riparian areas can reduce vegetation on stream banks, making them more susceptible to
erosion (Strand & Merritt, 1999). Furthermore, humans are responsible for most of the
sedimentation that enters North American streams, including vast amounts generated by
the activities of cattle (Waters & Hebel, 1982). Although some sediment input to streams
is natural, sedimentation in excess of natural erosion is recognized as the most prevalent
and damaging pollution source in North American streams (Waters & Hebel, 1982).
More United States stream habitat is degraded by sedimentation than by any other form

of environmental pollution (Waters & Hebel, 1982).

Reductions in sediment input from agriculture are important to stream biota
because many invertebrates and fishes require a streambed relatively free of ﬁne
sediment (Waters & Hebel, 1982)). Excess amounts of sediment deposited in the stream
impact aquatic ecosystems by: increasing the turbidity of the water (Lewis, 1996),
reducing transmission of sunlight needed for photosynthesis (Lewis, 1996), interfering
with animal behavior dependent on sight (foraging, mating, and escape from predators)
(Nerbonne & Vondracek, 2001), impeding digestion and respiration (by gill abrasion in
ﬁsh) (Lewis, 1996), reducing dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water (Berkman &
Rabeni, 1987), and by degrading spawning habitat by covering eggs which may suffocate
(Lewis, 1996) or lead to fry that develop abnormally or are unable to emerge from the

buried gravel bed (Berkman & Rabeni, 1987).

Effects of Excess Nutrients and Pathogens on Aquatic Ecosystems

An overabundance Of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus is another of the
most serious problems facing the nation’s lakes, estuaries, rivers, and streams (Lewis,
1996). While nutrients are essential ingredients in the food cycle and contribute to
primary production of many aquatic plants, an overload of nutrients from manure and
fertilizers carried into the water can have numerous adverse effects. One of the most
devastating effects of excess nutrients on aquatic ecosystems is eutrophication. Excess
nutrients can promote the overgrowth of algae and other aquatic plants which deplete
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water when plants die and decompose. The
reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations often result in the suffocation Of fish, shellfish
and a wide range of aquatic invertebrates which fill essential roles in the life cycle as

food sources (Lewis, 1996). In shallow areas, the overabundance Of surface plants block

the light needed by underwater vegetation which provide food and nesting grounds for
waterfowl, crustaceans, and ﬁsh (Lewis, 1996).

Livestock manure and urine input into streams also can affect aquatic insects
through the effects Of water-chemistry changes, increased fecal coliform counts, and
consequent biological responses (Strand and Merritt, 1999). Livestock excrement
deposited along stream banks and directly to channels elevates stream water
concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen (Lemly, 1982). When animals are allowed
continuous, unrestricted access to streams and lakes, manure ends up in the water and can
result in increased production by heterotrophic and autotrophic microbes that, when
current velocities are low, can drastically reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations
(Fleischner, 1994). Decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations may eventually lead to

the suffocation of various fish and other aquatic organisms.

Effects of Herbicides and Pesticides on Aquatic Ecosystems

Chemical compounds used on agricultural lands are easily washed into ground
and surface waters by rainfall, melting snow, and irrigation ﬂows (Lewis, 1996). These
chemical compounds can also be transported in the air—directly during application, or
indirectly, through transpiration or volatilization from the surface of vegetation, water,
and the ground (Lewis, 1996). Depending on the compounds involved, pesticides carried
into the water can: (1) cause direct kills of fish and other aquatic organisms, interrupting
the food chain, (2) cause sub-lethal effects on reproduction, respiration, growth, and
development, (3) cause an increase in an organism’s vulnerability to other environmental

stresses such as disease or predation, (4) cause cancer, mutations or fetal deformities, (5)

inhibit photosynthesis in non-target plants, and (6) can bioaccumulate in an organism’s

tissues and be biomagnified through the food chain.

Effects of Water Temperature Change on Aquatic Ecosystems

Increased water temperatures caused by habitat modiﬁcation (such as tree
removal for cattle grazing) can be considered a pollutant to aquatic ecosystems as cooling
effects of natural shade are limited or removed (Lewis, 1996). Livestock grazing,
however, does not always cause pronounced changes in stream water temperatures but it
can result in increased thermal variation and maximum temperatures (Kauffman and
Krueger, 1984). These temperature effects are largely the result of increased solar input
that follows vegetation removal and bank trampling by livestock (Kauffman and Krueger,
1984). Unnaturally elevated temperatures can affect the biological processes which take
place in rivers and streams. In the relatively constant thermal environment of ﬂowing
water, increases as slight as 2 degrees Celsius can affect the physiology and alter
distributions of sensitive species (Sweeney and Vannote, 1996). For instance, some fish
species will not spawn in streams if the water temperature in their natural spawning
grounds is increased by as little as one or two degrees (Lewis, 1996).

Riparian-forest clearing and subsequent pasturin g also may affect aerial adult
aquatic insects by eliminating shaded resting structures that are utilized extensively and,
perhaps, required by many species. Most holometabolous aquatic insects rely on
resources stored during the larval period to complete their life cycles. Therefore,
reduction or elimination of cool, humid resting sites could limit the reproductive potential
of aerial adult insects as a result of compromised conservation of resources sequestered

during the larval stage (Strand and Merritt, 1999).

Justification for Research

In 1987, amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) ordered states to monitor
nonpoint source pollution and develop management plans to reduce nonpoint source
pollution through best management practices (BMPs). Previous research widely
acknowledges that regulation will only provide some of the solutions and individual
actions are essential when it comes to getting nonpoint source problems under control
(Lewis, 1996). Therefore, because improperly managed agricultural practices have
signiﬁcant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems, and because individual action is the
means by which environmental improvements can be made, there is a need to
communicate with agricultural landowners about water quality issues such as soil erosion
into streams, excess nutrients, reduced and degraded fish habitat, eutrophication, and
bacterial contamination.

Before communicating with agricultural landowners about water quality issues,
research must ﬁrst determine agricultural producers’ knowledge about and level of
concern for watershed conservation issues. Once these variables have been determined,
there is an additional need to establish which communication strategies are most effective
in communicating with agricultural landowners about watershed conservation practices.
Furthermore, additional research is necessary to establish how current extension practices
(e.g., the use of Internet to inform landowners about BMPs) could be improved to meet
the informational needs of Michigan’s agricultural producers. The research presented in
this thesis aims to determine the informational needs and preferences of Michigan’s

agricultural producers so that agricultural communicators and Extension professionals

may more effectively educate agricultural landowners about watershed conservation
issues and Blvﬂ’s to prevent or reduce the contamination of aquatic ecosystems.

Previous research (Bruening, 1992; Rollins et al., 1991) determined various water
quality information sources and communication strategies used by agricultural
landowners. However, these efforts neglected to assess the audiences’ preference for
these strategies. In response, results from this thesis should reveal agricultural
landowners’ preference for various water quality communication strategies. The project
reported in this thesis aims to help Extension reach its long-range and ultimate mission to
“inﬂuence its clientele through education and to use the results of scientiﬁc technology to
improve their quality of life” which should prevent and lessen the impacts of adverse
agricultural practices ultimately resulting in improved water quality within Michigan’s

agricultural watersheds (Findlay et al., 1993, p.23).

Discussion on How Thesis is Part of a Greater Project

This thesis is part of a greater research project funded by a USDA-CREES grant
awarded to my advisor, Dr. Geoffrey Habron. The title of the research project is:
Information Exchange, Citizen Monitoring and Agricultural Best Management
Practices. The goal of the overall research project is to determine more effective
extension communication and agricultural best management practices to improve water
quality in agricultural watersheds. The objectives of the overall research project are to:
(1) determine the effectiveness of water quality communication strategies, (2) determine
the variability of volunteer water quality monitoring, and (3) develop spatially explicit

models to evaluate effectiveness of agricultural BMPS. While interested and to some

degree involved in each component of the overall research project, I concentrated this
research on determining the attitudes and behaviors of agricultural landowners towards
watershed conservation issues as part of determining the effectiveness of water quality

communication strategies.

Thesis Objective and Research Questions

The overall purpose of this study is to determine research-based water quality
communication strategies while establishing the most efficient methods of performing
watershed extension in order to improve water quality within select agricultural
watersheds in Michigan. This thesis speciﬁcally addresses the need to determine: (1)
Michigan’s agricultural landowners’ attitudes towards and knowledge about conservation
issues and the water quality in their watershed; (2) agricultural landowners’ best
management practice adoption behavior; (3) the communication preferences of
Michigan’s agricultural landowners; (4) how independent variables (such as age, income,
level of education, and farming status) inﬂuence the degree to which farmers utilize and
rely upon web sites to learn about watershed conservation issues and BMPS; and (5) how
to develop more effective web sites that will meet the informational needs of Michigan’s
agricultural landowners. In order to improve the effectiveness of watershed conservation
programs and enhance the water quality in Michigan’s agricultural watersheds, the study

will investigate the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What are survey respondents’ perceptions and attitudes
about watershed conservation issues and the water quality in their watershed?

la: How important are watershed conservation issues to survey respondents?

1b: How satisﬁed are survey respondents with the water quality in their
watershed?

1c: How informed do survey respondents feel they are about watershed
conservation issues?

Research Question 2: What attitudinal factors influence respondents’ level of
BMP adoption?

2a: What percentage Of survey respondents adopt BMPs?

2b: How does the perceived importance of watershed conservation issues affect
survey respondents’ willingness to adopt BMPS?

2c: How does survey respondents’ satisfaction with the water quality in their
watershed inﬂuence their willingness to adopt BMPs?

2d: What effect does feeling informed about watershed conservation issues have
on survey respondents’ willingness to adopt BMPS?

Research Question 3: Which communication strategies do survey respondents
prefer to learn more about watershed conservation issues and best management
practices?

3a: DO survey respondents prefer traditional or computerized communication
strategies?

3b: What effect does watershed residence have on respondents’ preference for
communication strategies?

Research Question 4: What factors inﬂuence the degree to which respondents
utilize and rely upon the Internet to learn more about watershed conservation
issues and best management practices?

4a: Is computer and Internet preference related to age, level Of education, gross
annual income, farming status, farm size, or primary farnring operation?

4b: Does Internet access inﬂuence survey respondents’ preference for the Internet
as a communication strategy to learn about watershed conservation issues?

Research Question 5: How can one develop a more effective web site that will
meet the informational needs of agricultural landowners?

5a: What factors inﬂuence focus group participants’ use of the Internet and web
sites to learn more about watershed conservation issues and BMPS?

5b: What would focus group participants speciﬁcally recommend to improve web
site content and usability?

Potential Implications of this Study

Findings from this research project have the potential to improve the ability of
Extension and agricultural education programs to efﬁciently communicate with
Michigan’s agricultural landowners about best management practices and watershed
conservation issues. As a result of this study, Extension professionals and other
agricultural educators should be better equipped to choose the preferred method of
communication for their targeted audience. By more effectively communicating with
agricultural landowners about watershed conservation issues and conservation practices,
farmers’ attitudes about implementing BMPs should become more favorable. Farmers
with more favorable attitudes about BMP implementation could potentially have higher
adoption rates of various watershed conservation practices resulting in improved water

quality in Michigan’s agricultural watersheds.

10

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Agricultural Landowners’ Perceptions of Water Quality Issues

Understanding agricultural landowners’ perceptions about water quality issues is
a prerequisite to encouraging farmers to adopt BMPs and improve water quality
conditions. A review of the literature demonstrates that in general, farmers’ beliefs about
water quality problems are similar to those of the general public. In fact, farmers express
on average, a middle-of-the-road level of concern toward most water quality related
issues as well as pesticide specific issues (Lichtenberg and Zimmerman, 1999). Results
from Lichtenberg and Zimmerman (1999) indicate that, farmers and the general public
typically believe that water quality problems from agricultural chemicals are moderately
serious. Furthermore, farmers’ beliefs about the seriousness of pesticide effects matched
those of the general public (Lichtenberg and Zimmerman, 1994).

In a previous study, farmers indicated that pesticide use is the most serious issue,
followed by soil conservation, fertilizers, and water quality (Bruening, 1991). In a
similar study, only a few farmers did not perceive water quality to be a problem they
must deal with in their farming operation (Bruening, 1992). Findings from Bruening’s
studies also suggest that farmers are uncertain about the seriousness Of environmental
issues such as water quality, fertilizers, and soil conservation. While generally believing
that soil erosion and water quality degradation are problems, farmers often hesitate to
admit that there is any relationship between their farming practices and the national
erosion problem (Christenson and Norris, 1983). These findings are particularly
important when developing communication strategies for use by state and federal

Extension organizations.

11

The Link Between Farmers’ Attitudes and Behaviors

A number of studies have examined an attitude-behavior link such as the effects
of farmers’ attitudes, perceptions, or beliefs about the environment on their willingness to
modify farming practices to protect environmental quality (Lichtenberg & Zimmerman,
1999). For example, Ohio farmers who believed environmental problems to be more
important were more likely to adopt conservation practices such as crop rotation,
retirement of erodible land, grassed waterways, and filter strips (Napier et al., 1986). In
addition, farmers with a stronger conservation ethic exerted greater conservation effort as
measured by the number of different conservation practices adopted (Lynne et al, 1988).
Furthermore, Feather and Amacher (1994) discovered that farmers were more likely to
adopt conservation practices if they believed that such practices would improve water
quality. Intrinsic motivations such as “personal satisfaction derived from being
environmentally responsible” can be effective in inﬂuencing a farmers’ decision to

employ new conservation practices (Jacobson et al., 2003, p. 603).

Management Problem

Approximately 40 percent of the nation’s surface waters are polluted to the extent
that they no longer support their intended uses such as drinking, swimming and ﬁshing
(USEPA, 2000). The major source of this pollution is from non—point sources, and in
many states, one of the major contributors is agriculture. Major pollutants from
agricultural activities include suspended sediment from soil erosion, coliform bacteria,
and resultant decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations from livestock manure and

nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers and pesticides.

l2

The primary reason many environmental problems exist today is the reluctance on
the part of many landowner-Operators to adopt conservation practices (such as BMPs)
and farm technologies at the farm-level (Napier et al., 2000b). In order to improve water
quality in agricultural watersheds, rates of best management practice and farm technology
adoption must increase. Research illustrates that “motivating farmers to adopt [best
management] practices is not easy” (Napier et al., 1984, p.205). Nevertheless, it is
imperative that Extension agents strive to effectively persuade agricultural producers to
adopt conservation practices in order to alleviate some of the environmental problems
currently occurring in agricultural watersheds.

The intent Of this study is to provide Extension agents and agricultural
communicators with the necessary information to effectively persuade agricultural
producers to adopt various farm technologies and BMPs to improve water quality within
agricultural watersheds. Best management practices are becoming increasingly
innovative and it can be difﬁcult to convince farmers Of the environmental and ﬁnancial
beneﬁts inherent to these practices. These research ﬁndings should provide information
to Extension agents and agricultural communicators so they can consider factors affecting
farmers’ adoption of conservation practices and more effectively inform farmers about
farm technologies and BMPs. The ultimate objective of providing information to farmers
is to foster change in behavior or practice, rather than attitudes or beliefs, because only

the former has the potential to benefit the environment (Rhodes et al., 2002).

Factors Inﬂuencing Best Management Practice Adoption
According to previous research, if Extension agents aspire to improve water

quality by convincing agricultural producers to adopt innovative farm technologies and

13

BMPs, they need to: (1) inform farmers about existing environmental problems and how
they make direct contributions to the problem, (2) teach farmers about existing
technologies and convince farmers that these farm technologies and BMPs will improve
water quality, (3) recognize the value of the information source to the farmer, (4)
consider ability-to-act factors, (5) identify the values and attitudes farmers have about the
environment, (6) consider farmers’ perceived risks of adoption, and (7) take into account

the relevance of the BMP or farm technology to the farmer.

Inform Planners about Existing Environmental Problemﬂnd How They Make Direct

Contributions to the Problem

The relationship between information and farmers’ beliefs about environmental
quality (and thus farmers’ compliance with environmental protection measures) is
complex (Lichtenberg & Zimmerman, 1999). Farmers’ beliefs and perceptions about the
environment can inﬂuence their selection of communication strategies. Therefore, the
effect of information depends not only on the form in which the information is presented,
but also on the farmers’ attitudes regarding the sources presenting the information. For
instance, the beliefs farmers hold can inﬂuence the type of information they seek, their
receptivity to the information, and how relevant they consider that information in
decision making (Stern & Dietz, 1994).

In order to address environmental problems and expect agricultural producers to
adopt BMPs and farm technologies, agricultural producers must ﬁrst be made aware that
legitimate environmental problems exist within their watershed. Extension agents should

take on the important role as information providers. Furthermore, Extension agents

14

should do so by offering persuasive information about valid environmental problems
relevant to the farmers’ watershed and their farming practices/farming operation.

In addition to informing agricultural producers about environmental problems,
Extension agents need to convince farmers that they are directly responsible for impaired
water quality. Before they will react to an environmental dilemma, research illustrates
that many agricultural producers must be convinced that their chemicals and livestock are
directly responsible for impairing water quality. Hines et al. (1987) points out that not
only awareness of the existence of a problem but also knowledge on appropriate
strategies to address it, are essential for action to be taken.

Access to information is among the most important predictive factors associated
with adoption behavior. According to Napier et al., (1986) once farmers are informed of
the advantages of using speciﬁc practices, they will be more inclined to adopt the
innovations. Farmers who have interacted with public information sources about BMPs
are signiﬁcantly more likely to use these practices (Lichtenberg & Zimmerman, 1999).
Napier et al. (1986) cites a number of resources about information diffusion that point to

the fact that information is important in the adoption of conservation technologies.

Teach Fgrmers about Existing Technologies and Convince Farmers that These Farm

Technologies and BMPs will Improve Water Quality

Previous research discovered that farmers in Maryland, Minnesota, North
Carolina and Wisconsin were more likely to adopt conservation practices if they believed

that such practices would improve water quality (Feather & Amacher, 1994). Additional

15

research determined that the perceived effectiveness of a conservation practice would
greatly inﬂuence a farmer’s decision on whether to implement a conservation program
(Christensen & Norris, 1983). The traditional diffusion modes studied by Napier et al.
(2000a) argue that adoption of technological innovations will not occur unless potential
adopters become aware that the existing problem can be resolved in a more efficient
manner by new technologies. The diffusion model speculates that potential adopters
must perceive that technological innovations are an improvement over what already
exists or they will not change use patterns. Agricultural producers need to know that the
technologies exist and must be able to recognize their relevance before they will consider
adopting best management practices.

The diffusion model created by Napier et al. (1984) assumes that adoption
behavior is primarily a function Of exposure to information that makes the potential
adopter aware that action Options exist. Such sources of information include formal
education, the mass media, personal contact, participation in formal organizations, and
business contacts. The model hypothesizes that exposure to information about ideas,
technologies, and techniques results in attitudes favorable to the object to be adopted.

Once positive attitudes have developed, adoption follows (Napier et al., 1984).

Recognize the Value of the Information Source to the Fgrmer:

In order to convince agricultural producers about the validity of environmental
problems or to persuade farmers to adopt BMPs or farm technologies, one must inform
the farmers in a manner they feel is valid and trust-worthy. The source Of the information

must be reputable and highly regarded to provoke serious thought from the reader. The

16

more “second-hand” the information is, the less importance farmers tend to attach to it.
Farmers placing greater importance on information from news media and Extension
services than written information such as newsletters and bulletins expressed greater
concern about all forms of environmental quality problems associated with agricultural
chemicals (Lichtenberg & Zimmerman, 1999).

In addition, the diffusion model (Napier et al., 1984) asserts that various socio-
demographic factors affect adoption of BMPs because certain individual characteristics
inﬂuence how much and what kind of information is exposed to the individual. In other
words, it is important to recognize that different sources of information will appeal to and
apply differently to various audiences and that individuals living in remote areas may be
less likely to receive as much pertinent information as others living closer in proximity to
information sources such as Extension ofﬁces. Also, it is important to consider that an
agricultural producer is not likely to consider information about BMPs valuable if they do
not feel it relates to them personally, if they are unaware that there is an environmental

problem, or of they are not convinced that they personally contribute to the problem.

Consider Ability-to-Act Fafctors:

One of the most important factors in the adoption decision-making process is the
economic cost associated with adopting innovations. If potential adopters do not possess
necessary economic resources to purchase innovations, then adoption will not occur
(Napier et al., 2000a). Furthermore, individuals may sometimes be unable to adopt ideas,
technologies, or farming techniques because they do not have the economic resources to

implement what they may otherwise desire to do (Napier et al., 1984). Positive attitudes

17

are not useful for environmental change if landowners do not possess the resources to
make changes (Hines et al., 1987). Two important factors affecting this are immediate
ﬁnancial constraint and long-term profitability of management options.

If funding (such as cost-sharing) for the adoption of best management practices
and farm technologies is an option for agricultural producers, it would be advantageous
for Extension to provide assistance to ensure that farmers are aware that these funding
opportunities exist. Results from Rhodes et al. (2002) reveal that respondents who were
aware that funding was available for BMP adoption were more likely to intend to adopt
various BMPs within the next year, independent of their level of information.
Furthermore, some landowners suggest that receiving subsidies/cost-sharing to help
reduce the burden of implementing practices would help encourage the adoption of
BMPs.

Another important factor affecting farmers’ ability to adopt innovations is
possession of requisite skills frequently required to effectively use technologies. The
adoption of some technological innovations requires extensive technical knowledge or
the potential beneﬁts to be derived from adoption will not be realized. If potential
adopters are aware that they do not possess the skills needed to effectively use
innovations, they will not adopt (Napier et al., 2000a). Results from Rhodes et al. (2002)
indicate that primary farm operators with higher levels of education were more likely to
adopt BMPs. This is likely the case because farmers with higher levels of education also
tend to be more familiar with advanced technologies and feel more competent using

them.

18

Recognize Vaﬂes and Attitudes Farmers have about the Environment:

In persuading agricultural producers to adopt conservation practices (BMPs), it is
important that Extension agents and agricultural educators recognize that many farmers
have an acute sense of environmental stewardship (Paolisso, 1999). Farmers are often
resentful about the prevailing public opinion that they are polluters and are not
environmentally concerned. Contrary to public opinion, there is a strong sense of
environmentalism among farmers (Paolisso, 1999). Farmers tend to have a widely shared
and strongly held belief that they are “real” environmentalists. While not dismissing the
contributions that urban-based environmentalists and residents can make to protect the
environment, farmers do feel that their environmentalism is unique and at a minimum,
equally valid. Farmers’ environmentalism is derived from daily interaction and
dependence on the environment and natural resources to make a living (Paolisso, 1999).

While recognizing the sense of environmentalism of many farmers, it may be
equally important to recognize that some agricultural producers do not value or do not
feel concern towards the environment. Environmental attitudes inﬂuence farmers’
decisions about whether to adopt certain farming practices. For example, if farmers do
not value the physical environment, they are less likely to adopt conservation
technologies (Napier et al., 1986). Consequently, Ohio farmers who believed
environmental problems to be more important were more likely to adopt various
conservation practices than those who did not feel environmental problems were
important (Napier et al., 1986).

Additional research illustrates that farmers who farmed a larger number of acres

tended to be less concerned about the environment (Napier et al., 1986). Farm size is just

19

one example of factors determining farmer environmentalism. Recognizing the
complexities of modern farm management and valuing farmer environmentalism are
essential components to a constructive dialogue and collaboration between farmers and

representatives of Extension agencies charged with developing and implementing BMPs.

Consider Farmers’ Perceived Risks of Adoption:

There are many risks associated with adopting alternative farming practices and
risk orientations of farmers are important considerations to make when trying to persuade
farmers to adopt innovative farm technologies or BMPs. In order to persuade agricultural
producers to adopt conservation practices, Extension agents must convince farmers that
the benefits of adopting BMPs outweigh the costs. If beneﬁts associated with adopting
an innovation are perceived to outweigh the costs associated with adoption, then serious
consideration will be given to adopting the innovation (Napier et al., 2000a).

Midwest farmers indicate that they would expect to receive returns on
conservation investments within five years if they were to adopt conservation practices
(Napier et al., 2000a). If farmers feel they will receive no beneﬁt from investing in
conservation technologies, they will not adopt such practices. Research in several states
has shown that farmers adopt new practices in the belief that the practices will produce
beneﬁts (Napier et al., 1986).

Other variables inﬂuencing adoption behavior include age and farming
experience. Some research shows that older, more experienced farmers are more
cautious and skeptical and, therefore, are less likely to adopt new practices and

techniques (Napier et al., 1986). This is particularly the case if they do not feel the

20

technology will bring any beneﬁt to younger family members intending to manage the
farm in the future.

Furthermore, previous research suggests that primary farm operators can be
inﬂuenced to adopt conservation practices if they perceive that their children will be
operating their farms, and therefore, benefiting from their investments, in the future
(Napier et al., 2000a). This “inter-generational transfer” of the farm was considered an
added beneﬁt to outweigh the original cost (and reduce the risk) of implementing the
conservation practice. Many farmers reported that if they did not expect to derive proﬁts
in the near term and did not expect that their children would be operating the farm in the
future (because they did not feel their children would benefit from the investment)
farmers were hesitant to invest in conservation practices. This suggests that long-term
protection of land resources may not be highly valued by all agricultural producers
(Napier et al., 2000b).

Another component of risk that Extension agents should consider is the threat
associated with the use of farm chemicals. For many farmers, the perceived risk of
applying chemicals on crops is also an important consideration when determining
whether to adopt conservation practices. For example, if a farmer were to perceive
chemicals as not harmful to humans, livestock, water quality, etc., they would not be as
inclined to adopt BMPs as would a farmer who perceived chemicals to be harmful

(Napier et al., 2000a).

21

Take into Account the Relevance of BMPs or Farm Technologies to Farmer:

Not only must potential adopters of conservation practices become aware of the
new technologies, they must also recognize the relevance of the technology to their farm
operations and how the adoption of BMPs will resolve identiﬁed environmental
problems. Potential adopters must become convinced that the adoption of BMPs and new
farm technologies will beneﬁt their particular farm in some manner. Not all BMPs and
farm technologies are appropriate or relevant to particular agricultural producers. For
example, some BMPs for riparian zones are inappropriate on certain farms because non-
point source pollution requires site-speciﬁc responses (Rhodes et al., 2002). Emphasis
also needs to be placed on issues such as topographic factors because the slope of land is
a consideration in the adoption of some BMPs such as conservation tillage practices

(Rhodes et al., 2002).

