August 2003
Volume 41 Number 4

Features

The Somewhat Flawed Theoretical Foundation of the Extension Service

Garry Stephenson
Associate Professor and Extension Agriculture Faculty
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
Internet Address: garry.stephenson@orst.edu

Introduction

A seemingly small event occurred in 1928 that provided the basis for a theory that has influenced how the Extension Service has conducted its programs for the past six decades. During that year, hybrid corn was released to farmers by the Iowa State Agricultural Experiment Station. With its yield advantages over traditional corn varieties and promotion by the Extension Service and commercial seed companies, the seed was adopted briskly. Between 1933 and 1939, the number of acres planted to hybrid corn increased from hundreds to thousands. By 1940, it had been adopted by most Iowa corn growers. (Ruttan, 1996).

In 1941, Bryce Ryan, a professor of rural sociology at Iowa State University, received funding to examine the spread of hybrid corn. He presumed that a better understanding of the hybrid corn diffusion process would help disseminate other innovations developed by the station (Ruttan, 1996). The resulting classic study by Ryan and Gross (1943) revealed:

• The adoption process began with a small number of farmers who adopted hybrid corn soon after it was released. From these farmers, the innovation diffused to other farmers.
• The most influential source of information on this innovation was neighbors. When farmers saw and interacted with farmers who had adopted hybrid corn, they adopted it too.

These findings implied that if innovative farmers were targeted to adopt innovations, other farmers would soon follow, speeding up the adoption of new agricultural practices. The idea was simple and compelling, and it provided the basis for a model of agricultural development that the Extension Service continues to use today.

By the 1950s, Extension staff were being trained in the application of this theory (North Central, 1952) and college-level Extension methods courses continue to include innovation diffusion theory (Lionberger & Gwin, 1991). A perusal of issues of the Journal of Extension indicates that the theory continues to be popular. Between 1984 and 2002, nearly 50 articles specifically cite innovation diffusion theory.

This article examines the history, influence, and impacts of innovation diffusion theory on the Extension Service in the U.S. It reviews some of the major developments in the literature related to the theory, examines its criticisms, and discusses the implications for Extension.

The First 30 Years of Research

The Ryan and Gross study was followed quickly by studies that examined various aspects of the innovation diffusion process. These studies and their subsequent improvements in theory are closely associated with the agriculture revolution in the United States. During this period, agriculture was undergoing rapid change to a system that relied on mechanization and synthetic inputs.

From the 1940s through the 1960s, researchers plotted mathematical curves representing the adoption of agricultural innovations, developed categories of adopters, catalogued the characteristics of adopters and innovations, and examined the influence of farmer interaction on the adoption process.

Adoption Curves

Ryan and Gross (1943) plotted the number of farmers adopting hybrid corn based on the year farmers adopted it. The data revealed a normal curve. Lionberger (1960) plotted the same type of data on a cumulative basis and revealed an S or growth curve. Both curves indicated a small number of farmers adopted an innovation initially, followed later by the majority of farmers.

Categories of Adopters

Researchers have often assigned titles to individuals based on their adoption behavior. The best-known scheme is from Rogers (1958). Since the adoption of an agricultural innovation followed a normal curve, he developed classifications of adopters by calculating the mean for the curve and then, by adding or subtracting the standard deviation, divided the curve into five segments. The segments were assigned these categories: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
The classic adoption curve indicating a small number of individuals adopting the innovation early (left tail), followed by the majority of adopters. Those adopting last form the right tail of the curve (after Rogers, 1958).

Characteristics of Adopters

The literature describes farmers who adopt an innovation early as being different from other farmers. Innovators are younger (Lionberger, 1960), more cosmopolitan (Coleman, 1957), have higher incomes than later adopters (Lionberger, 1960), and have the largest operations of all adopter categories (Coleman, 1957). In addition, adopter categories differ in their source of information on innovations, with innovators relying on primary sources and later adopters relying on word of mouth (Ryan & Gross, 1943).

Characteristics of Innovations

A key part of the adoption process is identifying the criteria used in decision making. To begin with, the new innovation has to have a relative advantage over the old practice (Rogers, 1971) and it has to be consistent with existing cultural patterns (Barnett, 1953).

In addition, researchers identified a number of other characteristics of innovations that relate to their adoption. Innovations that are less complex, are divisible, readily observable, low cost, and profitable are adopted quickly (Bohlen, 1961). Innovations that are congruent with previous innovations are also adopted quickly. For instance, hybrid sorghum was adopted at a dramatic rate where hybrid corn was already in general use (Brandner & Straus, 1959).

Stages of the Adoption Process

Beal, Rogers, and Bohlen (1957) developed a sequence of stages to describe the adoption process:

• Awareness-The farmer knows of the existence of the innovation but lacks details.
• Information-The farmer becomes interested in the innovation and seeks further information.
• Evaluation-The farmer takes the information about the innovation and weighs the alternatives regarding resources of land, labor, capital, and management ability.
• Trial-The farmer uses the innovation on a small-scale basis.
• Adoption-The farmer uses the innovation on a full-scale basis.

