RESEARCHPerceptions of Risk Associated with Use of FarmChemicals: Implications for Conservation InitiativesMARK TUCKER*1-98 Agriculture BuildingCollege of Agriculture, Food and Natural ResourcesUniversity of MissouriColumbia, Missouri 65211, USA

TED L. NAPIER311 Agricultural Administration BuildingCollege of Food, Agricultural and Environmental SciencesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio 43210, USA

ABSTRACT / Data were collected from 245 farmers withinthe Darby Creek hydrologic unit in central Ohio to assessperceptions of risk associated with use of farm chemicals.Farmers were asked to evaluate the level of risk associatedwith use of agricultural chemicals for water quality, food

safety, food quality, health of applicator, health of farmanimals, wildlife, beneficial plants, beneficial insects, andhuman health. Study findings revealed that respondentsperceived use of farm chemicals posed little or no threat toany of the assessed items. A composite index was formu-lated from the responses to the nine items and was titledPerceived Risk. Variance in the Perceived Risk index wasregressed against social learning variables. The findingsrevealed that approximately 32% of the variance wasexplained by the predictive variables included in the model.It was concluded that the theoretical perspective wassomewhat useful for understanding perceptions heldabout agricultural chemical use at the farm level. The find-ings are discussed in the context of future conservationand educational–information programs within the study re-gion.

United States agriculture has been viewed as theworld’s model for food and fiber production. As theworld’s largest exporter of agricultural products andlargest donor of food aid (USDA 1994), the US agricul-tural system is virtually unrivaled in its per-farmerproduction capacity. While the volume and variety ofagricultural goods have been a source of national pridefor decades, agricultural pollution has received muchattention during the past three decades, particularlysince the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s SilentSpring. Use of intensive agricultural techniques hascontributed pesticides, nutrients, and sediment intorivers, lakes, and other waterbodies. One of the mostpublicized issues has centered on the problem ofnonpoint source pollution and on claims by the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) and other authoritiesthat agriculture is the leading source of water pollutionin the United States (National Research Council 1989).

Although states vary in their dependence on surfaceand groundwater resources for human consumption(Pye and others 1983), all have a profound interest inprotecting water reserves. Each US citizen uses anaverage of 75 gallons of water per day (Burby and others1983), and contamination of drinking-water supplies

has been linked to serious health threats, includingcancer. Agricultural pollution also adversely affectswildlife habitat, transportation systems, and recre-ational uses of public water ways (Easter and others1983).

Recent national studies suggest that increasing num-bers of consumers also believe that agricultural activitiespose a threat to public safety via contamination of foodsupplies (Regenstein 1993; National Research Council1993). Such risks are viewed as unacceptable by mostconsumers (Segal 1991), particularly when associatedwith dreaded diseases such as cancer.

While farmers share many of the concerns expressedby nonfarmers for safe and affordable food and watersupplies, they also must make a profit to stay in business.Using agricultural pesticides and fertilizers helps re-duce the probability of losses due to weather and poormarket situations, loss of productivity via soil erosion,and poor management decisions. Chemical inputs areamong the most economically efficient alternativesavailable to farmers because they increase crop yieldsand boost productivity of agricultural land (Balling1992; National Research Council 1989).

The major challenge for policy makers has beenbalancing health and environmental safety concernswith the need of farmers to reduce production uncer-tainties through the use of chemical inputs. The essen-tial dilemma facing environmental policy makers is risk

KEY WORDS: Risk perception; Risk assessment; Groundwater; Pesti-cide contamination; Food safety; Environmental quality

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Environmental Management Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 575–587 r 1998 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

management. Policy makers must determine the natureand extent of acceptable risk to ensure economicsustainability in the farm sector and to assure a safe,dependable, and affordable supply of food for consum-ers. Because individuals have been shown to varysignificantly in their tolerance for various hazard situa-tions, risk management in democratic society has increas-ingly involved the use of public perceptions in definingkey issues (Burton and others 1993). Scherer (1991)argues that development of successful public policy in ademocratic society depends on the full participation oflegislators, technical experts, and consumers on riskissues.

While much literature has documented the attitudesand perceptions of the nonfarm public regarding awide range of health and safety risks (Hadden 1989;Fischhoff and others 1987; Slovic 1987; King 1994),little research has focused on farmers’ perceptions ofenvironmental risks associated with the use of poten-tially toxic chemicals. Information on farmers’ percep-tions of agrichemical risks could provide valuable in-sights about the farm-level decision-making process andwould thus be helpful in formulating effective agricul-tural risk-management strategies and awareness pro-grams.1 Extremely high levels of perceived risk mightsuggest that farmers are aware of media and otherreports on possible dangers of agrichemical usage;however, they may believe that chemical applicationsare necessary to remain economically competitive. Be-cause there is no widely accepted substitute for agricul-tural chemicals on large farms, farmers may feel com-pelled to apply chemicals for lack of an alternative,regardless of the perceived risk (Padgitt and Kaap1987). In such a case, increased regulation, rather thanprovision of risk information, could be necessary toachieve environmental objectives. On the other hand,extremely low levels of perceived risk may indicate thatfarmers possess a false sense of security regarding thesafety of agrichemical usage. In such an instance,targeted educational programs designed to make farm-ers aware of personal risks could lead to reductions inagrichemical usage, despite losses in economic effi-ciency.

This paper presents findings from a study conductedto assess the perceptions of agricultural producerstoward agrichemical risk in a six-county area of centralOhio. A theoretical framework derived from risk-assessment literature and social learning theory is usedto identify factors thought to influence farmers’ riskperceptions. Findings are discussed in the context offuture agricultural conservation initiatives within thestudy region, including information strategies to facili-tate adoption of conservation production systems at thefarm level.

Theoretical Perspective: The Case ofRisk Assessment

The theoretical perspective used to guide the studydraws liberally from selected components of the risk-oriented literature and social learning theory to iden-tify factors associated with farmers’ perceived risk fromagrichemical usage. A basic tenet of social learningtheory is that human thought and behavior are influ-enced by cognitive, behavioral, and external, or environ-mental, factors operating within the individual’s localsetting (Bandura 1977). The uniqueness of social learn-ing theory lies in its ability to combine all of thesefactors into a single framework directed toward under-standing human decision making.2

Cognitive factors have surfaced frequently in risk-analysis research, particularly because of their impor-tance in economic-based models of human decisionmaking. A central assumption guiding the use of cogni-tive factors is that human beings do not simply react toenvironmental influences, but possess the unique capac-ity to organize information and transform stimuli withwhich they come in contact. Economic models ofdecision making assume that individuals, operatinglargely within the cognitive domain, make rationalchoices based on information about expected costs andoutcomes of actions (Rescher 1983). Within this con-

1While it is acknowledged that individuals’ perceptions may not reflectreality, people enact behaviors in terms of their perceptions of reality.Broad support exists in the social sciences for the use of perceptions inpredicting and studying human behavior (Campbell 1963, Cacioppoand others 1981, Upmeyer 1982, Himmelweit 1990). In the risk-assessment context, ‘‘perception’’ refers to the individual’s judgmentas to the acceptability of a given hazard situation (Short 1984). Thephrase ‘‘perceived risk’’ is often used in the literature in comparison to‘‘real risk,’’ with the former referring to lay understanding of variousrisk situations and the latter referring to expert or scientific understand-ing of these risks (Coleman 1993).