Agricultural Landowners’ Information Needs

While little is known about farmers’ perceptions about water quality as an issue,
possibly even less is known about farmers’ use of information sources regarding this
environmental problem (Bruening, 1992). In 1988, Extension redeﬁned its mission to
focus on issues and needs of the clientele groups (Rasmussen, 1989). Agricultural
Extension agents and communicators provide a wide variety of programs to farmers
through a number of approaches and yet few studies have examined the communication
strategies that farmers ﬁnd most useful for gaining information about environmental

issues (Bruening, 1991).

22

Previous research indicates that farmers must have a specific need for information
before they will participate in an educational activity (Bruening, 1992). In a
comprehensive study evaluating 75 years of Extension programs, clientele groups
indicated that water quality was one of the eight key issues about which they desired
more information (Rasmussen, 1989). Once Extension had determined the information
needs of their clientele, they had only to identify which communication strategies and
which human resources Should be implemented to deliver the desired information to the
clientele groups.

Few researchers have examined the relationship between farmers’ demographic
characteristics and their information needs (Rollins et al., 1991). In Missouri, signiﬁcant
differences between education levels and acres owned by farmers affected the importance
of farmers’ information needs (Okai, 1986). Results indicated that farmers with higher
levels of education sought more professional information such as information from
Extension specialists and commercial dealers as opposed to farmers with lower levels of
education. In addition, farmers with large acreages relied more on newspapers and
magazines when compared to farmers with small acreages. Furthermore, ﬁndings
illustrated that farming experience (years of farming) was independent of the farmer’s

perceived importance of various information sources.

23

Communication Strategy Preference of Agricultural Landowners

Understanding how the public perceives, uses, and receives educational
publications can improve Extension’s stated mission of providing research-based
information to the public (Scherer & Masiclat, 1990). It is important to understand not
only how producers view different information sources, but also how factors or
characteristics inﬂuence producers’ attitudes toward various information sources (Gloy et
al., 2002). For example, if certain factors or characteristics tend to inﬂuence preferences
toward information from a specific information source, Extension agents and agricultural
communicators can use this information to determine which communication strategies
more effectively reach a targeted audience.

Extension educators and agricultural communicators need to identify the
usefulness of particular information sources and the channels for disseminating
information to farmers. Information relative to these sources and channels will not only
help in identifying the information needs of farmers, but will also assist in developing
educational programs to effectively communicate with agricultural landowners (Rollins
et. al, 1991). Previous research recommends implementing “issues based programming”
in outreach efforts (Bruening, 1991). “Issues-based programming” means that Extension
must improve efﬁciency in their programming efforts and use appropriate
communications methods for their clientele groups. Despite this recommendation, few
studies focus simultaneously on issues-based programming and the communications
methods needed to deliver this type of programming (Bruening, 1991).

However, a number of studies document the value of communication strategies

used by Extension agents and agricultural communicators. For instance, North Carolina

24

farmers used newsletters, meetings, farm visits, telephone calls, and on-farm tests more
often than 16 other Extension communication strategies (Richardson, 1989). Fairs,
computers, exhibits and videotapes were used least often. Ohio farmers ranked meetings
and clinics produced by Extension agents ﬁrst, both in importance and conﬁdence
(Krarnic, 1987). These farmers also ranked Extension bulletins and newsletters highest in
conﬁdence and content accuracy. However, more technological information delivery
systems such as teleconferencing, video tapes, audio-cassettes, and cable television were
not preferred by these farmers.

Additional research revealed a positive relationship between satisfaction and
intensity of contact with local Extension ofﬁces. Results indicated that people who use
Extension more intensively rate it higher than non-users (Lavis & Blackburn, 1990).
Furthermore, Richardson (1993) discovered that six media were expected to be less
important to agricultural producers in the future: meetings (-4%), newsletters (—8%), ﬁeld
days (-6%), telephone calls (-7%) and bulletins (-8%). Only two media were expected to
become more important: computers (+20%) and videotapes (+9%). Table 1 summarizes
the average mean ranks of the importance of various communication strategies to
agricultural landowners in a number of related studies. Table 1 consists of previous
research using Likert scales with mean rankings where 1: not at all important, 2 =
slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = very important

as an information source.

25

 

Table 1. The average mean ranks of the importance of communication strategies to
agricultural landowners in previous studies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean ranks of 1m ortance of Communication Strategies
. Personal Sources Written Sources Technological
Literature . . . b Sources of
of Information of Information . c
Information
Bruening (1991) 3.67 3.67 3.45
Rollins et al. (1991) 3.86 3.73 3.36
Gamon et al. (1992) 2.80 3.12 2.21
Trede & Whitaker (1998) 4.11 3.34 3.28
Suvedi et al. (1999) 2.64 2.88 2.04

 

 

 

 

a = On-farm consultations, demonstration tours, public meetings, trade shows, family,
ﬁiends, and neighbors
b = Newspapers, newsletters, bulletins, manuals, brochures, fact sheets, charts, and photos
° = (Audio/Visual) Radio, television, Internet, web pages, video tapes, and audio tapes
Preference for Traditional Communication Strategies

Findings from previous research indicate that personal and written sources of
information such as on-farm consultations, demonstrations, and newsletters and bulletins
were more useful than computerized and technological sources of information to learn
about environmental issues (Table 1). Public meetings, newsletters and magazines were
also identiﬁed as useful sources of information (Rollins et. al, 1991). According to Gloy
et al. (2002), farm publications are one of the most frequently used communication tools.
Similarly, ofﬁce calls, telephone calls, bulletins and newsletters were the methods used
most oﬁen by Ohio Extension agents to deliver instruction to farmers (Bouare & Bowen,
1990). Methods least used were radio, television, magazines and teleconferencing. The
most frequently used communications channels (meetings, newsletters, agent visits and

telephone calls, ﬁeld days and demonstrations) share the characteristics of immediacy

and timeliness (Richardson, 1993). Except for newsletters, all channels offer farmers the

26

 

opportunity either to ask their own questions or to see something for themselves

(Richardson, 1993).

Preference for Computerized Communication Strategies

Within the traditional stakeholder audiences of agricultural students and
COOperative Extension clientele, experience and perception of the Internet for educational
communication purposes is still relatively limited (Irani, 2000). For example, in a three-
year longitudinal study, although the percentage of respondents who used the Web to
gain Extension-related information increased from 1.4% to 10%, the vast majority of
respondents did not rely on that information source (Suvedi et al., 1999). In addition,
farmers rated “cutting edge,” Intemet-delivered instructional technologies much lower
than traditional instructional techniques, perhaps owing to lack of familiarity and prior
experience with these technologies (Trede & Whitaker, 1998). Furthermore, the Internet,
satellite dishes, and ﬁber optics networks were rated much lower than some of the more
traditional instructional technologies (Trede and Whitaker, 1998). This may suggest a
lack of familiarity of the respondents regarding the potential of these technologies as
delivery methods for education.

“Historically, computers have been used by producers with larger farms.
Limited-resource farmers (less than $25,000 household income and 50 acres) bypassed
the technology because of its cost and their lack of knowledge about computer use in

farming. (Findlay et al., 1993, p.22)” Gloy et al., (2002, p.18) suggests that:

27

“Internet use tends to be associated with producers who have more favorable
views of information sources. In ﬁve different models, Internet use increased
the probability that producers had a favorable view of information sources. At
this point, it appears that the Internet might be a compliment rather than a
substitute for traditional information sources.”

Several reasons explain why farmers express reluctance to adopt computers and
fail to beneﬁt from other technological innovations such as the Internet. These reasons
include the cost of the computer (Findlay et al., 1993), cost of hardware and software
(Dix, 1994), high telephone line charges incurred by distant participants (Dix, 1994), time
required to learn how to use the technology (Findlay et al., 1993), lack of knowledge
about the Intemet’s capabilities (Findlay et al., 1993), low computer literacy (Taylor et
al., 1991; Iddings & Apps, 1990), lack of training to mitigate technophobia (Taylor et al.,
1991), lack of on-line technical assistance for users (Dix, 1994), level of education of the
farmers (Findlay et al., 1993), age (Dix, 1994), and size and type of farming operation
(Findlay et al., 1993; and Taylor et al., 1991). In addition, many farmers have been slow
to adopt computers and innovative technologies to obtain educational information
(Iddings & Apps, 1992) due to variables such as income, limited time, education and
access (Tavemier et al., 1996). F urtherrnore, the lack of computer related equipment
and/or skills can disconnect rural clientele from enriching collaboration or information
exchanges with universities, agencies, and other sources (Findlay et al., 1993).

Despite these ﬁndings, Internet use may increase in the future (Suvedi et al.,
1999). By comparing survey responses from farmers in 1996 to 1999, the 1999
respondents were signiﬁcantly more likely to rely on the World Wide Web and other

sources of general farm-related computerized information than the 1996 respondents. In

a related study, farmers suggested that computers (ranking 19’h out of 23 media choices)

28

would increase to a ranking of 8th in future use (Richardson, 1989). Furthermore, as
Extension agents turn to video tapes and computers to stretch their communications
capabilities, they can be encouraged that both full-time and part-time farmers anticipated
making greater use of these media (Richardson, 1993). Therefore, evidence exists to
suggest that Cooperative Extension needs to continue to embrace the use of the lntemet
(Tennessen et al., 1997).

Based on previous direct experience research as well as the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) and user acceptance studies focusing on individual differences
(Irani, 2000), subjects with greater prior experience with a technology will more likely
use it than those who lack experience. Previous research indicates that Intemet
experience and perceived usefulness were the strongest predictors of behavioral intent to
use Internet communication tools (Irani, 2000). Therefore, understanding the factors
which inﬂuence attitude and user perceptions toward technology is a critical need (Irani,
2000). The Technology Acceptance Model states that increased perceptions of ease of

use and technology usefulness leads to increased computer/Intemet use (See Figure l).

29

Figure l. The Technology Acceptance Model (Hubona & Geitz, 1999).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceived
Usefulness
External Attitude Behavioral
Variables Toward . , Intention , , System
Use To Use Usage
Perceived
Ease of Use

 

 

If Internet use is indicative of producers who are likely to seek out information,
one would expect that Internet use would increase the probability that producers receive
useful information from all sources (Gloy et al., 2002). On the other hand, Internet users
might view the information received from the Internet as a substitute for information
received from media sources such as radio, farm publications and direct mail. In this
case, Internet use would reduce the probability of receiving useful information from
media sources. However, it is expected that Internet use should positively relate to the
usefulness of information received from personal sources (Gloy et al., 2002).

According to Wilde & Swatman (1996), the problems with the World Wide Web
from the rural point of View are twofold. “Firstly, farmers do not have the equipment,
time or money to make use of the services. Secondly, while the WWW is an information
source of great potential for the unilateral use of the farmer, e-mail and conferencing
require active participation by the community and thus may not usefully be adopted by a
farmer unilaterally” (Wilde & Swatman, 1996, p. 7). In addition, if information
technology and telecommunications are to satisfy the informational needs and extend the

capabilities of the farmer, both the technology and the dissemination strategy must be

30

sufﬁciently ﬂexible to adapt themselves to the farmers’ way of working. (Wilde &
Swatman, 1996). Furthermore, because Extension’s long-range and ultimate task is to
inﬂuence its clientele through education and to use the results of scientiﬁc technology to
improve their quality of life, Extension should organize seminars, institutes, and

workshops to train farmers in computer applications for agriculture (Findlay et al, 1993).

31

Chapter Three: Methods

No comprehensive study of Michigan’s agricultural landowners specifically
addressing l) farmers’ attitudes towards watershed conservation issues, 2) farmers’
information needs, 3) farmers’ best management practice adoption behaviors, 4) farmers’
communication strategy preferences, and 5) farmers’ recommendations for improving
web sites as a communication strategy has been previously conducted. In order to obtain
this valuable information about Michigan’s agricultural landowners, this study was
conducted in two separate phases. Initially a random sample of residents from four
agricultural watersheds was asked to complete a survey instrument entitled: A Survey of
Landowner Watershed Information Needs (Appendix A). Once information needs and
communication strategy preferences were determined, residents were recruited to
participate in a focus group/hands-on website session to determine how web sites could

better meet agricultural landowners’ information needs.

Survey Data Collection

In the Spring of 2001, 922 survey instruments were mailed to agricultural
landowners in four agricultural watersheds within the state of Michigan: the Lake
Macatawa, the Gun River, the North Branch Flint River, and the Upper Thomapple
watershed. Watersheds were chosen based on their involvement in watershed
conservation programs. The Lake Macatawa and Gun River watersheds served as the
treatment sites as they included Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Clean Water
Act Section 319 planning and implementation activities. The Upper Thomapple and
North Branch Flint River watersheds served as control sites as little active watershed

conservation activities occur in these watersheds. Names and addresses of landowners

32

were retrieved from county geographic information systems (618) or Equalization offices
for each of these watersheds.

A mail survey was selected for data collection because of its low cost and
advantageous uniform access to dispersed populations without interviewer bias (Salant
and Dillman, 1994). A survey, including both open and closed ended questions, was
developed with many question items derived from previous, peer-reviewed and field-
tested studies from agricultural communication professionals. Once the survey questions
were formulated, the survey instrument was peer reviewed by several Extension agents
and water quality professionals before mailing the survey instrument to agricultural
landowners.

Respondents completed and returned 403 of the 922 survey instruments providing
an overall response rate of 43.7%. While a higher response rate facilitates greater
generalizability, low response rates were expected due to the fact that farmers typically
do not respond well to surveys (Lasley, 1985; Howe, 1997).

Survey methodology followed Dillman’s Total Design Method (Salant &
Dillman, 1994). The survey instrument was initially mailed to the sample of agricultural
landowners in May of 2001. A reminder postcard was sent to the sample population
approximately three weeks later. About four weeks following the second mailing, non-
respondents were mailed a second copy of the questionaire. Although monetary
incentives were not used in this study to increase response rate, the research team did use
university sponsorship and stamped return postage instead of business reply, both of
which tend to produce the largest increases in response rates according to Fox et al.

(1988).

33

In the questionnaire, participants were asked to report demographic information
such as age, education level, income, farm operation (whether respondents grew crops or
raised livestock), farming status (whether respondents were full-time, part-time, or non-
farmers), farm size, and gender (this demographic was largely excluded from analysis
since the vast majority of respondents were male). Respondents were also asked how
informed and satisfied they were about the water quality in their watersheds, how often
they tried/adopted watershed conservation practices, and about which practices they
desired more information. Respondents also identiﬁed how often they participated in
Extension programs and which communication strategies they preferred to learn about
watershed conservation issues. In addition, respondents provided information about
where they have Internet access and how often they use the Internet for management

decisions.
Survey Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS 10.0.7 statistical software for social statistics
(SPSS, 2000). Statistical analysis consisted of Pearson’s correlation (r), Pearson’s Chi-
square test of independence (x2), and One-way Analysis of Variance (F-test).
Relationships between two ordinal variables were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation.
Comparisons between means were examined using ANOVA while differences between
proportions were assessed using Pearson’s Chi-square test of independence.

Descriptive statistics, (including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard
deviations) were also generated to gain an overall View of respondents’ demographic

characteristics and their attitudes and behaviors regarding various information

34

technologies or conservation practices. Descriptive statistics were used to obtain the
standard deviations needed to calculate Cochran’s C. Cochran’s C detects the degree of
heteroskedasticity in the sample and is used to deterrrrine if variances may be equal in the
sample. The homogeneity of variance was then tested using Levene’s statistic. In all
cases, Levene’s statistic was greater than 0.05 indicating that one would fail to reject the
null hypothesis that the variances are equal and that ANOVA could be used. If
differences between groups were detected using ANOVA, Bonferroni’s Post Hoc test was

used to determine which means differed significantly.

Non-response Biaa

Since this study did not obtain a 100% response rate and because non-response
error threatens the external validity of a study, it becomes necessary to attempt to assess
non-response error. In their widely accepted and frequently cited article concerning non-
response in survey research, Miller and Smith (1983) stated that Extension evaluators
could use one of four general methods to control for non-response error. Evaluators
could: ignore non-respondents, compare respondents to the population, compare
respondents to non-respondents, or compare early to late respondents.

According to Miller and Smith (1983), the most widely accepted and empirically
sound procedure to assess non-response error is to contact non-respondents to see how
their responses compare to respondents. Due to time and financial constraints, the
research team compared early respondents to late respondents. Results from procedures
used to address non-response error provide evidence that the method of comparing early
and late respondents is a defensible and generally accepted procedure for handling non-

response error as a threat to external validity of research ﬁndings (Lindner, et al., 2001).

35

Lindner et al. (2001) explored how non-response has historically been handled in ten
years of publications in the Journal of Agricultural Education. These authors discovered
that of the 53.3% of articles that reported and attempted to control for non-response bias
in ten years of publications, 31.3% compared early and late respondents while only
18.7% followed up with a sample of non-respondents.

The research team specifically compared early and late respondents on Likert
scale items and demographic information. The post card reminder was sent on June 5‘“,
and early respondents were classified as individuals who returned their survey
instruments by June 7’11 (allowing a couple of days for the research team to receive survey
instruments sent in the mail on June 4th or 5th ) and late respondents were deﬁned as any
individual who returned their survey instrument on June 8lh or later. Since late
respondents tend to be similar to non-respondents (Miller & Smith, 1983; Pace, 1939),
demographic data and responses to Likert scale questions from early respondents were
compared to data from late respondents. With late respondents assumed typical of
nonrespondents, if no differences are found, then respondents are generalized to the

sample (Miller & Smith, 1983).

Focus Group Data Collection

While the Internet has the potential to provide more effective information
exchange, the specific effectiveness of the Internet and websites in informing agricultural
landowners about watershed conservation issues and practices remains undetermined. A
substantial amount of research exists that supports the use of computers and web sites as
Extension communication tools; however, there is a need to determine the actual

effectiveness of web sites as a communication strategy for informing agricultural

36

landowners about watershed conservation issues and practices. For this study, data from
the landowner watershed information needs survey were combined with information
regarding best management practices and water quality issues to develop a web site.
Michigan State University’s Institute of Water Research provided support for designing
and assessing the web site.

To determine how to improve agricultural landowners’ preference for web sites as
a communication strategy, focus group participants (agricultural watershed residents
within the targeted watersheds along with residents from the Stony Creek and Rice Creek
watersheds) completed a one-hour web site session of the initial web site design in the
winter of 2002. Upon completion of the web site session, participants engaged in a
round-table discussion to provide suggestions about the site design and content (The
script for the focus group/round table discussion can be found in Appendix B). Once
suggestions were collected and implemented, an improved web site was created for
landowners’ use.

The four basic steps that guide focus group research are: planning, recruiting,
moderating, and analysis and reporting (Morgan, 1993). Once the research team
determined the purpose and desired outcome of the focus group discussions, the research
team formulated a list of questions to determine participants’ previous experience with
web sites, their impressions of the web site, recommendations on how the site could be
improved, and whether participants intended to use web sites to obtain information about
water quality and watershed conservation issues in the future. Questions were designed
in such a manner that they were clear, short, open-ended, free of jargon, and easy for the

moderator to deliver in a conversational manner. Questions were ordered such that

37

general questions preceded those of a more specific nature as suggested by Kovacic
(2001). After general background questions were addressed, questions of a positive
nature (such as: “What did you speciﬁcally like about the web site?”) were offered before
questions of a more negative nature (such as: “What did you specifically dislike about the
web site?”). The ﬁnal questions asked of participants pertained to recommendations and
suggestions they had on how the web site could be improved.

Once focus group questions were formulated and reviewed by the project team,
the team decided on locations, dates, and times for each of the focus group sessions.
Local Extension agents involved with the project then recruited participants. The
research team decided to hold as many focus group sessions as they felt necessary to
reach “theoretical saturation” (Morgan, 1998). Once four focus group sessions were
performed and the project team ceased to gather new thoughts and information, the team
was able to assume that saturation had been achieved and additional focus group sessions
were not necessary.

In order to perform the focus groups, the research team decided to have one
primary moderator and one assistant moderator. The responsibility of the primary
moderator was to direct the ﬂow of the conversation within the group by asking
questions, probing for answers, ensuring that all participants were involved in the
discussion, and taking enough field notes to track the conversation. The assistant
moderator had the responsibility of taking comprehensive notes, controlling the physical
environment to reduce or eliminate distractions, and asking clarifying questions and
summarizing key points during the final stage of the discussion. A tape recorder was

used to document feedback from the focus group sessions and was used to supplement

38

ﬁeld notes taken by both the interviewer and the primary note-taker. The tape recorder
was placed in the center of the group in plain sight of all participants. Permission to tape
the discussions was secured from participants preceding the dialogue.

The process of data analysis and interpretation began immediately at the end of
the ﬁrst focus group session. Once notes from the primary and assistant moderator were
compiled, the data was coded. The project team carefully reviewed field notes looking
for patterns, comparisons, or categories consistent between and among the different focus
groups. Coding was used to identify themes and consolidate the evidence to support the

ﬁndings.

39

Chapter Four: Results

Watershed Demographics

Table 2 demonstrates the demographics of each watershed.

Table 2. Summary of watershed demographics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Watersheds

Watershed N. Branch Gun Lake Upper
Characteristics Flint River River Macatawa Thomapple
Watershed Size 147,200 acres 72,960 acres 112,000 acres 145,280 acres

59,570 ha* 29,526 ha* 45,325 ha* 58,793 ha*
Total Area Owned by 11,323 acres 9,174 acres 11,844 acres 6,198 acres
Respondents 4,587 ha* 3,713 ha* 4,793 ha* 2,508 ha*
Total Area Rented by 5,598 acres 2,145 acres 7,551 acres 2,692 acres
Respondents 2,265 ha* 868 ha* 3,056 ha* 1,089 ha*
% of Respondents
who Own the 62.7 65.1 69.6 29.6
Property they Farm
% of Respondents
who Rent the 26.3 32.6 29.6 8.16
Property they Farm
Average Property
Size Owned by 131.7 acres 327.6 acres 136.1 acres 213.7 acres
Respondents who 53.0 ha* 133.0 ha* 55.0 ha* 87.0 ha*
Own Property
Average Property
Size Rented by 155.6 acres 153.2 acres 204.1 acres 336.5 acres
Respondents who 63.0 ha* 62.0 ha* 83.0 ha* 136.0 ha*
Rent Property
% of Watershed
Owned by 7.7 12.6 10.6 4.3
Respondents
% of Watershed
Rented by 3.8 2.9 6.7 1.9
Respondents
% of Watershed
Managed by 11.5 15.5 17.3 6.2
Respondents

 

 

 

 

*hazhectares

40

 

Overall Survey Respondent Demographics

The average age of respondents was 57 years old. The majority (79.2%) of
respondents were male. More than 56% of respondents obtained more than a high school
education while the average gross annual income for survey respondents was between
$35,000 and $50,000 per year. While a substantial proportion (36.9%) of respondents
claimed to have no farming experience, the majority of farming respondents claimed
cultivated crops as their primary farming operation. The average farm size (both owned

and rented acreages) was 228 acres (Table 3).

41

Table 3. Summary of survey respondent demographics

 

Demographic Variable

Demggraphic Characteristics

% of Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Between 20-40 years old 10.9

Age Between 41-60 years old 45.5
Greater than 60 years old 43.7

Male 79.2

Gender Female 20.8
Grade school education 5.1

Some high school education 9.2

Highest Level of High school graduate 29.7
Education Vocational or trade school 7.7
Some college 24.6

College graduate 11.8

Post graduate work or degree 12.0

$15,000-$25.000 18.1

Gross Annual Income ”1001835300 17'2
Level $35,001-$50,000 20.2
$50,001-$75,000 20.5

$75,000+ 23.9

Non-farmers 36.9

Farming Status Part-time farmers 44.4
Full-time farmers 18.7

Primary Farming Cultivated cums . 60.1
Operation* Conﬁned or pastured livestock/poultl 10.5
Both crops and livestock 29.4

Farm Size (Owned or Less than 228 acres (average farm size) 73.5
Rented Acreage) 228+ acres 26.5

 

* Note: there was an option for respondents to choose other farming operation and these
were combined into the crops or livestock categories as appropriate. Examples of other

farming Operations included blueberries, greenhouses, and Christmas trees.

Survey Respondent Demographics by Watershed

Overall, respondents from the Upper Thomapple watershed were least likely to

return completed survey instruments to the research team (Table 4). There is a

statistically signiﬁcant difference in mean age level among watershed respondents at the

p=0.05 level (F=3.403, p=0.018). Watersheds also differed signiﬁcantly based on

respondents’ gender (78:10.56, p=0.014), respondents’ gross annual income level

42

 

(x2=24.27, p=0.019), respondents’ level of education (78:32.46, p=0.019), and

respondents’ farm residence 08:35.71, p=0.000) (Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of survey respondent demographics by watershed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Watersheds Statistics
North U r
Respondent Branch Gun Lake “ﬁrm 2 F- v 1
Demographics Flint River Macatawa I test p- a ue
. apple
River
# of
Respondents 137 43 125 98 -- -- --
Response Rate
1%L 48 49 48 34 —- -- --
Average Age 60.1 51.9 57.1 54.3 -- 3.403 0.018*
(yearS)
% Male 79.1 90.5 83.3 68.8 10.56 -- 0.014*
% Gross
Annual “mm“ 51.0 57.5 51.5 43.2 24.27 -- 0019*
less than
$50,000
% Earned at
Most a High 60.0 34.9 56.2 30.8 32.46 -- 0019*
School Dggree
% Res'd" 0" 60.7 67.5 70.4 31.1 35.71 -- 0.000**
Farm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*=Statistically significant result at the p=0.05 level
**=Statistically significant result at the p=0.01 level
Farming Operaﬁiions (by Watershed)

Table 5 illustrates that there is no significant difference in farming respondents
having only crops or only livestock as their primary farming operations (x2=11.257,
p=0.081). For the purposes of this study, “crops” is deﬁned by cultivated crops, hayland,
fruit trees, Christmas trees, and greenhouse plants. Any farmer with only one or a
combination of these crops as their primary farming operation (and no livestock) fits in
the “crops” category. “Livestock” is defined by pastured livestock and conﬁned

livestock/poultry. Any farmer with pastured livestock and/or conﬁned livestock/poultry

43

(and no crops) fits in the livestock category. All farming respondents claiming to have
both livestock and crops as their primary farming operation were excluded from this
analysis because the survey instrument specifically requested the one category that best
represents the respondents’ primary farming operation. Farmers from all four watersheds

had crops as their predominant farming operation.

Table 5. Respondents’ primary farming operations by watershed.

