Commentary

Land Use Is the Issue, But Is Land Grant the Answer?

Chester L. Arnold, Jr.
Water Quality Educator
University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System
Haddam, Connecticut
Internet address: carnold@canr.uconn.edu

Land Use and Natural Resource Management: It's Not Just for Aggies Anymore

America has entered a new era of natural resource management, in which local land use decisions will be the key determinant of the health of our resources and communities. The Land Grant University (LGU) network is the only national system with the structure, mission, and track record to deal with local land use issues.

We're not doing it. While individual programs and staff are forging ahead on these issues, as a system there is considerable hesitance to embrace any natural resource programming other than production agriculture. This narrow focus has resulted in significant incursion of other agencies into research and outreach that could be done better by LGU/Extension.

The head start provided by our experience and the much-touted LGU/Extension model has all but completely eroded away. The LGU/Extension system must move aggressively to reassert our leadership in the broad field of land use and natural resource management, particularly at the community level. The alternative is to cede the field to others--and with it, our relevance to the changing landscape of America.

The Focus Shifts to Communities

Over the last couple of decades, natural resource management has been moving out of both agency offices and farmers' kitchens into town hall. On the one hand, our critical environmental issues are diffuse and incremental, making them a poor fit for traditional "command and control" regulatory solutions. On the other, as American suburbanizes, the majority of our landscape is no longer primarily controlled by individuals owning large swaths of farm or forest land.

As we move to face problems such as nonpoint source water pollution, farmland preservation, and forest/habitat fragmentation, the solutions are to be found partly with individuals owning small parcels of land and primarily with local units of government. Land use is the issue, and land use is overwhelmingly decided at the local level by county- and town-level volunteers serving on land use boards and commissions.

Agencies and organizations involved with natural resources have been slow to recognize (or at least embrace) the overwhelming importance of local land use, but it has finally dawned on them. Mounting evidence of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of poorly planned land use, particularly at the rural/urban interface, has attracted the attention of a diverse group of agencies and organizations from The Nature Conservancy to the American Farmland Trust to the Environmental Protection Agency to the National Homebuilder's Association.

However, despite the appearance of recent initiatives focused on "sprawl," "livable communities," and "smart growth," relatively little is being done to assist the critical audience of local land use decision makers. The world of local land use--messy, complicated, frustrating, and time-consuming--is foreign and intimidating to many organizations. Few groups have the experience, the tools, the mindset, or the sheer people power to assist local land use decision makers.

Extension (including Sea Grant Extension) is the one exception. Extension's strengths are precisely what are needed at the local level: solid, research-based information; facilitation and outreach skills; and ability to work with many different sectors without the "baggage" of being a regulator or advocate. However, despite a number of excellent individual programs in natural resource management/environmental quality throughout system, the LGU system as a whole has steadfastly refused to take up the challenge of addressing land use issues as a topic or focusing on local land use decision makers as an audience. Presented with this apparent abdication, other organizations far less suited for the work are finally moving to fill the gap.

Phantom Impediments to a Land Grant Natural Resource Focus

Why is our system so slow to embrace the natural and necessary evolution into land use based natural resource programs? The answer seems to be a combination of misconception, fear, and inertia. Misconception that "environmental" issues are a fundamental topical departure from LGU/Extension's strengths. Fear of moving away from the power base of traditional agricultural audiences. Inertia that is the byproduct of a large, complex system resistant to change.

Environmental Doesn't Mean "Tree Hugging"

There exists the misconception that natural resource issues are "environmental" and therefore suspect. Let's not forget that agriculture is natural resource management, albeit only one of several major aspects. Presumably, agriculture programs are considered mainstream because they encompass a "production," or economic, emphasis. But all natural resource management is inherently economic in nature, whether it's a timber company attempting to maximize its yield or a town trying to protect the health of its waterways.

To be effective, natural resource programs should address both sides of the conservation/development coin. This is far from tree-hugging, and it is a viewpoint that is sorely in need of a champion in our communities. The LGU/Extension system could become this champion by broadening its focus to include "non-commercial" natural resource management by individuals, local governments, and others. It's a logical extension of our historic charge, not a radical break.

Breaking Through the Rural-Urban Interface

There is also a rarely expressed fear that by overtly addressing issues related to urbanization, LGU/Extension would be making a dangerous move away from our rural public and political power base. However, if we are to effectively address land use issues, LGU/Extension cannot possibly leave traditional rural areas and audiences out of the equation. For example, groups like the American Farmland Trust have been quick to realize that you cannot effectively address farmland preservation without addressing urban issues. Similarly, issues like forest fragmentation, nonpoint source pollution, and sprawl affect both sides of the urban/rural interface.

