Communication and adoption evaluation of USDA water quality demonstration projects : executive summary

10 Pages·1997·0.63 MB·English

by  Nowak, Peter J

Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

Communication and
Adoption Evaluation of
USDA
Water
Quality
Demonstration
Projects
Summary
Executive
United States
Department of
Agriculture
r ^ 1
i
National Agricultural Library
Communication and Adoption Evaluation of
USDA
Water Quality Demonstration Projects
Summary
Executive
Peter Nowak
Professor ofRural Sociology
University ofWisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin
Garrett O’Keefe
Professor ofAgricultural Journalism
University ofWisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin
Claude Bennett
Program Evaluation Leader
CSREES-USDA
Washington, D.C.
Susan Anderson
StaffAssociate
Environmental Resources Center
University ofWisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin
Craig Trumbo
Assistant Professor ofCommunication
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
October 22, 1997
Summary
Executive
n 1989, the U.S. Department of • Define measurable project objec- total ofup to 28 BMP cases is includ-
IAgriculture (USDA) and its state tives within a national program frame- ed in the analyses performed for this
and local cooperators launched a work. evaluation.
Water Quality Program, including • Integrate and focus project bud- Project effectiveness at the demon-
Water Quality Demonstration Projects gets to achieve project objectives. stration area (“watershed”) levelwas
in 16 states across the Nation. The evaluated through use ofquasi-exper-
demonstration projects were located Recommendations for imental evaluation design and analy-
in multi-county areas with agricultur- sis. This design compared producer
Water Quality Programs
ally related water quality risks and USDA adoption processes in seven, ofthe
problems. The projects have been of Agencies eight, demonstration project areas
jointly conducted by Cooperative • Provide clear and timely defini- with those in matched comparison
Extension, the Natural Resources tion ofthe purpose and nature of areas. Comparison areas are located
Conservation Service, and the Farm water quality projects. nearby the demonstration areas but
Service Agency. • Be open to conducting or fund- were not part ofthe demonstration
The demonstration projects were ing site-specific, adaptive research/test projects. Representative samples of
designed to accelerate voluntaryadop- demonstrations in projects designed producers were surveyed through a
tion ofagricultural best management to accelerate producer adoption of baseline survey early in 1992 and a
practices (BMPs) that protect surface water quality BMPs. final survey early in 1994, both in the
water and groundwater, while main- • Coordinate USDA in-house and demonstration areas and the compari-
taining farm and ranch productivity extramural project funding to achieve son areas.
and profitability. This evaluation of consistency oftiming ofRinding for Project effectiveness at the individ-
the eight 1990-initiated projects rates state interagency project partners. ualproducer levelwas evaluated
their earlyperformance in accelerating • Recognize and communicate through use ofcross-sectional evalua-
the process ofproducer adoption of realistic time periods for the conduct tion design and analysis. Character-
designated BMPs. The evaluation and funding ofwater quality projects istics ofindividual producers both in
points to recommendations at the according to project purpose and the demonstration areas and compari-
state project level and the USDA nature. son areas were correlated with their
national program level. adoption process statuses at end of
1993/beginning of 1994.
Evaluation Approach
Recommendations for State
Focus was on how quicklyagricultural
Water Quality Projects Baseline Findings
producers modified project-promoted
• Use comprehensive models, such practices (BMPs), through measuring The baseline survey early in 1992
as those used by this evaluation, to producer adoption processes between found that nearly all producers recent-
help select project objectives, strategy, early 1992 and early 1994. This peri- ly had been exposed to information
structure, methodology, and od may be defined as the first two about what they can do to protect
resources. years offull implementation ofthe water quality, and nearly halfviewed
• Conduct adaptive, site-specific demonstration projects. water pollution as serious in their own
research/test demonstrations as need- Ofthe several BMPs promoted by state. However,fewer than 10percent
ed to assure or improve local applica- each demonstration project, three or ofproducerssaw waterpollution asa
bility ofproject-promoted BMPs. four among those given highest prior- seriousproblem close to theirownfarms.
• Use basic marketing and promo- ity were designated for tracking by More than 50percentbelievedfarm
tional tools to improve program this evaluation. A total of 13 different practiceshave no impacton water
design, execution, and accountability. BMPs was designated across the eight quality in their respective communities.
