View
19
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Patricia L. Farrell – Michigan State University College of Agriculture & Natural Resources. Evaluating the Impact of Farmstead Assessments: Providing Information, Educating, and Changing Environmental Stewardship Behaviors of Michigan Farmers. Educational Theories. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Evaluating the Impact of Farmstead Assessments:
Providing Information, Educating, and Changing Environmental
Stewardship Behaviors of Michigan Farmers
Patricia L. Farrell – Michigan State UniversityCollege of Agriculture & Natural Resources
2
Educational Theories
• Naïve Assumption—direct and linear relationship between providing information to individuals and changing their behavior (Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Newhouse, 1990). Attributes required:– Knowledge of Ecology
– Self-Efficacy
– Social Norms
– Attitudes towards the behaviors
– Perceived Competencies (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980)
3
Educational Theories
• Knowles’ Theory of Andragogy (1984)Adult learners:
– Need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction
– Have Past experiences that provide the basis for learning
– Want to learn that have immediate relevance to their life or job.
Adult learning is problem-based.
4
Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program
• Creation of MGSP in 1993 by Michigan Legislature
• Funding – tax on pesticides & fertilizers• Administered by MI Department of Agriculture• Cooperation with MSU Extension, USDA
NRCS, and MI Conservation Districts (CD)• 26 trained technicians throughout state• Local grantee organizations (CDs or MSU-E)
5
Technician’s Role
• With knowledge & expertise, technicians can be the mechanism to change:– Educating farmers on environmental practices and
behaviors for a better farm future
– Helping farmers with MAEAP farmstead verification
– Connecting the farmer with the experts (NRCS, MSU-E, MDA, etc.)
– Influencing farmers & community to understand their impact upon the environment
6
Groundwater Education
• Farmstead Assessment System (Farm*A*Syst or F*A*S)
• 1:1 voluntary contact with farmer• Informing, educating and helping farmers become
environmentally sensitive to high risks on their farms
• Moving farmer to taking ownership by creating an Improvement Action Plan—personal commitment and investment, and in-depth knowledge about issues
7
Groundwater Evaluation
• Evaluations conducted since 1996• Statewide Surveys
– Baseline in 1996– Follow-up in 2000– Follow-up planned for 2006– 400 farmers randomly selected– Mail survey– Purpose—measure groundwater knowledge, understand
farmers’ risk perceptions and awareness of groundwater issues and education
8
Groundwater Evaluation
• F*A*S Annual Evaluation– Total population of F*A*S participants (~800-
1,100) per fiscal year– Purpose—to gather high risk farm practice/structure
data, to learn if changes have been made to high risks, and demographic information
– Mail survey using Dillman’s Total Design Method (1978)
– Results have been consistent with ~55% return rate
9
Evaluation Results
• Strong levels of satisfaction with– Program– Staff knowledge and technical assistance
• Farmers are becoming aware and making changes to high risks:– Closing abandoned wells– Testing Well Water– Changing Pesticide Storage & Handling– Creating Emergency Plans– Creating Drift Management Plans
10
Evaluation Efforts
• Follow-up F*A*S Survey– Tracked farmers who stated in initial F*A*S
Survey that they planned to make changes in the future to their high risk practices or structures
– Six months later followed-up with the farmers to learn whether or not they made the changes and ‘why not’ if they had not made the changes
11
Evaluation Results
• Follow-up F*A*S Survey– Of the farmers who planned to make changes to their highest
risks, six months later:• 57% made changes
– 75.9% Closed Abandoned Well(s)– 68.0% Created Emergency Plans– 62.1% Changed Pesticide Storage & Handling– 46.2% Changed Fertilizer Storage & Handling
• Why 43% had not made changes?– 29.4% Waiting for cost-share– 28.8% Financial constraints– 22.9% Not sure how to complete changes
12
Evaluation Efforts
• Certified Applicator Survey– Stratified Random Sample of ~13,000 MI
Certified Applicators– Asked if F*A*S had been conducted on farm– Compared F*A*S farmers to non-F*A*S
farmer responses to environmental stewardship management behaviors and practices
– 2 page survey
13
Evaluation Results
• Certified Applicator Survey– 23.9% had a F*A*S conducted
• Findings indicate MGSP and F*A*S are having impact on farmers’ environmental stewardship practices
• Need to continue educating farmers on drinking well water testing, storing pesticides & fertilizers, and creating emergency preparedness plans
14
Evaluation Results
Stewardship Practice % F*A*S
% Non-F*A*S
Drinking water is tested annually 50.0 28.2
Pesticides are stored in a fenced or locked separate facility away from all other farm equipment
68.8 48.7
A written emergency response plan has been developed.
57.4 20.6
Extremely hazardous pesticides & fertilizers have been reported to the local emergency planning committee.
41.7 15.4
A written drift management plan has been developed.
43.8 16.1
Significant at p < .05
15
Evaluation Conclusions
• MGSP is having an impact on those farmers with whom they have conducted Farmstead Assessments
• Money can drive changes (e.g., closing wells, installing anti-backflow devices)
• Marketing of program is needed• Continue offering education programs (and
marketing them)
16
Evaluation Conclusions
• Important for Technicians to build relationship with farmer and assist them with making changes (Action Plan, etc.)
• Specify precise cognitive, affective, and behavioral objectives with programs—affect multiple determinants of an individual’s decision-making process
• It is possible to mistake “education” for manipulation of behavior via rewards.
17
Changes Made to Program
• Tied to Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP)—farming system
• Technicians required to have professional development plans
• Improvement Action Plan included in F*A*S, including high risks, timeline, and signatures. Based on Adult Learning and Environmental Education Theories and Models.
• Grant Deliverables—Technicians have to meet deliverables through number of F*A*S, MAEAP farming system verification, lowering high risks, etc.
18
Future Evaluation Efforts
• FY04 Evaluation – 3-Prong Effort– F*A*S Survey with Farmers—purpose is to understand
high risks practices/structures and their plans for the high risks (similar to previous surveys)
– Technician Survey—purpose is to analyze their perceptions on roadblocks farmers are dealing with to making changes, their focus deliverables, and program effectiveness
– Technician Year End On-Farm Risk Reduction Records (deliverables)—to complete story and understand impact of the program
Recommended