2Through a process described by Bandura (1977) as reciprocaldeterminism, human decision making and behavior emerge from acomplex system of checks and balances, whereby each of the threefactors—cognitive, behavioral, and environmental, or external (seebelow)—has the potential to intensify, nullify, or otherwise alter theeffects of the remaining factors. Many alternative theories of humandecision making, such as behaviorism, have emphasized only one oranother of such factors. Behaviorists tend to focus exclusively onenvironmental conditions affecting behavior and to exclude cognitivefactors because of the supposed impossibility of observing or measur-ing internal processes (Gerow 1989).

The adjective ‘‘external’’ is substituted for ‘‘environmental’’ in thispaper’s discussion of social learning theory. This substitution is used toavoid confusion with the more common meaning of the term ‘‘environ-ment’’ used throughout the manuscript and this journal.

M. Tucker and T. L. Napier576

text, rationality is defined in terms of maximizingbenefits and minimizing costs according to an eco-nomic market. In the case of agrichemical hazards,social learning theory suggests that risk perceptions willbe influenced by such cognitive factors as increasedsensitivity to and perceived awareness of environmentalissues in the local area of residence, in addition toeconomic costs and benefits. Specifically, individualswho are more cognizant of potential adverse conse-quences from agricultural pollution would be expectedto perceive higher levels of risk from agrichemicalusage. Sensitivity to environmental hazards is also likelyto be associated with such personal cognitive character-istics as memory and aptitude, which allow individualsto organize and process complex risk information.Therefore, the theory suggests that those who haveattained or are more receptive to increased informationor education about conservation issues will perceivehigher levels of risk from agrichemical usage owing totheir greater awareness of possible avenues by whichcontamination could occur.

Cognitive approaches have been successfully used topredict behaviors in specific situations and circum-stances (Viscusi and Magat 1987). However, a numberof researchers have questioned the use of economicmodels for studying human behavior, arguing thatmany decisions made by human beings cannot beexplained solely in economic terms (Short 1984; Doug-las and Wildavsky 1982).

Recent research into the psychology and sociology ofrisk supports the assertion that most people consistentlyincorporate noneconomic and cultural criteria intotheir personal evaluations of various risks (Krimsky andPlough 1988). Individuals have been shown to be moretolerant of risks perceived as voluntary, avoidable,controllable, familiar, and well-understood (Slovic 1987;Rescher 1983). Since these types of qualitative factorsare not normally considered in cost–benefit analyses,alternative theoretical approaches have increasinglybeen proposed to address the limitations of economic-based modeling in risk assessment. The predominantview emerging in the literature is that risk perceptionsare mediated in large part by social and culturalinfluences that determine what level of risk is accept-able (Short 1984; Hadden 1989).

Social and cultural influences are conceptualizedthrough social learning theory as external factors. Theimportance of external factors in influencing percep-tions of risk stems from the fact that experientiallearning through trial and error can be physically oreconomically harmful. When individuals perceivegreater hazards associated with mistakes, they tend torely more on vicarious learning or learning by observ-

ing and modeling others’ behavior (Bandura 1977;McLaughlin 1971). Because of the severity and fre-quency of economic and physical risks involved inagricultural production (Oskam 1992), farmers relyheavily on vicarious learning in addition to directexperience. Given the wealth of opportunities for obser-vational learning in nearly all areas of human activity,individuals generally emphasize a relatively few sourcesthey judge most relevant and disregard or place lowerpriority on countless others. Social learning theorysuggests that individuals seek out competent, crediblesources of information and ignore those that do notmeet their particular expectations (Bandura 1977; Hass1981; Mueller 1989).

Farmers have been shown to rely on a variety ofdiverse sources for production and marketing informa-tion, including peers, family members, and more institu-tionalized sources such as government agricultural andnatural-resource agencies (NPAC 1955; Kramic 1987;Bouare and Bowen 1990; Lionberger and Gwin 1991;Bruening 1992). Social learning theory suggests thatinformal peer and family networks would be highlyvalued because of their perceived trustworthiness. Insti-tutionalized sources of information are also often viewedfavorably by farmers in part because of their status asnonprofit organizations.

Because of the recent volume of media reportshighlighting environmental issues and the potential fornegative environmental impacts from agricultural pro-duction, we would expect increased use of family/peernetworks and institutionalized sources to be associatedwith higher levels of perceived risk from agrichemicals.

Study Methods

Data used to assess the merits of the theoreticalmodel guiding this study were gathered from 245farmers in the Darby Creek hydrologic unit in centralOhio during the winter and spring of 1994. Livestockand mixed-grain production are the primary farmingactivities within the six-county area, which is one of themost productive agricultural regions in the state. Subur-ban housing and business development within the studyarea have reduced the number of acres available foragricultural enterprises. The use of modern agriculturalsystems combined with the superior quality of farmlandhas enabled regional farmers to maintain high levels ofproduction. The study area is agriculturally diverse notonly because of favorable soil and topographical condi-tions, but also because of personal characteristics ofresident farmers. A large minority of Amish/Mennonitefarmers are particularly influential in increasing thevariety of farm enterprises in the study region. While

Perceptions of Agrichemical Risk 577

non-Amish Mennonites employ technology-intensiveproduction systems, Amish farmers tend to employmore labor-intensive production systems. The Amishdiversify not only to offset market risks, but also tomaintain a degree of isolation from mainstream societythat would not be possible without producing multipleproducts for their families and for market (Napier andSommers 1996; Sommers and Napier 1993).3

Other circumstances combine to make the DarbyCreek watershed an ideal study area. First, the studyarea is located in proximity to one of the state’s largesturban centers (Columbus), where water quality andenvironmental quality have become significant publicissues. Results from this study have implications not onlyfor residents within the specific study area, but also formore than 1 million people residing in the neighboringmetropolitan community (Camboni and Napier 1994).Second, significant monetary and human resourcecommitments have been made to the study area overseveral years through a variety of soil and water conser-vation programs. Conservation efforts have been spon-sored by such agencies as the Ohio Department ofNatural Resources, the Environmental ProtectionAgency, Ohio State University Extension, and the Natu-ral Resources Conservation Service/US Department ofAgriculture. This situation provides a unique opportu-nity to assess the merits of an education–informationapproach to enhance awareness of risks associated withuse of potentially toxic substances.