• Segment the audience according projects, with some ofthe same BMPs On average, three-quarters ofpro-
to their goals and assessments ofwater selected within several projects. Each ducers across the eight sites already
quality problems and BMPs to increase designated BMP (duplicated or undu- were aware ofthe designated BMPs
project effectiveness and efficiency. plicated) counted as a “BMP case.” A tracked by this evaluation, and most
2 • Summary
—
producers said they were already mod- shops were conducted several times increased by 5 to 25 percentage
erately familiar with these BMPs. annually by each project. Group points, with a median increase of 15
Among producers who were aware methods were supplemented by percentage points.
ofthe designated BMPs, a majority extensive use oflocal mass media Virtually no netgainsin producer
were unconvinced ofthe profitability, (mostly newspaper and radio cover- adoption processes in the demonstra-
practicality, and/or water quality ben- age) and controlled media (e.g., pro- tion areas were found relative to those
efits ofmore than halfthe designated ject newsletters). in the comparison areas. Producers
BMP recommendations ofthe pro- The projects had gained, on aver- made similaramountsofgain in BMP
jects. Regarding those specific, pro- age, awarenessandpositive recognition awareness, familiarity, and usage in the
ject-promoted BMPs rated favorably by nearlyhalftheproducersacross the comparison areas.
by an overall majority ofproducers, demonstration areas by early 1994. The lack offinding netgainsby
sizable minorities ofproducers in demonstration area producers over
some ofthe eight sites lacked assur- comparison area producers preventsa
Findings Concerning
ance ofthe profitability and/or practi- conclusion that the projects signifi-
cality ofseveral ofthese BMPs. Area Adoption Processes cantly influenced (i.e., accelerated)
BMP
Across the eight sites, an average of Demonstration area producers, as a adoption processes in the
about 25 percent ofthe producers whole, from early 1992 to early 1994: demonstration areas by close of
already were usingthe designated •did notchange their views about 1993/beginning of1994. The similar
BMPs (the 1992 baseline survey ret- the seriousness ofwater quality prob- gains found in the comparison areas
rospectively measured BMP use dur- lems nor about the impacts offarm may have been due primarilyto the
ing 1991). practices on these problems, and nei- vast, strongagricultural information
ther did they seek more information and communication systems in the
about water quality practices overall; eightsites. These systems include
Project Efforts and
•did notincrease their overall transfer ofinformation from produc-
Producer Reactions
exposure to information concerning ers already using the project-promot-
The projects allocated significant what producers can do to protect ed BMPs to other producers, as well
resources to demonstrate and/or test water quality, nor the attention they as extensive, in-depth commercial
the local applicability ofgenerally-rec- paid to such information; farm magazine coverage ofBMPs.
—
ommended practices. Need for these •did become more aware with An overall inference based on the
—
field demonstrations was due partly to statistical significance ofsix (21 per- above findings is as follows: informa-
the lack oflocal data to support claims cent) of28 BMP cases (producer tion about the project-promoted
ofBMP economic and/or environ- awareness ofmost ofthe BMP cases BMPs was sufficiently similar and per-
mental cost-effectiveness compared increased measurably); vasive across the demonstration areas
—
with conventional practices. The •didbecome morefamiliar sig- and comparison areas to mask any
—
majority ofprojects each recruited and nificandy so with eleven (40 per- demonstrationproject impactson BMP
worked with between 30 and 60 cent) ofthese cases (producer familiar- adoption processes during
cooperators. These recruited produc- ity with most ofthe BMP cases 1992-1993.
ers helped to select field demonstra- increased measurably);
tion methods and evaluate the costs •did notsignificandy change their
— Findings Concerning
and performance ofrecommended assessments of i—.e., become more Individual Adoption
practices that were tested on their favorable toward any ofthe cases;
respective farms. Some ofthe projects and Processes
—
waited for data from their field •didreport increa—sed usage with The following findings pertain to indi-
demonstrations before fully imple- statistical significance offive (19 per- vidual producers across both demon-
menting their information transfer cent) of26 BMP cases by the end of stration areas and comparison areas by
and education efforts. 1993 (for BMP usage, the early 1994 early in 1994.