Communication/Interaction

Ryan and Gross (1943) documented the importance of interaction among farmers. "The very fact of acceptance by one or more farmers offers new stimulus to the remaining ones. The decision to adopt is a product of the influence and incentives brought to bear." Havens and Rogers (1961) identified what they termed the "interaction effect." This is the process through which individuals who have adopted an innovation influence those who have not. They contended this is the major factor influencing adoption of innovations.

Today, the theory that underlies much of our Extension programming is based largely on research from this era--the 1940s, '50s and '60s.

How Has the Theory Held Up During the Past 30 Years?

The 1970s to the 1990s were the heyday of international agricultural development. Efforts from that period yielded a rich literature on method and theory. This literature both supports and criticizes segments of innovation diffusion theory. Consequently, portions of the theory are still viable, while others are problematic.

The segments of the innovation diffusion literature that have maintained viability over the years are related to the characteristics of innovations, the stages of the adoption process, and the effect of interaction of farmers on adoption.

One area of research by social scientists involved in more recent agricultural development has focused on the decision-making process of farmers. This literature generally is consistent with the innovation diffusion literature as it relates to the characteristics of innovations and to the stages of the adoption process. For example, Vanclay's (1992) work, which identified barriers to adoption of innovations, is consistent with the work by Bohlen (1960) and Brandner and Straus (1959) discussed earlier. Further, Gladwin and Murtaugh (1980) and Gladwin (1980) identify stages of farmer decision-making that are largely consistent with Beal, Rogers, and Bohlen (1957) stages of the adoption process discussed earlier.

The importance of interaction among farmers is documented by Buttel, Larson, and Gillespie (1990); Stephenson (1980) in work related to the adoption of technology by fishermen; and Stephenson (2002) in documenting the adoption of conservation practices by horse farm owners.

The most controversial area has been the theory's focus on the most innovative farmers and the undesirable consequences of using this approach.

Criticism of the Theory

Criticisms of the theory began to appear in the late 1960s, when it was applied to international development. According to Ruttan (1996), initial criticism of the theory focused on methodological problems with the research, but interest in the theory declined as it began to be viewed as a source of inequity among farmers.

Goss (1979) observed that the application of innovation diffusion theory in developing countries had undesirable consequences. These problems stemmed from the following.

• It is assumed that benefits resulting from the adoption of innovations spread and become homogeneous. But experience from Latin America showed the gap in inequities actually widened.

• Aggregate statistics for development projects may show improvement in elements like production, but commonly the farmers most in need of help received little benefit.

• Non-adopters are affected by the diffusion of innovations process because larger farmers increase production as a result of adopting an innovation, resulting in a decrease in prices received by all farmers.

Other criticism of innovation diffusion theory came from business and marketing perspectives. Downs and Mohr (1976) severely criticized the theory, contending it needs to be organized around attributes of both the innovations and the organizations adopting them. They tossed aside the notion of static categories of adopters, maintaining that anyone can be an innovator if innovations are matched with organizations targeted for adoption. Brown (1981), offering his market and infrastructure approach, points out that implementation of projects using innovation diffusion theory require focusing monetary and personnel resources on a small number of people, the category traditionally considered innovators. He recommends using marketing techniques to target appropriate innovations to specific segments of farmers.

Everett Rogers, the father of innovation diffusion theory, periodically summarizes the literature (1962; 1971; 1983; 1995). In the 1983 edition, he acknowledges criticisms of the theory, noting that the absence of critical viewpoints in the early development of the theory may have been a weakness in the long run. Had adjustments been made earlier through critique and debate, perhaps some of the current problems with the theory would have been avoided. Criticisms compiled in the most recent edition (1995) include:

1. A Pro-Innovation Bias
   • There is the implication that an innovation should be diffused and adopted by all farmers.
   • The act of innovating is considered positive and the act of rejecting an innovation is considered negative. Remember the categories of adopters: Innovators versus Laggards.
     
     
2. Individual-Blame Bias
   • The development agency is not blamed for its lack of response to the needs of farmers. Rather, the individuals who do not adopt the innovation are blamed for their lack of response.
     
     
3. Issue of Equality
   • The negative impacts of the theory are not considered. What are the consequences in terms of unemployment, migration of rural people, equitable distribution of incomes? Will the innovation widen or narrow socioeconomic gaps?
     
     
4. Bias in Favor of Larger and Wealthier Farmers
   • "Development agencies tend to provide assistance especially to their innovative, wealthy, educated, and information-seeking clients. Following this progressive, or ('easy to convince') diffusion strategy leads to a lower degree of equality. For example, more progressive farmers are eager for new ideas, and have the economic means to adopt; they can also more easily obtain credit if they need it. Because they have larger farms, the direct effect of their adoption on total agricultural production is also greater" (Rogers, 1995: 128-129). Consequently, the rich get richer and poor get poorer.

