Patricia L. Farrell – Michigan State University College of Agriculture & Natural Resources

1. 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

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 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