One-on-one communication survey obtained data for 1993). Producers were asked whether,
between project staffand producer Producer usage ofless than halfthe during 1993, they had received and
audiences was the method ofeduca- BMPs increased measurably. paid attention to information about
tion most emphasized, being pre- Among those BMP cases showing specific BMPs that were being pro-
ferred by both project—staffand pro- statistically significant gains during moted by the project in their respec-
ducers. Group events e.g., demon- 1992-1993, producers’ BMP aware- tive area. Those producers who had
stration tours, field days, and work- ness, familiarity, and/or usage done so were significantly more:
Summary • 3
—
,
awareofthese specific BMPs in 53 the comparison areas. ify, both for some project staffand
percent ofthe 19 applicable BMP Producers’ annualgross income, as area producers, the site-specific eco-
cases;familiarwith the BMPs in 95 well as assessmentsofthese two BMPs’ nomic and environmental benefitsof
percent ofthese cases; and likely to be “practicality” and “simplicity” and using, and thefeasibility ofusing, the
usersofthe BMPs in 53 percent of degree ofattention paid to information project-promoted BMPs.
these cases. Although encouraging, recently received about them were the According to prior program expe-
these findings do not identify the leading predictors oftheir 1993 rience, theory ofadoption ofinnova-
channelsfrom which producers usages. Producers’differential recep- tions, and views ofdemonstration
received information about the pro- tivity to informationgenerally avail- project staff localvalidation ofthe
ject-promoted BMPs. able aboutthese BMPsappears to have profitability and practicality ofrec-
It is questionable whether infor- been more important in determining ommended management practices
mation received directlyfrom demon- their 1993 usage than the additional generally is needed to convincepro-
stration projectactivities had an BMPinformation made available by ducers to try using them to a signifi-
important influence on BMP adop- theprojects. cant degree. Future projects may
tion processes by close of 1993/early need to use on-farm, adaptive
1994. Producers who were aware of research to test local adaptationsof
Further Findings,
their area’s demonstration project available research results. Such site-
were notmore likely to have Discussion, and Implications specific test demonstrations may be
received/paid attention to 1993 Producers who had, in 1993, needed to find ways to increase pro-
information about specific BMPs received/paid attention to informa- ducers’ favorableness toward some
promoted by the project. tion about specific, project-promoted generally recommended BMPs.
That is, producers who, by early BMPs were more likely to befamiliar The voluntary adoption ofenviron-
1994, were aware oftheirarea’s with these BMPs than to assessthem mentally-sound agricultural practices
demonstrationprojectwere no more favorably. First, such producers tend- generally is a slow process. Research
likely to recall recentlyhearing, read- ed to have higher than averagefamil- and agricultural reporting show that
ing, orpayingattention to information iarity with 93percentofBMP cases, as rates ofproducer adoption ofpractices
about theproject’sBMPs than thosepro- compared with higherthan average that emphasize conservation and envi-
ducers unaware oftheproject. A posi- favorablenesstoward: only eightper- ronmental protection tend to be slow-
—
tive statistical association between pro- centofBMP cases regarding their er than the rates ofadoption oftech-
ject awareness and such information ease ofusage-, 50percentofBMP nologies and practices that are primar-
—
receipt/attention would be expected cases regarding theirprofitability ily production/efficiency/market dri-
—
ifa significant amount ofthe informa- and; 75percentofthe cases regard- ven. This latter category generally is
tion that producers received in 1993 ing theirpracticality ofuse. more economically advantageous to
about project-promoted BMPs had Second, by early 1994, a majority producers.
come directlyfrom project activities. ofproducers continued to lack assur- Evaluations offuture USDAwater
BMP information from the projects ance ofthe profitability, practicality, quality projects will need more
could have been transferred indirectly and/or water quality benefits ofmore streamlined administration, increased
to area producers through non-pro- than halfthe designated BMP recom- interaction between evaluation staff
ject channels. mendations ofthe projects. and project staffs, increased precision
A
multi-variate analysisindicates Producers’ lack ofan increase in ofproject objectives, and reassessment
that neither a producer’sfarm location favorableness toward the BMPs may oftechniques for evaluation manage-
in a demonstration area nor aware- have been the primary factor limiting ment and implementation.
,
ness ofthe demonstrationproject in their 1992-1993 adoption ofthe
theirarea were significant predictors BMPs promoted by the demonstra-
,
of1993 usages oftwo ofthe 13 des- tion projects.