Implications

Considering the implications of what I've outlined here requires that we grapple with the following questions.

1. Given the criticisms of innovation diffusion theory, is it possible that we have caused harm in some way to the population we serve?
2. Since this theory has such an influence on our approach to outreach, why haven't we kept up with developments in the evolution of this theory?
3. What can we change to make our application of this theory consistent with current knowledge?

By Utilizing Innovation Diffusion Theory, Have we Caused Harm in Some Way to the Population We Serve?

In our zeal to find solutions to assist farmers, have we favored practices and technology that are accessible only to larger and wealthier farmers? Have we contributed to the loss of small and medium-size farms through our application of innovation diffusion theory?

A now famous critique of the land grant college system illustrates how this has occurred. Jim Hightower (1972) reviewed the development of a mechanical tomato harvester and the breeding of a tomato that could be mechanically harvested. Stimulated by the anticipated loss of farm labor through termination of the Bracero program and its supply of labor from Mexico, the development of these two innovations ultimately led to significant changes in who grew tomatoes, where they were grown, and who picked them.

Although some shortcomings of Hightower's claims have been pointed out by Buttel (1985), the fact remains that the tomato harvester was large and expensive, and its purchase was limited to large farmers who had the necessary financial resources. Ultimately, several years after its release, 600 large growers controlled tomato production where previously there had been 4,000. In addition, the machines displaced thousands of American farm workers (Schmitz & Seckler, 1970).

This case also illustrates another criticism of innovation diffusion theory related to how the use of aggregates can be misleading. The project is credited with saving the tomato industry in California. However, the production area moved from its traditional area to one with soil and weather conditions more suitable to the tomato variety bred for mechanical picking. So, although the industry stayed in California, there was seemingly no benefit to the original tomato growers who were worried about a labor shortage.

Why Haven't We Kept Up with Developments in Our Basic Theory?

As Extension has changed over the years, Extension social science positions have been eliminated. Most states now operate without a Community Development Program, once a mainstay of the Extension Service and home to staff who worked with rural development. There is less research conducted now on how Extension influences change and the potentially positive and negative affects of our efforts.

In addition, over the years issues surrounding agriculture and natural resource management have become contentious. There is significantly less agreement on the best way to do things. Now there exists more of an "us against them" mood, and many Extension staff perceive social scientists as "them." The result may be that the contributions and critiques by social scientists go unnoticed by Extension staff. Social scientists are guilty of too often criticizing without offering alternatives to improve the situation. Last, quite frankly, the Extension Service does not like to hear that it is doing anything wrong.

What Can We Change to Make Our Application of This Theory Consistent with Current Knowledge?

Based upon the extensive criticism of the negative consequences of innovation diffusion theory, it is time to reconsider how we use it in agricultural outreach. Most negative consequences of the theory ultimately lead to problems with economic inequalities among farmers. These inequalities and the resulting loss of farms will continue unless the Extension Service makes a special effort to prevent it. Consider the following.

A News Release Is Not Enough

Tailor communications to all categories of farmers to promote awareness and information (Rogers, 1995). This involves putting some thought into segmenting the farm population by type and size or other characteristics and directing programs specifically to these segments. This segmentation may also be based on who needs help. As previously mentioned, Brown's (1981) approach to innovation diffusion includes utilizing methods from marketing to enhance adoption. The development of small farm programs by Extension at the national and state levels is an example of a positive step.

Encourage Participation and Appropriate Technology

The success of less financially advantaged farms may be enhanced by involving them in developing technology and practices that are appropriate for their farm and financial scale. The formation of organizations such as cooperatives to enhance access to financial resources continues to be a good strategy (Rogers, 1995). Participation in developing technology is a key concept from international agriculture development that applies to the industrial world as well (Dlott, Altieri, & Masumoto, 1994; Wuest, McCool, Miller, & Veseth, 1999). In addition, Brown (1981) insists that change programs must have a financial support infrastructure for farmers in order to be successful.

Focus on the Tough Ones

Shifting our focus from working with wealthy innovative farmers to working with less financially advantaged farmers may require some fundamental changes. These farmers ". . . tend to place less credibility in professional change agents, and they seldom actively search for information from them. . . "(Rogers, 1995, p. 438).

This is a tougher audience to access and work with, perhaps because of a long history of neglect. They are also likely the farmers who would benefit the greatest. Greater risk protection, for both farmers and Extension staff, will encourage greater activity for and by this audience. Financial risk protection for farmers, particularly small farmers, will enhance their willingness to take risks. Extension staff may increase their willingness to risk a programmatic failure if they are protected from performance criticism by administrators.

Consider Consequences

Our audience is changing. Who do we represent nowadays? Farmers? Farm workers? Farm communities? Consumers? What are the impacts of our efforts on each of these groups?