Sample Selection

Respondents were chosen using a systematic randomsampling technique that involved the selection of everyother occupied farmstead in specific subsampling areas.Farmers selected through this approach were asked toparticipate in the study. Only primary farm operatorswho received at least $2500 from the sale of agriculturalproducts or rent of land were eligible for participationin the study. The locations of each completed interviewwas recorded on detailed county maps and the distribu-tion of responses was carefully monitored. Approxi-mately 86% of the farmers asked to participate actuallycompleted a structured questionnaire.

Based on the distribution of responses, sample size,and high response rate, the sample is argued to berepresentative of the study population, and results maybe generalized to all 1170 farmers in the Darby Creekwatershed.

Measurement of Variables

The dependent variable in this study was termedperceived level of risk from agrichemical usage. It was

operationalized using nine Likert-type attitude itemsthat assessed several aspects of chemical-related hazardsidentified in the literature. To capture the complexityand interrelated nature of such hazards, respondentswere asked to indicate the extent of perceived riskposed by farm chemical usage to nine separate items:water quality, food safety, food quality, applicator health,farm-animal health, wildlife, beneficial plants, benefi-cial insects, and human health. While these items donot represent all possible risks surrounding agrichemi-cal usage, they do address most of the major concernsdiscussed in the literature. Responses for each itemwere distributed along a scale from 0 to 8, with 0representing no perceived risk and 8 representingserious risk. Item analysis produced an alpha coefficientof reliability4 of 0.96, indicating very high intercorrela-tions among the items. An alpha of this level justifiessumming the weighting values to form a compositeindex score for each individual.

Nine independent variables were selected to repre-sent social learning variables in the hypothesized model.Five variables representing cognitive factors were opera-tionalized as follows:

1. Perceived health threat from agricultural chemi-cals5 was measured by asking respondents to indicatethe level of threat posed by pesticides in groundwater topersonal and family health. Possible responses ranged fromno threat (weighted 0) to serious threat (weighted 10).

2. Attitude toward groundwater pollution in theDarby Creek watershed was measured using six Likert-type attitude statements to assess level of agreementwith various issues involving pesticide and fertilizerusage and potential effect on groundwater and environ-mental quality in the Darby Creek watershed. Possibleresponses to each of the six statements were weightedfrom 1 to 5, with higher values indicating increasedsensitivity toward agricultural pollution issues. Reliabil-ity of the scale was assessed through item analysis, whichyielded an alpha coefficient of 0.70. An alpha of this

3Twenty-five of the 52 Mennonites included in the sampling wereAmish.

4The alpha coefficient is commonly used in social science research toestimate the internal consistency, or reliability, of attitude scales andother multiple-scored items. The magnitude of the alpha is directlyinfluenced by the degree of intercorrelation among variables in ascale. A relatively high intercorrelation indicated by the alpha in-creases our confidence that scale items are measuring the sameunderlying psychological construct (Cronbach 1951, Mueller 1986).5The Perceived Health Threat variable and dependent variable bothmeasure cognitive dimensions of risk, but they emphasize differentaspects of perceived hazard. Perceived Health Threat emphasizesfarmers’ perceptions of health risks resulting specifically from pesti-cide contamination of ground water in the county of residence. Thedependent variable is a composite measure of perceived risk from ninegeneralized hazard situations involving agrichemical usage.

M. Tucker and T. L. Napier578

magnitude indicates that the items were sufficientlyintercorrelated to justify summing the weighting valuesinto a composite scale score for each respondent.

3. Education was measured as the number of years offormal education completed by the respondent at thetime of the study.

4. Participation in educational programs was mea-sured as a dummy variable. Respondents who indicatedthey had participated in educational programs to re-duce fertilizer application rates while maintaining highproduction levels received a value of 1, and respondentswho had not participated in such programs received avalue of 2.

5. Attitude toward participation in educational pro-grams was measured by asking respondents if theywould be willing to participate in educational programsdesigned to reduce pesticide application rates whilemaintaining high production levels. Possible responsesranged from very unwilling (weighted 0) to very willing(weighted 10). The value selected by respondents wasused in subsequent analyses.

Because cognitive factors are influenced by vicariouslearning and access to risk information, a number ofexternal factors were also hypothesized to predict farm-ers’ perceived level of risk from agrichemical usage.Recent studies have documented preferred sources andmethods of receiving agricultural information amongfarm populations (Oskam 1995; Bruening 1992; Bouareand Bowen 1990). Because access to timely and reliableinformation has been viewed as one of the most criticalcomponents of efficient farm management, use ofvarious sources of conservation information in theDarby Creek watershed was selected to represent exter-nal factors discussed in the theoretical perspective. Inall, 17 sources were identified from the literature asimportant outlets for conservation and farm-manage-ment information.6 The information-source variableswere operationalized by asking respondents to indicatethe number of times they received soil and waterconservation information from each source during1993.

Since use of 17 information-source variables in regres-sion modeling would be methodologically suspect dueto high intercorrelations among the variables, factoranalysis7 was used to transform the 17 variables into a

smaller number of variables (Dunteman 1989). Factoranalysis produced three factors, as follows:

1. Family, peer, and informal networks includedfamily member, friend, The Nature Conservancy, localconservation club, and farm implement dealer. Itemanalysis for the five-variable set yielded a standardizeditem alpha of 0.82, which justified summing the weight-ing values for the separate variables into a compositescore for each respondent.

2. Nonagricultural information sources was devel-oped using frequency of contact with the Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA), Ohio Department ofNatural Resources (ODNR), soil conservation districts,and financial officer. Item analysis of these four vari-ables also resulted in a standardized item alpha of 0.82,which justified summing the weighting values for theseparate variables into a composite score for eachrespondent.

3. Agricultural sources was developed using Agricul-tural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS),Ohio State University (OSU) extension agent, andOperation Future Program.8 All of these sources ofinformation are agriculturally oriented and providerelatively nontechnical information to farmers withinthe study area. Item analysis for these variables resultedin a lower but acceptable standardized item alpha of0.64. The weighting values for the separate variableswere summed to create a composite score for eachrespondent.

Frequency of use of the Soil Conservation Service(SCS)9as a source of information did not load substan-tially with any of the other factors, but the importanceof SCS as an actor in soil and water conservationprograms dictated its inclusion in the multivariatemodeling. Therefore, frequency of use of SCS wasincluded as a separate variable.