 

 

 

 

 

Watersheds Statistics
. Gun Lake Upper
Otiﬂgis Fllitrlttlhkigztlig) River Macatawa Thomapple 12 v 5:18
(%) (%) (%)
Crops 79.3 79.3 79.6 74.2 11.257 0.081
Livestock 41.9 31.0 38.7 19.4 11.257 0.081

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farming Status (by Watershed)

Table 6 demonstrates that of the 403 individuals responding from all four
watersheds, 28.9% identified themselves as full-time farmers. There is a signiﬁcant
difference in farming status between watersheds at the p=0.01 and p=0.05 levels as the
Upper Thomapple watershed had a signiﬁcantly greater amount of non-farmers and a
signiﬁcantly smaller number of both part-time and full-time farmers than the other three

watersheds (78:37.329, p=0.000).

Table 6. Farming status of survey respondents by watershed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Watersheds Statistics

North
Farming Branch Gun Lake Upper 2

. . Rrver Macatawa Thomapple X p-value

Status Flint Rrver
(% ) (%) (%) (%)
Non-Farmers 31.3 28.6 26.2 63.0 37.329 0.000M

”mm“ 48.5 47.6 50.0 29.3 37.329 0.000**
Farmers
F‘m'me 20.1 23.8 23.8 7.6 37.329 0.000**
Farmers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*=Statistically signiﬁcant result at the p=0.05 level.
**=Statistically significant result at the p=0.01 level.

Farm Size (by Watershed)

There was no statistical difference in farm size owned or rented by respondents

between watersheds at the p=0.01 or p=0.05 levels (Table 7).

Table 7. Number of acres in each watershed owned or rented by survey respondents.

 

 

 

 

 

Watersheds Statistics
Farm Size and North Branch Gun Lake Upper 2 p-
Ownership Flint Rrver Rrver Macatawa Thomapple X value
(%) ( %) (%) (%)
Own 158+ acresal 46.2 56.7 38.5 53.1 4.097 0.251
Rent 74+ acresb 19.6 23.3 23.4 25.0 0.617 0.893

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ = the average farm size owned by survey respondents
b= the average farm size rented by survey respondents

Summary of Findings for Differences Among Watersheds

North Branch Flint River Watershed

The main differences between the North Branch Flint River watershed and the

other three watersheds are that the North Branch Flint River watershed: (l) was the

45

 

largest watershed in the study, (2) had the greatest number of survey respondents
(however, not the greatest response rate), (3) had the highest mean age of survey
respondents, (4) had the lowest mean ranking for respondents’ education level, and (5)
had the greatest percentage of respondents who had only livestock as their primary

farming operation.

Gun River Watershed

The main differences between the Gun River watershed and the other three
watersheds are that the Gun River watershed: (1) had the highest proportion of male
survey respondents, (2) had the highest response rate, (3) had the lowest mean ranking of

income level, and (4) had the largest amount of acreage owned by survey respondents.

Lake Macatawa Watershed

The main differences between the Lake Macatawa watershed and the other three
watersheds are that the Lake Macatawa watershed: (1) had the largest percentage of
acreage managed (owned and rented) by survey respondents, (2) had the highest
percentage of respondents who lived on a farm, (3) had the greatest percentage of
respondents who had crops as their primary farming operation, and (4) had the least

amount of acreage owned by survey respondents.

Upper Thomapale Watershed

The main differences between the Upper Thomapple watershed and the other
three watersheds are that the Upper Thomapple watershed: (1) had the lowest survey
response rate, (2) had the greatest mean ranking for respondent income level, (3) had the

highest mean ranking for respondents education level, (4) had the lowest proportion of

46

individuals living on a farm, (5) had the greatest percentage of non-farmers, and (6) had

the highest percentage of female respondents.

Non-response Bias
Comparison of Early and Late Respondents

Of the 29 variables tested, only 2 came out significant between early and late
respondents at the p=0.05 or p=0.01 levels (Table 8 & Table 9). The two variables that
came out signiﬁcant were: frequency of cover crop use and frequency of spreading
manure on the same ﬁeld every 2-4 years. When correlating respondents’ farming
practices with the date they returned their survey, one discovers that the more often a
respondent uses cover crops and the less Often a respondent spreads manure on the same
ﬁeld every 2-4 years, the more likely they are to turn in their survey before receiving a

postcard reminder (1:0.245, p=0.005 and 1:0.195, p=0.028, respectively).

47

Table 8. Comparisons of early and late respondents’ responses to survey questions to

determine non-response bias.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statistics
Difference Between Early and Late Respondents F test p-value
Satisfaction with water quality 0.633 0.427
Level of feeliﬁ informed about watershed conservation issues 0.309 0.579
Importance of watershed conservation issues 3.502 0.062
Fretmrtly use cover crops 8.239 0.005**
Frequenm kegp written records of manure applications 0.731 0.394
Frequently spread manure on the same ﬁelds each year 1.861 0.175
52:21:61]”), spread manure on the same ﬁeld no more than every 2-4 4935 0028*
Frequently use book values of manure to plan land application rates 0.063 0.802
Frequently use manure tests to determine manure application rates 2.094 0.151
Frequently use nitrate soil tests to determine N fertilizer rates 0.180 0.672
Frequently use soil tests to determine which ﬁelds to spread manure 0.043 0.836
Frequently reduce starter fertilizer on manured ground 0.214 0.644
Frequently receive complaints on manure handling/odor 0.217 0.642
Frequently use buffer strips or observe a safe distance from surface
. . . 1.712 0.193
water when fertrlrzrng
Frequently have an agronornrst make recommendations about 0.003 0.953
manure nutrients
Frequently spread manure on haylage ﬁelds 3.375 0.069
Prefer information from print sources 0.101 0.751
Prefer information from electronic sources 0.068 0.794
Prefer information from organizational events 1.027 0.312
Prefer information from personal sources 3.267 0.072
ﬁghest level of education 0.054 0.817
Gross annual income level 0.862 0.354

 

*=Statistically significant result at the p=0.05 level
**=Statistically Signiﬁcant result at the p=0.01 level

Table 9. Additional comparisons of early and late respondents’ responses to survey

questions to determine non-response bias.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statistics
Difference Between Early and Late Respondents 12 Evalue
Tried/adopted crop conservation practices 0.138 0.711
Tried/adoated livestock conservation practices 0.134 0.715
Tried/adopted erosion conservation practices 0.208 0.648
Tried/adopted wildlife habitat conservation practices 0.113 0.737
Farming status (Full-time, Part-time, or Non-farmer) 1.834 0.409
A 6 (20-40, 41-60, or 61+ years old) 1.354 0.508
Gender (male or female) 0.035 0.851

 

 

48

Research Question la: How Important are Watershed Conservation Issues to

Survey Respondents?

Summary

Overall, survey respondents are most concerned about ﬂooding (mean=3.21) and
erosion into streams (mean=3.46) and are least concerned about reduced fish habitat
(mean=2.6l) and algae growth (mean=2.72) (Figure 2). Results from this portion of the
study indicate that level of education has the highest signiﬁcant and positive effect on
landowners’ level of concern for watershed conservation issues (Table 11). Age (Table
10) and farming status (Table 12) also have signiﬁcant effects while income (Table 13),
farm size (Table 14), primary farming operation (Table 15), and watershed residence
(Table 16) have no significant effect on agricultural landowners’ level of concern for

watershed conservation issues.

49

Figure 2. Overall mean importance of various watershed conservation issues to survey
respondents.

 

 

Other

 

 

Excess nitrogen

Excess phosphorus

Bacterial contamination

Algae growth

 
 

Reduced fish habitat

 

Flooding

  

Watershed Conservation Issues

Erosion into streams

 

 

F I I I

o 1 2 3 4
Means (0=Not at all Important, 4=Extremely Important)

 

 

 

Demograﬂics that have a Significant Effect on the Impoﬂnce of Watershed

Conservzaion Issues

Age

There was a significant difference in how concerned the different age groups were
about reduced fish habitat (r=-0.136, p=0.013) and excess phosphorus (m-OJ 16,
p=0.035). Specifically, as respondents’ age increases, they tend to be less concerned
about fish habitat and excess phosphorus in the watershed. In general, respondents were
least concerned about reduced fish habitat and algae growth and were most concerned

about ﬂooding and soil erosion into streams regardless of age (Table 10).

50

Table 10. The effect of respondents’ age on the importance of watershed conservation
issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age of Respondent Statistics
Watershed 3:2 2:2 3:61.: 3:32 31:5 Pearson’s
Corrlssgzlveztron old old old old old corr(e:;rnon p-value
(11:42) (n=89) (n=87) (11:90) (11:79)

Emsm“ “m 3.44 3.52 3.72 3.29 3.40 0.044 0.418
streams

Flooding 3.55 3.08 3.56 3.08 2.95 -0091 0.089
”“9““ “S“ 2.72 2.71 3.07 2.32 2.30 0. 136 0013*
habitat

Algae growth 2.58 2.62 3.04 2.64 2.68 0.013 0.815
Baden?“ . 3.43 3.11 3.54 2.94 2.93 -0.100 0.067
contamination

Excess 3.17 3.14 3.29 2.81 2.78 -0.116 0035*
phosphorus

1’3“” 3.29 3.11 3.22 2.88 2.85 0.105 0.058
mtrggen

Other 3.33 2.40 3.45 1.75 3.00 -0.069 0.567

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*=Statistically signiﬁcant result at the p=0.05 level
**=Statistically signiﬁcant result at the p=0.01 level

Level of Education

Education level has a signiﬁcant positive effect on respondents’ level of concern
for most but not all watershed conservation issues (Table 11). As respondents’ level of
education increases, so does their level of concern about reduced fish habitat (r=0.1870,
p=0.001), algae growth (1:0.117, p=0.032), bacterial contamination (1:0.122, p=0.025),
excess nitrogen (1:0.123, p=0.026), and other watershed conservation practices (1:0.285,

p=0.015).

51

5R: Edna 55 E 3.32 Emu—Lima £85256":
5>2 mcdna 55 a :32 EnocEwa Smoumaﬁmu...

.CcoEEHwE .333 2: E 558%
Qaﬁwto >2: Bo: Eat ﬁance 8598 =w 55>: mo—natg 823 “5.1595 boEobxmnv .EatomEH EN 5 HoZuo 5552

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*de mde on Sum EN 316. oo.m QNE ow; .550
. . I . . . . . . :owehE
408 o mN_ o 9 m we m S m mo N S m .8 N 3 N wmeoxm
. . . . . i . - . i magmas—E

coo 0 me o E m we m 5 m 3 o 8 w .8 N am o 958$—
. . . . - . .1 . . . :euneweﬁceu

*nNo O Na o we m mm w 8 m ow o E m 3 N no .6. 3.55.“:
*Nmod .2 no moN MNN SN EN moN cmN. moN 5:55 cum—«4

3: a

.1. Sod om: .o No.m wo.m va va mmN cmN a: :mu avenue“
35o wad- 3N _m.m wﬁm 26 Sam woN mm.m wince—m
. . . . . . . . . 2.5:;

9H o Re C mm m mm m E m Om m we m co N 2 m 8:. .5595

H: H: H: H: H:
E Era 3415 smweee an e s: e e... e s" 5 ea:
. cm gang—em 3.26.20 558:3. sauna—em
53.3.; 5:25.58 Bazaar—U 85655 539.5250
m now—mom .mem owe—EU owe—BU .eeaem Begum 525w .85m @2553?»
. 25% even... Sui :wE 255 2:26
wuzmﬁﬁm 553ch no 551— 5235 baa—EEK“;—

 

 

 

 

.mo:mm_ coumtomcone 8555? we oocetomg 55 co 5:83... we 5>2 .Bcovcomme we “onto 23. .2 533.

52

Farming Status

Farming status significantly affected the level of importance respondents
associated with soil erosion into streams (F=3.60, p=0.028) and other watershed
conservation issues (F=3.73, p=0.029). Specifically, non-farmers expressed signiﬁcantly
less concern about soil erosion into streams than full-time farmers (Bonferroni post hoc,
p=0.032). In addition, non-farmers expressed signiﬁcantly less concern about other
watershed conservation issues than did part-time farmers (Bonferroni post hoc, p=0.032).
Overall, these ﬁndings suggest that farming status does not have a significant effect on
agricultural landowners’ level of concern for most watershed conservation issues (Table

12).

Table 12. The effect of respondents’ farming status on the importance of watershed
conservation issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents’ Farming Status Statistics
Watershed Non- Part-time Full-time
Conservation Farmers Farmers Farmers F test p-value
Issues (n=144) (n=173) (n=73)

Ems“ “‘t" 3.212] 3.52:"b 3.75b 3.60 0028*
streams
Flooding 3.18 3.13 3.43 0.991 0.372
Reduced ﬁsh
habitat 2.69 2.58 2.60 0.247 0.781
Algae growth 2.80 2.64 2.79 0.547 0.582
mam." . 3.15 3.12 3.24 0.168 0.845
contanunatron
Excess 2.96 3.03 3.09 0.219 0.803
phosphorus
Excess nitrogen 2.98 3.04 3.06 0.096 0.909
Other 2.04a 3.20b 3.25“:b 3.73 0029*

 

Means: 0=Not at all Important, 4=Extremely Important
*=Statistically significant result at the p=0.05 level

a"’=letters indicate similar groups

53

 

Demographics that do not have a Signiﬁcant Effect on the Importance of Watershed

Conservation Issues

Gross annual income level (Table 13), farm size (Table 14), primary farming operation

(Table 15), and watershed residence (Table 16) have no significant effect on agricultural

landowners’ level of concern for watershed conservation issues.

Table 13. The effect of respondents’ gross annual income level on the importance of

watershed conservation issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents’ Gross Annual Income Level Statistics
$15,000. $25,001- $35,001. $50,001- ,
Cwammhe.“ $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 ”5’00“ PM”? 5 p-
onservatron per year correlation
Issues per year per year per year per year (11:79) (r) value
(11:60) (n:57) (n:67) (n:68)

Ems“ “m 3.31 3.47 3.69 3.66 3.36 0.016 0.785
streams
Flooding 2.85 3.23 3.45 3.50 3.13 0.061 0.288
Reduced “Sb 2 26 3 87 2 70 2 83 2 81 0 100 0 089
habitat . . . . . . .
Algae growth 2.52 3.08 2.88 2.76 2.80 0.015 0.798
Baden?“ . 2.67 3.40 3.21 3.49 3.21 0.094 0.111
contamrnatron
Exc‘“ 2.72 3.16 3.19 3.28 3.14 0.084 0.154
phosphorus
Ef‘cm 2.90 3.22 3.16 3.32 3.07 0.031 0.604
mtrogep
Other 2.81 3.07 2.80 3.87 2.28 0.021 0.925

 

Means: 0=Not at all Important, 4=Extremely Important

54

 

Table 14. The effect of respondents’ farm size on the importance of watershed

conservation issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farm Size (Acres Owned and Rented) Statistics

$3233“ 0150 151-300 301-450 451-600 601+ £32330: p-

Issues (n=14l) (n=29) (n=14) (n=14) (n=21) (r) value
Ems“ m’" 3.52 3.34 4.07 4.00 3.86 0.1 14 0.092
streams
Floodiag 3.06 3.30 4.00 3.36 3.48 0.127 0.061
Redf'ced “5" 2.58 2.68 2.15 2.43 2.35 0071 0.306
habitat
Algae growth 2.72 2.64 2.43 2.57 2.65 0038 0.582
33mm.” . 3.15 2.93 3.08 3.79 2.90 0.002 0.973
contamrnatron
Excess 3.06 2.63 3.00 3.64 3.05 0.039 0.567
phosphorus
Elm” 3.07 2.66 2.92 3.57 3.10 0.038 0.583
mtrgen
Other 3.27 2.50 2.33 0.00 3.67 -0019 0.899

 

Means: 0=Not at all Important, 4=Extremely Important

Table 15. The effect of respondents’ primary farmin g operation on the importance of
watershed conservation issues.

 

Respondents’ Primary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Statistics
FarmmgOperatlon
Watershed Conservation Crops Livestock F test p-value
Issues (n=143) (n=25)
Erosion into streams 3.43 3.74 0.995 0.320
Flooding 3.03 3.52 2.362 0.127
Reduced ﬁsh habitat 2.35 2.75 2.095 0.150
Algae growth 2.57 2.71 0.231 0.632
Bacterial contamination 3 .06 3. 17 0. 109 0.74 1
Excess phosphorus 2.91 3.13 0.592 0.443
Excess nitrogen 2.90 3.08 0.473 0.493
Other 2.82 3.67 0.546 0.466

 

Means: 0=Not at all Important, 4=Extremely Important

55

 

Table 16. The effect of respondents’ watershed residence on the importance of watershed
conservation issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents’ Watershed of Residence Statistics
Watershed 3.21:3] Gun Lake Upper
Conservation . . River Macatawa Thomapple F test p-value

Issues Fm“ Rm" (n:42) (n=115) (n:88)

(n=120)
Ems“ m” 3.38 3.43 3.57 3.44 0.379 0.768
streams
Flooding 3.15 3.28 3.22 3.24 0.140 0.952
Reduced ﬁsh
habitat 2.65 2.86 2.37 2.74 1.911 0.128
Algae growth 2.75 2.83 2.59 2.78 0.512 0.674
Bade"?! . 3.10 3.36 3.10 3.22 0.447 0.720
contamrnatron
“ms 2.82 3.33 3.19 2.94 2.257 0.082
phosphorus
1’33““ 2.90 3.37 3.08 3.02 1.283 0.280
mtrmen
Other 2.81 3.91 2.40 2.47 1.986 0.124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means: 0=Not at all Important, 4=Extremely Important

Research Question 1b: How Satisﬁed are Survey Respondents with the Water

Quality in their Watershed?

Summary

Overall, survey respondents were moderately satisfied with the water quality in their
watersheds. Of all respondents, 7.0% stated that they were not at all satisﬁed, 8.6%
claimed they were slightly satisﬁed, 48.4% stated they were moderately satisfied, 30.6%
claimed they were very satisﬁed, and 5.4% of survey respondents stated that they were
extremely satisfied with the water quality in their watershed (Figure3). Results indicated
that age (Table 17), education level (Table 18), gross annual income level (Table 19),

farming status (Table 20), farm size (Table 21), primary farming operation (Table 22),

56

and watershed residence (Table 23) have no significant effect on agricultural landowners’

level of satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed.

Figure 3. Respondents’ level of satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

8 100
s 3 90
"3 ﬁ
0 to
a g 70
g .5 60
m E 50
9" (B
C :1
g a 40
c h
0 2 30
D- to
"’ B
O 20
11 s
‘6 'g 10 l
O
o\ 0 j 1
Not at all Slightly Satisfied Moderately Very Satisfied Extremely
Satisfied (n=26) (n=32) Satisfied (n=180) (n=114) Satisfied (n=20)
Satisfaction with Water Quality in Watershed

 

 

 

Table 17. The effect of age on respondents’ level of satisfaction with the water quality in
their watershed.

 

The Effect of Age on Respondents’ Level of

 

 

 

 

 

Satisfaction Stat'St'cs
A e of 18-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71+ Pearson’s
Langowner years years years years years correlation p-value
(n=41) (n=86) (n=80) (n=82) (n=69) (r)
M”? Lev.“ “f 3.12 3.15 3.25 3.34 3.07 0.011 0,836
Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means: 0=Not at all Satisfied, 4=Extremely Satisfied

57

 

uocmumm boEobxmnv .cocmunm 2w 5 HoZuo unsung

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . . . . . . :euuémuam
m2 o goo E m NNm 3m 34m 2 m 3N NwN 3.5.51— 552
"n- H:
E Ens Ens Gena ﬁns omﬂwevu “use“ Ens 853:3.—
53579 :23553 3:33..» 326an 03:8 .258 .258 Aw:— 258 me .961—
m.:em..5m «men— owe=e0 eEem scuba. :3: 58mm «canny 35.5.2.5:
85235 =e=uﬂmﬂam no .951— .855—8 we“ :6 5.51— =e33=§ he «ovum 2;.

 

dosaoﬁa ~55 E 5:25 553 05 5;: 858333 .6 55. .macoccommoe :0 332 acumen—co mo Soto 23. .3 533.

58

 

nocmumm EoEobxmnv £3.38 :a 882.1... 5532

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . . . . Ecuamuam
2: o .8 o om m E m S m mm m 8 m a. .23 :82
3 an"... .3"... .8"... am"... .82. 2:85
~29-.. 5.39:8 team; 25.3 25.2.. 338 25.3. .3 .33
9:85; .§.¢mw .33. .25.me 58.2% 3522.3:
8.2.35 :235mzam me .964 .ﬁzoc—Smmoy.

.8 058:. 3:53. $26 .3 .uubm 2....

22.8033

to... c. .9525 $33 2.. 5.3 cozoﬂmsam .o .o>o. .wEovcommE co 088:. .358 mmew .8 Soto och d. 2an

59

Bumsmm beﬁobxmuv 52.22% ..a 8 .oZuo ”€32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . . assemuam
E. o Mn: N mm m o. m S. m a. .23 :82
3.3-.. .8. m 332. 83"... 32"... 2.2% wish.
55.5.. 055...... 3:25. 25.95.. 553.522 55.5233.

853% 528.3% 38288.. .8 2.3% ”5.5% .c .85. 2:.

 

 

 

 

52.3033 :05 E .952... .853 05 5.3 5.855% .0 .96. 5:05.838 :0 3.5% 3.5.8. .0 Soto 2... .om 0.5...

60

3.33am >.oEo...xm.nv .uocmﬁm :5 .m .oZuo $58.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . . . . :285muam
mg C mm. o M... m mm m Om m we m .. m .c .951. 53.).
A... I I I I I
2:5»... 5.3.2.8.. Sun... SAWS ASH... Snub. Ammﬁmé EMMWcEHMh
9:8...3n. +39 .5: .mv cmv Sm cam .m— em. a . a 1—
3.3.35 scauaumaam .Eockcugd .E=._:u...w<

 

.8 .255 2a 8...... 8.53 35 £5. a. .85 2:

 

 

 

.3582“... to... E baa... .033 o... 5.3 558.653 .0 .05. 35.2.2.8. so 36 8.8. .o 80...». 2F Am Bank

61

Table 22. The effect of primary farming operation on respondents’ level of satisfaction
with the water quality in their watershed.

 

 

 

 

The Effect of Farming Operation , ,
on Respondents’ Satisfaction Statistics
Respondents’ _ . _
Farming Operation Crops (n—143) Livestock (n—25) F test p-value
Me?" Le.“ °f 3.09 3.29 0.919 0.340
Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means: 0=Not at all Satisfied, 4=Extremely Satisfied

Table 23. The effect of watershed residence on respondents’ level of satisfaction with the
water quality in their watershed.

 

 

 

 

The Effect of Watershed Residence on Statistics
Respondents’ Satisfaction
Respondents’ £223] Gun Lake Upper
Watershed of Flint River River Macatawa Thomapple F test p-value
Resndence (“=1”) (n=44) (n=1 l3) (n=90)
Mean Level of
Satisfaction 3.21 3.36 3.10 3.19 0.91 1 0.436

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means: O=Not at all Satisﬁed, 4=Extremely Satisfied

Research Question 1c: How Informed do Survey Respondents Feel they are About

Watershed Conservation Issues?

Summag

In general, respondents felt slightly to moderately informed about watershed
conservation issues. 22.4% of survey respondents felt not at all informed, 25.8% felt
slightly informed, 33.7% felt moderately informed, 12.4% felt very informed, and 5.8%
of survey respondents felt extremely informed about watershed conservation issues

(Figure 4). Results from this portion of the study reveal that farming status (Table 24),

62

farm size (Table 25), and watershed residence (Table 26) all have a signiﬁcant effect on
how informed respondents felt they were about watershed conservation issues. In
contrast, age (Table 27), level of education (Table 28), gross annual income level (Table
29), and primary farming operation (Table 30) had no signiﬁcant effect on how informed
agricultural landowners felt they were about watershed conservation issues. Full—time
farmers felt signiﬁcantly more informed than both part-time and non-farmers, farmers
farming larger parcels of land felt signiﬁcantly more informed than farmers farming
smaller parcels of land, and respondents from the Upper Thomapple watershed felt
signiﬁcantly less informed about watershed conservation issues than respondents from
both the Lake Macatawa and Gun River watersheds (the two active watersheds of the

study).

Figure 4. The level that respondents feel informed about watershed conservation issues.

 

 

% of Respondents who Feel Informed
about Watershed Conservation Issues

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Informed Extremely
Informed Informed Informed (n=41 ) Informed
(n=85) (n=98) (n=1 28) (n=22)
Level of Feeling Informed about Watershed Conservation
Issues

 

 

 

63

Demographics that have a Signiﬁcant Effect on how Informed Respondents Feel they are

about Watershed Conservation Issues

Farming Status

There is a statistical difference in how informed respondents feel they are about
watershed conservation issues among the various farming levels (F=12.507, p=0.000).
Speciﬁcally, full-time farmers expressed signiﬁcantly higher levels of feeling informed
about watershed conservation issues than both part-time (mean difference=0.5918,

p=0.001) and non-farmers (mean difference=0.8274, p=0.000) (Table 24).

Table 24. The effect of farming status on how informed respondents feel they are about
watershed conservation issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Effect of Farming Status on
Respondents’ Level of Feeling Statistics
Informed

Respondents, Non- Part-time F ull-time
Farming Status farmers farmers farmers F test p-value

(n=137) (n=163) (n=67)
Mean Level of a a b * *
Feeli m nforme d 2.29 2.53 3.12 12.507 0.000

 

 

 

 

Means: 0=Not at all informed, 4=Extremely informed
**=Statistically signiﬁcant result at the p=0.01 level
a"’=letters indicate similar groups

Farm Size

There is a statistical difference in how informed respondents feel they are about

watershed conservation issues between farm sizes (F=20.930, p=0.000). Specifically, the

64

level of feeling informed about watershed conservation issues increases as landowners’

farm size increases (Table 25).

Table 25. The effect of farm size on how informed respondents feel they are about
watershed conservation issues.

 

 

 

 

The Effect of Farm Size (Acres Owned and
Rented) on Respondents’ Level of Feeling Statistics
Informed
, 0-150 151-300 301-450 451-600 601+ Pearson’s
Respondents .
Farm Size acres acres acres acres acres Correlation p-value
(n=165) (n=32) (n=14) (n=14) (n=22) (r)
Mean Level of
Feeling 2.46 3.07 3.21 2.93 3.60 0.304 0.000“
Informed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means: 0=Not at all informed, 4=Extremely informed
**=Statistically signiﬁcant result at the p=0.01 level

Watershed Residence

There is a statistical difference in how informed respondents feel they are about
watershed conservation issues among watersheds (F=4.197, p=0.006). Speciﬁcally,
respondents from the Upper Thomapple watershed felt signiﬁcantly less informed than
both respondents from the Gun River watershed (Bonferroni post hoc, p=0.011) and the
Lake Macatawa watershed (Bonferroni post hoc, p=0.035). Results indicate that
watershed residence in the Upper Thomapple watershed has a signiﬁcant effect on

agricultural landowners’ level of feeling informed about watershed conservation issues

(Table 26).