ignated BMPs. Data on producer A possible explanation for the lack
usages oftwo ofthe project-promoted ofan increase in producers’ favorable-
BMPs, i.e., legume crediting and ness toward the BMPs is the follow-
manure crediting, met statistical ing: by the end of1993, it is unlikely
requirements for multi-variate analysis that most projects had been able to
across the demonstration areas and accumulate sufficient localdata to ver-
4 • Summary
022392555
—
Acknowledgements University ofWisconsin-Extension, Baseline Results; Volume Two
provided in-kind as well asfinancial Evaluation Results. Madison, WI:
Fundingfor thisevaluation waspro-
supportfor the evaluation. University ofWisconsin in coopera-
vided by the Office ofthe Under
tion with U.S. Department of
SecretaryforResearch, Education, and
The views presented in this docu- Agriculture’s Cooperative State
Economics (REE), U. S. Department
ofAgriculture (USDA). Bothfunding ment are not necessarily those ofthe Research, Education, and Extension
university reviewers, the water quality Service; Economic Research Service;
aUnSdDtAeSchnCiocoaplesruaptpiovretSwteatreeRpersoevairdcehd,by program staffs ofUSUDSADaAnd state and Farm Service Agency; and Natural
county cooperators, evaluation Resource Conservation Service.
Education, and Extension Service USDA
(CSREES); NaturalResource pstoarfftse,dorthitsheevaluationa.geTnhcieescotnhtaetnstupo-f Copies ofthe above Technical
Conservation Service (NRCS), and;
Economic Research Service (ERS). this evaluation report is the sole Reports are available, in limited quan-
USDAfunding wastransmitted to the responsibility ofthe authors. tity as long as copies last, from:
Department ofAgricultural
University ofWisconsin through
This report summarizes and builds Journalism, University ofWisconsin,
CSEUEES (CooperativeAgreement upon tandem background reports Madison, WI 53706.
Nos. 90-EXCA-3-0998and 95-
EXCA-3-03 with the following citation: Peter J.
77).
Nowak, Garrett J. O’Keefe, Susan S. Copies ofthis Executive Summary
Technical and in-kindsupportfor Anderson, Craig Trumbo, Julie and the Reportofthe Evaluation are
Runch, Robert McCallister, and available as long as copies last, from:
the evaluation wassupplied by the
USDA Farm ServiceAgency, as wellas Douglas Jackson-Smith. 1996. Plant and Animal Science Production,
ProducerAdoption Evaluation of Protection, and Processing,
bystaffmembers ofthe eight USDA WaterQualityProjects — CSREES/USDA, Washington, D.C.
Demonstration Projectsassessed. The
TechnicalReports: Volume One 20250-2220.
Cooperative Extension Division,
Background, Context, Design, and
True learning requires free and open based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, alternative testing, reader/taping services,
debate, civil discourse and tolerance of national origin or ancestry, age, or disabili- access to large-print and Braille materials,
many different individuals and ideas. We ty. State law additionally prohibits discrim- mobility assistance and access to adaptive
are preparing students to live andwork in ination that is based on sexual orientation, technology); disability-related program
aworld that speaks with manyvoices and arrest or conviction record, marital status, access services (specialized orientation,
from many cultures. Tolerance is not only pregnancy, parental status, military status, registration and financial aid assistance,
essential to learning, itis an essential to be orveteran status. The application ofspe- accessible parking, paratransportation, liai-
learned. The UniversityofWisconsin- cific state prohibitions on discrimination son to university, federal, state and com-
Madison is built upon these values andwill may be influenced by an individual’s status munity agencies, academic adjustments,
actvigorouslyto defend them. We will as an employee or student. physical access evaluation, advocacy, and
maintain an environment conducive to Universitypolicies create additional in-service training forfaculty and staff);
teaching and learning that is free from protections that prohibit harassment on and information and referral services.
intimidation for all. the basis ofcultural background and eth- Students are encouraged to contact die
In its resolve to create this positive envi- nicity. Inquiries concerning this policy may center as early as possible to arrange for
ronment, the UW-Madisonwill ensure be directed to the appropriate campus services and to contact their local Division
compliance with federal and state laws pro- admitting or employing unit or to the ofVocational Rehabilitation (DVR) office.
tecting against discrimination. In addition, Equity and Diversity Resource Center,
the UW-Madison has adopted policies that 179A Bascom Hall, 500 Lincoln Drive, For assistance or more information,
both emphasize these existing protections Madison,WI 53706, 608/263-2378 or contact the McBurney Center at
608/263-2741 (voice) or
and supplement themwith protections (TDD) 608/263-2473.
608/263-6393 (TDD),
against discrimination that are not available The McBurneyDisability Resource
905 UniversityAvenue,
under eitherfederal or state law. Center provides academic support services Madison,WI 53715.
Federal and state laws provide separate (disability management advising, notetak-
prohibitions against discrimination that is ing, sign language and oral interpreting,
Summary • 5