The Extension Service has a long and successful engagement with people in rural areas. Our high client participation has been a means to this success. At the same time, the Extension Service is credited with having an elite bias (Rogers, 1988). We can change this by realizing that our methods can influence which farmers succeed and which farmers are excluded from success.

References

Barnett, H. (1953). Innovation: The basis of culture change. New York: McGraw Hill.

Beal, G., E. Rogers, & Bohlen, J. (1957). Validity of the concept of stages in the adoption process. Rural Sociology 22:166-168.

Bohlen, J. (1961). The adoption and diffusion of ideas in agriculture, in J. H. Copp, Editor, Our changing rural society: Perspectives and trends. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Brandner, L., & Straus, M. (1959). Congruence versus Profitability in the Diffusion of Hybrid Sorghum. Rural Sociology 24: 381-383.

Brown, L. A. (1981). Innovation diffusion: A new perspective. New York: Methuen.

Buttel, F. (1985). The land grant system: A sociological perspective on value conflicts and ethical issues. Agriculture and Human Values 2(2):78-95.

Buttel, F., Larson, O., & Gillespie, G. Jr. (1990). The sociology of agriculture. New York: Greenwood Press.

Coleman, J. (1957). The diffusion of innovations among physicians. Sociometry 20:253-270.

Dlott, J., Altieri, M., & Masumoto, M. (1994). Exploring the theory and practice of participatory research in US sustainable agriculture: A case study in insect pest management. Agriculture and Human Values. 11:126-139.

Downs, G., & Mohr, L. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 21:700-714.

Gladwin, C. H. (1980). A theory of real-life choice: Applications to agricultural decisions, in P. Barlett (ed.), Agricultural decision making, Anthropological contributions to rural development, pp. 45-86. Orlando: Academic Press.

Gladwin, H., & Murtaugh, M. (1980). The attentive-preattentive distinction in agricultural decision making, in P. Barlett (ed.), Agricultural decision making, Anthropological contributions to rural development, pp. 115-136. Orlando: Academic Press.

Goss, K. F. (1979). Consequences of diffusion of innovations to rural population. Rural Sociology 44:754-772.

Havens, A. E., & Rogers, E. (1961). Adoption of hybrid corn: Profitability and the interaction effect. Rural Sociology 26:409-414.

Hightower, J. (1972). Hard tomatoes, hard times: The failure of the land grant and college complex. Schenkman: Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Lionberger, H. (1960). Adoption of new ideas and practices. Ames, Iowa State University Press.

Lionberger, H., & Gwin, P. (1991). Technology transfer from researchers to users, A textbook of successful research extension strategies used to develop agriculture. University of Missouri, Columbia.

North Central Regional Rural Sociology Subcommittee. (1952). How farm people accept new ideas. Iowa Agricultural Extension Service, Ames.

Rogers, E. (1958). Categorizing the adopters of agricultural practices. Rural Sociology 23:345-354.

Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rogers, E., & Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. 2nd edition. New York: Free Press.

Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. 3rd edition. New York: Free Press.

Rogers, E. (1988). The intellectual foundation and history of the Agricultural Extension model. Knowledge 9:492-510.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 4th edition. New York: Free Press

Ruttan, V. (1996). What happened to technology adoption diffusion research? Sociologia Ruralis 36:51-73.

Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology 8:15-24.

Schmitz, A., & Seckler, D. (1970). Mechanized agriculture and social welfare: The case of the tomato harvester. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52:569-577.

Stephenson, G. (1980). Pushing for the highline: The diffusion of innovations in the Oregon trawl fishery. Unpublished master's thesis. Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University.

Stephenson, G. (2002). The adoption of management practices to improve watershed health by Oregon horse farmers. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Atlanta.

Vanclay, F. (1992). Barriers to adoption: A general overview of the issues. Rural Society 2: 47-53.

Wuest, S. B., McCool, D. K., Miller, B. C., & Veseth, R. J. (1999). Development of more effective conservation farming systems through participatory on-farm research. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 14(3):98-102.

The New Adult Education: Bringing Peer Educators Up to Speed

Nancy Grudens-Schuck
Assistant Professor
Department of Agricultural Education and Studies
Internet Address: ngs@iastate.edu

Julianne Cramer
Doctoral Student
Department of Agricultural Education and Studies

Derrick Exner
PFI Farming Systems Coordinator
Internet Address: dnexner@iastate.edu

Mark Shour
Extension Specialist
Department of Entomology
Internet Address: mshour@iastate.edu
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa

Introduction

Extension educators often share teaching tasks with peer educators. Successful Extension education may involve farmers teaching farmers, teens teaching teens, or parents teaching parents. Lay educators may participate as volunteers, cooperators, or as members of co-sponsoring organizations.