65

Table 26. The effect of watershed residence on how informed respondents feel they are
about watershed conservation issues.

 

 

 

 

The Effect of Watershed Residence on Statistics
Respondents’ Level of Feeling Informed
Respondents’ 1:233] Gun Lake Upper
Watershed of . . River Macatawa Thomapple F test p-value
Residence Fm" R'V“ (11:43) (n=117) (n=92)
(n=128)
Mean Level
of Feeling 2.56“"c 2.86” 2.64“ 2.21“ 4.197 0.006"
Informed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means: 0=Not at all Informed, 4=Extremely Informed
**=Statistically significant result at the p=0.01 level
a’b":=letters indicate similar groups

Demographics that do not have a Significant Effect on how Informed Respondents Feel

they are about Watershed Conservation Issues

There is no statistical difference in how informed respondents feel they are about
watershed conservation issue among respondents’ age (Table 27), level of education
(Table 28), gross annual income level (Table 29), and primary farming operation (Table

30) at the p=0.05 or p=0.01 levels.

Table 27. The effect of age on how informed respondents feel they are about watershed
conservation issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Effect of Age on Respondents Level of Statistics
Feelﬂﬂnformed
A 18-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71+ Pearson’s
ge of C 1 ti p-
Respondent years years years years years orre a on value
(n=41) (n=86) (n=80) (n=82) (n=69) (r)
Mean Level
of Feeling 2.26 2.64 2.59 2.58 2.59 0.043 0.410
Informed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means: 0=Not at all informed, 4=Extremel y informed

66

.5855. >.oEo..xmnv .5855. .5 .a .oZuo .55.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:8.
55:5.
3...... m3... omm mm.m 5N mod om...” mvd ...N «5.8... 5
.95.. 53.).

6..-... an... 5-5 5.... an"... $75
A... I Amen... I I I 55535 I 5.55....

55> 5.55.8 5.55.5 5.55.5 «5:..an 5.55.8

5:55.59 35.55 52.8 5 .96..

A. 055.5% «9:8 52.8 52.8 52.8
858.3. owe—cu aw... 55.52.83.

8e. 25% 0.5.... :w... 055 0.5....

8.8.55 .5555. $58... .5 .96.. a825.25....3. .5 .961. 5.55.... 5 50...... 2....

 

 

5.52850 58553 .55 0.8 an... .00.. 852.588 .5855. >5: 5 .05. 5.5050 5 50.5 2.... .mm 0.5...

67

.5555. 32555.3. .5555. .5 5 52".. 855.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 .95.. 55.5... 5.5.5. 85.... 5 55...... 5....

 

. . . . . . . .558... 5:8...
m5 .. N... o E N m N mm N 2 N 2 N a. .96.. :82
c. .5"... Gen... .3"... .8"... am"... .23 2:8...
3.3... 5.3.2.8 . 8.55 5.5.. 8.58 .55. .25.... .85
+..... m5 - . . . . . . . ..
3528.. z... .88 2... mm. .2. 5.. 2... m... 55...... 8..
5.8.55 .5555. $.55... .5 .55. .8..5...5..5~.

 

 

605mm. comuwtomcco

.5555? 52... 55 5... .55.. 3552.8. .5555. 32. 5 .55. 5.55. .55.. 88w 5 55.5 2.... .mm 5...“...

68

Table 30. The effect of primary farming operation on how informed respondents feel
they are about watershed conservation issues.

 

The Effect of Farming Operation

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Respondents’ Level of Feeling Statistics
Informed
Respondents’ Farming _ . _ _
Operation Crops (n—l 16) Livestock (n—24) F test p value
Me“ Lev“ M Feeling 2 59 2 92 1 561 0 214
Informed ' ' ' '

 

 

 

Means: 0=Not at all informed, 4=Extremely informed

Water Quality Information Needs of Respondents

Respondents’ Familiarity with Conservation Practices

The conservation practices that respondents express the least familiarity with are:
pasture management/livestock exclusion, streamside buffer/ﬁlter strips, integrated crop
management, manure management plans, and animal waste storage (Table 31). Overall,
44.7% of the respondents from the survey population speciﬁcally requested information
about wildlife habitat/wetland restoration, 30.9% of all farmers desired information about
ﬁlter strips, 30.9% wanted information on grassed waterways, 26.3% requested
information about conservation tillage, 25.5% desired information about erosion control
structures, 20.5% wanted information on manure management plans, 20.4% wanted to
know more about integrated crop management, 14.5% wanted information on pasture
management and 14.5% of all survey farmers wanted to know more about animal waste

storage (Figure 5).

69

Table 31. Percentage of respondents who are unfamiliar with various conservation
practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Respondents who
Conservation Practice Sample Size are Unfamiliar with
Practice

Pasture mgmt/livestock exclusion 59 29.6
Buffer/ﬁlter strips 61 27.0
Integrated crop management 56 25.8
Manure management plans 54 25.5
Animal waste storage 51 25.0
Erosion control structures 47 21.5
Grassed waterways 37 17.5
Wildlife habitat/Wetland 27 12.5
restoration

Conservation tillage 28 12.4

 

Figure 5. The percentage of respondents who requested more information about specific
watershed conservation practices.

 

§ 100
‘5 90
.gE 80
0.9 70
'5:
g; 60
a; 50
$2 40
952 30
‘3'“ 20
00
>9
1o
,2 o
a
0
gsé
s“
.{{b
‘0
$0
0
6“

 

Topics Landowners Want More Information About

 

 

 

70

The Eﬂect of Watershed Residence on Respondents’ Request for Information about

Various Conservation Practices

In general, each watershed differed regarding requests for information for various
watershed conservation issues. However, results indicate that watershed residence only
had a significant effect on how frequently agricultural landowners requested information
about wildlife habitat and restoration (Table 32) and that watershed residence had no
signiﬁcant effect on how often landowners requested information pertaining to crops
(Table 33), livestock (Table 34), or erosion and water quality (Table 35). Specifically,

Lake Macatawa residents expressed less interest in wildlife habitat and restoration.

Table 32. The percentage of respondents from each watershed who requested
information pertaining to wildlife habitat and restoration.

 

 

 

 

 

% of Respondents who Requested Information Pertaining to Wildlife
Habitat and Restoration
Watersheds Statistics
North Branch Gun Lake Upper
Flint River River Macatawa Thomapple x2 p-value
(%) (%) (%) (%)
52.6 61.1 28.3 50.0 9.448 0024*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*=Statistically significant result at the p=0.05 level

Table 33. The percentage of respondents from each watershed who requested
information pertaining to crops.

 

 

 

 

 

% of Respondents who Requested Information Pertaining to Crops
Watersheds Statistics
North Branch Gun Lake Upper
Flint River River Macatawa Thomapple x2 p-value
(%) (%L (%) (%)
36.8 33.3 30.2 37.5 0.678 0.878

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7l

Table 34. The percentage of respondents from each watershed who requested
information pertaining to livestock.

 

% of Respondents who Requested Information Pertaining to Livestock

 

 

 

 

 

Watersheds Statistics
North Branch Gun Lake Upper
Flint River River Macatawa Thomapple x2 p-value
(ZoL (:70) j %) (%)
35.7 27.8 26.4 20.8 2.181 0.536

 

 

 

 

 

Table 35. The percentage of respondents from each watershed who requested
information pertaining to erosion and water quality.

 

% of Respondents who Requested Information Pertaining to Erosion and

 

 

 

 

Water Quality
Watersheds Statistics
North Branch Gun Lake Upper
Flint River River Macatawa Thomapple 12 p-value
(%) (%) ( %) (%)
51.8 44.4 64.2 62.5 3.180 0.365

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Eﬂect of Seeking Advise on Respondents’ Level of Feeling Informed about Watershed

Conservation Issues

The vast majority of respondents (64.6%) never sought advice from an agency or
organization in the past year (Table 36). Furthermore, the number of times respondents
sought advice from agencies and organizations did not have a significant effect on how

informed respondents felt they were about watershed conservation issues (Table 37).

Although results are not statistically significant, it is meaningful to mention that

respondents who sought advise three or more times were at least three times more likely

72

 

 

 

than individuals only seeking advise zero to two times to feel extremely informed about

watershed conservation issues.

Table 36. The number of times respondents sought advise from an agency or
organization in the last year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Times Res ndents Sou t Sam le
Adviceli: Last Yeargh Siz: % °f Resmndems
0 times 146 64.6
1 time 27 11.9
2 times 27 11.9
3 times 10 4.5
4-5 times 10 4.5
6+ times 6 2.6

 

 

 

 

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wood ommd QB 93 odm odm odm +m
wood cmmd Wm 59 mév NNN :— N;
mood mmmd wd wim— m.mm N.m~ mdm e
30> “we:
Aoev Aosv Q; 3% Aoev 5833‘
2:5»... 33 .m @258:— coEueucn @258:— utheHE c258:— Ewaom
.20anwa ES, 3393—52 bEﬂ—w =a 3 .oz $5.538:
85$. .3 #
aamaﬁm 8.5m— :ewatomneu 627.333 32.: 0.3 .35 Eu...— mane—Eamom
. . 6258:— Be: no m2. 33.5. ”Ev—3m he 3:259:— uuotm 2:.

 

 

.853. 539838
355%? Sena 8a >05 88 Scuba—came 38.—85 Bo: :0 mm: 02>?“ wan—com mo Sconce; Soto 2F Sm 033.

74

Research Question 2a: What Percentage of Survey Respondents Adopts Best

Management Practices?

Effective Adoption Rate of BMPs

Of the survey respondents having crops as their primary farming operation, 40.0%
adopted conservation tillage practices while 100.0% adopted integrated crop management
(crop scouting, pest and fertilizer management, etc). Of the survey respondents having
livestock as their primary farming operation, 25.0% had adopted animal waste storage
systems, 30.4% had adopted manure management plans, and 0.0% had adopted pasture
management (livestock exclusion and stream crossings). Worth mentioning is that 17.2%
of respondents with livestock as their primary farming operation had a stream on their
property and potentially could have adopted pasture management practices. In addition,
of the respondents who had a stream on their property, 25.1% adopted streamside filter or
buffer strips, and 34.1% of these respondents adopted grassed waterways. Fuithermore,
of all farming respondents, 20.5% adopted erosion control structures while 15.7% tried

wildlife habitat management or wetland restoration practices (Figure 6).

75

Figure 6. The effective adoption rate of various best management practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

g 100
'8 90 I Crops as
< 30 Primary
'0 Operation
.2 w 60 ILIvestockas
; 0- 50 Primary
0 E 40 Farming
.: on O oration
B 3 30 US ream on
.52 .3 20 Property
5 ca 10
'5 >
§ 0 IAII Farming
Q o ‘

é a“ as” a”

\\ ~o°
‘5 <<‘ 6a s
o\° 09°

° \“

BM P Tried/Adopted

 

 

 

What Incentives wouldﬁcourage Respondents’ Adoption of Best Management

Practices?

Figure 7 demonstrates the incentives respondents suggested would help encourage
BMP adoption. Financial assistance such as cost-share programs and tax credits (50.4%),
information, training, and/or assistance with the implementation of conservation practices
(21.6%), and improved environment and water quality (17.6%) were the three most

prominent incentives recognized by agricultural landowners.

76

Figure 7. The percentage of respondents who feel various incentives would encourage
their adoption of best management practices.

 

100

 

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would Encourage BMP Adoption

 

% of Respondents who Feel Incentive

 

 

     

Money Information Environment Other None
Incentives for Best Management Practice Adopﬁon

 

 

 

What Factors would Hinder Respondents’ Adoption of Best Management Practices?

Of all farming respondents, 11.3% were reluctant to implement conservation practices
because they felt the soils or topography of their property were inappropriate for the
implementation of the watershed conservation practice. Another 18.7% of farmers did
not implement conservation practices because they felt hindered by long or confusing
applications and permits. An additional 29.1% of farmers did not implement
conservation practices because they felt they did not have the appropriate funds to do so.
Furthermore, 24.4% of farmers felt hindered by a lack of information about conservation

practices and 14.3% felt hindered by a lack of agency ﬂexibility. An additional 17.7% of

77

farming respondents neglected to implement watershed conservation practices because
they were worried about getting fined. Lastly, 2.5 % of farming respondents mentioned
other reasons for not adopting best management practices. Other reasons farmers
mentioned that prevented them from implementing watershed conservation practices
were that they felt the practices were unnecessary, they had problems with their
neighbors, they thought the implementation of conservation practices was too much
effort, they felt they were too old or lacked sufficient time to implement practices, or they

simply acknowledged that they did not care about watershed conservation practices

(Figure 8).

Figure 8. The percentage of respondents who feel various factors would hinder their
adoption of best management practices.

 

 

i
8
'0 100
< 90
a so
5 70
H
o 60
2
83m 50
2°- 40
«as
am 30
5 20
U
5 10
0- 0
on
Q) >2 03 ‘0 C > 5.0 L-
: am ﬁes 3 3% 3> °¢ 3
- C 3 (6 an... DC
'5 59's egg u. ﬁg as “it 0
\° 2 00. ° 4.9 “-X .9:
0 8m 0;: x C Om L-—
an o — x_ h:
I— an: m ou. Om
S<<U _l w 30’
_, .1

Factors Hlndering BMP Adoption

 

 

 

*Note: Percentages add up to more than 100% because respondents were asked to
choose all of the factors that prevented or hindered them from implementing BMPs.

78

Research Question 2b: How does the Importance of Watershed Conservation Issues

Affect Survey Respondents’ Willingness to Adopt Best Management Practices?

Results indicate that importance of watershed conservation issues did not
significantly effect respondents’ effective adoption of the various best management
practices (Table 38). Effective adoption reﬂects the rate at which landowners adopt

conservation practices relevant to their farm or primary farming operations.

79

 

Table 38. The effect of importance of watershed conservation issues on respondents’
effective adoption of best management practices

 

The Effect of Importance of Watershed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Issues on Respondents’ Adoption Statistics
of BMPs
Respondents Respondents Respondents
who Felt who Felt who Felt
Issues were Issues were Issues were
BMPs Adopted Not at All to Moderately Very to 2 l
by Respondents Slightly Important Extremely X p-va ue
Important (% (% who Important (%
who Adopted Adopted who Adopted
BMP) BMP) BMP)

Streamside
Filter/Buffer 2. 1 29.8 68. 1 5.464 0.065
Stripsc
CfnseWm“ 8.6 38.6 52.9 1.008 0.604
Tillage
Manure
Management 4.2 50.0 45.8 0.608 0.738
Plans”
Grassed , 5.0 40.0 55.0 1.176 0.556
Waterways
1’35"“ e w. 0.0 28.6 71.4 2.145 0.342
Manggement
Integrate“ C?" 4.9 36.6 58.5 2.860 0.239
Management
Ann“ was“ ., 0.0 52.4 47.6 2.302 0.316
Storage Systems
w'ldl'fe Habitat 5.9 29.4 64.7 2.219 0.330
Mamement
Emsm" Cﬁntr‘“ 6.7 31.1 62.2 2.692 0.260
Structures

 

 

 

 

 

 

al=Survey respondents with crops as their primary farming operation

b=Survey respondents with livestock as their primary farming operation
c=Survey respondents with stream(s) on the property they farm
d=All farming survey respondents

80

 

Research Question 2c: How does Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction with the Water
Quality in their Watershed Influence their Willingness to Adopt Best Management

Practices?

Table 39 indicates that respondents who were not at all to slightly satisﬁed with
the water quality in their watershed were significantly less likely to adopt conservation
tillage practices than landowners who felt moderately to extremely satisfied with the
water quality in their watershed (x2=7.745, p=0.005). However, satisfaction with water
quality in the watershed does not have a significant effect on the adoption of all other best

management practices.

81

Table 39. The effect of satisfaction with water quality on respondents’ effective adoption

of best management practices

 

The Effect of Satisfaction with Water Quality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Respondents’ Adoption of BMPs Statistics
Respondents Respondents
who Felt Not Resmndems who Felt
at All to “h” Fe“ Ver to
BMPs Adopted . Moderately y 2
by Respondents Slightly Sa tisfi ed (% Extremely x p-value
Satisfied (% who Ado ted Satisfied (%
who Adopted BMP? who Adopted
BMP) BMP)

Streamside
Filter/Buffer 23.4 46.8 29.8 4. 123 0. 127
Stripsc
Cf’m'Im“ 5.8 46.4 47.8 9.745 0.009**
Tillage
Manure
Management 8.3 37.5 54.2 0.933 0.627
Plansb
Grassed , 15.3 37.3 47.5 4.704 0.095
Waterways
Pam“ w. 14.3 42.9 42.9 0.022 0.989
Management
Integ’a‘ed C?" 9.8 41.5 48.8 3.123 0.210
MaiEgement
Amma' was“ ., 14.3 23.8 61.9 3.960 0.138
StoragSystems
W‘lm'fe Habitat 17.6 58.8 23.5 2.393 0.302
Manggement
5:33;?” 17.8 46.7 35.6 0.215 0.898

 

 

 

 

 

 

al=Survey respondents with crops as their primary farming operation
b=Survey respondents with livestock as their primary farming operation
c=Survey respondents with stream(s) on the property they farm

d=All farming survey respondents

**=Statistically significant result at the p=0.01 level

82

 

Research Question 2d: What Eﬂ‘ect does Feeling Informed about Watershed
Conservation Issues have on Survey Respondents’ Willingness to Adopt Best

Management Practices?

In general, respondents who felt most informed about watershed conservation
issues tended to be more likely to adopt best management practices. Table 40 illustrates
how respondents who felt moderately to extremely informed about watershed
conservation issues were significantly more likely to adopt streamside ﬁlter/buffer strips
(x2=8.853, p=0.012), grassed waterways (x2=6.007, p=0.050), and integrated crop
management (x2=10.361, p=0.010) than respondents who felt not at all or slightly
informed about watershed conservation issues. Level of feeling informed about
watershed conservation issues did not have a significant effect on respondents’ adoption
of conservation tillage practices, manure management plans, pasture management, animal

waste storage systems, wildlife habitat management, or erosion control structures.

83

Table 40. The effect of feeling informed about watershed conservation issues on
respondents’ effective adoption of best management practices

 

The Effect of Feeling Informed about

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Watershed Conservation Issues on Statistics
Respondents’ Adoption of BMPs
Respondents Respondents
who Felt Not Respongints who Felt
atAllto wo et Veryto
BMPs Adopted Sli h l Moderately E l 2 l
by Respondents g t y Informed (% xtreme y X p -va ue
Informed (% who Ado ted Informed (%
who Adopted BMP), who Adopted
BMP) BMP)

Streamside
Filter/Buffer 19.1 42.6 38.3 8.853 0.012*
Stripsc
$51123 “m“ 34.3 34.3 31.4 2.905 0.234
Manure
Management 20.8 50.0 29.2 1.188 0.552
Plans”
Grassed *
Waterways‘ 25.0 41.7 33.3 6.007 0.050
3:32:11!“ N. 42.9 42.9 14.3 0.580 0.748
mellggg‘mleﬁ?” 24.4 34.1 41.5 10.361 0.010**
32:; gigs, 19.0 42.9 38.1 4.085 0.130
$233333“ 33.3 42.4 24.2 1.010 0.603
Efﬁgrgﬁmml 29.5 36.4 34.1 4.276 0.118

 

 

 

 

 

 

a=Survey respondents with crops as their primary farming operation
b=Survey respondents with livestock as their primary farming operation
c=Survey respondents with stream(s) on the property they farm
d=All farming survey respondents

*=Statistically significant result at the p=0.05 level
**=Statistically significant result at the p=0.01 level

84

 

Summary of Research Question 2

While all farmers with crops as their primary farming operation adopted
integrated crop management practices, adoption rates of all other BMPs are not
particularly high and should be increased. Results of this portion of the study indicate
that the more satisﬁed respondents were with the water quality in their watershed, the
more likely they were to adopt conservation tillage practices. In addition, the more
informed respondents felt they were about watershed conservation issues, the more likely
they were to adopt streamside filter/buffer strips, grassed waterways, and integrated crop
management practices. Results indicate that the importance of watershed conservation
issues has no signiﬁcant effect on respondents’ adoption of BMPS and that level of
feeling informed about watershed conservation issues seems to have the biggest impact

on whether respondents decide to implement BMPs.

Research Question 33: Do Survey Respondents Prefer Traditional or Technological

Communication Strategies?

Summa_ry

Overall, the most preferred communication strategies were written methods such
as newsletters/mailers and printed bulletins/fact sheets while the least preferred
communication strategies were computer/Internet methods such as computer software, e-
mail, and World Wide Web pages. Of all the communication strategies presented to

respondents, 76.6% of respondents preferred written communication strategies such as

85

newsletters/mailers and printed bulletins/fact sheets to learn more about watershed
conservation. In addition, 57% of respondents preferred personal/face-to-face
communication strategies such as farm meetings/workshops, field days/demonstration
tours, visits to resource offices (extension or conservation district), personal visits to their
homes by resource persons, and visits to a university to learn more about watershed
conservation. Furthermore, 39% of respondents preferred media sources (such as
newspapers, televisions, radios, and video tapes) to learn more about watershed
conservation while 18.7% of respondents preferred computer or Internet sources (such as
computer software packages, e—mail, and World Wide Web pages) to learn more about

watershed conservation (Figure 9).

86

Figure 9. Survey respondents’ preference for traditional or technological communication
strategies to learn about watershed conservation practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Respondents who Prefer
Communication Strategies

 

 

 

Written Personal/Face-to- Media Computer/Intemet
Face

Communication Strategies

 

 

 

Note: Percentages add up to more than 100% because respondents were asked to indicate
all communication strategies that applied.

Research Question 3b: What Effect does Watershed Residence have on

Respondents’ Preference for Communication Strategies?

Summary

Overall, respondents from all four watersheds had a higher preference for written
materials than all other communication strategies. However, results indicate that

watershed residence had no signiﬁcant effect on agricultural landowners’ preference for

87

communication strategies. There is no statistical difference in preference for

communication strategies among watersheds at the p=0.05 or p=0.01 levels (Table 41).

Table 41. The effect of watershed residence on respondents’ preference for
communication strategies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Watersheds Statistics
North
Communication Branch Flint Cfun Lake Upper 2 p-
. . River Macatawa Thomapple 1
Strategies Rrver value
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Written 78.4 75.0 78.0 70.0 0.997 0.802
Personal 0' Fm' 62.2 39.3 57.3 60.0 4.503 0.212
to-Face
Media 41.9 28.6 42.7 33.3 2.401 0.493
“”9“” 0' 12.2 32.1 19.5 20.0 5.480 0.140
Internet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Question 4a: Is Computer and Internet Preference Related to Age, Level
of Education, Gross Annual Income, Farming Status, Farm Size, or Farming

Operation?

Summary

Results indicate that respondents’ preference for computers and the Internet as a
communication strategy to learn about watershed conservation practices is related to
respondents’ age, level of education, and gross annual income level. Respondents from
the youngest age category (20-40 years old) had the highest preference for computers and
the Internet as communication strategies while respondents from the oldest age category
(individuals more than 60 years old) had the least amount of preference for this
communication strategy. Furthermore, a positive correlation exists between both
respondents’ level of education and gross annual income and their preference for

computers and the Internet to learn about watershed conservation issues. The younger,

88

more educated, and more afﬂuent a respondent is, the more likely they are to prefer
computers and the Internet as a communication strategy. Furthermore, face—to-face
communication strategies are preferred by full-time farmers and farmers who Operate

large parcels of land.

Demographics that have an Effect on Respondents’ Preference for Computers and the

mama

Age

Table 42 demonstrates the inﬂuence of age on communication strategy
preference. There is a statistical difference between age groups and preference for
written communication strategies, media, and computer or Internet methods of learning
about watershed conservation issues. Results specifically indicate that age has a
signiﬁcant effect on respondents’ preference for computers and Internet for learning

about watershed conservation issues.

89

Table 42. The effect age has on respondents’ preference for communication strategies.

 

The Eﬁ'ect of Age on Respondents’

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preference for Communication Statistics
Stratejies
Communication 20-40 years 41-60 years 61+ years X2 p-value
Strategies old (%) old (%) old (%)
Written 75.0 84.8 68.2 7.306 0026*
Personal °" 62.5 57.0 56.6 0.295 0.863
Face-to-Face
Media 58.3 42.4 30.7 6.787 0034*
“mute" °’ 41.7 24.2 5.7 20.312 0.000**
Internet

 

 

 

 

 

 

*=Statistically signiﬁcant result at the p=0.05 level
**=Statistically significant result at the p=0.01 level

Education Level

Table 43 demonstrates the influence of respondents’ education level on

respondents’ preference for communication strategies to learn about watershed

conservation issues. A statistically significant relationship exists between respondents’

levels of education and preference for media and computers/Intemet as communication

strategies to learn about watershed conservation issues.

90

 

._o>o_ Edna of “a :32 885ch 3.8586”:
.88. modum 05 a :38 88$ch b.3585"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . . . . 8:88—
....Loo o emu 3 m we _ on v om m E m o W: od 8 889.80
*m ood mane _ wdm nee YNN 5mm o. _ .8 ﬁts ode «:82

3a .8
oSd mod .3 N.e..V e5V man 5mm ode wdm ode -33— 8 88mm!“
mend New;V wow new Y: 1: 2w wand ode 83!?»

$3
$3 $3
2.83 8 33 3S 3.; .86... 3.3.8..» .258 3.; 8.6325
2:9»8 ”x 3..on 38.85 owe—89 28.: 8 828m .
82.8 aw:— 2588:8880
32829 owe—80 088m 8.8539» 28.—G
.3: 2.5m
«8.—
8&825
magmaﬁw 8
338.5580 8.. 3888.5 .waaoonoomom .8 .981— :3883 .8 88.5 95.

 

.mﬂwoﬁbm 88085888 88 88888 beaver—com“: 8 was .08. 8:880 Soto 2:. .94 033.

91

 

Gross Annual Income Level

Table 44 demonstrates the effect gross income level has on respondents’
preference for communication strategies to learn about watershed conservation issues. A
statistically significant relationship exists between respondents’ level of income and
preference for written communication strategies to learn about watershed conservation

issues.