One needn't be an "inside the Beltway" savant to recognize the enormous potential of the political power represented by suburban and urban audiences in general, and local decision makers in particular. Consider the political clout represented by satisfied LGU/Extension "customers" who are mayors, first selectmen, city council members, county commissioners, and League of Women Voter officials, for example.

The Myth of Mission Creep

What about staying faithful to the "A" in USDA? Doesn't a more explicit focus on land use and natural resource issues constitute "mission creep"? On the contrary, one can make a strong argument that the greatest mission creep evident in the LGU/Extension system is its continued emphasis on production agriculture. By retaining this programmatic focus, we have drifted considerably from the intent of the system's original mission to serve the community. Back in the 19th century when the system was created, the dominance of the family farm in the landscape and culture of America made "community" virtually synonymous with "agriculture." That is obviously no longer the case.

Some parts of our system have avoided this blind spot. Both 4-H and Consumer Sciences have turned their attention to suburban/urban areas and issues, and, in those parts of the country where they still exist, Community Development Extension staff have broadened their focus to issues like farmland preservation.

The Enemy in the Mirror

It has often been pointed out that the large and complex LGU/Extension system cannot adapt with the speed or decisiveness of more "line-oriented" agencies. While true, the real irony is that the complexity and plurality that make administrative hierarchies slow to respond to new situations are the same characteristics that foster creativity at the field level. The result is that individual staff and programs have adapted and moved far ahead of their own administrations on emerging issues.

Putting the Brakes on Innovation: Lending a Hand, Versus Having a Hand Out

Through the entrepreneurial work of individual staff members securing external funding, Extension now boasts a handful of excellent research and Extension programs that address critical issues such as urban forestry, habitat fragmentation, land use planning, open space preservation, watershed management, and household environmental management. However, due to their topical focus and their non-USDA funding sources, these programs often exist in isolation from their LGU base, to the detriment of both program and system.

Isolated LGU success stories could be dramatically multiplied in both magnitude and number with the addition of one key missing element--administrative will at the state and the federal levels to support, package, and market these programs to the clientele and to other agencies.

Moral support is extremely important, but not enough. Money talks, and the language it speaks is leadership: the value is not so much in dollars and cents, but the ability to alter the dynamic between LGU/Extension innovators and our partner agencies. Even modest amounts of "internal" county, university, and USDA funding would allow LGU/Extension natural resource programs to go to the table as "players." This is an entirely different scenario than having our programs continually playing the supplicant, with our hands out and nothing to put on the table but our excellent ideas.

Without the basic bargaining chip of internal support, LGU research/Extension model programs will continue to eke out their existence as fringe players in the natural resource management game.

A Closing Window of Opportunity

America is suburbanizing, and many of the most critical issues facing Americans are at the urban/rural interface. Our communities need help: help to plan and envision their future; help to dovetail economic growth with environmental protection; help to promote tourism without depleting their natural resource base; help to preserve open space and farm land from an onslaught of subdivision. We should be there for them, because a description of the ideal delivery system to meet these needs sounds like a LGU/Extension marketing brochure. But for the most part, we're not.

We could be. The solutions are to be found at every rung of the system ladder. On the program end, Extension educators must come to the table willing to fill the need that exists: providing field level information and assistance on natural resource issues directly to land use decision makers. Mere facilitation and research are not enough. Being ready, willing, and able to "get our hands dirty"--in this case at a zoning board meeting rather than in a corn field--will continue to be the greatest asset that our system has to offer.

At the individual LGU level, administrators need to take the "choke chain" off of their excellent natural resource programs, and promote and support them the way they do the more traditional programs. Deans and Directors steeped in the agricultural tradition of the system need to look to their entrepreneurial field staff to help them open up new doors and to attain a comfort level with natural resource issues and agencies.

At the national level, NASULGC, ESCOP, ECOP, and other system-wide policy bodies should facilitate the creation of a network of existing exemplary research and outreach programs that address natural resource management and the environment. This network should be tapped for their expertise, "marketed" to partner agencies, and, in general, presented as a package that showcases the power and potential of LGU/Extension as a major partner in natural resource management for the 21st century.

If our system does not find the will and the resources to assert our role in natural resource management, we will be out of a job. Of greater importance in the big picture, however, is that those recreating our wheel may be too little and too late to provide the type of assistance that our communities desperately need.