6The 17 sources were as follows: US EPA, SCS/USDA (see footnote 9),ASCS/USDA, Department of Natural Resources, Operation FutureProgram (see footnote 8), other farmers, agrichemical dealers, soilconservation district, financial officer, family member, friend, OSUExtension agent, US Geological Survey, The Nature Conservancy, localconservation club, mass media, farm implement dealers.7According to the conventional criterion discussed in the literature(Kim and Mueller 1978), only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1

were considered significant. Orthogonal rotation was used to build thescales used in regression analysis.8Operation Future is an organization of land owner-operators withinthe Darby Creek hydrologic unit that came into being to facilitateadoption of soil and water conservation practices among farmerswithin the watershed. The group was established through the efforts ofOhio State University Extension and encourages adoption of conserva-tion practices by providing client groups with information and educa-tion programs. Operation Future cooperates with multiple conserva-tion agencies and private organizations to make land operatorssensitive to soil and water conservation issues associated with produc-tion agriculture. It sponsors sensitivity programs to make Darby Creekresidents aware of the unique natural resources within the watershed,such as canoe trips down the river for interested people.9The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) changed its name to the NaturalResources Conservation Service (NRCS) in 1994 to reflect the agency’sbroad mission. The abbreviation SCS is used in subsequent referencesto maintain consistency within this paper and between this paper andthe survey instrument.

Perceptions of Agrichemical Risk 579

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive and multivariate statistics were used toexamine the merits of the theoretical perspective usedto guide the study. Frequencies, means, and standarddeviations provided a broad attitudinal and demo-graphic profile of the respondents, while regressionanalysis was used to assess the relative utility of thepredictive variables in the hypothesized model (Pedha-zur 1982).

Research Findings

Descriptive data reported in Table 1 provide anoverview of respondents’ characteristics (Napier andCamboni 1994). Farmers in the Darby Creek watershedare generally middle-aged with about 12 years of formaleducation and nearly 25 years tenure operating theirown farms. More than three fourths of the respondents(76.3%) are non-Mennonite.

The average number of acres farmed in the studyarea was slightly less than 700 acres, although consider-able variance existed among respondents. Corn andsoybeans were the major sources of farm income,followed by dairy, wheat, and beef production. Farmincome data indicate a bimodal distribution. There aremany small farmsteads and large farm operations withinthe study area. More than one third of the respondentsreported 1993 gross farm income less than $50,000,while more than 27% reported gross farm income of$200,000 or more. While the numbers of farmersappear to be relatively even for these two groups, it isimportant to note that the latter group accounts for thebulk of agricultural production within the region.According to Ohio farm data reported by Stout andothers (1992), farm operators with sales less than$40,000 comprised more than 67.2% of all operatorswithin the state in 1990; however, combined sales forthis income group accounted for only 13.1% of the statetotal. Farm operators whose yearly sales totaled $250,000or more comprised 4.2% of all operators and 31.3% oftotal sales (Stout and others 1992).

The quality of groundwater within the study region isvery important to respondents because about 93% relyon well water for household consumption. More thanone third (38.6%) of the respondents who reportedusing well water indicated their wells had been testedfor nitrate and pesticide contamination within the lastthree years. Of those reporting well testing, only 2%indicated that nitrate or pesticide problems had beenidentified. Such a finding suggests that agrichemicalcontamination of groundwater is not currently a seriousproblem in the region. The low level of reportedgroundwater contamination was confirmed by findings

Table 1. Characteristics of Darby Creek watershedrespondents (N 5 245)

Characteristic Descriptive data

Age (yr) of primary farm operator(mean 6 SD) 50.5 6 12.7

Ethnicity (%)Mennonite 23.7Non-Mennonite 76.3

Years operating own farm (mean 6 SD) 24.8 6 13.9Acres usually cultivated (mean 6 SD) 691.1 6 815.2Received technical assistance for

conservation (%)Yes 22.9No 77.1

Received financial assistance forconservation (%)Yes 15.9No 84.1

Farm output (bushels) per acre(mean 6 SD)Corn 127.4 6 24.2Soybeans 42.0 6 8.1Wheat 59.9 6 13.2

Use well water 228 (93.1%)Well tested for contamination (N 5 228) 88 (38.6%)Nitrate or pesticides detected in well

(N 5 88) 2 (2.1%)Used bottled water 31 (12.7%)Installed a reverse osmosis filtering system 12 (4.9%)Drilled new well to access

uncontaminated water 8 (3.3%)Secured water from city or county water

system 3 (1.2%)Farm Financial Status

Days primary operator usually worksoff-farm for wages or salary(mean 6 SD) 54.6 6 93.2Days mate usually works off-farm forwages or salary (mean 6 SD) 82.6 6 105.8Gross farm income for 1993 cropseason (%)

Less than $24,999 22.0$25,000–49,999 11.5$50,000–74,999 9.6$75,000–99,999 3.3$100,000–124,999 7.2$125,000–149,999 7.2$150,000–174,999 4.8$175,000–199,999 7.1$200,000 and above 27.3Missing data 14.7

Farm debt-to-asset ratio (%)0 to 10% 34.311 to 20% 15.121 to 30% 11.431 to 40% 7.341 to 50% 4.551 to 60% 2.061 to 70% 1.671 to 80% 0.081 to 90% 0.091 to 100% 0.4Missing data 23.3

M. Tucker and T. L. Napier580

reported by Baker and others (1994) via tests of farmwater wells within the region.

Despite the low incidence of reported contamina-tion of water wells, a number of respondents reportedusing purification systems or alternate sources of water.More than 12% of the respondents reported use ofbottled water within the past five years as a substitute forwell water, while a smaller percentage made significantinvestments to secure alternative drinking-water sup-plies (4.9% had installed reverse-osmosis filtering sys-tems, 3.3% had drilled a new well, and 1.2% hadpurchased city or county water).

Data presented in Table 2 demonstrate that mostrespondents did not believe that agricultural chemicalsposed a significant threat to groundwater quality within

the watershed, nor did they support regulatory mea-sures that would force farmers to reduce fertilizer orpesticide applications to protect groundwater reserves.Respondents were relatively neutral toward requiringperiodic testing of groundwater and were neutral regard-ing denial of farm-program benefits to farmers whopollute groundwater. Data presented in Table 3 showthat the mean level of perceived risk was slightly higherfor agricultural pesticides than for fertilizers; however,the mean values indicate that respondents did notbelieve that the pesticides or fertilizers posed a threat topersonal or family health.

