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