92

_o>o_ modno 05 a :38 858.8%: 338235"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . . . . 8:88—
wmo o wvv e o R m mm m 3 e E o e 8 889880
vad meeA e.mm Wmv mém odm Q3 «:82
. . . . . . . 850-8
Vex o 9% o _ we o me ~ be _ em h E .83— 8 .888.—
*Nmod emedo wde m.mw méo mdw We 88:83
A see 3% 3% SS 33
89m 8a 89» 8.. 8% 8d 89m .8: 83385
88>-.. «x .80» 8o . . . .
+25.me ooo mum ooo omm ooo mew ooo mum 8338:8880
-ooodmw Aooﬁnw Aooﬁma -ooo.m—m
mﬂwouabm 8338:8880 8.. 3.8.8.8.:—
8:8me
.38oeceomom 8 8888— .88:< 39.0 .8 89:0 2E.

 

 

.meBEHm 8888:8800 8.8 8.8888 .mocoecommoe 8 was _o>o_ 0888 2888 38m Soto of. .3 033.

93

Demographics that do not have an Effect on Respondents’ Preference for Computers and

the Internet

Results indicate that farming status (Table 45), farm size (Table 46), and primary
farming operation (Table 47) do not have a signiﬁcant effect on respondents’ preference
for computers and the Internet. However, farming status and farm size do have a
signiﬁcant effect on respondents’ preference for personal or face-to-face communication
strategies and the p=0.01 level. Specifically, full-time farmers and farmers farming
larger parcels of land have a strong preference for face-to-face communication strategies

such as visits to Extension ofﬁces or on-farm demonstration tours.

Table 45. The effect farming status has on respondents’ preference for communication
strategies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Effect of F arming Status on
Respondents’ Preference for Statistics
Communication Stratgies
Communication Part-time Farmer Full-time Farmer 12 1
Strategies (%) (%) 1"" “‘3
Written 79.9 69.6 5.878 0.053
Personal “r 46.0 79.7 22.121 0.000**
Face-to-Face
Media 38.8 42.0 0.857 0.652
“mp“‘e' 0' 19.4 17.4 4.368 0.113
Internet

 

 

 

 

 

 

**=Statistically significant result at the p=0.01 level

94

Table 46. The effect farm size has on respondents’ preference for communication

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

strategies.

The Effect of Farm Size on

Respondents’ Preference for Statistics

Communication Strategies
Communication Farm 0-228 Acres Farm 229+ Acres 2 value
Strategies (%) (%) x I" .
Written 79.3 71.7 1.429 0.232
Personal °' 48.7 80.0 17.231 0.000**
Face-to-Face
Media 40.0 35.0 0.452 0.501
C‘m‘W‘" 0" 17.3 18.3 0.030 0.864
Internet

 

 

 

 

 

**=Statistically signiﬁcant result at the p=0.01 level

Table 47. The effect farming operation has on respondents’ preference for
communication strategies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Effect of Farming Operation on
Respondents’ Preference for Communication Statistics
Strategies
Communication . 2
Strategies Crops (%) Livestock (%) x p-value
Written 73.8 66.7 1.532 0.465
Personal or
Face-to-Face 53.3 66.7 3.186 0.203
Media 39.3 23.8 1.876 0.391
“mm“ 0" 15.9 23.8 1.213 0.545
Internet

 

 

 

95

 

 

Research Question 4b: Does Internet Access Influence Survey Respondents’
Preference for the Internet as a Communication Strategy to Learn about Watershed

Conservation Issues?

Summa_ry

Of all survey respondents, 32.2% claimed they did not have Internet access. Of
all respondents who did have Internet access, 47.4% of them had Internet access in their
home, 23.2% of respondents had Internet access at their business, 17.5% of respondents
had Internet access at a local school or library, and 13.6% of respondents had Internet
access at a friend’s or relative’s home (Figure 10). Regardless of respondents’ access to
the Internet, the majority of respondents still preferred written methods of
communication. However, access to the Internet significantly impacts respondents’
preference for computers and the Internet as survey respondents with Internet access had
a signiﬁcantly higher preference computers and the Internet than did landowners without
Internet access. In addition, results indicate that the location of Internet access has a

significant effect on respondents’ preference for the Internet as a communication strategy.

96

Figure 10. The location where survey respondents have Internet access.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Respondents who Have Internet
Access

Home Business School or Library Friend or
or Other Relative's Home

Location Respondents Had Internet Access

 

 

 

* Note: Percentages add to more than 100% because respondents were requested to
indicate all locations where they had Internet access.

Wﬂt Effect does Internet Access have on Respondents’ Preference for the Internet?

Regardless of Internet access, the majority of respondents (74.6% of respondents
with Internet access and 77.8% of respondents without Internet access) still preferred
written materials such as newsletters/mailers and printed bulletins/fact sheets than the
other communication strategies. While no significant differences existed between
preferences for written, personal/face-to-face, or media methods of communication
among landowners with or without Internet access, a signiﬁcant difference existed

between preference for computers or the Internet among respondents with and without

97

Internet access. Survey respondents with Internet access had a significantly higher

preference for computers and the Internet than did landowners without Internet access.

Results indicate that access to the Internet significantly impacts respondents’ preference

for computers and the Internet as communication strategies (Table 48).

Table 48. The effect Internet access has on respondents’ preference for the Internet as a
communication strategy.

 

The Effect of Internet Access on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents’ Preference for Communication Statistics
Strate 'es
Communication Respondents with Respondents without 2 -value
Strategies Internet Access (%) Internet Access (%) X p
Written 74.6 77.8 0.232 0.630
”“0““ °" 59.2 50.8 1.242 0.265
Face-to-Face
Media 41.5 34.9 0.802 0.370
“mm" 0" 27.5 1.6 18.607 0.000**
Internet

 

**=Statistically signiﬁcant result at the p=0.01 level

What Effect does Location of Internet Access have on Respondents’ Preference for the

Internet a_s a Communication Strategy?

Table 49 demonstrates the effect location of Internet access has on respondents’

preference for the Internet as a communication strategy. Results indicate that the location

of Internet access has a significant effect on respondents’ preference for the Internet as a

communication strategy. Specifically, a significantly higher percentage of respondents

preferring the Internet had Internet access in their homes, their business, or at a local

98

 

library or school than did respondents who did not prefer the Internet as a communication

strategy.

Table 49. The effect location of Internet access has on respondents’ preference for the
Internet as a communication strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Effect of Location of Internet Access on
Respondents’ Preference for the Internet as a Statistics
Communication Strategy
% of Respondents who % :deespgndtentihwho
Location of Prefer the Internet as a I not e er e 2
Internet Access Communication Internet asa X p-value
Strategy Commumcatlon
Strategy

Home 94.7 45.2 16.948 0.000**
Business 52.6 21.0 9.502 0.002“
Libraq or School 31.6 12.9 4.813 0.028*
Friend or
Relative’s Home 15.8 18.3 0.072 0.788

 

 

 

 

 

 

*=Statistically signiﬁcant result at the p=0.05 level
**=Statistically significant result at the p=0.01 level

99

Research Question 5a: What Factors Influence Focus Group Participants’ Use of

the Internet and Web Sites to Learn More about Watershed Conservation Issues

and Best Management Practices?

Background Information of Focus Group Pagicipants

Table 50. Background information of focus group participants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Focus Group
Background Information Participants Matching
Criteria
‘ Highest Obtained Education = Grade School 0.0
Highest Obtained Education = Some High School 0.0
Highest Obtained Education = High School Diploma 5.9
Highest Obtained Education = Vocational/Trade 5 9
School '
west Obtained Education = Some College 29.4
Highest Obtained Education = College Degree 17.6
Highest Obtained Education = Graduate 35 3
Work/Degree '
Non-farmer 64.7
Part-time Farmer 11.8
Full-time Farmer 23.5
Internet Access at Home 94.1
Internet Access at Business 70.6
Internet Access at Library or School 29.4
Internet Access at Friend’s or Relative’s Home 35.3
Internet Access at Other Location 0.0
No Internet Access 5.9
Frequently or Occasionally Use Internet for 76 5
‘Management Decisions '
Rarely or Never Use Internet for Management 23 5
Decisions '
Use Internet Once/Day 82.4
Use Internet Once/Week 5.9
Use Internet Once/Month 5.9
Use Internet Once/Every Few Months 0.0
Never Use Internet 5.9

 

 

 

 

100

Focus Group Participants’ Overall Imp_ression of the Proiect Web Site

Overall, the 17 focus group participants liked the web site, found the site to be
user-friendly, and indicated that it was very likely that they would use the Internet in the
future to retrieve information about water quality. However, one respondent indicated
that in order for them to use it, they would have to be able to ﬁnd it on a search engine.
Other participants recognized the web site as a great educational tool and were excited to
see how the condition of their watershed might improve by informing other watershed

residents through the web site.

Positive Attributes of a Web Site

Table 51 indicates that participants speciﬁcally appreciated the local pictures,
base maps, and watershed maps included in the site to provide orientation and a local
context. Many participants valued the “clean and easy” web site lay out and considered
the site to be user—friendly and relatively easy to navigate. Participants also appreciated
links to other relevant sites, the inclusion of a text/graphics option to accommodate users
with slow modems, and graphs containing scientiﬁc results of the study. Several
participants thought the site was very informative, answering questions they did not

realize they had.

101

Table 51. Focus group participants’ most preferred aspects of the project web site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aspects of Web Site Most Preferred by % of Participants who
Focus Group Participants Support Opinion

Local Photos and Watershed and GIS Maps

. . 47.1
for Orientation
Easy Navigation and User-friendly Lakout 41.2
Links to Other Relevant Web Sites 29.4
Text/Graphics Option to Accommodate

23.5

Slow Modems
Inclusion of Sung Results from Study 11.8

 

Negative Attributes of a Web Site

The biggest complaint participants had about the project web site was that it did
not include enough specific information (Table 52). Participants were particularly
interested in targeting historical information about speciﬁc watersheds (e. g., size of
watershed, number of hog and dairy farms, etc.), manure management plans, the
condition of the watershed, specific pollutants in the water, agriculture’s contribution to
water pollution, wildlife issues (e. g., the type and abundance of each species that existed
in their watershed), and what individuals could specifically do to improve the condition
of their watershed.

Focus group participants also suggested that they did not like the
wrapping/scrolling text and drifting menu bar. The wrapping/scrolling text resulted from
complications with computer monitor resolution. The resolution of the computer monitor
that the web site was originally designed on differed from the resolution of the monitors
focus group participants used during the focus group session. The drifting menu bar can
be best described as a menu bar that moved across the computer screen in coordination

with the cursor of the mouse.

102

A number of participants were also frustrated with “inappropriate terminology.”
For example, respondents did not know what “n=. . .” meant on the graphs and thought it
should be deﬁned or omitted. Some individuals mentioned that some terms did not make
sense, that there was a need for a glossary, and that the acronyms included in the site
were confusing and distracting. Three participants expressed aversion to having to sort
through what they considered to be irrelevant information while two individuals simply

felt the project team should have chosen brighter colors for the web site.

Table 52. Focus group participants’ least preferred aspects of the project web site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aspects of Web Site Least Preferred by Focus % of Participants who
Group Participants Support Opinion
Lack of Speciﬁc Information 41.2
Drifting Menu Bar and Wrapping/Scrolling Text 29.4
Inappropriate terminology 23.5
Irrelevant Information from Other Web Sites 17.6
Overall Appearance (Unattractive Colors) 11.8

 

Research Question 5b: What would Focus Group Participants Speciﬁwa

Recommend to Improve Web Site Content and Usability?

Many suggestions were made as to how the web site developers could improve
the site (Table 53). The most prevalent suggestions were that the site shOuld include
more speciﬁc information and that the site should include links to other relevant sites.
Participants were interested in the condition of the water and what kind of pollutants exist

in the watershed. Respondents suggested that the web site include speciﬁc numbers for

103

the levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, E. coli, etc. Other specific information that
individuals suggested should be included in the web site was information regarding
manure management plans, cost share information, information on ﬁnancial assistance,
wetlands, farming practices related to livestock, historical information about watersheds,
wildlife issues, and speciﬁcs on agriculture’s contribution to water quality.

Participants speciﬁcally want to know what they can personally do to help improve the
condition of the Stony Creek watershed.

Several individuals (23.5% of participants) recommended that the project team
update the site constantly (at least monthly) and that we highlight the information that
was updated. The same proportion of participants also suggested that the web site needs
to have a more user-friendly approach and that web site designers should provide a
frequently asked questions section and a glossary for individuals without a great deal of
knowledge about water quality issues. In addition, 11.8% of participants indicated a need
for an events calendar, local contact people, and articles with a local ﬂavor. Furthermore,
23.5% of participants suggested that successful conservation practices should be shown
and web site designers should include images of people doing good things for the
watershed.

Participants suggested that major water bodies should be included in the maps for
orientation and that the drifting menu bar should be omitted. One suggestion was to
include a minimal amount of photos with links to other photos to accommodate those
with slower Internet connections. There was also interest in having a print option for
graphs and one individual recommended incorporating “under construction” notices

when information is not available.

104

Table 53. Specific suggestions focus group participants had for improving the project
web site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Participants
Specific Suggestions Provided by Focus Group Participants who Provided
Suggestion
Speciﬁc Information 58.8
Links to Other Relevant Web Sites 41.2
Include Historical Info, Maps, and Articles with a Local Flavor 29.4
Uﬂate Web Site Constantly 23.5
Show Successful Conservation Practices in Watershed 23.5
Eliminate Scrolling Text and Resolution Issues 23.5
Provide a Glossary and a Frequently Asked Questions Section 23.5
Provide an Events Calendar and List of Local Contact People 17.6
Include All Sungy Results and Have Print Option for Graphs 17.6
Minimize the Amount of Photos to Accommodate Slow Modems 11.8
Include “Under Construction” Notices when Site is Being Updated 5.9

 

Examples of Specific Quotes from Participants on how Web Site Designers Could
Improve Web Site Content and Usability

“ I would like to see an events calendar, local contact people (with updated area codes),
and articles with a local flavor. I also want to see people participating in local activities.”
“There is not enough information about wetlands.”

“Don’t just focus on problems (politicizing)-also mention what good has been done.
Mention what good things farmers are doing. Mention successful activities going on in
the watershed. Show other side of the story. There needs to be a balance.”

“Web sites need to be updated constantly (no less than monthly) or we won’t use them.”

“Site should be updated at least quarterly. I like the way ﬁeld days are arranged but add
future events. I won’t go back to old sites.”

“There is a navigation issue-that ﬂoating/scrolling menu bar-get rid of it!”

“I don’t want to scroll left/right and up/down to view graphs. I want to see them entirely
on the screen.”

“You definitely need to have a good, fast computer for this. . .you need to accommodate
slow computers.”

“I would like a print option for graphs and survey results.”

105

“You need a search option.”
“Color-wise, it’s not so attractive. The lack of color wouldn’t affect me from using it
though.”
Overall Chapter Summary of Results
Attitudes about Water Quality and Watershed Conservation Issues

Table 54 provides a summary of respondents’ demographic characteristics that
signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the level of importance respondents associate with watershed
conservation issues, the level of satisfaction respondents have with the water quality in
their watershed, the degree to which respondents feel informed about watershed
conservation issues, and the communication strategy preferences of survey respondents.
The importance respondents associate with watershed conservation issues is inﬂuenced
by respondents’ age, level of education, and farm status as full-time, part-time, or non-
farmers. How informed respondents feel they are about watershed conservation issues
depends on the farm status of respondents, the size of the farm operated by the

respondents, and the watershed in which the respondents reside.

Incentives for BMP Adoption

The vast majority of respondents have not adopted conservation practices relevant
to their primary farming operation. However, the highest rates of effective adoption were
for integrated crop management, conservation tillage, and grassed waterways. Financial
assistance, information, training, and/or assistance with the implementation of
conservation practices, and improved environment and water quality were the three most

prominent incentives survey respondents mentioned would help them implement

106

conservation practices. Furthermore, lack of funds and lack of information were the two

most predominant factors hindering respondents’ adoption of best management practices.

Effect of Attitudes on BMP Adoption

Results indicate that the more informed a respondent is, the more likely they are
to adopt streamside buffer/ﬁlter strips, grassed waterways, and integrated crop
management practices. The more satisfied with water quality a respondent is, the more
likely they are to adopt conservation tillage practices. Level of importance had no
signiﬁcant effect on respondents’ adoption of BMPs. Therefore, the level of feeling
informed about watershed conservation issues has a greater impact on respondents’
adoption rate of BMPs than does importance of water quality issues or respondents’ level

of satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed.

Communication Strategy Preferences

Overall, respondents tend to prefer traditional, written communication strategies
over technological/computerized methods of communication. Results indicate that
respondents’ preference for the media is determined by education level while preference
for written communication strategies is determined by gross annual income level. In
addition, respondents’ preference for computers and the Internet as a communication
strategy is determined by the age and education level of the respondent. Furthermore,
regardless of Internet access, all respondents still demonstrated a preference for written
materials. However, access to the Internet does have a significant effect on respondents’

preference for the Internet as a communication strategy as survey respondents with

107

Internet access had a significantly higher preference for the Internet than respondents
without Internet access. Also, a significantly higher percentage of respondents preferring
the Internet had access in their home, business, local library, or local school than those

who did not prefer the Internet as a communication strategy.

Website Design

According to focus group participants, an effective web site would: be updated
constantly, include specific information, be easy to navigate, contain contact information
for local people, include articles and photos with a local ﬂavor, provide relevant links to
other web sites and show successful conservation practices and mention the good things

people are doing in the watershed.

108

 

Table 54. Summary of demographic characteristics having a signiﬁcant effect on: level
of importance respondents give to watershed conservation issues, respondents’
satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed, respondents’ level of feeling

informed about water quality issues, and respondents’ preferences for communication

strategies.

 

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

 

Dependent
Variables

Age

Level of
Education

Gross
Annual
Income

Level

Farm
Status

Farm
Size

Primary
Farming
Operation

Watershed
of
Residence

 

Importance of
Watershed
Conservation
Issues

 

Satisfaction
with Water
Quality in the
Watershed

 

Level of Feeling
Informed about
Watershed
Conservation
Issues

 

Preferences for
Communication
Strategies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: X indicates which demographic characteristics have a signiﬁcant effect on the
dependent variables (importance of watershed conservation issues, satisfaction with water
quality, level of feeling informed about water quality issues, and preferences for

communication strategies).

109

 

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions

Limitations of the Study

Generalizability:

Some general limitations of this study should be noted. The sampling frame of
this study consisted of agricultural watersheds differing in their involvement in active
watershed conservation programs such as the Total Maximum Daily Load and Section
319 programs. Since the purpose of this study was to compare active versus inactive
watersheds, the data only represent a restricted sample and results are not intended to be

and should not be generalized to all Michigan agricultural watersheds.

Over-sampling Bias:

Furthermore, the surveys were addressed to both the male and female residents if
the name of the female resident was known, but in many cases, we only had access to the
name of the male landowner of each parcel of land. Therefore, the majority of surveys
were completed by the individual the surveys were addressed to (usually a male), and as a
result, we received a significantly higher proportion of males than females in our sample.

Therefore, males were over—sampled in this study and the results are biased towards male
respondents. A limitation of this study is that it did not adequately capture the opinions,

information needs, and BMP adoption behaviors of female agricultural landowners.

Non-response Bias:

Another limitation of this study is that only a moderate response rate of 44% was
achieved which may result in non-response bias. For example, if environmentally

concerned farmers are more likely to respond to the survey than unconcerned farmers,

110

results will be skewed toward the responses of environmentally concerned farmers.
Response rate was adversely affected due to the fact the research team received an
inadequate sample from Eaton County geographic information systems (GIS) and
Equalization offices. The research team received the names and addresses of individuals
owning various parcels of land within the targeted watersheds. However, since it is quite
common for a single landowner to own numerous parcels of land, many respondents
received multiple copies of our survey instrument (as many as three or four instruments).
In some cases, respondents ﬁlled-out and returned one copy of the survey instrument
while expressing their disappointment in receiving multiple copies. A potential result is
that a number of potential respondents did not complete and return the survey instruments
because our sampling method resulted in lost credibility.

To help counter part of this limitation, it is possible that response rates could be
increased by offering financial incentives to survey recipients. According to a meta-
analysis performed by Fox et al., (1988), a financial incentive of $0.25 roughly increases
respon se rate by 16% on average, while an incentive of $1.00 roughly adds about 31% on

average to the response rate. In order to address this limitation statistically, early
respondents were compared to late respondents since “non-respondents tend to be similar
to late respondents” (Miller & Smith, 1983; Pace, 1939). This comparison of data
enabled the project team to get an indication of discrepancies existing between early and
late/non-respondents. Results from procedures used to address non-response error
provide evidence that the method of comparing early and late respondents is a defensible
and generally accepted procedure for handling non-response error as a threat to external

validity of research findings (Lindner, et al., 2001).

111

Of the 29 variables compared between early and late respondents to determine
non-response bias, only 2 variables came out statistically signiﬁcant and it is questionable
whether they are meaningfully or substantively signiﬁcant. Results indicated that the less
likely respondents were to use cover crops and spread manure on the same ﬁeld every 2-4
years, the more likely they were to be late respondents, responding after the postcard
reminder was sent out. Since, in general, results revealed that there was not a signiﬁcant
difference between late and early respondents, the results are presumed to be
generalizable to the four watersheds studied and are representative of the population of

interest.

Self-gmrted Data:

Self-reported data may present threats to the reliability and validity of some
measures of the study, and may limit inferences made about causal relationships among
some variables. For instance, results indicated that agricultural landowners’ adoption of
BMPs was inﬂuenced by how informed respondents felt they were about watershed
conservation issues. Since the data is self-reported, we are only measuring how informed
one feels or claims they feel they are about watershed conservation issues and we are not
measuring actual knowledge about watershed conservation issues. Therefore, discretion
should be used when drawing conclusions that level of feeling informed about watershed
conservation issues inﬂuences farmers’ adoption of BMPs since we can not be certain
how informed respondents actually are about watershed conservation issues since the
data we collected is based on impressions and self-reported data. Another threat to

reliability and validity is that farmers may be tempted to exaggerate their environmental

112

awareness and frequency of conservation practice adoption in order to avoid conﬂict or
reprimand from environmental advocacy organizations.

In spite of these limitations, the overall response rate (44 %) and the variance in
landowner responses were adequate to address the research questions, improve our
understanding of the effectiveness of Extension in informing farmers about watershed
conservation issues and best management practices, and aid in the refinement of
questions requiring further research. Within the limitations of this study, a discussion

and interpretation of the results follows.

Discussion of Background Information from Survey Respondents

The main difference between watersheds in this study is that the Gun River and
Lake Macatawa watersheds were sites where active watershed conservation programs
currently exist, while the North Branch Flint River and Upper Thomapple watersheds
were sites void of active watershed conservation programs. Because only the Gun River
and Lake Macatawa watersheds were involved in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
and Section 319 programs, one might expect that these watersheds would have more
active and effective Extension programs than the control watersheds, and that
respondents would be better informed about watershed conservation issues than
respondents from the North Branch Flint River and Upper Thomapple watersheds. One
would also expect that BMPs would be adopted more frequently in these watersheds, and
that as a result, respondents from the Gun River and Lake Macatawa watersheds may feel
a higher level of satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed than would

respondents from the control watersheds. However, one could also argue, that the reason

113

active watershed conservation programs exist in the Gun River and Lake Macatawa
watersheds, is that water quality is particularly impaired in these watersheds to begin with
and that respondents may feel more pessimistic about the condition of their watershed
than would respondents from watersheds not involved in the TMDL or Section 319
programs.

The two active watersheds had nearly identical response rates as the North Branch
Flint River watershed but all three watersheds had considerably higher response rates
than the Upper Thomapple watershed. This is likely largely due to the fact that the
Upper Thomapple watershed had a significantly smaller percentage of both full-time and
part-time farmers than the other three watersheds. In addition, the Upper Thomapple
watershed had a substantially smaller percentage of respondents owning and renting
farmland than the other three watersheds, and only 31.1% of the respondents from the
Upper Thomapple watershed reside on a farm whereas between 60% and 70% of
respondents from the other three watersheds claimed to reside on a farm. Furthermore,
the Upper Thomapple watershed differed from the other three watersheds in that it had
the highest percentage of female respondents and respondents tended to have higher
levels of education and higher levels of gross annual incomes than respondents from the

other watersheds.

114

Factors Influencing Survey Respondents’ Attitudes and Perceptions about

Watershed Conservation Issues and the Water Quality in their Watersheds

Effect of Demographics on Importance of Watershed Conservation Issues

Overall, survey respondents feel that watershed conservation issues are
moderately important which is consistent with results obtained from a previous study
conducted in Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania by Lichtenberg and Zimmerman
(1999). Results from this previous study reveal that farmers feel that water quality
problems were moderately serious and that “farmers express on average a middle-of-the-
road level of concern toward most water quality related issues” (Lichtenberg &
Zimmerman, 1999, p. 235). Respondents from the Gun River and Upper Thomapple
watersheds had the two lowest mean scores for age and the two highest mean scores for
education while the Upper Thomapple watershed respondents had a significantly higher
proportion of non-farmers than the other three watersheds in the study suggesting that
age, level of education and farming status inﬂuence farmers’ level of concern about
watershed conservation issues. Indeed, results indicate that level of education, age, and
farming status all have a significant effect on agricultural landowners’ level of concern
for the various watershed conservation issues.

According to Lichtenberg and Zimmerman (1999), both attitudes toward the
environment and importance of information are likely to be determined by the same
underlying factors such as personal values, economic and personal stakes, education, and
prior experience. Therefore, in this case, higher levels of education or previous
experience (age and previous farming experience) may be required for respondents to be

able to recognize the evidence and implications of reduced fish habitat and algae growth

115

while a signiﬁcant level of understanding may not be necessary for respondents to
determine whether ﬂooding or erosion into streams has occurred. As a result, a greater
proportion of respondents is able to recognize the effects of erosion and ﬂooding while
perhaps part-time and full-time farmers, older respondents, and individuals with lower
levels of education may not be able to recognize the importance of less easily recognized
and understood watershed conservation issues such as reduced ﬁsh habitat and algae

growth.