Despite relatively low levels of perceived risk associ-ated with agrichemical contamination of groundwater,many respondents held positive attitudes toward pro-

Table 2. Attitudes toward groundwater pollution within Darby Creek watershed (N 5 245)

Attitude statement

Possible responses (%)a

Mean 6 SD MDSA A

Neitheragree nordisagree D SD

1. Farmers in the Darby Creek watershed should berequired to reduce fertilizer application rates toprotect groundwater from pollution. 4.1 9.0 19.2 50.2 17.1 2.3 6 1.0 0.4

2. Farmers in the Darby Creek watershed who pollutegroundwater should not be permitted to participatein government farm programs. 6.9 31.0 32.2 23.7 6.1 3.1 6 1.0 0

3. Farmers in the Darby Creek watershed should berequired to periodically test levels of groundwaterpollution on their property. 4.1 29.0 29.4 25.3 12.2 2.9 6 1.1 0

4. Farmers in the Darby Creek watershed should not berequired to reduce pesticide application rates toprotect groundwater from pollution. 11.0 28.2 29.8 26.1 4.1 2.8 6 1.1 0.8

5. Agricultural chemicals have not significantly pollutedgroundwater in the Darby Creek watershed. 14.7 42.9 29.0 11.0 2.4 2.4 6 1.0 0

6. Most farmers in the Darby Creek watershed couldreduce chemical application rates withoutsignificantly reducing productivity. 5.3 35.9 24.9 26.9 6.9 3.1 6 1.1 0

aItems 1, 2, 3, and 6 were weighted 5 to 1 from strongly agree (SA) to strongly disagree (SD); items 4 and 5 were weighted 1 to 5 from strongly agreeto strongly disagree. MD 5 missing data.

Table 3. Perceived health threat from agricultural fertilizer and pesticide contamination of groundwater(N 5 245)a

No threat Little threat Some threat Considerable threat Serious threat

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agricultural fertilizerb

10.6 10.6 28.2 15.5 9.4 15.5 1.6 1.2 2.0 0.4 4.5

Agricultural pesticidec

7.3 8.6 24.5 16.7 15.1 12.2 4.5 2.9 4.1 0 3.7

aValues are percentages.bMean 5 3.1; SD 5 2.4; missing data 5 0.4%.cMean 5 3.5; SD 5 2.3; missing data 5 0.4%.

Perceptions of Agrichemical Risk 581

grams designed to reduce agrichemical usage in theDarby Creek watershed. In all, 40.8% reported partici-pating in educational programming to reduce fertilizerrates. In addition, more than three fourths (78.8%) ofthe respondents indicated neutral or positive attitudestoward participating in such programs, and nearly half(45.3%) indicated they were somewhat or very willing toparticipate in educational programs designed to reduceuse of farm chemicals (Table 4).10

In addition to educational programs, respondentswere shown to have taken advantage of a variety of othersources for soil and water conservation information inthe Darby Creek watershed. As reported in Table 5,government agricultural agencies tend to be used mostfrequently by study respondents. About half of therespondents indicated they had received soil and waterconservation information from both ASCS and SCS atleast once in 1993. Other sources of information indescending order of use among respondents were OSUExtension, soil conservation districts, and agriculturalchemical dealers. EPA, financial officers, and the USGeological Survey were the least used sources.

Examination of standard deviation scores in Table 5reveals considerable variability among respondents interms of their reported use of each information source.The standard deviation scores exceed their associatedmeans due to a group of respondents reporting highrates of usage relative to the majority of respondents.Most of the sources shown in Table 5 appear to supportsuch a small but loyal base of ‘‘repeat customers.’’

Descriptive data are provided in Table 6 for percep-tions of risk from agrichemical usage. Mean values forthe nine items comprising the scale ranged from 2.4 to3.9. Values of such magnitude indicate that respondentsgenerally perceived low levels of risk associated with useof agrichemicals. Respondents indicated that applicatorhealth was most seriously threatened, followed by water

quality and wildlife. Food quality, food safety, andbeneficial plants were perceived to be the least threat-ened.

When the nine elements are reranked according tothe number of respondents indicating moderate toserious levels of risk, water quality declines in impor-tance to sixth place, behind applicator health (39.9%);wildlife (30.2%); farm-animal health (27.8%); benefi-cial insects (27%); and human health (27%).

Multivariate Findings

Multiple regression analysis was used to assess therelative merit of the social learning theory used to guidethe investigation. Findings presented in Table 7 showthat five of the nine predictive variables were statisticallysignificant at the 0.05 level in reducing the unexplainedvariance in farmers’ perceived level of risk from ag-richemical usage.

Perceived health threat from pesticide contamina-tion of groundwater was the strongest predictor of

10This variable was operationalized by asking respondents to indicatewillingness to participate in educational programs designed to reducepesticide application rates while maintaining high levels of produc-tion. Therefore, it is possible that positive attitudes toward participat-ing are economically based. Net profits per acre would be increased bymaintaining productivity while reducing inputs such as pesticides andfertilizer.

Table 4. Attitudes toward participating in educational programs to reduce pesticide application rates whilemaintaining production levels (N 5 245)a

Very unwillingSomewhatunwilling

Neitherwilling nor unwilling Somewhat willing Very

willing100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4.1 2.4 3.7 3.7 0.8 18.8 3.3 11.4 23.3 11.4 10.6

aValues are percentages. Mean 5 6.5; SD 5 2.7; missing data 5 6.5%.

Table 5. Sources of information about soil andwater conservation used by primary farm operatorin 1993 (N 5 245)

Information source

Percent usingsource 1 ormore times Sum Mean 6 SD

ASCS/USDA 51.0 658 3.80 6 4.28SCS/USDA 49.0 596 3.47 6 3.67OSU Extension agent 28.5 322 1.98 6 3.66Soil conservation districts 28.2 302 1.89 6 3.48Agricultural chemical

dealers 24.9 360 2.22 6 4.87Other farmers 19.2 284 1.78 6 3.64Mass media 15.9 289 1.84 6 4.20Department of Natural

Resources 15.5 103 0.64 6 1.94Operation Future Program 13.1 118 0.74 6 2.10Farm implement dealers 12.7 112 0.71 6 2.45Friend 10.6 97 0.61 6 1.86Family member 9.0 125 0.80 6 3.21The Nature Conservancy 5.7 61 0.39 6 1.98Local conservation club 5.3 39 0.25 6 1.13EPA 5.3 77 0.49 6 2.90Financial officer 3.7 36 0.23 6 1.69US Geological Survey 0.4 2 0.01 6 0.16

M. Tucker and T. L. Napier582

perceived risk, followed by attitude toward groundwaterpollution in the Darby Creek watershed, use of nontech-nical agricultural information sources, and attitudetoward participation in educational programs, all exhib-iting positive correlations. Use of SCS as a source ofconservation information was shown to be negativelycorrelated with perception of risk. The five-variablemodel explained about 32% of the variance in thedependent variable, which is considered to be fairlygood using cross-sectional data.