Peer education's success is frequently attributed to the empathetic relationships inspired by credible peers who participants trust to be "one of them" (Chambers, 1997; Hassanein, 1999). Another apparent ability of peer educators is their knack for motivating learners by using familiar rhetorical styles, including the appropriate jargon. Peer educators are often familiar with the learners' knowledge gaps and preferences for instructional styles. This familiarity is believed to shorten the needs-assessment process (Bunch, 1995). Several texts on farmer-to-farmer education suggest that it is precisely the lack of formal educational training that makes peer educators great, which is accomplished by avoiding the social distances that result from professional training of traditional Extension staff (Chambers, 1997).

Although these analyses are attractive, they are incomplete. The analyses do not, for example, successfully explain the failures of peer education. Like the rest of us, peer educators can fail. Peer educators can be boring, irrelevant, inappropriate, and even condescending, all of which detract from the learning venture. This article presents ideas for improving the teaching abilities of peer educators when they partner with Extension.

Educational Needs of the Peer Educator

Improving the educational knowledge and skills of peer educators would increase their effectiveness. Training in high-quality instruction need not ruin their abilities to connect socially and culturally with learners, as long as peer educators are introduced to instructional approaches that respect the political interests that peer educators bring to the partnership.

Like Extension educators, peer educators make some decisions based on organizational and personal interests (Cervero & Wilson, 1994). To deny peer educators an opportunity to develop as teachers out of a notion that their "natural" qualities make them automatically successful, smacks of romanticism and denies non-Extension change agents a chance to develop personally and professionally.

The final impact of failing to support the development of peer educators is lackluster learning by constituents. Moreover, one of the Extension system's areas of expertise is nonformal education. Therefore, it makes sense for Extension to play a leadership role in democratizing the teaching task by building the capacity of lay educators.

In Iowa, we had occasion to address this area of programming for two types of peer educators. The first group was composed mainly of "farmer cooperators" who belonged to a nonprofit association called Practical Farmers of Iowa. We also met with pesticide applicator educators. Although some of the trainers possessed an adult education background, or worked for Extension, most did not.

Case No. 1: Farmer Cooperators

Practical Farmers of Iowa is a membership organization that has pioneered farmer-centered and on-farm research of sustainable agriculture practices since the 1980s (Exner, 1995; Exner & Thompson, 1998; see also http://www.pfi.iastate.edu/PFIhomenew.htm). Members of the organization, with support of staff of Iowa State University Extension, have produced fact sheets, conference papers, and videos on sustainable farming practices and on processes farmers can use to conduct research on their own farms. Farmers who participate in research trials are termed "farmer cooperators."

The research that farmer cooperators conduct is distinct from field trials and demonstrations trials conducted on working farms by university or industry researchers. The designation of "on farm research" means that farmers control the research question, research design, management of treatments and controls, data collection, and interpretation of results (Exner & Thompson, 1998; van de Fliert & Braun, 2002). They share results of their research during an annual conference, through an annual report, newsletter articles, and during field days. Farmer cooperators are expected to take lead roles in explaining their research results directly to visitors and conference goers as part of their commitment to farmer-to-farmer education, especially during field days (see also Hassanein, 1999).

To support farmer-to-farmer education, Iowa State Extension supports Practical Farmers of Iowa farmer cooperators with fact sheets on the logistics of conducting field days on their farms. These logistics include:

• Proper signage,
• Acknowledgment of collaborators and funders,
• Timing of refreshments,
• Designation of an efficient tour route,
• Arrangement for transportation to remote fields,
• Ways to explain results of on farm research trials, and
• Development of visuals to show data from research trials.

Farmer cooperators host between 25 and 250 visitors during field days.

Grudens-Schuck and Cramer, educational researchers with professional training in nonformal adult education and qualitative inquiry, observed that farmers typically lectured, thereby using a narrow, and not always effective, educational technique. Furthermore, Exner expressed concerns that farmers regularly invited agronomic consultants, university researchers, and Extension and agency staff to take a lead role in explaining key concepts during field days. This decision resulted in reliance of farmer cooperators on specialists rather than on their own expertise.

These observations were important because although PFI welcomes partnerships, it is foremost a farmer-to-farmer organization that prides itself on the capabilities of farmers to conduct research and to report findings (Exner, 1995; see also van de Fliert & Braun, 2002). Based on observation of participants over two summers' worth of field days by Grudens-Schuck and Cramer, and additional observations of Exner, the co-authors determined that there was a need for training of peer educators in adult education.

Case No. 2: Pesticide Applicator Educators

A second group that gained our attention was pesticide applicator educators. The goal of pesticide applicator certification is to promote safe handling of pesticides to protect human health and the environment. Some North Central states offer informational sessions for producers in preparation for a certifying exam. Educational sessions or credits also are offered in some states to facilitate recertification. Educators who conduct sessions for producers may be from industry, from Extension, or from production agriculture.

Peer educators are typically knowledgeable about crop production, plant pathology, entomology, or pesticides, but are new to adult education and often are not familiar with alternative education techniques. Mainly, pesticide certification educators have a tendency to lecture, making their approach to adult education similar to that of farmer cooperators.