Other Potential Factors Inﬂuencing Respondents’ Level of Concern for Watershed
Conservation Issues

Survey respondents’ concern about ﬂooding and erosion into streams may be
partially explained by the fact that the effects of ﬂooding and erosion are more easily
recognized and understood detriments to the environment while other watershed
conservation issues such as reduced ﬁsh habitat may not be as apparent to all individuals.
Furthermore, one might expect respondents to be more concerned about ﬂooding and
erosion into streams as both of these issues directly affect farming practices while neither
reduced fish habitat nor algae growth interfere with a farmers’ duties. In addition, the
importance given to watershed conservation issues may be determined by how satisfied
an individual is with the water quality in their watershed. In other words, if an individual
feels very satisﬁed with the water quality in their watershed (if they feel environmental
problems do not exist within their watershed), they may be less apt to feel that watershed

conservation issues are very important.

116

Factors Other than Demographics Potentially Inﬂuencing Respondents’ Level of
§_at_isfaction with the Water Gum in their Watershed

While level of satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed may impact
how important respondents feel watershed conservation issues are, respondents’ level of
satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed may be determined by how
important watershed conservation issues are to the individual. For instance, if an
individual feels that watershed conservation issues are very or extremely important, they
may likely be less satisfied with the water quality in their watershed. Since respondents
tended to feel that watershed conservation issues were moderately important, it seems
logical that they also feel moderately satisfied with the water quality in their watershed.

Even though there was not a statistical difference between watersheds,
respondents from the Lake Macatawa watershed demonstrated the least amount of
satisfaction with water quality in their watershed despite the fact that it had been involved
in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program longer than the Gun River
watershed. However, it is important to recognize that this may simply indicate that the
water quality in this watershed was particularly unsatisfactory in comparison to the other
watersheds involved in this study and is likely the reason it became a site of active
watershed conservation programs before the other watersheds.

The Lake Macatawa watershed was recognized as a “problem watershed” in 1971
and was relatively well-known throughout the state of Michigan as having a very hyper-
eutrophic lake with extremely high phosphorus and chlorophyll a levels, excessive
turbidity with visibility less than one foot, periodic nuisance algal blooms, low dissolved

oxygen concentrations, and a high rate of sediment deposition (Kettelle & Utterrnark,

117

1971). More recently, Gary Brower, an editor from the Holland Sentinel (2002) informed
citizens that from 1993 until 1997, the water of Lake Macatawa was tested more than 60
times and in all but 5 tests, the lake received a grade of E-the worst score possible,
indicating the water in Lake Macatawa is of “poorest water quality.” Furthermore, the
mere fact that the Lake Macatawa watershed was chosen as a site for watershed
conservation programs can result in a preconceived notion about the condition of the
watershed. An agricultural landowner in the Lake Macatawa watershed would only need
to read a local newspaper article and they would soon recognize that phosphorus,
sedimentation, and a number of other detrimental attributes were a problem, and this
realization would likely cause them to feel unsatisfied with the water quality in their
watershed.

Respondents from the Gun River watershed (the other active watershed) had the
highest level of satisfaction with water quality in their watershed perhaps indicating that
these watershed conservation programs had recently resulted in improved water quality.
One might expect respondents from this watershed to be more satisfied with water quality
than respondents from the other targeted watershed since longer organized and concerted
efforts have been made in the Gun River watershed to reduce water pollution. Also
worth mentioning is the fact that Gun Lake (the water source of Gun River) is a highly
valued recreational lake which may also contribute to landowners’ overall satisfaction

with the Gun River watershed.

118

Effect of Demgggrphics on Respondents’ Level of Feeling Informed about Watershed
Conservation Issues

Few researchers have examined the relationship between fanners’ demographic
characteristics and their information needs (Rollins et al., 1991). Results from this study
indicate that farming status, farm size, and watershed residence had a significant effect on
how informed respondents felt they were about watershed conservation issues. Full-time
farmers and farmers farming on larger parcels of land felt signiﬁcantly more informed
than part-time farmers, non-farmers, and farmers farming smaller parcels of land. This
ﬁnding may be the result of Extension targeting the larger farming operations in their
counties.

Full-time farmers and farmers farming larger parcels of land may also feel more
informed than part-time farmers, non-farmers, and farmers farming small parcels of land
because they may feel they have a greater impact on the water quality in their watershed
and may be more apt to actively seek out information to lessen the detrimental impacts of
their farming practices. Also, one might expect non-farmers to feel less informed about
watershed conservation issues since many of these issues (such as bacterial
contamination and excess nutrients) would seem irrelevant to non-farmers whereas
farmers are more likely to understand the relevance of these issues since they result from
farming activities. Furthermore, full-time farmers and farmers with larger farming
operations may simply have more resources (monetary, computerized, and personal
information sources) through which to obtain information about watershed conservation
issues. Similarly, Okai (1986) found a significant difference between number of acres

owned by farmers and the importance of information needs. In Okai’s study, farmers

119

who farmed larger parcels of land were more likely to use more sources of information
(such as newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, friends, neighbors, and Extension specialists)
than farmers with smaller parcels of land.

Results from this study also indicate that respondents from active watersheds (the
Gun River and Lake Macatawa watersheds) felt more informed than the respondents from
inactive watersheds (the North Branch Flint River and Upper Thomapple watersheds).
This information might suggest that Extension, and other education and conservation
efforts have been effective in the targeted watersheds where watershed conservation

programs are currently undergoing.

Other Potential Factors Inﬂuencing Respondents’ Level of Feeling Informed ﬂout

Watershed Conservation Issues

 

How important survey respondents feel watershed conservation issues are and
how satisﬁed respondents are with the water quality in their watershed may be highly
dependent upon how informed they feel they are about watershed conservation issues.
For instance, respondents from this study generally felt only slightly to moderately
informed about watershed conservation issues which may hinder their ability to
accurately assess the importance of watershed conservation issues as well as the quality
of the water within their watershed.

One must also consider that the level of satisfaction one feels with the water
quality in their watershed and how important an individual feels watershed conservation
issues are may also affect how informed a person feels they are about watershed
conservation issues. For instance, if an individual is very satisﬁed with water quality and

does not feel that watershed conservation issues are very important, one might reasonably

120

conclude that the individual would be less likely to actively seek out information about
watershed conservation issues and therefore remain relatively uninformed about these
issues. On the other hand, an individual who is very unsatisfied with the water quality in
their watershed and is very concerned about watershed conservation issues, may be far
more likely to seek out information about watershed conservation issues thus increasing
their knowledge about these conservation issues.

Overall, survey respondents were unfamiliar with a number of watershed
conservation practices (such as pasture management/livestock exclusion, buffer/ﬁlter
strips, integrated crop management, manure management plans, and animal waste storage
systems) suggesting that Extension has not been effective in teaching agricultural
landowners about these watershed conservation practices. Respondents most unfamiliar
with watershed conservation issues may either be completely nai've to water quality
problems or they may simply not be concerned enough about the issues to actively seek
out information and advice from agencies or organizations. For example, respondents
from this study generally preferred to learn about watershed conservation issues via
written materials and did not generally have a high preference for learning about
conservation issues by actively seeking information from agency or organization offices.
Since it requires greater effort to actively seek information than it does to be a passive
receiver of pamphlets or other written materials, it may only be the highly motivated
learners that would visit an agency or organization to obtain speciﬁc information about

watershed conservation issues and best management practices.

121

Factors Inﬂuencing Survey Respondents’ Effective Adoption Rate of Best
Management Practices
Respondents’ Overall Effective Adoption Rate of Best Management Practices

Previous research led the project team to predict that respondents’ adoption rates
of BMPs would be highly dependent upon how important watershed conservation issues
were to farmers, how satisfied farmers felt they were with the water quality in their
watershed, how informed farmers felt they were about watershed conservation issues, as
well as a number of demographic factors such as age, education level, and farming status.
Napier et al., (1986) described how farmers most concerned about environmental
problems were more likely to adopt conservation practices while Feather & Amacher
(1994) discovered that satisfaction with water quality motivated farmers’ adoption of
BMPs. Previous research conducted by Napier et al. (1986), and Lichtenberg and
Zimmerman (1999) also supports the project teams’ prediction that farmers must ﬁrst feel
adequately informed about watershed conservation issues before they will adopt BMPs.
Napier et al., (1986) suggests that farmers must first be informed of the advantages of
implementing a specific conservation practice before they will adopt the innovation while
Lichtenberg and Zimmerman (1999) suggest that farmers interacting with public
information sources about BMPs are signiﬁcantly more likely to adopt those practices.
In addition, research conducted by Napier et a1. (1986), Napier et al., (2000a), Hines et al.
(1987), and Rhodes et al. (2002) suggest that various demographics and “ability to act”
factors contribute to farmers’ decision to implement conservation practices. Overall, the
vast majority of survey respondents have not adopted or tried any of the mentioned BMPs

relevant to their farming operation or property features (such as having a stream or steep

122

slope on land) suggesting that Extension has “room for improvement” in the four
watersheds examined in this study.

The fact that conservation tillage, grassed waterways, and integrated crop
management practices were adopted/tried most frequently is logical since all watersheds
had a substantially higher proportion of farmers with crops (cultivated crops or hayland)
than farmers with livestock (pastured livestock or conﬁned livestock/poultry) as their
primary farming operation. Additionally, conservation practices related to crops, such as
conservation tillage, are often viewed as proﬁtable production technologies that also have
conservation benefits (Jolly et al., 1983). This being the case, farmers may be more
likely to adopt BMPs related to cr0ps as the implementation of these practices are
perceived to have less ﬁnancial cost and perhaps greater beneﬁt (both ecological and
ﬁnancial) than conservation practices related to livestock. Furthermore, farmers may be
more likely to adopt conservation practices related to crops because these practices play a
role in reducing ﬂooding and erosion which are the two watershed conservation issues of

most concern to farmers in this study.

Factors Other than Demographics Potentially Inﬂuencing Respondents’ Effective
Adoption Rates of BMPs

The three most prominent incentives that survey respondents mentioned would
encourage them to adopt best management practices were: (1) ﬁnancial assistance, (2)
information/training/assistance with the implementation of conservation practices, and
(3) improved environment and/or water quality. In addition, lack of funds, and lack of
information were the two most prominent factors hindering respondents’ adoption of

BMPs.

123

In support of these findings, previous research indicates that access to information
and the economic cost associated with adopting innovations are the two most important
factors in farmers’ decisions to adopt BMPs. According to Napier et al., 1986, once
farmers are informed of the advantages of using speciﬁc conservation practices, they will
adopt the innovations. Furthermore, farmers who have interacted with public information
sources about BMPs are significantly more likely to use these practices (Lichtenberg &
Zimmerman, 1999). In addition, if potential adopters do not possess necessary economic
resources to purchase innovations, then adoption will not occur (Napier et a., 2000a).
Furthermore, individuals may sometimes be unable to adopt ideas, technologies or
farming techniques because they do not have the economic resources to implement what
they may otherwise desire to do (Napier et al., 1984). Most importantly, Extension and
agricultural educators should keep in mind that positive attitudes are not useful for
environmental change if landowners do not possess the resources to make changes (Hines

et al., 1987).

Effect of Importance of Watershed Conservation Issues on Respondents’ Effective
Adoption Rate of Best Management Practices

In order to determine how to improve agricultural landowners’ adoption rates of
best management practices, it is important to determine what effect importance of
watershed conservation issues has on landowners’ willingness to try or adopt
conservation practices. In general, respondents from this study who felt watershed
conservation issues were moderately to extremely important were more likely to adopt

BMPs than respondents who felt watershed conservation issues were not at all to slightly

124

important. However, results conclude that level of concern for watershed conservation
issues does not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence respondents’ adoption of BMPs. Nevertheless,
since respondents who are most concerned about watershed conservation issues are
generally most likely to adopt BMPs, Extension must keep in mind that they may have to
convince agricultural landowners that watershed conservation issues are important before
they can expect agricultural landowners to adopt BMPs to improve water quality.
Supporting this notion, previous research indicates that the more concerned
farmers are about watershed conservation issues, the more likely they will be to adopt
conservation practices. For instance, Napier et al. (1986) found that Ohio farmers who
believed environmental problems were very important were more likely to adopt
conservation practices such as crop rotation, retirement of erodible land, grassed
waterways, and ﬁlter strips. Similarly, Lynne, et al. (1988) discovered that farmers with
a stronger conservation ethic exerted greater conservation effort than farmers without
strong conservation ethics as measured by the number of different conservation practices

adopted.

Effect of Satisfaption with Water (Lialitv on Respondents’ Effective Adoption Rate of
Best Management Practices

In order to improve agricultural landowners’ adoption rate of best management
practices, one ought to ﬁrst determine if landowners’ satisfaction with the water quality
in their watershed affects their willingness to try or adopt BMPs. In general, survey
respondents who were most satisﬁed with the water quality in their watershed were more

likely to adopt best management practices than respondents feeling least satisfied with the

125

water quality in their watershed. Respondents’ satisfaction with the water quality in
their watershed may in some instances serve as motivation for farmers to make efforts to
ensure the water quality remains satisfactory and does not worsen over time. Results
indicate that satisfaction with water quality has a significant effect only on agricultural
landowners’ adoption of conservation tillage practices and that satisfaction with water
quality does not significantly affect landowners’ adoption rate of all other best

management practices.

Effect of Feeling Informed about Watershed Conservation Issues on Responcﬂs’
Effective Adoption Rage of Best Management Practices

In order to determine how to improve agricultural landowners’ adoption rates of
best management practices, it is important to determine the effect of how informed
landowners feel they are about watershed conservation issues on how likely they are to
try or adopt conservation practices. The relationship between information and farmers’
beliefs about environmental quality (and thus farmers’ implementation of environmental
protection measures) is complex (Lichtenberg & Zimmerman, 1999). Rhodes et al.
(2002) claims that the ultimate objective of providing information to farmers is to foster
change in behavior or practice, rather that attitudes or beliefs, because only the former
has the potential to benefit the environment. Therefore, access to information is among
the most important predictive factors associated with BMP adoption behavior. According
to Napier et al. (1986), once farmers are informed of the advantages of using speciﬁc

conservation practices, they will adopt the innovations. Furthermore, farmers who have

126

interacted with public information sources about best management practices are
signiﬁcantly more likely to use these practices (Lichtenberg & Zimmerman, 1999).
Results from this study indicate that in general, respondents who felt more
(moderately to extremely) informed about watershed conservation issues were more
likely to adopt best management practices than respondents feeling less (not at all to
slightly) informed about conservation issues. This general trend seems to indicate that
the more informed farmers are about conservation issues, the more important they
consider them to be, and hence, the more likely they are to act by adopting BMPs.
Results specifically indicate that the most informed respondents were signiﬁcantly more
likely to adopt streamside buffer or ﬁlter strips, grassed waterways, and integrated crop

management practices.

Factors Influencing Survey Respondents’ Preference for Computerized

Communication Strategies

Survey Respondents’ Oxgall Preference for Commungtion Strategies

While “little is known about farmers’ perceptions about water quality as an
issue,” possibly even less is known about farmers’ use of information sources regarding
this agricultural problem (Bruening, 1992, p.43). Although studies indicate that
increased amounts of information encourage adoption, it is essential that the type of
information and the method of delivery match the social context of watershed residents
(Norman et al., 1997). “The modern use of technology as a communication strategy has
the potential to greatly inﬂuence the efficiency of individual practitioners, but, what will

be the gain if the users of the information do not prefer and therefore, can not or will not

127

utilize the advanced resources” (Riesenberg and Gor, 1989, p.7)? While in some cases
the Internet has proven to be an effective communication strategy (Bowen and Escolome,
1990; Findlay et al., 1993), there is still a need to determine the present day farmers’
preference for this information source.

Overall, survey respondents preferred traditional/written communication
strategies such as newsletters/mailers and printed bulletins/fact sheets. These ﬁndings are
supported by research conducted by Gloy et al. (2002, p.1) indicating that “farm
publications are one of the most frequently used communication tools.” In addition,
respondents had the least amount of preference for computerized communication
strategies such as computers, e-mail and the Internet. These ﬁndings are consistent with
results by Tavemier et al. (1996) which indicate that there was little preference by
farmers for modern technology. Lichtenberg and Zimmerman (1999, p.235) offer an
explanation for farmers’ preference for traditional and written communication strategies
by suggesting that “overall, the greater the degree to which information is processed
before reaching the farmer, the more ‘second-hand’ the information is, and the less

importance farmers tend to attach to it.”

Effect of Demographics on Survey Respondents’ Preference for Computerized
Communication Strategies

Results from this study indicated that survey respondents do not have a
considerable preference for computerized communication strategies such as computers
and the Internet. However, Extension should also know whether preference for

innovative communication strategies is related to farmers’ demographic characteristics.

128

Results indicate that respondents’ preference for computers and the Internet as
communication strategies to learn about watershed conservation issues is related to
respondents’ age, level of education, and gross annual income level. According to
Riesenberg and Gor (1989), younger, more educated farmers will have a greater
appreciation for modern sources of information. Since the youngest respondents had a
significantly higher preference for computers and the Internet than older respondents, and
because one would expect younger farmers to be more inclined to utilize modern
technology (Tavemier, et al., 1996), one could argue that while farmers currently prefer
traditional written communication strategies over computers and the Internet to learn
about watershed conservation issues, farmers may prefer computerized communication
strategies in the future.

In support of these ﬁndings, Suvedi et al. (2000) illustrated that farmers’ use of
Internet sources in Michigan increased from 1.4% to 10.0% between the years 1996 and
1999. Results from this study are also consistent with previous research conducted by
Riesenberg and Gor (1989) and Richardson and Mustian (1994). Younger farmers, aged
20 to 35 years, tend to prefer computer-assisted instruction and home study more than the
farmers aged 66 and older (Riesenberg & Gor, 1989), while middle-aged clientele prefer
printed materials such as a bulletin or pamphlet more than other communication
strategies (Richardson & Mustian, 1994).

Overall, the oldest respondents in this study had the least amount of preference for
all communication strategies. Previous research conducted by Schnitkey et al. (1992) and
Gloy et al. (2002) provides suitable explanations. Schnitkey et al. (1992) argues that age

is related to farming experience and that farmers with more experience should have less

129

demand for external information. Also, according to Gloy et al. (2002), it may be
expected that age will be negatively related to the usefulness of information received
from media information sources.

Results from this study indicate that level of education is positively correlated
with respondents’ preference for written materials and computers/Intemet, and that level
of education is negatively correlated with respondents’ preference for media and personal
or face-to-face communication strategies. According to Gloy et al. (2002), higher levels
of education are expected to be positively related to the usefulness of information
received from all information sources. In addition, “higher levels of education should
increase the usefulness of information received from the sources that deliver the most
sophisticated information” (Gloy et al., 2002). Results from this study corroborate results
from studies performed by Richardson and Mustian (1994) and Bowen and Escolme
(1990). According to Richardson and Mustian (1994), college graduates were found to
have a significantly higher preference for method demonstration and video tapes than did
persons who have less than a college education. Bowen and Escolme (1990) discovered
that three-fourths of farmers who used computers had at least some college education.

Findings from this study also reveal that gross annual income levels are
positively correlated with respondents’ preference for computers and the Internet. These
results are consistent with previously conducted research performed by Tavemier et al.
(1996). According to Tavemier et al. (1996), farmers with high gross annual incomes
(more than $100,000/year) were more likely to adopt computer technology. This can be
explained in part by the suggestion that farmers that are more proﬁtable than others have

a greater capacity to purchase the latest, and in some cases, the most expensive

130

technology (Tavemier, et al., 1996). According to Findlay et al., (1993), limited resource
farmers are willing to learn more about computers and one should expect that there will
be a desire among farmers to have access to computers and web sites in order to learn

about the watershed in which they live.

Other Potential Factors Inﬂuencing Survey Respondents’ Preference for Computerized

Communication Strategies

Internet Access

Not only is farmers’ preference for computers and Internet related to farmer
demographics such as income and education level, farmers have also been reluctant to
adopt computers and innovative technologies to obtain educational information due to
lack of or inconvenient Internet access (Iddings & Apps, 1992; Tavemier et al., 1996).
Regardless of whether respondents had Internet access, the majority of respondents
(74.6% of landowners with Internet access and 77.8% of landowners without Internet
access) still preferred written materials more than the Internet to learn about watershed
conservation issues. These results suggest that even if agricultural landowners have
Internet access, they will likely still have a higher preference for more traditional or
written communication strategies. However, having access to the Internet does
signiﬁcantly increase one’s preference for the Internet as a communication strategy.

In addition, results indicate that the location of Internet access has a signiﬁcant
effect on respondents’ preference for the Internet as a communication strategy. A
substantial percentage of respondents preferring the Internet had Internet access in their

homes, business, or local library or school. Nearly all of the respondents preferring the

131

Internet as a communication strategy had Internet access in their home suggesting that the
more convenient the access, the more likely agricultural landowners are to prefer the

Internet as a communication strategy to learn about watershed conservation issues.

Cost, Time, and Knowledge Limitations

Several studies have identified why farmers are generally reluctant to adopt
computers and benefit from other computerized innovations such as the Internet. For the
most part, the cost of computerized innovations and knowledge limitations are the two
factors that limit farmers’ adoption of computers and Internet the most. Speciﬁcally,
previous research indicates that the cost of the computer, cost of hardware and software,
high telephone line charges incurred by distant participants, time required to learn how to
use the Internet, lack of knowledge about the Intemet’s capabilities, low computer
literacy, lack of training to mitigate technophobia, lack of on-line technical assistance for
users, level of education of farmers, age, and size and type of farming operation all
inﬂuence farmers’ reluctance to implement computers and the Internet (Findlay et al.,

1993; Taylor et al., 1991; Dix, 1994; and Iddings & Apps, 1990).

Factors Inﬂuencing Survey Respondents’ Use of the Internet to Learn about

Watershed Conservation Issues and Best Management Practices

Indicators of web site success include the ability of users to retrieve targeted
information, user satisfaction, user confusion or fatigue, and user task load (Spool and
Scalon, 1997). Wilde and Swatman (1996) suggest that there may be both technological

and motivational/task inhibitors which prevent farmers from adopting the Internet.

132

Technological inhibitors relate to computer hardware and software and the available
telecommunication systems more speciﬁcally, while motivational and task inhibitors
relate to individuals within the rural community. Factors include user conservatism,
resistance to change, and lack of conﬁdence. Furthermore, potential beneﬁts from and
relevance of involvement in the virtual community are not seen by the farming
community as clearly worth their cost. This study corroborates the ﬁndings of Spool and
Scalon (1997) and Wilde and Swatman (1996) by revealing that factors inﬂuencing
Michigan’s agricultural landowners’ use of the Internet and web sites to learn more about
watershed conservation issues are: ease of use; modem speed; topic relevance; local
context; inclusion of specific information, and reliability. Ease of use, modem speed, and
reliability could all be considered technological inhibitors while topic relevance, local
context, and inclusion of specific information could be considered motivational and task

inhibitors relating to individuals within the rural community.

Recommendations
Increasing Agricultural Landowners’ Level of Concern for Watershed Conaelmion
Issues

Younger, more educated, non-farming landowners are more likely to feel
watershed conservation issues are very to extremely important. Therefore, if Extension
and agricultural educators desire to increase the overall level of importance landowners
give to watershed conservation issues, they should target older, less educated, part and
full-time farmers. Extension and agricultural educators need to increase their

effectiveness in helping farmers to recognize reduced ﬁsh habitat and algae growth as

133

legitimate environmental concerns. Respondents’ failure to recognize the importance of
these two conservation issues should provide incentive and rationale for why education
and Extension experts should focus their efforts on these issues in addition to the issues
farmers are most concerned about (i.e. ﬂooding and erosion into streams).

Previous research indicates that while agricultural producers generally believe
that soil erosion and water quality degradation are problems, farmers often hesitate to
admit that there is any relationship between their farming practices and water quality
problems (Christenson & Norris, 1983). This is an important notion for Extension to
consider when attempting to teach agricultural landowners about the importance of
watershed conservation issues. In addition to informing agricultural landowners about
watershed conservation issues, Extension must also be effective in convincing farmers
that their particular farming practices, in many cases, may directly contribute to the
impaired condition of the watershed. In the same way, Extension must also be effective
in convincing farmers that the adoption of BMPs will result in improved water quality

within their watersheds.

Increasing Agricultural Landowners’ Level of Feeling Informed about Watershed
Conseryation Issues

Landowners residing within the active watersheds exhibited higher levels of
feeling informed about watershed conservation issues suggesting that watershed
conservation efforts have been successful in targeted watersheds. In order to increase
respondents’ level of feeling informed, residents of non-targeted watersheds should be
exposed to similar watershed conservation programs promoted in the target watersheds of

this study. Also, since full-time farmers farming larger parcels of land tend to feel more

134

informed than other watershed residents, watershed conservation programs should
speciﬁcally target part-time farmers, and those farming smaller parcels of land.

In addition, farmers must have a speciﬁc need for information before they will
participate in an educational activity (Bruening, 1992). Therefore, Extension could
improve their effectiveness by determining agricultural producers’ information needs.
Once Extension has determined the information needs of the clientele, they have only to
determine which communication strategies should be implemented to deliver the desired
information to the various clientele groups.

The most effective way to increase present day farmers’ knowledge (or at least
their perception of being informed) is to communicate with farmers through traditional,
written communication strategies such as newsletters and bulletins. However, since
results indicate that younger respondents had the highest preference for computers and
the Internet, one can argue that, under different ﬁnancial circumstances, younger farmers
may demonstrate an even higher preference for computers and the Internet and that
preference may simply be limited by the fact that younger farmers probably can not
afford such equipment (Abbott & Yarbrough, 1992). Extension should be aware that the
Internet may be a preferred and useful communication strategy in the future but currently,
the cost and initial investment of a computer may hinder some farmers’ use and
preference for computerized communication strategies to learn about watershed
conservation issues.

In addition, since the preference for computers and the Internet increase as
respondents’ level of education increases, Extension agents should be discouraged from

relying on computerized communication strategies when targeting an audience with

135

lower levels of education. Furthermore, because gross annual income is positively
correlated with respondents’ preference for computers and the Internet, Extension agents
ought to refrain from relying on computerized communication strategies when targeting

landowners with lower gross annual income levels.

Improving Agricultural Landowners’ Adoption Rates of Best Management Practices

To improve agricultural landowners’ adoption rates of best management practices,
one must take into consideration individual’s farm size, primary farming operation, and
involvement with watershed conservation programs. Results from this study indicated
that individuals with larger farms were more likely to adopt BMPs generally, and that
individuals were more likely to adopt specific BMPs directly related to their primary
farming operation. In addition, individuals with the greatest exposure to watershed
conservation programs tended to adopt BMPs more frequently than individuals who had
not been involved in active watershed conservation programs. Furthermore, offering
incentives such as ﬁnancial assistance, improved water quality/environment, and
information, training, and/or assistance with the implementation of conservation practices
should be effective in promoting agricultural landowners’ adoption rates of BMPs.