Walking the Mile Barefoot

Anne-Michelle Marsden
Family and Consumer Sciences Educator
Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Atlantic County
Internet address: a.marsden@worldnet.att.net

Diversity - A Critical Issue

Serving a broad array of ethnicities is a high priority at Rutgers Cooperative Extension in New Jersey. It has been an important aspect of my tenure with Rutgers Cooperative Extension to not only conceptualize diversity, but to also develop and implement programs that reach a wide spectrum of clientele.

I certainly thought that I was acting from a well-developed knowledge base concerning "reaching and teaching" diverse populations. I also thought that, after 15 years of experience, I understood the core of addressing diversity. That is, I thought that until I had spent just 1 month out of the year I had arranged as a sabbatical in the remote Toledo District of Belize.

Are Personal Experiences Valuable?

Before positioning fingertips on keyboard to write this piece, I reflected on the potential benefits others could gain from it. Would my experience be valuable to a Family and Consumer Sciences Educator in Connecticut, a 4-H Agent in California, an Agricultural Agent in Ohio? Can the lessons in diversity learned by one professional be applicable to another?

The answer, I concluded, was both yes and no. Submersion into another culture provides a perspective that, in some ways, is difficult to transfer. There is an esoteric "knowing" that just arrives when one engages in daily living in a foreign culture on a regular basis. However, as an addendum to all the diversity in-services and training manuals Extension professionals receive, I believe that several key points gained from my experience are transferable.

Hands-On Diversity Training

The Mopan and K'ekchi' Mayans of Southern Belize in Central America offer a wonderful hands-on diversity training, if one is willing to learn. To establish a relationship with the Mayans, one has to understand their culture. To the industrialized world, their lifestyle could be misunderstood as anything from quaint to primitive.

One of the first rules we've all learned through diversity training is to increase our knowledge of a clientele's culture. This part of the diversity equation was relatively easy. I accomplished my academic update by absorbing information from the only two books in existence regarding the contemporary socioeconomic conditions of the Maya of Southern Belize.

Rule number two, to "reach clientele where they are" culturally, educationally, and geographically, proved to be quite a challenge. I can speak from experience that it is one thing to work from a position of academic understanding regarding cultural values and practices foreign to one's own. It is another issue to actually move a programmatic initiative forward that truly reaches people.

Diversity rule number three, "provide [educational] opportunities that are determined by the target population," was not as much of an issue. Village leaders and the Belizean Minister of Rural Development and Culture, a Mayan himself, had expressed a need for the program to be developed. I was there upon the invitation of the Maya culture's stakeholders. Not surprisingly, however, the establishment of trust on the grass-roots level needed attention.

The Long Mile

Establishing trust wasn't as easy as "walking a mile in their shoes," where one ostensibly comes to understand a person or a population group. Both in reality and figuratively speaking, I walked the mile. In fact, I walked the mile barefoot, because most of the village women do not wear shoes. Some level of acceptance developed from my willingness to experience their culture, but mostly villagers found my desire to engage in their lifestyle peculiar.

I came to realize that I will never totally gain the cultural orientation of a Mayan woman, just as I will never truly understand the cultural orientation of an elderly Hispanic woman who attends my Extension classes in the United States. While I am a female, I am not Mayan, Hispanic, or elderly.

I can only make it a point to always engage individuals from diverse populations in the nuts and bolts of planning, implementing, and evaluating initiatives. Of course, I had recruited culturally diverse populations for all aspects of Extension programming in the past. But this experience reinforced my resolve to ask, and ask again, during all stages of programming, "Is this direction of programming suiting your needs?".

We may believe we have the research-based answer; however, long-term behavior change will never come about unless we work with the culture instead of trying to change it. I found that coming from a mindset of "I have the answer" is not only pompous, it is pointless. My experiences have given me a deeper and more profound understanding of the term "change agent."

My New Glasses

One of my greatest lessons was that it requires hard work and dedication to begin to understand another culture. It requires more than a half dozen in-services and the best of intentions to meet the needs of a diverse population. It requires the willingness to take off the spectacles through which each of us sees the world and risk trying on other pairs.

The spectacles we wear (mine ground by the effects of a university education, by being a Caucasian female member of the baby boomer generation, and by living in the North Eastern United States), hinder our sight as we try to connect with those who do not share our outlook. It requires concentration and constant attention to metaphorically take off one's spectacles and see clearly through another's.