Farmers who perceived that pesticide contaminationof groundwater threatened family health and those whoperceived that groundwater pollution constituted aserious problem in the Darby Creek watershed were themost likely to assess high levels of risk to agrichemicalusage. Heightened levels of perceived risk were also

significantly associated with farmers’ use of nontechni-cal agricultural sources of information, such as ASCSand OSU Extension, as well as their willingness toparticipate in pesticide educational programs. Contraryto expectations, farmers who relied more heavily onSCS as a source of conservation information tended toperceive lower levels of risk associated with use ofagrichemicals.

Summary and Conclusions

Study respondents recognize not only the benefitsbut also some of the potential problems posed byagrichemical usage, including contamination of drink-ing water and threats to wildlife. Darby Creek farmersalso recognized that some of the negative consequencesof agrichemical usage must be internalized by thegenerator of the pollution. A number of the highest-ranking potential risks associated with use of agrichemi-cals were personal and farm-related. However, suchrisks were not judged to be so serious as to warrantmodifying current production practices or submittingto increased regulation to ensure protection of ground-water resources. Overall levels of perceived risk wererelatively low for all of the hazard situations involvingagrichemical usage assessed.

The theoretical model used in the study was shown tohave some utility for understanding perceptions of riskassociated with agrichemical use. About 32% of thevariance in the dependent variable was explained.Cognitive and external factors were shown to be signifi-cant in shaping farmers’ perceptions of agrichemicalrisk. Cognitive factors proved to be the best predictorsof risk. Farmers who perceived that pesticides posed athreat to groundwater quality and perceived high levelsof groundwater pollution in the Darby Creek watershedwere the most likely to attribute higher levels of risk toagrichemical usage.

Table 6. Perceived level of risk from agrichemical usage (N 5 245)a

Risk item

No risk Little risk Moderate risk Serious risk

Mean 6 SD MD0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Applicator health 7.8 8.6 13.1 17.6 9.4 11.4 15.9 5.7 6.9 3.87 6 2.30 3.7Water quality 6.1 8.2 18.8 26.1 11.8 9.8 10.2 2.9 2.4 3.34 6 1.90 3.7Wildlife 12.2 15.9 11.4 15.1 10.2 9.0 10.6 5.3 5.3 3.29 6 2.38 4.9Human health 13.1 15.5 15.1 18.4 8.2 9.8 7.8 3.7 5.7 3.09 6 2.30 2.9Animal health 12.7 13.9 15.9 17.6 8.2 11.4 9.4 3.3 3.7 3.09 6 2.21 4.1Beneficial insects 13.9 15.9 14.7 16.7 8.6 9.8 9.8 3.7 3.7 3.03 6 2.26 3.3Beneficial plants 17.1 13.9 18.0 20.4 7.8 8.2 5.7 2.9 2.4 2.67 6 2.08 3.7Food safety 15.9 14.7 23.3 17.6 8.6 7.3 5.3 2.4 2.0 2.58 6 1.99 2.9Food quality 20.0 15.1 21.6 16.7 6.5 6.5 4.9 2.4 2.4 2.42 6 2.06 3.7

aValues are percentages. MD 5 missing data.

Table 7. Regression findings for perceived risk fromfarm chemicals (N 5 245)a

Y 5 10.397x*1 1 0.191x*2 1 0.175x*3 1 0.140x*4 2 0.133x*5 10.081x6 1 0.068x7 2 0.028x8 1 0.008x9

Adjusted coefficient of determination 5 0.3199Y 5 perceived risk from farm chemicalsx 1 5 perceived health threat from pesticide contamination of

groundwaterx 2 5 attitude toward ground water pollution in Darby Creek

watershedx 3 5 use of agricultural sources of conservation informationx 4 5 attitude toward participation in educational programsx 5 5 Use of SCS/USDA as source of conservation

informationx 6 5 educationx 7 5 use of family, peer, and informal networks as sources of

conservation informationx 8 5 participation in educational programsx 9 5 use of nonagricultural sources of conservation

information

aStandardized regression coefficients.

*Variables significant beyond the .05 level.

Perceptions of Agrichemical Risk 583

As suggested by the social learning theoretical per-spective, external factors also played a significant role inthe formation of farmers’ risk perceptions. Sources ofagricultural conservation information such as ASCSand SCS not only served as the most frequent sources ofconservation information, but also as the most impor-tant sources in predicting farmers’ perceptions of ag-richemical risks. It is likely that such agencies arefavored information sources not only because of theirperceived objectivity and accessibility among farmers,but also because of the current policy environment thatrequires farmers to work with these agencies to main-tain eligibility for farm subsidies. ASCS and SCS serve asthe lead agencies for a variety of farm programs.

While the theoretical perspective was shown to besomewhat useful for identifying covariates of farmers’assessment of agrichemical risks, the negative correla-tion for SCS use was not expected. Although the findingdoes not constitute an indictment of social learningtheory per se, it does suggest that the process by whichexternal factors alter individuals’ attitudes about ag-richemical risk is more complex than predicted by themodel.

Future elaboration of the theoretical model shouldtake into account the dynamic roles played by suchinterdependent cultural factors as control, familiarity,and understandability in influencing risk judgments.For instance, increased familiarity with or understand-ing of a particular hazard situation might reduceperceived risk if it provides information on controllingor mitigating potential risks or losses (MacCrimmonand Wehrung 1986). However, increased familiaritywould not be expected to reduce perceived risks incases where new dangers are disclosed and the probabil-ity of loss cannot be reduced.

In the current study, the tendency of SCS to reducefarmers’ perceived agrichemical risk may be explainedby that agency’s practice of providing information thatnot only addresses environmental and economic risks,but also possible technical solutions that enable farmersto gain a sense of control over potential pollutionproblems. It is important to note that SCS differs fromother conservation agencies in its unique role of provid-ing this type of on-farm technical assistance, consulting,and information. While all of the agricultural andnatural-resource agencies examined in this study pro-vide information to farmers, SCS differs in that itsrecommendations are based primarily on farm-leveldata and other site-specific characteristics in addition tomore general or state-level data available through othersources. Use of such data potentially would allow agencypersonnel to make tailored management recommenda-

tions to farmers that might reduce or mitigate perceivedagrichemical risks on their farms. SCS field staff assessfarm-level situations differently from personnel in otheragencies largely because of their access to and use ofunique data sources to generate risk information andrecommendations.

The differential nature of risks portrayed by conserva-tion agencies operating within the Darby Creek water-shed likely results from their use of different datasources rather than from philosophical disagreementsor errors in assessing the state of risk. Nonetheless, suchdifferences were shown in the current study to produceessentially contradictory perceptions of risk on the partof clientele. Evaluations of agrichemical risks wereheightened by nontechnical sources of information,such as OSU Extension, and reduced with the use oftechnical information provided by SCS. Evidence pre-sented by Baker and others (1994) suggests that ground-water contamination from agricultural sources is notcurrently a problem in the Darby Creek watershed.