Roger’s “Innovation Decision Process theory” (1995) applies to agricultural
landowner’s adoption of best management practices. If Extension and education
professionals intend to increase farmers’ adoption of various conservation practices,
farmers must first learn about the innovation/conservation practice; second, they must be
persuaded of the value of the innovation/conservation practice; then the farmer must
make the decision to adopt the innovation/conservation practice. After the adoption of

the BMP has taken place, the innovation/conservation practice must then be

136

implemented. Finally, to increase farmers’ adoption of BMPs, the farmer’s decision to
implement an innovation/conservation practice must be reafﬁrmed or rejected (Rogers,
1995).

Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) Theory of Reasoned Action implies that the most
important determinant of an individual’s behavior is behavior intent (see Figure 11). In
addition, the Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that both attitude toward the behavior
and subjective norms inﬂuence behavioral intentions. For instance, if a farmer values
good water quality and perceives that the outcome of implementing conservation
practices on his farm is positive and will result in improved water quality, that farmer will
have a positive attitude about adopting BMPs and will most likely adopt the conservation
practices. Furthermore, if the farmers’ neighbors and peers have positive attitudes about
adopting conservation practices and intend to adopt these practices, the farmer will be
even more inclined to adopt the BMPs. Therefore, if Extension professionals and other
agricultural educators can convince environmentally concerned agricultural landowners
that the implementation of BMPs will have positive implications on the water quality in
the farmers’ watershed, the farmer will develop a positive attitude about adopting BMPs,
will intend to adopt conservation practices and will more than likely succeed in doing so.

Agricultural landowners’ level of concern about watershed conservation issues
and level of satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed have a limited impact
on encouraging farmers’ adoption of BMPs. However, high levels of satisfaction with
water quality will positively affect farmers’ adoption rates of conservation tillage
practices. Increasing agricultural landowners’ level of feeling informed is a more

efficient way to increase agricultural landowners’ adoption rates of BMPs as landowners

137

who felt more informed about watershed conservation issues were more inclined to adopt
streamside buffer/filter strips, grassed waterways, and integrated crop management
practices.

In addition to increasing farmers’ level of feeling informed about watershed
conservation issues, Extension agents and agricultural educators need to be able to
convince agricultural producers that they are directly responsible for impaired water
quality and environmental degradation. Before farmers will react to an environmental
dilemma, research illustrates that many agricultural producers will need to be convinced
that their farming practices are directly responsible for impairing water quality. Not only
awareness of the existence of a problem, but also knowledge of appropriate strategies to
address the predicament are essential for action to be taken (Hines et al., 1987). In
addition, farmers are more likely to adopt BMPs if they believe that such practices will
improve water quality (Feather & Amacher, 1994). Therefore, Extension must be
effective in convincing farmers of the specific advantages and beneﬁcial implications the
implementation of BMPs will have for water quality.

Since BMP adoption depends on how informed respondents feel they are about
watershed conservation issues (Napier et al, 1986; Lichtenberg & Zimmerman, 1999),
and because a significant portion of farmers feel relatively uninformed about watershed
conservation issues, it is important that Extension and agricultural educators determine
the most effective and preferred means of informing agricultural landowners about
watershed conservation issues and BMPs. Due to Michigan farmers expressing little
preference for cutting edge technologies as a delivery method, and because “computer-

based information has still not become a common method of participation in Extension

138

activities” (Suvedi et al., 1999, p. 41), Extension should be aware that the current strong
emphasis in developing Intemet-based watershed information may not achieve the
desired informational delivery outcomes and that Extension should primarily rely on
written communication strategies to inform agricultural landowners about watershed

conservation issues and BMPs.

139

 

 

 

8380mm

 

 

888::

 

 

 

 

 

 

ECO:
628.3%

 

 

 

 

 

3888:
use 786888
8 88:88

gee—om

 

 

$8808
058% 5:3 >888
9 88388 8:2:
88 8388 2: 888m
8: 28% 8 285.
2.80: x85 88%
8 £86388 288%
8: oozes P888 2:.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8388 88
“8.32 8:82

 

 

 

88888
885 8 88288 8:88
e8 888:8 8880
8 .88— 8388 88
88 8:8 P888 25.

 

 

 

Aowoo 885$ 88 8&3 88< 88m8m 8 885. H: 88E

140

Increasing Agg'cultural Landowners’ Preference for the Internet M Communication
Strategy

In order to encourage agricultural landowners’ use of the Internet as a
communication strategy, Extension should see that farmers have adequate access to a
computer. Furthermore, if farmers have Internet access in their home, business, or
local library or school, they may be somewhat more likely to utilize the Internet to
learn more about watershed conservation practices. However, Extension would be
wise to keep in mind that at this point in time, farmers, regardless of whether or not
they have access to the Internet do not generally prefer the Internet as a
communication strategy. Extension should rely heavily on written materials to inform
farmers about watershed conservation issues and BMPs until more farmers have
convenient access to computers and modems.

Due to many farmers’ hesitation to adopt or implement cutting-edge
technologies such as the Internet and web sites as a delivery method, Extension and
agricultural educators should develop programs and information that explain the use of
the Internet, World Wide Web (WWW), on-line computer services, and other
instructional technologies (Trede and Whitaker, 1998). Extension and educators
should provide potential audiences with trouble-free and enjoyable opportunities to
experience the Web since prior positive experience leads to increased willingness to
try other Internet experiences (Trede and Whitaker, 1998). In addition, Extension
professionals and educators need to promote the Internet and other innovative
technologies in non-threatening, low—risk, easy-access settings in order to obtain better

use of the site. Previous research efforts have discovered that computer instruction

141

should be included in future adult education programs (Bowen and Escolme, 1990).
Because Extension’s long-range and ultimate task is to inﬂuence its clientele through
education and to use the results of scientiﬁc technology to improve their quality of
live, Extension educators should organize seminars, institutes, and workshops to train
limited-resource farmers in computer applications for agriculture (Findlay et al.,
1993).

In order to promote farmers’ use of the Internet as a communication strategy,
Extension staff and agricultural educators must better understand Internet users and
must be able to allow users to have an inﬂuence on the design of the web sites that are
intended to beneﬁt them. For example, inconsistency between site developers and
rural users with respect to computerized hardware and software may impact the
usefulness of web sites (Samson, 1998). Furthermore, even though technology has
greatly simplified the construction of complicated web sites, the end user may not be
able to successfully utilize the full, computerized capabilities of the sites, particularly
in rural locations with limited connectivity capabilities (Samson, 1998).

According to focus group participants, an appealing website would: be user-
friendly (easy navigation); include local photos and local contact phone numbers with
updated area codes, maps with major water bodies for orientation; be informative and
contain links to relevant information; contain historical information about the
watershed; contain appropriate terminology; include a search engine; include an
“under construction” notice when information is not available; include a print option
for graphs; and should accommodate slow modems by limiting graphics or by making

them optional (such as having a text only version of the web site). Unappealing

142

 

features of a web site are: wrapping text and other resolution issues; drifting menu
bars; lack of speciﬁc information about topics such as best management practices, cost
share information, and agriculture’s contribution to water pollution; unnecessary

scientiﬁc text; and links that do not connect to the intended web site.

143

Chapter 6: Implications
Implications for the Effectiveness of Watershed Conservation, Agricultural

Education, and Extension

This study provides valuable information to Extension professionals and
agricultural educators as it has established farmers’ information preferences and how
current extension practices (the use of the Internet to inform agricultural landowners
about BMPs and watershed conservation issues) could be improved to meet the
informational needs of agricultural producers. Once these informational needs have been
met, agricultural landowners’ adoption rate of conservation practices could improve
resulting in improved water quality in agricultural watersheds.

These findings have the potential to benefit watershed conservation, agricultural
educators, and extension professionals as they provide valuable information regarding
factors that hinder Michigan agricultural landowners’ adoption of BMPs and innovative
farm technologies. Being aware of these factors, and addressing them accordingly,
Extension and agricultural educators should be able to more effectively inform
agricultural producers about watershed conservation practices and be better equipped to
reach their goal of changing farmer behavior to improve water quality in agricultural
watersheds (Figure 12).

Results from this study also have positive implications for future extension and
education efforts as they will enable Extension professionals and agricultural educators to
determine how they can more effectively educate rural landowners via the Internet and
web sites. This is particularly valuable since there is an increasing desire among

extension professionals and agricultural educators to inform farmers about BMPs and

144

watershed conservation issues via the Internet because this communication strategy is
more time and cost effective than the more traditional methods of communication.
Findings of this study also provide pertinent information that can aid in the development
of an effective and well-designed web site to adequately meet the informational needs of

Michigan’s agricultural landowners.

Figure 12. How survey and focus group results ultimately result in improved water
quality within agricultural watersheds.

 

 

Survey Results Focus Group Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extension
Professionals and
I Agricultural Educators

 

l
Informed Agricultural
Landowners

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in Farmers’
Adoption Behaviors

 

 

 

 

Improved Water
Quality in Agricultural
Watersheds

 

 

 

145

Implications for Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds

According to Lichtenberg and Zimmerman (1999), the effect of agricultural
activities on water quality greatly depends upon the behavior of farm operators.
Furthermore, Lewis (1996) claims that individual actions are essential when it comes to
getting non-point source pollution under control. Therefore, because agricultural
practices and farming operations can have signiﬁcant adverse impacts on aquatic
ecosystems, and because individual action is the means by which environmental
improvements can be made, there is a need to educate agricultural landowners about
watershed conservation issues and the importance of implementing conservation
practices to lessen the adverse effects inherent to many farming practices.

Although behavior is influenced by a highly complex set of factors which are by
no means well understood or consistent across different situations, farmers’ adoption
behavior (of BMPs and farm technologies) is partly shaped by attitudes towards the
environment which are in turn inﬂuenced by knowledge and access to information. In
addition, the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) would suggest that
farmers’ adoption behavior is primarily inﬂuenced by behavioral intentions which are
consequently inﬂuenced by farmers’ attitudes toward the behavior and subjective norms.
According to these theories and ideas, water quality in agricultural watersheds may
improve as agricultural landowners learn more about the existing water quality problems
in their watershed, know appropriate solutions to these problems, and in response,
increase their adoption of BMPs. According to Rhodes et al. (2002), it is clear that the

likelihood of BMP and farm technology adoption is greater when farmers recognize there

146

is a problem, care about the problem, know appropriate strategies for addressing the
problem, and can afford to implement these strategies.

Agriculture is currently the leading source of water pollution and a contributing
factor to the impairment of 70% of streams considered impaired in the US, according to
the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory (US. Environmental Protection Agency,
1996). As a result of this study, educational efforts to inform agricultural landowners
about watershed conservation issues and conservation practices should improve and
farmers’ adoption of BMPs should increase resulting in improved water quality in
agricultural watersheds. Because agricultural landowners are most likely to adopt
integrated crop management, grassed waterways, and conservation tillage practices, and
because more informed respondents are more likely to adopt streamside ﬁlter/buffer
strips, grassed waterways, integrated crop management, and animal waste storage
systems, water quality should improve. Specifically, there should be less impacts of
sedimentation due to increased adoption of conservation tillage and grassed waterways.
Water quality should also improve with decreased inputs of excess nutrients and
pathogens resulting from farmers’ adoption of animal waste storage systems and other
conservation practices. Lastly, water quality should improve as fewer herbicides and
pesticides enter waterways as a result of the adoption of integrated crop management and
streamside filter or buffer strips.

As agricultural landowners’ adoption rates of best management practices such as
grassed waterways and buffer strips increase, sediment inputs into Michigan’s streams
and rivers should decrease. Reductions in sediment input from agriculture are important

to stream biota because many macroinvertebrates and ﬁshes require streambeds that are

147

relatively free from fine sediment (Waters & Hebel, 1982)). A reduction in sediment
inputs in Michigan’s streams will: decrease environmental problems associated with
turbidity; increase the transmission of sunlight needed for photosynthesis; increase the
success of organisms dependent on sight for foraging, mating, and escaping predators;
reduce gill abrasion and digestion and respiration problems in ﬁsh species; increase
dissolved oxygen concentrations; and encourage reproductive success for fish species
spawning in gravel beds.

Increases in agricultural landowners’ adoption rates of best management practices
such as animal waste storage systems and streamside ﬁlter strips, nutrients and pathogens
entering Michigan’s waterways should be greatly reduced and ideally eliminated. An
overabundance of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus is another of the most
serious problems facing the nation’s lakes, rivers, estuaries, and streams (Lewis, 1999).
One of the most devastating effects of excess nutrients on aquatic ecosystems is
eutrophication. A reduction in the amount of nutrients and pathogens entering aquatic
ecosystems will benefit water quality and improve aquatic habitat by: inhibiting the
growth and overabundance of algae and other aquatic plants which deplete dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the water when they die and decompose; encouraging the
growth of underwater vegetation which provides food and nesting grounds for waterfowl,
crustaceans, and fish; and reducing the abundance of microbes that can also drastically
reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations which may eventually lead to the suffocation of
ﬁsh, shellfish, and macroinvertebrate species.

In addition, as Michigan’s agricultural landowners adopt conservation practices

such as integrated crop management, the amount of herbicides and pesticides accidentally

148

entering Michigan’s waterways should be diminished. Chemical compounds used on
agricultural ﬁelds are easily washed into ground and surface waters by rainfall, melting
snow, and irrigation ﬂows (Lewis, 1996). By reducing the concentration of herbicides
and pesticides entering Michigan’s aquatic ecosystems, water quality and the health of
aquatic organisms will be improved by: reducing the number of ﬁsh kills (and signiﬁcant
decreases in other species’ populations) and improving the stability of the food chain;
increasing reproduction rates of fish and bird species; decreasing organisms’ vulnerability
to other environmental stresses such as disease or predation; reducing the frequency of
cancer rates, mutations, and fetal deformities in a variety of species; encouraging
photosynthesis in aquatic plants; and decreasing the bioaccumulation of chemicals in
organisms’ tissues that would be biomagniﬁed through the food chain.

Furthermore, as agricultural landowners adopt best management practices related
to pasture management (such as livestock exclusion and stream crossings), the effects of
temperature change on aquatic ecosystems should be reduced. Increased water
temperatures caused by habitat modification (such as excessive cattle grazing and bank
trampling) can be considered a pollutant to aquatic organisms as the cooling effects of
natural shade are limited or removed (Lewis, 1996). By encouraging the growth of plants
along streams and riverbanks, water quality and habitat will be improved by encouraging
the spawning of temperature sensitive ﬁsh species and by providing shaded rested
structures that are necessary for the reproduction of many aerial adult aquatic insect

species.

149

Future Research Needs

Much research needs to be conducted in the social sciences/human dimensions
before we can expect to adequately understand Michigan agricultural landowners’
attitudes towards the water quality in their watershed, their knowledge about watershed
conservation issues, and their adoption of BMPs. Of all the efforts that could be made to
improve water quality in agricultural watersheds, I recommend: (1) obtaining a better
understanding of agricultural landowners’ attitudes towards water quality, knowledge
about watershed conservation issues and BMPs, and adoption behaviors of conservation
practices by performing higher order statistical analysis via multivariate statistics and
multiple regression; (2) determining how agricultural landowners’ perceptions and
knowledge change over time as a result of conservation efforts by repeating this study in
its entirety in two or three years; and (3) helping farmers’ to overcome apprehensions
they may have about technology and encouraging farmers’ use of the Internet as a
communication strategy to learn about BMPs and watershed conservation issues by
offering intemet training workshops to agricultural landowners.

First of all, there is a need for similar studies to be conducted in different regions
throughout the state of Michigan (as well as other regions of the world) in order to obtain
more information about farmers’ information needs, attitudes, and behaviors. The results
obtained from different regions in Michigan can then be compared with the results of this
study to determine similarities and differences that may exist among different watershed
conservation programs throughout the state. Doing so will enable researchers to gain a
better understanding of how region of residence, culture, climate, etc. may impact

farmers’ information needs, attitudes, and behaviors and how Extension and other

150

agricultural educators can even more effectively meet the speciﬁc needs of their unique
clientele. Statistical analysis using multiple regression would also be valuable as this
analysis could determine: which demographic characteristics have a greater effect on
respondents’ concern for watershed conservation issues, which demographic
characteristics have a greater effect on respondents’ level of feeling informed about
watershed conservation issues, whether satisfaction with water quality, level of concern
for water quality issues, or level of feeling informed about watershed conservation issues
has a greater effect on BMP adoption, or which demographic characteristics have the
greatest effect on agricultural landowners’ preference for the Internet.

In addition, interesting information would be gained from a longitudinal study
where attitudes toward water quality and knowledge about watershed conservation issues
were measured over time. By doing so, researchers could obtain a better understanding
of the effectiveness of extension and education efforts in the targeted watersheds over a
given period of time. For example, by measuring how informed farmers were about
watershed conservation issues and how satisfied they were with the water quality in their
watershed before conservation efforts were made within the watershed, one could re-
measure the level of knowledge and satisfaction a number of years after a conservation
program was implemented to determine how extension and education efforts had
positively impacted farmers’ level of knowledge about conservation issues or how much
the water quality has seemed to improve as a result of the watershed conservation project.

Additional research is also necessary to further encourage farmers’ use of web
sites as a communication strategy to learn more about water quality and watershed

conservation issues. While the Internet has the potential to provide more effective

151

information exchange, the specific effectiveness of the Internet and web sites without any
formal training remains undetermined. Considerable amounts of research exist that
support the use of computers and the Internet as extension communication tools;
however, there is a need to determine the actual effectiveness of web sites if training
sessions are not offered to help guide participants through the program. According to
Carr (1999), in addition to the advocacy needed to ensure that technologies will be
adopted, training in its technical aspects and application to real needs is crucial to its
integration beyond the innovators and early adopters.

Furthermore, a need exists for Extension professionals and agricultural educators
to help agricultural landowners overcome any reservations and misconceptions they may
have about using the Internet as a communication strategy to learn about watershed
conservation issues and BMPs. According to Carr (1999), if technology is perceived as
difﬁcult to learn, too time consuming to use, or is in some way perceived as threatening,
it probably will not be used. Therefore, in addition to providing training sessions to
introduce farmers to the benefits of using the Internet as a communication strategy,
extension and other agricultural educators must specifically address reasons why farmers
are hesitant to utilize the Internet as a communication strategy on an individual needs
basis. This is particularly important as there is a strong desire among extension
specialists to provide data via web sites as they prove to be more time and cost efﬁcient

than more conventional forms of communications (i.e., newsletters and brochures).

152

Thesis Summary

Of all the results presented in this study, there are a few important points that need
to be emphasized. First of all, the impaired condition of many of Michigan’s agricultural
watersheds is a legitimate ecological concern. As an effort to improve water quality
within agricultural watersheds, one must emphasize the importance of improving
agricultural landowners’ BMP adoption rates. One means of increasing BMP adoption
rates, is to offer incentives to implement conservation practices. More importantly,
however, is to effectively educate and communicate with agricultural landowners about
water quality, watershed conservation issues, and the conservation practices that can be
implemented to address these ecological issues.

To improve agricultural landowners’ BMP adoption rates, one must first be
willing to provide incentives such as financial assistance, information, training, assistance
with the implementation of conservation practices, and one must be able to convince
farmers that the implementation of conservation practices will result in improved water
quality and a healthier and more sustainable environment. In addition, adoption rates of
speciﬁc conservation practices can be improved by increasing agricultural landowners’
knowledge and attitudes about water quality, watershed conservation issues, and best
management practices. For instance, this study reveals that adoption rates of speciﬁc
BMPs increased as respondents’ satisfaction with the water quality in their watershed,
and level of feeling informed about watershed conservation issues increased. Therefore,
to encourage the adoption of BMPs, one should effectively inform landowners about
watershed conservation issues which may also result in increased satisfaction with the

water quality in their watershed. Another strategy may be focus efforts on informing

153

 

agricultural landowners about issues that they are less likely to be concerned about (i.e.,
reduced fish habitat and algae growth).

In addition to offering incentives and increasing agricultural landowners’
knowledge about water quality and watershed conservation issues, one can improve BMP
adoption by improving communication and educational efforts with farmers. The most
effective way to do this is to determine farmers’ preferred method of learning about
watershed conservation issues and BMPs. Overall, respondents from this study had a
strong preference for more traditional communication strategies such as newsletters and
bulletins. Therefore, by using newsletters and bulletins to inform agricultural landowners
about watershed conservation issues and BMPs, one should increase the likelihood that
farmers will receive information in an appropriate and meaningful manner and that
farmers’ knowledge about watershed conservation issues and conservation practices will
actually increase.

Although respondents from this study did not illustrate a considerable preference
for the Internet as a communication strategy, rural educators are cautioned not to
eliminate the Internet as an option to communicate with agricultural landowners. Results
from previous studies (Bowen & Escolme, 1990; and Suvedi et al., 1999) indicate that the
Internet will likely be a more preferred communication strategy in the future. And since
the Internet can be a very time and cost effective method of communicating with
agricultural landowners, its use is encouraged. Results from this study indicate that
respondents’ age, level of education, and gross annual income level have a signiﬁcant
effect on respondents’ preference for the Internet as a communication strategy.

Therefore, if one’s targeted audience is composed primarily or exclusively of younger

154

 

agricultural landowners and/or landowners with higher levels or education, the use of the
Internet to teach farmers about water quality issues and conservation practices is to be
encouraged.

However, this recommendation is made with some reservation. An agricultural
educator should rely on the Internet as a communication strategy only if their web site
speciﬁcally caters to the personal preferences and information needs of the targeted
audience. Furthermore, it may be necessary and at least beneﬁcial to provide agricultural
landowners with training sessions to convince farmers of the beneﬁt of using the Internet
(quick, convenient access to substantial amounts of relevant information) and to help
landowners overcome any fears or apprehensions they may have about using such a
technological communication strategy to obtain information about watershed
conservation issues and BMPs. Lastly, since getting the information to the farmers is
ultimately more important than providing information in a time and cost efficient manner,
one must be willing to provide more traditional methods of communication (such as
newsletters and bulletins) to accommodate the informational needs and preferences of
agricultural landowners who either aren’t capable or prepared to implement such
technological innovations or those individuals who are simply left behind in the

technological revolution.

155

Literature Cited

Abbott, E. A. & Yarbrough, J. P. (1992). Inequalities in the information age: farmers’
differential adoption and use of four information technologies. Agriculture and
Human Values, (9), 67-79.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding the Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Berkman, H. E., & Rabeni, C. F. (1987). Effect of siltation on stream ﬁsh
communities. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 18: 285-294.

Bouare, D. & Bowen, B. E., (1990). Communications methods used by agricultural
extension agents. Journal of Applied Communications, 74 (1), 1-7.

Bowen, B. E., & Escolme, K. M. (1990). Computer education of farmers. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 31 (1), 7-11.

Bright, A. D. & Manfredo, M. J. (1994). The quality of attitudinal information regarding
natural resource issues: the role of attitude-strength, importance, and information.
Society and Natural Resources, 8, 399-414.

Brower, G. (2002, J une 29). Impact on the water. The Holland Sentinel. Retrieved on
May 28, 2003 from
http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/mi/062902_watershed.htm

Bruening, T. H. (1991). Communicating with farmers about environmental issues.
Journal of Applied Communications, 75 (1), 35-41.

Bruening, T. H. (1992). Useful water quality information sources: the farmers’ point
of view. Journal of Applied Communication, 76 (2), 43-49.

Burhoe, S. A. & Stewart, B. R. (1983). The identification of instructional priorities for
future programming in adult education in agriculture. Journal of the American
Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 24 (1), 26-33.

Carr, V. H., Jr. (1999). Technology Adoption and Diffusion. The Learning Center for
Interactive Technology. Retrieved June 21, 2001, from
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/innovation/adoptiondiffusion.htm

Christensen, L. A., & Norris, P. E. (Jan/Feb. 1983) Soil conservation and water quality
improvement: what farmers think. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 38:

15-20.

Dix, J. (Jan. 1994). Teaming with technology. Network World, 8-13.

156

 

 

Feather, P. M. & Amacher, G. S. (1994). Role of information in the adoption of best
management practices for water quality improvement. Agricultural Economics,
11:159-170.

Findlay, H. J ., Zabawa, R., Morris, C. E. & Oben, M. (1993). Computer awareness
among limited-resource farmers. Journal of Extension, 31 (1), 22-23.

Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America.
Conservation Biology, 8: 629-644.

Fox, R. J ., Crask, M. R. & Kim, J. (1988). Mail Survey Response Rate-A Meta-analysis
of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467-
491.

Gaylord, R. A., Fenske, J. L., & Smith, D. W. (1995). A Fisheries management guide
to stream protection and restoration. Michigan department of natural resources
ﬁsheries division. Fisheries special report No. 15.

Gloy, B. A., Akridge, J. T. & Whipker, L. D. (2002, August). The usefulness and
inﬂuence of information sources on commercial farms. Paper presented at
the 2002 AAEA Annual Meeting, Tampa, FL.

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of
research on responsible environmental behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Education, 18: 1-8.

Howe, M. J. A. (1997). Adult Learning: psychological research and application.
London: John Wiley and Sons.

Hubona, G. S., & Geitz, S. (1999). External variables beliefs, attitudes and information
technology usage behavior. Retrieved on January, 29, 2003 from
http://www.isy.vcu.edu/~ghubona/Publ .html.

Iddings, R. K., & Apps, J. W. (1990). What inﬂuences farmers’ computer use? Journal of
Extension, 28 (1), 19-21.

Iddings, R. K. & Apps, J. W. (1992). Learning preferences and farm computer use:
Implications for Extension programming. Journal of Extension, 30, 16-17.

Irani, T. (2000). Prior experience, perceived usefulness and the web: factors inﬂuencing
agricultural audiences’ adoption of intemet communication tools. Journal of
Applied Communications, 84 (2), 49-63.

Jacobson, S. K., Sieving, K. E., Jones, G. A., & Van Doom, A. (2003). Assessment of

farmers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bird conservation on organic
and conventional Florida farms. Conservation Biology, 1 7 (2), 595-606.

157

Jolly, W., Edwards, W., & Erbach, D. (1983). Economics of Conservation-tillage of
Iowa. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 38 (3), 291-294.

Kauffman, J. B., & Krueger, W. C. (1984). Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems
and streamside management implications-a review. Journal of Range
Management, 37, 430-438.