The confounding issue associated with pesticide applicator education is its close association with regulatory procedures that govern the use of pesticides. In some instances, "teaching to the test" through an emphasis on memorization of facts occurs even though the purposes of pesticide safety and handling programs have moved beyond a narrow regulatory agenda (General Accounting Office [GAO], 2001). These observations led co-authors Grudens-Schuck and Shour to conclude that peer educators working in this venue would benefit from training in alternative approaches to adult education.

Principles of the New Adult Education

The new adult education is new in the sense of being "new to many." Extension educators are likely to have been introduced to one or more of its key principles; peer educators are less likely to have had the exposure.

The approach to adult education that our initiative featured is termed "constructivist" or "transformative education." It is a strategy for educating adults inspired by research in the 1980s that is still finding its feet in the world of practice. These theories were built upon early 20th century revolutions in psychology, philosophy, and sociology, integrating distinct views of identity, group dynamics, and cognition.

The new adult education contrasts sharply with forms of adult education that emphasize lecture and memorization. The standard formula for teaching adults typically features oral presentation skills, such as clearly articulated speech, and the ability to plan logical, accurate technical presentations. Skills training in this vein might include workshops in PowerPointÍ presentation skills, design of overhead transparencies, and the use of humor in presentations. Efficiency and compactness are valued in lecture-style presentations of content knowledge. Providing a demonstration may be encouraged, and it is also recommended that educators "know their audience" and especially training needs.

However useful, traditional skills are not the focus of new approaches to adult education. Novel principles of adult education have re-shaped core assumptions about the way adults learn, leading to a distinct set of practices (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Lecture is specifically de-emphasized. The principles of contemporary adult education that we introduced to peer educators follow.

1. Prior knowledge is key.
2. Strong emotions and aesthetics influence learning.
3. The range of normal human cognitive processing is wide.
4. Shared learning makes a difference.
5. Transfer of learning to the workplace requires preparation.

The learning task requires adults to integrate new knowledge with existing knowledge; therefore, the teaching task must address this phenomenon directly. Adults have prior knowledge about most things, not just in their area of specialization. As a result, learners arrive at an Extension meeting already knowing about the topic the educator plans to teach.

Prior knowledge, however, varies in quality and status (Brookfield, 1987). Adults may possess some correct knowledge, some incorrect knowledge, and some incomplete knowledge. A term that is sometimes used to describe incomplete or unworkable prior knowledge is "misconception." Moreover, the status of the prior knowledge differs--it may be functional or dysfunctional, conscious or unconscious.

In addition, some of what the learner knows may be technical, such as a Latino farm worker possessing knowledge that pesticides are harmful only when they can be tasted, smelled, or seen (Arcury, Quandt, Rao, & Russell, 2001). This misconception leads to unsafe behaviors when working with particular types of crop or livestock systems. Other knowledge may be social, such as a "grazier's" belief that other farmers are always the best source of information (Hassanein, 1999). This belief may limit a farmer's access to additional information resources.

Regardless of quality or status, prior knowledge is full-bodied and resistant to change. Adults must undergo an active process of unlearning before new knowledge can be acted upon in ways that are appropriate (Mezirow, 1991). Therefore, primary tasks of the educator are to: surface adults' prior knowledge and, if needed, to assist adults to unlearn what they already know (Brookfield, 1987). A strategy for surfacing and changing unwanted knowledge involves surprising learners with situations that enable them to experience a disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 1991).

A disorienting dilemma might be caused by a person acting in a way that is unexpected, or by the presentation of a carefully designed science demonstration that cannot be explained in the usual way. The subsequent "shake-up" causes the learner to become confused and to doubt his or her prior knowledge. In this way, new knowledge is able to influence former knowledge, leading to desired changes in behavior.

This is a necessary, but delicate business because knowledge is intricately connected to cultural belief systems. "Culture" is valued by individuals and the community and should respected rather than disregarded (Naylor, 1996). Therefore, the educator needs to know which specific beliefs could be challenged (and which could be left alone) in order to re-shape dysfunctional knowledge (Naylor, 1996). This decision requires critical reflection and discussion with others, including professional colleagues and learners (Heron, 1999). The decision requires an awareness of ethical dilemmas present in an age of pluralism.

In addition to these challenges, it is also crucial to understand that learning is not solely cognitive (Mezirow, 1991). The disorienting experience may be accompanied by a range of emotions in learners, from anger and fear to joy and relief. Strong emotions are not aberrant. In fact, failure to engage emotional sensibilities may imply learning failure (Heron, 1999). Many of us value end-of-session evaluations that document learners' happy, satisfied experiences at our events, but a more meaningful assessment may be to track discomfort, surprise, confusion, and regret (Brookfield, 1987). Because of this, adult educators also need skills for managing strong emotions (Heron, 1999).