One implication of this finding is that more coordina-tion is needed among government agencies in adminis-tering educational and information-dissemination pro-grams. Agency personnel need to be more proactive insharing information and maintaining communicationamong themselves. Improved coordination of informa-tion and programs could reduce contradictory impactson clients. It is important that clientele be made awarenot only of the potential severity of agrichemical andenvironmental risks, but also of possible solutions orprecautions to help prevent or minimize such hazards.It is also important that severity of environmentalproblems be presented in a factual and scientific man-ner. Conservation programs designed to motivate farm-ers to adopt conservation programs using ‘‘scare tac-tics’’ which overstate the severity of the threat should beavoided. The discovery by client groups that informa-tion provided by trusted sources is not correct will provecounterproductive to future program implementation.

Another implication of these findings is that mul-tiple agencies are probably not required to communi-cate conservation information to farmers. Consider-ation should be given to designating a single publicagency to have responsibility for diffusing conservationinformation. Given the long history of SCS in perform-ing this role, it would appear reasonable to designateSCS as the exclusive provider of conservation informa-tion. Resources allocated by other agencies to performthe information-diffusion role could be diverted toother programs or reallocated to SCS so that the agencycould better perform its designated role.

When designing future information programs aboutagrichemical hazards in the Darby Creek watershed,

M. Tucker and T. L. Napier584

agency personnel and communication practitionersshould recognize that farmers do not currently viewsuch risks as serious. Agrichemical usage was perceivedto pose only slight risks to farmers in the Darby Creekwatershed. This finding was unexpected given thevolume of environmental risk information dissemi-nated by mass media and other sources within the studyarea. The low levels of perceived risk appear to contra-dict research that has consistently shown high levels ofpublic anxiety regarding agricultural chemical usage,particularly given the fact that farmers face the same orgreater hazards from agrichemical usage as the non-farm public. One explanation for the low levels ofperceived risk may reside in the application of culturalfactors previously argued to influence laypersons’ evalu-ations of various risks. These factors, which center onwhether risks are perceived as voluntary, avoidable,familiar, controllable, and well-understood, provide aunique vantage point from which to compare apparentdiscrepancies between farmers’ and nonfarmers’ assess-ments of risk.

First, while significant economic repercussions mayresult from not applying agricultural chemicals, indi-vidual farmers voluntarily control decision making as towhether agrichemical applications are used on theirfarms. Due to their access to technical experts and theirwide latitude in the manners and methods used to applychemicals, farmers are also likely to judge agrichemicalusage as familiar and well-understood. They also knowthat chemicals are safe if applied correctly.

Nonfarm populations, on the other hand, are likelyto view agrichemical usage as an activity over which theyexercise very little control. The voluntaristic politicalatmosphere that has typified domestic agricultural pro-duction throughout the 1900s preserves most farm-leveldecision making clearly with farmers, even when poormanagement can result in negative environmental con-sequences (Batie 1986). While nonfarm populationsmay offset some of the perceived risk through the use ofbottled water and selection of chemical-free farm prod-ucts, such options are relatively expensive and do notaddress all of the possible hazards from agrichemicalusage. Additionally, most consumers do not have a goodunderstanding of agrichemical application procedures,nor are they aware of the precautions that most farmerstake to ensure that production chemicals are appliedproperly.

The major conclusion drawn from the discussion offarmers and nonfarmers is that the two groups share fewsimilarities in their relative levels of knowledge andperceived control over agrichemical usage. Nonfarmpopulations possess less knowledge of chemical use andcontrol of applications than farm populations. The

problem is compounded by media reports of dangersfrom agrichemical usage. All of these factors havefueled anxiety and perceptions of risk among nonfarmpopulations. Such understanding provides a basis forreconciling the apparent disparity between farmers’and nonfarmers’ assessments of agrichemical risk andmay offer hope for future reconciliation of the differ-ences in perceptions.

The primary contribution of the study findings is theprovision of insight to the unique economic and cul-tural characteristics that influence farmers’ perceptionsof risk from agrichemical usage. While more work willbe necessary to refine the theoretical model, the find-ings presented here suggest that the mechanisms bywhich farmers and nonfarmers select, rank, and copewith various risks are indeed social processes mediatedby the interaction of cognitive, behavioral, and externalfactors. Even though farmers comprise less than 1% ofthe total US population (USDA 1994), their percep-tions of agrichemical risk and related environmentalissues are of critical importance within the currentvoluntaristic policy climate. Only by understanding thesocial processes and constraints that influence farm-level decision making can natural-resource scientists,agricultural leaders, and policy makers design effectivesoil and water conservation programs to support thegoals of economic, agricultural, and environmentalsustainability.

Acknowledgments

Salary and research support that made this paperpossible were provided by the University of Missouriand the Ohio Agricultural Research and DevelopmentCenter of The Ohio State University. Funding for datacollection was provided by the Management SystemsEvaluation Area project funded by agencies of the USDepartment of Agriculture.

Literature CitedBaker, D. B., L. K. Wallrabenstein, and R. P. Richards. 1994.

Well vulnerability and agrichemical contamination: Assess-ments from a voluntary well testing program. In D. Weig-mann (ed.), Proceedings of the fourth national conferenceon pesticides: New directions in pesticide research, develop-ment and policy. Virginia Water Resources Center at theVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacks-burg, Virginia.

Balling, S. S. 1992. Current and future trends in pest andpesticide management and obstacles to meaningful progress.[Invited testimony before the Environment, Energy andNatural Resources Subcommittee 23 September]. Pages62–73 in Thirty years after Silent Spring: Status of EPA’s

Perceptions of Agrichemical Risk 585

review of older pesticides. US Government Printing Office,Washington, DC.

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, Engle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Batie, S. S. 1986. Why soil erosion: A social science perspective.Pages 3–14 in S. B. Lovejoy and T. L. Napier (eds.),Conserving soil: Insights from socioeconomic research. SoilConservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa.

Bouare, D., and B. E. Bowen. 1990. Communication methodsused by agricultural extension agents. Journal of AppliedCommunications 74(1):1–7.

Bruening, T. H. 1992. Useful water quality information sources:The farmer’s point of view. Journal of Applied Communications76(2):43–49.

Burby, R. J., E. J. Kaiser, T. L. Miller, and D. H. Moreau. 1983.Drinking water supplies: Protection through watershedmanagement. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor,Michigan.

Burton, I., R. W. Kates, and G. F. White. 1993. The environ-ment as hazard. The Guilford Press, New York.