King, J. W. & Rockwell, S. K. (1988). Communicating with the adult learner. Journal of
Extension, 26 (1), 26-27.

Kovacic, M. (2001). Focus group research. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State
University.

Kramic, J. L. (1987). The level of impact on information sources on production and
marketing decisions of Ohio farmers. Unpublished master of science thesis, The
Ohio State University, Columbus.

Lasley, P. (1985). Iowa farm poll. Ames: Iowa State University.

Latour, M. A., & Meunier, R. A. (1999). Transferring poultry information to the public
using the intemet: AvianNet @ Purdue University. Journal of Extension, 37 (5).
Retrieved from http://joe.org/joe/1999october/iw1.html.

Lavis, K. R., & Blackburn, D. J. (1990). Extension Clientele Satisfaction. Journal of
Extension, 28 (l), 36.

Lemly, D. A. (1982). Modification of benthic insect communities in polluted streams:
Combined effects of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Hydrobiologia,
87: 229-245.

Lewis, B. (1996). Nonpoint Sources, Part One: agriculture and forests can have major
effects. Academy of Natural sciences.

Lichtenberg, E. & Zimmerman, R. (1999). Information and farmers’ attitudes about
pesticides, water quality, and related environmental effects. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 73, 227-236.

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H. & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling Nonresponse in Social
Science Research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42 (4), 43-53.

Lynne, G. D., Shonkwiler, J. S., Rola, L. R., (1988). Attitudes and farmer conservation
behavior. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70: 12-19.

158

 

Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling nonresponse issues. Journal of Extension
21 (5), 45-50.

Morgan, D. L. (1993). Successful focus groups-advancing the state of the art. Newbury
Park: Sage Publications

Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1998). The Focus Group Kit — Volumes 1 — 6.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

Napier, T. L., Camboni, S. M. & Thraen, C. S. (1986). Environmental concern and the
adoption of farm technologies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 4] (2 ),
109-1 13.

Napier, T. L., Robinson, J. & Tucker, M. (2000a). Adoption of precision farming within
three Midwest watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55 (2), 135-
141.

Napier, T. L., Thraen, C. S., Gore, A. & Goe, W. R. (1984). Factors affecting adoption
of conventional and conservation tillage practices in Ohio. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 39: 205-209.

Napier, T. L., Tucker, M. & McMarter, S. (2000b). Adoption of conservation production

systems in three Midwest watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55
(2), 123-134.

Nerbonne, H. E., & Vondracek, B. (2001). Effects of local land use on physical habitat,
benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA.
Environmental Management, 28 (1): 87-99.

Norman, D., Freyenberger, S. & Schurle, B. (1997). County extension agents and on-
farm research work: results of a Kansas survey. Journal of Extension, 35 ( 5 ).
Retrieved February 14, 2002, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october/a4.html.

Okai, M. N. (1986). Delivery of agricultural information to small farmers. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Pace, C. R. (1939). Factors inﬂuencing questionnaire returns from former university
students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 388-397.

Paolisso, M. (1999). Toxic algal blooms, nutrient runoff, and farming on Maryland’s
eastern shore. Culture and Agriculture, 21 (3), 53-58.

Rasmussen, W. D. (1989). Taking the university to the people: Seventy-ﬁve years of
extension. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

159

Rhodes, H. M., Leland, L. S. & Niven, B. E. (2002). Farmers, streams, information, and
money: Does informing farmers about riparian management have any affect?
Environmental Management, 30(5): 665-677.

Richardson, J. G. (1989). Keeping pace with the times? Journal of Extension, 27(3), 29-
30.

Richardson, J. G. (1993). Extension information delivery methods: detecting trends
among users. ACE Quarterly, 72 (1), 23-27.

Richardson, J. G., & Mustian, D. (1994). Delivery methods preferred by targeted
extension clientele for receiving specific information. Journal of Applied
Communications, 78 (1), 23-33.

Riesenberg, L. E., & Gor, C. O. (1989). Farmers’ preferences for methods of receiving
information on new or innovative farming practices. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 30, 7-13.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diﬁusion of innovations (4‘h ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Rollins, T. J ., Bruening, T. B., & Radhakrishna, R. B. (1991). Identifying extension
information delivery methods for environmental issues. Journal of Applied
Communications, 75 (2), 1-9.

Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York, NY:
John Wiley Co.

Samson, S. A. (1998). Technological issues for improving access to intemet web sites
for rural users. Journal of Extension, 36 (4 ). Retrieved from
http://www.joe.org/joe/ 1 998august/tt2.html.

Scherer, C. W., & Masciat, S. (1990). Agent satisfaction with extension publications: an
exploratory study. Journal of Applied Communications, 74 (2), 37-43.

Schnitkey, G., Batte, M., Jones, E., & Botomogno, J. (1992). Information preferences of
Ohio commercial farmers: implications for extension. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 74, 486-497.

Spool, J. M., & Scanlon, T. (1997). Measuring website usability. CHI 97 Electronic
Publications: Special Interest Groups (SIGs). Retrieved from
http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi97/proceedings/sig/jms.htm.

SPSS, Inc. (2000). SPSS for Windows, Release 10.0.7, standard version. SPSS, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois, USA.

160

 

Stern, P. C. & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of
Social Issues, 50: 65-84.

Strand, M., & Merritt, R. W. (1999). Impacts of livestock grazing activities on stream
insect communities and the riverine environment. American Entomologist, 45,
13-29.

Suvedi, M., Campo, S., & Lapinski, M. K. (1999). Trends in Michigan farmers’
information seeking behaviors and perspectives on the delivery of information.
Journal of Applied Communications, 83 (3 ), 33-50.

Suvedi, M., Lapinski, M.K., & Campo, S. (2000). Farmers’ perspectives of Michigan
State University extension: Trends and Lessons from 1996 and 1999. Journal of
Extension, 38 (1). Retrieved from httpz/lwww.joe.org/joe/ZOOOfebruary/a4.html.

Sweeney, B. W., & Vannotte, R. L. (1996). Growth and production of a stream
stoneﬂy: inﬂuences of diet and temperature. Ecology, 67: 1396-1410.

Tavemier, E. M., Adeaja, A. O., Hartley, M. P., & Schilling, B. (1996). Information
technologies and the delivery of extension programs. Journal of Agricultural &
Food Information, 3 (4), 75-85.

Taylor, M. T., Hoag, D. L. & Owen, M. B. (1991). Computer literacy and use. Journal
of Extension, 29 (4), ll-13.

Tennessen, D. J ., Pon Tell, S., Romine, V. & Motheral, S. W. (1997). Opportunities for
cooperative extension and local communities in the information age. Journal of
Extension, 35 (5). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/l997october/iw4.html.

Trede, L. D., & Whitaker, S. (1998). Perceptions of Iowa beginning farmers toward the
delivery of education. Journal of Applied Communications, 82 (4), 22-33.

United States Census Bureau. (2000). Michigan QuickLinks Retrieved May 26, 2003
from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfa/states/26000.html.

United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Inventory. (1997).
Retrieved May 26, 2003 from
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5065.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress. U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1996). National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress. U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C.

161

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1997, October). Top ten watershed
lessons learned. Retrieved September 20, 2002, from
http://www.epa.gov/owow/lessons/

United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Inventory: 1998
Report to Congress. (2000, J une). Water Quality Conditions in the United
States: A proﬁle from the 1998 National Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress. Retrieved February 27, 2002, from
httpzllwww.epa.gov/305b/98report/9Ssummaryhtml

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress. U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C.

Walker, R. C. & Holden, L. A. (2000). Survey results from users of a dairy management
web site. Journal of Extension, 38(1). Retrieved from
http://www.joe.org/j oe/2000february/ttl .html.

Waters, D. C., & Hebel, S. J. (1982). Erosion, redeposition, and delivery of sediment to
Midwestern streams. Water Resources Research, 18: 1278-1282.

Wilde, W. D. & Swatman, P. A. (1996). Towards Virtual Communities in Rural

Australia. Center for Information Systems Research, Swinburne University of
Technology.

162

 

Appendix A

Cover letter and survey instrument.

163

 

Greetings,

There is a need for watershed conservation programs to acknowledge the unique

input, knowledge and diverse views of private agricultural landowners. The goal of this
survey is to determine the informational needs of landowners. The benefit of such a
survey is to provide information to develop extension and outreach programs that better
meet the needs of private agricultural landowners. Funds for this project originate from
the US. Department of Agriculture Cooperative States Research Education and
Extension Service.

Your household had been selected at random for a survey of agricultural landowners in
six watersheds (Gun River, Lake Macatawa, North Branch Flint River, Rice Creek, Stony
Creek, and the Upper Thomapple). Survey results will be used to provide a review of
landowner information needs regarding watershed conservation. Please take the time to
fill out the survey and return it in the postage-paid envelope provided. Please respond to
all of the questions to the best of your knowledge. The results will be most useful if all
landowners express their thoughts. Remember that there are no right or wrong answers.
The survey should take approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Please realize that all individual responses are voluntary and confidential and your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Only I
and our staff will see the completed surveys and your name will not appear on the
completed survey form. The number printed on the survey is to help track the percentage
of surveys that have been completed. I will only report the summaries as a group and not
by individual. Summaries of the completed study will be available to all interested
participants. In addition I will personally present the research ﬁndings to a local
gathering at the conclusion of the study. I appreciate your time, effort and opinions. If
you have any questions please contact me or your local representative of any of the
organizations that have reviewed the survey. If you have questions regarding your role
and rights as a subject of research, you may contact David E. Wright, Ph.D. Chair,
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects

(517) 355-2180.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Habron

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology
Michigan State University

13 Natural Resources Building

East Lansing, MI 48824

517-432-8086

164

 

Landowner Watershed Information Needs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Survey of Landowners in Vital Michigan Watersheds

Conducted by the
Office for Survey Research,
Institute for Public Policy and Social Research,
Michigan State University,
321 Berkey Hall,
East Lansing, MI 48824

Should you have any questions about this survey, please contact:
Professor Geoffrey Habron, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
at 517- 432-8086 or at habrong@msu.edu

All your answers will be kept strictly conﬁdential. You indicate your voluntary consent
to participate in this survey by answering and returning the questionnaire.

165

PART A. General Information

1. Please circle the number of the one phrase that best describes the kind of streams
or drains that are on your property:

The stream/drain ﬂows all year ........................... 1
The stream/drain ﬂows occasionally ................... 2
I have no stream or drain on my property ........... 3

2. Does any stream on your property have a strip of grass, bushes, or trees along it?

Yes ....................................................................... 1
No ........................................................................ 2
No stream or drain on property ........................... 3

3. Please rate by importance to you the issues listed below that have been identified by
some residents and landowners as current concerns with the water quality in the

 

 

watershed.

Extremely Not

Important Important
a) Soil erosion into streams and drains ...... l 2 3 4 5
b) Flooding ........................... 1 2 3 4 5
c) Reduced fish habitat .................. l 2 3 4 5
d) Algae growth ...................... l 2 3 4 5
e) Bacterial contamination ............... 1 2 3 4 5
f) Excess phosphorous .................. 1 2 3 4 5
g) Excess nitrogen ...................... 1 2 3 4 5
h) Other( ) ...... 1 2 3 4 5

 

4. Over the past ten years, has the water quality in the watershed. . .

Become Worse .................................................... l
Stayed the Same .................................................. 2
Become Better ..................................................... 3
Do Not Know ...................................................... 7

166

 

5. Please, rank order the ten possible sources below in terms of how much pollution they
each contribute to the overall pollution of waters in the watershed. Give a rank of 1
to the source of the greatest amount of pollution, a rank of 2 to the source of the next
greatest, etc., and a rank of 10 to the source of the least amount of pollution.

Write in the Rank

__ Municipal sewage from cities and towns
__ Faulty septic systems

_ Rural road runoff

__ Storm drain runoff from paved surfaces
__ Agricultural runoff from ﬁelds

__ Soil erosion from farmlands

_ Old dump sites

_ Construction site runoff

Industrial discharges

Oil and gas well sites

 

Other (please specify)

6. The following questions address the importance of watershed issues to you and how
satisﬁed, informed, and knowledgeable you are about watershed issues. Please
indicate how strongly you feel about each question by circling one of the following

responses for each question:

E=Extremely V=Very M=Moderately S=Slightly N=Not at all

a. How satisfied are you with the water quality
in your watershed? ............................................................... E

b. How informed do you feel you are regarding
watershed conservation issues in your watershed? ............... E

How important to you are watershed conservation issues?... E

d. How knowledgeable would you say you are
about MSU Extension? .......................................................... E

167

 

 

7. The Michigan Department of Agriculture deﬁnes a farm as "any establishment from
which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold or would normally be sold
during the year, or property which includes 5 or more horses." Based on this
definition, do you live on a farm?

Yes ......................................... 1 ‘ (Proceed to Section B)

No ......................................... 2 ‘ (Skip to Section E)

PART B. Watershed Conservation Practices

The following questions focus on watershed conservation practices.

8. For each of the practices listed below, select the gig response that be_s_t describes your
experience with the practice. If you have tried the pragtice indicate the year you ﬁrst
tried it. Regardless of your experience, please feel free to provide comments
regarding the practice.

1 = NO I Have not heard of the practice.

2 2 YES I Have heard of the practice.

3 = YES I Have heard of the practice and would like to try it.
4 = I Have tried the practice.

 

No, Yes, Heard! Yes, Year
PRACTICE Haven’t Have Would Have First
— Heard Heard Try Tried Tried
a. Streamside ﬁlter or buffer strips . . . l 2 3 4
b. Conservation tillage ............
l 2 3 4
c. Manure management plan .......
l 2 3 4
d. Grassed waterways ............
l 2 3 4
e. Pasture management (livestock
exclusion and stream crossings) . . 1 2 3 4
f. Integrated crop management (crop
scouting, pest and fertilizer mgt.) . 1 2 3 4
g. Animal waste storage system . . . . l 2 3 4
h. Wildlife habitat management or
wetland restoration ............ 1 2 3 4
i. Structures for erosion or water
control ................... . 1 2 3 4

168

 

Comments:

 

 

 

9. Of the following management practices, about which ones would you like more
information? (check all that apply)

Conservation tillage, crop residue management

Grassed waterway

Filter strips (managed streamside vegetation)

Pasture management (livestock exclusion and stream crossings)

UDUUD

Integrated crop management (crop scouting, pest and fertilizer
mgt.)

Animal waste storage system

Wildlife habitat management/wetland restoration

Structures for erosion or water control

DUDE]

Manure management plan

10. Please circle the appropriate number to indicate whether or not each of the following

factors
does or does not prevent or hinder you from implementing watershed conservation
practices?
Yes, No,
Does Does Not
Soils, topography, or ﬂooding .................................. 1 2
Long or confusing applications and permits ............ 1 2
Lack of funds ........................................................... 1 2
Lack of information ................................................. l 2
Lack of agency ﬂexibility ........................................ 1 2
Worried about getting fined ..................................... l 2
Other (please specify) 1 2

 

11. What is the best incentive that would help you implement conservation practices?

 

169

12. In the last year, how many times, if any, have you sought advice from any
organization or agency (extension, conservation district, livestock or woodland

association, state agencies)?

 

 

 

 

PART C. Farming Activities

The following information about you and your agricultural operation is strictly
conﬁdential. The information will help determine the concerns of different types of

landowners.

Times (Write in the Number of Times Last Year)

13. Do you consider yourself a full time farmer?

14. Please circle the number corresponding to the category which best represents your

farm operation.

Cultivated crops .........................
Pastured livestock ......................
Hayland .....................................
Conﬁned livestock/poultry ........

Other

 

15. Do any of the following family members help manage your farm/forest property?

Children .......................
Grandchildren ................
Spouse ..........................

Parents ..........................

Other

............................... 1
............................... 2
............................... 3
............................... 4

.......................... 7

Es

............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l

.................... l

 

170

N9

NNNNN

 

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

What are the total acres of tillable ground that you operate (owned and rented)?
Owned Acres
Rented Acres

What percent of your total crops are planted no-till?

 

(Write in the Percentage)

%

 

 

 

How frequently do you have the soil on your property tested?

Every 3 years or more frequently ................. 1
Every 4-6 years ............................................. 2
More than 6 years ........................................ 3
Never ............................................................ 4

How much starter fertilizer do you typically purchase for your entire cropping
operation?
Tons (Please Specify What Analysis? )

How often do you fertilize your crops?

Regularly, on some type of schedule ........... l
Occasionally, or only when needed .............. 2
Never ............................................................ 3

Is your field drained by a subsurface tile system?

Yes ................................................................ 1
No ................................................................. 2
Do Not Know ............................................... 3

171

 

 

 

22. Do you apply manure on your fields?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes ............................................................ 1 . (Proceed to Question
23)
No ............................................................. 2 . (Skip to Question 25)
8 3
23. Please indicate how frequently you do each of the following g >‘ h §
by putting a check in the appropriate space to the right. g ’5’ 'g g .5 E
o 8 a: z z <
a. I use cover crops .....................................
b. I keep written records of manure applications (ﬁeld/amount) . .
c. I mostly spread manure on the same ﬁelds each year ........
d. I try to spread manure on the same field no more than every 2-
4 years .............................................
e. I use book values of manure to plan land application rates . . . .
f I use manure tests to determine manure application rates .....

 

g. I use nitrate soil tests, taken at sidedress, to determine nitrogen
fertilizer rates .......................................

h. I use soil tests to determine on which fields to spread manure .

 

 

i. I reduce my starter fertilizer, specifically phosphorus rates, on
manured ground .....................................

j. I have received complaint(s) from our neighbors regarding
manure handling and/or odor ...........................

 

 

k. I use buffer strips or observe a safe distance from surface water
when spreading manure ...............................

l. I have an agronomist or fertilizer dealer make our fertilizer
recommendations and they take credit for our manure nutrients

, m. If you have alfalfa, do you spread manure on hay/haylage
fields .....................................................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. Has your livestock manure been analyzed for nutrients (N-P-K) in the last 5 years?
Yes ................................................................ 1
No 2

172

PART D. Information Sources and Needs

The following questions focus on your information needs and preferences.

25. Where do you get information about environmental and land use issues for this area?
(check all that apply)

Newspapers (specify)

 

Agency or organization newsletters (specijy)

 

Friends or relatives
Radio or TV
Internet

Other (specify)

U D U D U C]

 

26. If any, please indicate through which of the following you currently have access to
an Intemet-ready computer (check all that apply):

Home

Business

Library

School

Friend

Relative

Other

U U U D U D U D

None

27. How often do you use the Internet for management decisions?

Frequently ..................................................... l
Occasionally ................................................. 2
Rarely ........................................................... 3
Never ............................................................ 4

173

28. We would like to learn how and where you receive information and which of these
sources are important to you. Please check the space that shows how much you use
information from each of the following sources?

 

None A Some A Fair A Lot
Little Bit

 

a. Print Information (newspaper,
magazines) ...................... ' .

 

b. Electronic Information (television,
computer, radio) ...................

 

c. Organizational Events (ﬁeld days, farm
tours) ...........................

 

(1. Personal Sources (friends, family,
extension) ........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29. Which of the following educational methods would you prefer to use for learning
more about watershed conservation? (Check all that apply)

Farm meeting/workshop

Field Day/Demonstration tours

Printed bulletin or fact sheet

Newsletter or mailer

Video tape

Electronic mail

Computer software package

World Wide web page

Mass media (newspaper, radio or television)
Visit to resource ofﬁce (extension, conservation district)
Personal visit to your home from resource person
Visit university

ODDDDDDUUDDD

PART E. Background Questions

The following questions seek information that will help us interpret the answers you
provided previously. As with the entire questionnaire, all responses will be kept
conﬁdential.

30. What is your age? ......................................... Years Old

174

31. Are you . ..
Male .................................................. 1
Female ............................................... 2

32. What is your highest level of education? (Circle Only One)

Grade school ................................................. 1
Some high school .......................................... 2
High school graduate .................................... 3
Vocational or trade school ............................ 4
Some college or junior college ..................... 5
College graduate ........................................... 6
Post graduate work or degree ........................ 7

33. Please check the range of your household income.

$15,000-25,000 ............................................. 1
$25,001-35,000 ............................................. 2
$35,001 -50,000 ............................................. 3
$50,001-75,000 ............................................. 4
Greater Than $75,000 ................................... 5

34. What advice, if any, would you give to agencies or organizations regarding
watershed conservation pro grams?

 

 

 

 

35. Would you like a copy of the results of this survey?

Yes ................................................................ 1
No .................................................................. 2

Thank you! You have now finished the survey.
Please place it in the stamped, return envelope and mail it as soon as possible.
We greatly appreciate your help.

175

Appendix B

Consent forms, background information sheet and script for focus group round-table
discussion.

176

 

orncr or
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

Unlvmlty Committee on
Research Involvlng
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
246 Administration Building
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1046

517/355-2180

FAX: 51 ”353-2976

Web: www.msuedu/user/ucrihs
E-Mail: ucrihs©msuedu

the Michigan State University
1064 is institutiom/ Diversity
ace/tenor: in Action.

MSU is an afﬁmratiwion,
antral-opportunity institution.

 

MICHIGAN STATE
u I R s

NVE ITY

March 9, 2001

TO: Geoffry HABRON
13 Natural Resources

RE: IRB# 00-576 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-c, 1-o, 1-E
APPROVAL DATE: March 6,2001

TITLE: INFORMATION. EXCHANGE, CITIZEN WATER MONITORING AND
AGRICULTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

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 IRB#
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:

177

 

Michigan State University

Documented Informed Consent for 3 Focus Group

 

 

 

There is a need for extension programs through Michigan State University Extension to
acknowledge the unique input, knowledge and diverse views of residents living in
agricultural watersheds. The goal of this study by Dr. Geoffrey Habron is to determine
the informational impact of watershed websites. The benefit of such a study is to provide
information to develop extension and outreach programs that better meet the needs of
watershed residents. Funds for this project originate from the US. Department of
Agriculture Cooperative States Research Education and Extension Service for
programming in the Lake Macatawa (Allegan/Ottawa counties), Kalamazoo and Stony
Creek (Clinton County) watersheds.

This study will include a hands-on computer session where you will explore a website
that we have designed. We will collect data on which parts of the website were used the
most and in which order. We will also ask you to complete a short form indicating how
well the website helped you to answer questions about your watershed. After the
computer session we will have a focus group interview that will last approximately 90
minutes. The interview will be audio taped to assist in correcting the interviewer’s notes.
The audiotape may be used for research, teaching and professional presentations. You
may be assured that your response will remain completely confidential, as references to
your identity will be deleted from any reports or transcriptions. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Participation is voluntary and you
may choose not to participate at all, refuse to answer certain questions or withdraw from
the study at any time without repercussions.

If you have any concerns about your rights as a research subject you may contact Ashir
Kumar at Michigan State University’s ofﬁce of Research and Graduate Studies at (517)
355-2180 (phone); 517-353-2976 (fax); ucrihs@msu.edu (e-mail). Additionally, if you
have questions concerning the study please contact Geoffrey Habron at 517-432-8086
(phone); habrong@msu.edu (e-mail).

By signing this form, you are acknowledging your voluntary participation in today’s
focus group and granting your permission to be tape-recorded to ensure an accurate
record of the discussion.

 

 

(Print Name) (Sign Name)

 

 

(Signature of principal investigator or authorized representative) (Date)

178

Extension Consent Form (Demonstration tours, field workshops)
Greetings,

There is a need for extension programs through Michigan State University Extension to
acknowledge the unique input, knowledge and diverse views of residents living in
agricultural watersheds. The goal of this study by Dr. Geoffrey Habron is to determine
the informational impact of watershed websites. The benefit of such a study is to provide
information to develop extension and outreach programs that better meet the needs of
watershed residents. Funds for this project originate from the US. Department of
Agriculture Cooperative States Research Education and Extension Service for
programming in the Lake Macatawa (Allegan/Ottawa counties), Kalamazoo and Stony
Creek (Clinton County) watersheds.

Please take the time to dill out the survey and return it today. Please respond to all of the
questions to the ledge. The results will be most useful in all landowners express their
thoughts. Remember that there are no right or wrong answers. The survey should take
approximately 10 minutes to complete.

Please realize that all individual responses are voluntary and conﬁdential and your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Only
I and our staff will see the completed surveys and your name will not appear on the
completed survey form. I will only report the summaries as a group and not by
individual. Summaries of the completed study will be available to all interested
participants. In addition I will personally present the research ﬁndings to a local
gathering at the conclusion of the study. I appreciate your rime, effort and opinions. If
you have any questions please contact me or your local representative of any of the
organizations that you have reviewed the study. If you have any concerns about your
rights as a research subject you may contact Ashir Kumar at Michigan State University’s
office of Research and Graduate Studies at (517) 355-2180 (phone); 517-353-2976 (fax);
ucrihs@msu.edu (e-mail).

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Habron

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology
Michigan State University

13 Natural Resources Building

East Lansing, MI 48824

517-432-8086

179

Background Information Sheet for Focus Group Participants

1. If any, please indicate through which of the following you currently have access
to an Intemet-ready computer (circle all that apply).

Home Friend
Business Relative
Library Other
School None

2. What type of Internet access do you most often have?

Ethernet Do not know
Cable None
56K Modem

3. How often do you use the Internet for management decisions?
Frequently Rarely

Occasionally Never

4. What best describes how frequently you use the Internet?
Once a day Once every few months
Once a week Not at all

Once a month

5. What is your age? years old
6. Are you....?
Male Female

 

Over please

 

 

 

180

7. What is your highest level of education?

Grade school Some college or junior college
Some high school College graduate
High school graduate Post graduate work or degree

Vocational or trade school

8. Please indicate your level of active farming:

F ull-time Part-time None

9. Please list 3 questions you would like to answer from the project website

10. After our session has ended, please list the answers to any of the 3 questions that
you were able to ﬁnd on the website.

181

Script/Questions for Focus Group Participants

Why did you decide to participate in this focus group session?

What is your prior experience with websites?

Overall, how satisfied were you with the website?

Was it difficult for you to find what you were looking for?

Were there terms used in the website that did not make sense to you?

Are there other topics, concepts, or general information that was not included in the web
site that would have been useful to you?

Was the website layout confusing/frustrating?

Were graphics and charts helpful or distracting?

Did you use the graphics or the text version of the website first?
Were you able to easily retrieve target information?

What path did you take (by watershed, by county, or by issues)?
How was your overall experience using the website?

What do you specifically like/dislike about the website?

Do you anticipate that you will rely on the Internet to retrieve information about water
quality in the future?

What suggestions would you make for improvements?

182

iiljijiijjgiijig