Adult educators also must come to terms with the grandeur and complexity of the human condition, especially as it relates to learning. There is much that is known--and much that is discovered daily--about the interplay of genetics, physiology, environment, and culture. What can be stated with confidence is the existence of a wide range of processing abilities. There is no magical formula for teaching farmers or any other group. It is reasonable, however, to assume that at some point in time:

1. Some people learn particular concepts more surely through experiential, "hands-on" learning (Kolb, 1984);
2. Some like to progress from the "big picture" concept to smaller details;
3. Some individuals readily connect learning to personal and social concerns (Mezirow, 1991);
4. Some adults learn better in social environments that emphasize discussion and cooperative tasks.

Researchers tell us, however, that despite earlier hopes that instructional units could be based wholly on an individual's learning preferences, there is no straightforward way to apply principles associated with learning styles. Because of this, providing different types of instruction within a single setting is recommended.

Last, there is the issue of transfer of learning (Caffarella, 2002). Learning in a workshop or field day does not guarantee application at home or the workplace where physical and social conditions may be quite different. Physical conditions distinct to the workplace may include high noise levels, high wind, low light, or hot and humid conditions. Social conditions in the work context might include an inflexible supervisor, frequent interruptions, a resistant partner, concerns about privacy, or gender dynamics. Mimicry of the local situation is accomplished through experiential and active learning (Kolb, 1984). Duplicating, even for a short time, the physical and social conditions to which the learner will return can increase usage or identify barriers that would require additional problem solving.

From Principles to Techniques

Techniques derived from the principles of the new adult education already include some of Extension's long-standing and venerated techniques, such as using stories to illustrate social dimensions of practices, role play, and providing opportunities for people to touch and manipulate solid objects. These Extension education techniques are well established, if infrequently utilized.

The newest piece for most peer educators is the constructivist approach. The approach includes:

• Surfacing and assessing prior knowledge,
• Providing opportunities for unlearning,
• Facilitating discussion and reflection,
• Designing and conducting experiential learning opportunities, and
• Assisting learners to manage strong emotions associated with these processes.

Managing a constructivist learning experience isn't more difficult, but may involve shedding old habits and adopting new ones.

We first recommend that educators put a solid effort into helping learners identify what they already "know." The educator then can pinpoint more accurately the prior knowledge that gets in the way of more appropriate behaviors. A producer's belief that he or she already handles pesticides safely might be a form of inaccurate or partial prior knowledge.

For attendees at a certification workshop, an educator can identify the extent and accuracy of knowledge in several ways: through silent writing (through a 'pretest' or by writing on an index card) or by asking good questions, for example, "Tell how you mix pesticides--describe everything you do and wear." An instruction could also organize a role play or another experiential event and observe naturalistic behaviors. For example, the instructor might provide a (mock) pesticide mixing tank, display a collection of objects that might be found near the mixing station (safety gloves, goggles, cigarettes, donuts, a wash station), and ask attendees to prepare for handling pesticides "as they normally would." If learners physically perform the movements themselves, then their actions can be compared with recommended practices.

Educational research tells us that this may provide powerful motivation to learn. It is important to recognize that if misconceptions or dysfunctional beliefs are neither identified nor challenged, the rest of the event may have little impact, no matter how well one's PowerPointÍ presentation is designed.

Powerful experiences by themselves, however, are limited in their effect. The disorienting dilemma or experiential event must be followed by reflection in order to refine and settle new knowledge (Kolb, 1984). Moreover, when attendees are permitted to reflect and discuss the experience, social learning comes into play. This helps to anchor new ideas onto destabilized frameworks of knowledge. Reflective exercises can be followed by lecture presentations of technical material. In fact, lecture can be more effective when nestled into a constructive curriculum.

Peer educators may not be accustomed to planning and conducting reflective activities, but planning for reflection isn't hard; it is just not generally in the viewfinder of most lay educators. In its most basic form, it involves keeping a close eye on one's watch in order to reserve time for learners to think more deeply.

An easy way to accomplish reflective discussion is to ask attendees to respond to the question: "What did you learn about [yourself, pesticides, safety, etc.] from doing the exercise?" Debriefing can be done orally or in writing. The trick to conducting successful reflective activities is to refrain from correcting learners or inserting mini lectures. If attendees' learning does not conform to your standards, fix it later, not during reflection. If reflection is done well, learners may "fix" the misconceptions themselves.

A crucial element is planning for transfer of new learning to the workplace, home, or farmstead (Caffarella, 2002). For example, farmer cooperators frequently talk about "skeptics" who attend their field days. In particular, farmer cooperators know that they must convince visitors of the economic feasibility of sustainable farming practices employed on their farm. Not all such practices are money-savers, but neither are all sustainable farming practices more expensive.

There also is a special stigma in Iowa attached to avoiding the use of herbicides in the production of row crops such as soybeans and corn, so cropping practices that avoid the use of herbicides are more likely to be contested. New approaches to adult education require addressing the emotion attached to the stigma of sustainable farming practices, as well as technical information needs. When emotional and technical dimensions are addressed during the field day, there is a greater chance that attendees will experiment with new practices upon returning home.