Cacioppo, J. T., S. G. Harkins, and R. E. Petty. 1981. The natureof attitudes and cognitive responses and their relationshipsto behavior. Pages 31–54 in R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, andT. C. Brock (eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion.Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Camboni, S. M., and T. L. Napier. 1994. Socioeconomic andfarm structure factors affecting frequency of use of tillagesystems. Keynote paper presented at the Agrarian prospectsIII symposium, Prague, Czech Republic.

Campbell, D. T. 1963. Acquired behavioral dispositions. Pages94–172 in S. Koch (ed.), Psychology: A study of a science,Vol. 6. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Coleman, C. L. 1993. The influence of mass media andinterpersonal communication on societal and personal riskjudgments. Communication Research 20(4):611–628.

Cronbach, L. S. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internalstructure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334.

Douglas, M., and Wildavsky, A. 1982. Risk and culture: An essayon the selection of technical and environmental dangers.University of California Press, Berkeley.

Dunteman, G. H. 1989. Principal components analysis. SageUniversity paper series on quantitative applications in thesocial sciences, 07-069. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Easter, K. W., J. A. Leitch, and D. F. Scott. 1983. Competitionfor water, a capricious resource. Pages 135–153 in T. L.Napier, D. Scott, K. W. Easter, and R. Supalla (eds.), Waterresources research: Problems and potentials for agricultureand rural communities. Soil Conservation Society ofAmerica, Ankeny, Iowa.

Fischhoff, B., O. Svenson, and P. Slovic. 1987. Active responsesto environmental hazards: Perceptions and decision mak-ing. Pages 1089–1133 in D. Stokols and I. Altman (eds.),Handbook of environmental psychology. John Wiley &Sons, New York.

Gerow, J. R. 1989. Psychology: An introduction. Scott, Fores-man and Co., Glenview, Illinois.

Hadden, S. G. 1989. A citizen’s right to know: Risk communica-tion and public policy. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Hass, R. G. 1981. Effects of source characteristics on cognitiveresponses and persuasion. Pages 141–172 in R. E. Petty, T. M.Ostrom, and T. C. Brock (eds.), Cognitive responses inpersuasion. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Himmelweit, H. T. 1990. Societal psychology: Implications andscope. Pages 17–45 in H. T. Himmelweit and G. Gaskell(eds.), Societal psychology. Sage Publications, NewburyPark, California.

Kim, J.-O., and C. W. Mueller. 1978. Factor analysis: Statisticalmethods and practical issues. Sage University paper serieson quantitative applications in the social sciences, 07-014.Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

King, D. A. 1994, July. Public perception of agriculture and theenvironment. Paper presented at National AgriculturalCommunications Administrators’ round table, interna-tional agricultural communicators in education conference,Moscow, Idaho.

Kramic, J. L. 1987. The level of impact of agricultural informa-tion sources on production and marketing decisions ofOhio farmers. Unpublished master’s thesis. The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus.

Krimsky, S., and A. Plough. 1988. Environmental hazards:Communicating risks as a social process. Auburn HousePublishing, Dover, Mississippi.

Lionberger, H. F., and P. H. Gwin. 1991. Technology transfer.University of Missouri, Columbia.

MacCrimmon, K. R., and D. A. Wehrung. 1986. Taking risks:The management of uncertainty. The Free Press, New York.

McLaughlin, B. 1971. Learning and social behavior. The FreePress, New York.

Mueller, D. J. 1986. Measuring social attitudes. TeachersCollege Press, New York.

Mueller, D. K. 1989. Influence of message content, messagesource, and topic involvement on the health care consum-er’s information processing. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion. University of Missouri, Columbia.

Napier, T. L., and S. M. Camboni. 1994. Correlates of nutrientapplication rates: The role of socioeconomic factors. Key-note paper presented at the Agrarian prospects III sympo-sium, Prague, Czech Republic.

Napier, T. L., and D. G. Sommers. 1996. Farm productionsystems of Mennonite and non-Mennonite land owner-operators in Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation51(1):71–76.

NPAC (National Project in Agricultural Communications).1955. Where do they get their information? Agrisearch1(1):1–4.

National Research Council. 1989. Committee on the Role ofAlternative Farming Methods in Modern Production Agricul-ture. Alternative agriculture. National Academy Press, Wash-ington, DC.

National Research Council. 1993. Committee on Pesticides inthe Diets of Infants and Children. Pesticides in the diets ofinfants and children. National Academy Press, Washington,DC.

Oskam, J. B. 1992. Fields of danger: Communicating agricul-tural safety and health information. Journal of Applied Commu-nications 76(2):1–8.

M. Tucker and T. L. Napier586

Oskam, J. B. 1995. Diffusion of agricultural health and safetyinformation: A two-part study of Oklahoma farmers andextension agricultural engineers. Journal of Applied Communi-cations 79(1):13–24.

Padgitt, S., and J. Kaap. 1987. Assessing some potentials forchanging agronomic practices and improving ground waterquality—implications from a 1984 Iowa survey. Pages 217–226 in D. M. Fairchild (ed.), Ground water quality andagricultural practices. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.

Pedhazur, E. J. 1982. Multiple regression in behavioral re-search. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Fort Worth.

Pye, V. I., R. Patrick, and J. Quarles. 1983. Groundwatercontamination in the United States. University of Pennsylva-nia Press, Philadelphia.

Regenstein, L. G. 1993. Cleaning up America the poisoned.Acropolis Books, Washington, DC.

Rescher, N. 1983. Risk: A philosophical introduction to thetheory of risk evaluation and management. University Pressof America, Washington, DC.

Scherer, C. W. 1991. Strategies for communicating risks to thepublic. Food Technology, 45(10):110–116.

Segal, M. 1991. Determining risk: Is it worth the worry? DHHS

Publication No. (FDA) 91-2240. US Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC.

Short, J. F. 1984. The social fabric at risk: Toward the socialtransformation of risk analysis, American Sociological Review69:711–725.

Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285.

Sommers, D. G., and T. L. Napier. 1993. Comparison of Amishand non-Amish farmers: A diffusion/farm-structure perspec-tive. Rural Sociology 58(1):130–145.

Stout, T. T., D. L. Forster, and G. E. Edgington. 1992.Organization and performance of Ohio farm operations in1990. Research bulletin 1189. Ohio Agricultural Researchand Development Center, The Ohio State University, Colum-bus.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1994.Agriculture fact book, 1994. Office of Communications, USDepartment of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Upmeyer, A. 1982. Attitudes and social behavior. Pages 51–86in J. P. Codol and J. P. Leyens (eds.), Cognitive analysis ofsocial behavior. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague.

Viscusi, W. K., and W. A. Magat. 1987. Learning about risk:Consumer and worker responses to hazard information.Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Perceptions of Agrichemical Risk 587