It is far easier to do the work academically, to increase one's knowledge base about how and why others act different from us through texts and in-services. For academicians, understanding on this sociological level comes easy, too easy. To fight the urge to continue to look through glass ground only by our own personal or cultural experience is a high-maintenance activity.

I will give an example. Given my personal beliefs and life experiences, I would have never thought I would choose to try on the spectacles of an older Mayan man from one of the more remote villages. He sees through glasses that I previously could neither understand nor empathize with. For example:

• He sees that there is relatively little reason that children should go to school.
• He sees that he is the unquestioned authority of the household and that only males can hold leadership positions the village.
• He sees that domestic abuse is acceptable.

To try on his spectacles means to understand his cultural perspective. Granted, this is an exceptional example. Extension professionals are not challenged on a daily basis to look through the lens of an individual or a group that holds cultural norms so different from their own.

But taking the time to engage in the "spectacle trade" activity, to understand another's beliefs system and lifestyle norms, is the point. To move from studying the list of a population group's cultural ways that was handed out at an in-service or is part of a textbook we purchased is the point. To take the responsibility and, as previously noted, the risk to internalize why and how those cultural norm manifest in the behavior of a group or an individual is the point.

In the fast-paced world of being an Extension professional, with programs piled high and deadlines for reports even higher, how often did I really take the time to remove my spectacles prior to this experience? How often do you?

Understanding Through Pictures

The Mopan and K'ekchi' Mayan culture is outside the paradigm of American life. To emphasize the need to and potential challenge of taking off one's spectacles due to vast cultural differences, I provide some pictures.

Infrastructure, Community Living, Farming

San Vicente Village (Figure 1) is located on the Belizean/Guatemalan border. As in most villages in the area, there is no electricity or running water. Women wash their clothes and bath their children in the stream. Chickens and pigs roam free throughout the village. Villages are organized in a communal system. Group activities, such as a fajinia (cleaning of the village) are practiced on a regular basis. The alcalde (leader), however, decides where families will live and milpas (farms) will be placed.

Figure 1.

The agricultural production method of slash-and-burn is used. Basic crop rotation is not always practiced. Figure 2 depicts harvesting rice with a sickle at Silver Creek Village.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Social Constructs Regarding Women, Family Planning

What American's refer to as the "children having children epidemic" is a cultural norm for young Mayan women. By age 14 to 16, young women are engaged by their parents to acceptable young men. Elder females in the village did not even meet their husbands-to-be until their wedding day. Females are not provided with family planning information by their elders. Figure 4 shows a K'ekchi' family at home.

Figure 4.

Diet and Meal Preparation

Corn is the primary dietary mainstay for Mayans. The Food Guide Pyramid is not part of their understanding, nor is it possible given the lack of vegetables for part of the year. Malnutrition is widespread.

Women spend a large part of their day preparing corn tortillas, made fresh up to three times a day. In Figure 5 I am being taught how to take dry corn off the cob.

Figure 5.

The Elderly and Children

There is no such thing as "retirement." Elders work until they are too frail to perform their daily duties. Bush doctors provide the main medical interventions for village elders. Figure 6 (Eric Leupold, Leupold Photography) shows a village elder in the Deer Dance festival, a cultural/religious ceremony.

Figure 6.

Children attend school in their village through what is comparable to 6th grade. While there is a high school (comparable to 7 - 10th grades) located in Punta Gorda, the only town of significance in the Toledo District, few attend due to cost and transportation issues. There is no time for personal development and educational programs such as 4-H. Children are given household or farm responsibilities as soon as they are able. Figure 7 shows children rinsing corn in the stream.

Figure 7.

Translating the Experience for the Future

Work with the Mopan and K'ekchi' Mayans was a personal wake-up call. My experience was an extreme example of an opportunity to provide service to a diverse population. But I was fortunate to be engulfed by their culture, where there were no other programming demands or deadlines to steal my attention. In addition to walking the mile barefoot and looking through another's spectacles, I was able to invest the time to contemplate and utilize the material from all of those in-services.

I looked for ways to make it work. I did far more listening than talking until I was sure I had an understanding of my clientele. I checked with key representatives within the Mopan and K'ekchi' villages to make sure I was not operating by stereotypes or disturbing cultural norms.

Today, the payoff is evident. The Mayan Elder Cultural Project is moving forward with ease, and I will resume my Extension responsibilities in the United States with more resolve to reach underserved populations and a little more confidence in my ability to do so.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2000december/ent-co.html.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.