We therefore recommended use of the following technique by farmer cooperators as they conducted the field day. We suggested that cooperators ask attendees to imagine the three worst and three best outcomes that could occur if they applied a technique learned at the field day on their home farm (technique adapted from Jeff Goebels, Washington State University). We then directed farmer cooperators to invite 6-8 attendees to verbalize the outcomes aloud. Making fears, as well as hopes, public can be cathartic and lead to important insights (Heron, 1999). It also provides information for the peer educator, enabling targeted follow-up. The idea is not to talk someone out of their fears or reign in their hopes, but to let permit fears and other emotions to be part of the learning experience. When learners are restricted to the expression of technical concerns, their learning is also restricted.

Introducing the Model

The new model of adult education and its associated techniques were introduced to both types of educators. Grudens-Schuck provided a written handout that described adult learning principles to farmer cooperators (Grudens-Schuck, Othman, & Cramer, 2001) during a workshop at the Practical Farmers of Iowa conference in spring 2001. A similar handout was provided to pesticide applicator educators in a similar workshop during a regional pesticide applicator educators' conference in spring 2002. Exner, Grudens-Schuck, Cramer, and Othman (2001) also developed a set of cards (one principle per card) that farmer cooperators could bring into the field as they conducted farm tours.

Peer educators from both groups received the training enthusiastically, although pesticide applicator educators expressed greater overall familiarity with teaching techniques. The techniques were demonstrated (modeled) as well as communicated through lecture and the printed materials. Workshop attendees identified two challenges as impediments to adopting or adapting the contemporary model for adult education:

1. Low confidence in facilitating discussions, and
2. Concerns related to subject matter mastery.

Challenge No. 1

Peer educators from both groups expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to facilitate successful discussions. Most stated that they believed discussions played a valuable role in learning. However, they doubted their ability to stop discussions once they had begun. The workshop had included suggestions for limiting length of discussions, but did not devote time to practicing "starting and stopping." When there is an affective barrier to learning, such as a fear that discussion may "get out of control," experiential and kinetic learning (role play, simulation) is recommended (Heron, 1999).

Challenge No. 2

Pesticide applicator educators were concerned with providing correct technical information, such as information crucial to safe use of products or required for testing (certification). Anxiety related to a loss of subject matter focus is common among Extension staff new to constructivist approaches to learning (Grudens-Schuck, 2000). Maintaining engaged learners in the time slot allotted was of prime importance. Several pesticide applicator educators stated that they were unconvinced that discussions would fully prepare attendees to pass the test and to apply pesticides safely and effectively. Certification educators also were aware of the political and regulatory pressures associated with mandatory applicator training. These pressures contribute to the reluctance of some learners to engage with the subject matter (see also GAO, 2001).

As a partial antidote, the educators were encouraged to use training time to surface and acknowledge the complexities associated with the history of pesticide regulation. Acknowledgement would expose prior knowledge and engage learners, thus preparing the way for more successful technical learning. However, tracking the achievements of learners who attend sessions employing principles of contemporary adult education might produce more convincing data. Some pesticide applicator educators remain convinced that "covering the material" in a continuous lecture format is superior.

Conclusions

Although concepts of the "new" adult education may be familiar to Extension educators, these principles may not have reached our partners, notably peer educators. Peer educators, to the extent that they rely on lecture-style modes of instruction, would benefit from learning core principles of adult learning to reach our common audiences more effectively.

Least familiar to peer educators were strategies for designing disorienting dilemmas that would cause unlearning as preparation for new learning. Peer educators who participated in the training further suggested that more attention be paid to conducting effective discussions (how to stop as well as start), and to gaining a better understanding of the way in which experiential and active learning articulates with mastery of subject matter.

Acknowledgments

This is a journal paper of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa and supported by Hatch Act and State of Iowa funds.

References

Arcury, T. A., Quandt, S. A., Rao, P., & Russell, G. B. (2001). Pesticide use and safety training in Mexico: The experience of farmworkers employed in North Carolina. Human Organization, 60(1), 56-66.

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bunch, R. (1995). Two ears of corn: A guide to people-centered agricultural improvement (3rd ed.). Oklahoma City, OK: World Neighbors.

Caffarella, R. S. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (1994). Planning responsibility for adult education: A guide to negotiating power and interests. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology.

Exner, D. N. (1995). Complementary abilities and objectives in on-farm research. In C. Francis, R. Janke, V. Mundy, & J. King (eds.), Extension education materials for sustainable agriculture: Alternative approaches to on-farm research and technology exchange, Series Volume 3 (pp. 33-35). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.

Exner, D. N., Grudens-Schuck, N., Cramer, J., & Othman, M. (2001). Communication tips for PFI cooperators and community days hosts. Ames, IA: ISU Extension and Practical Farmers of Iowa.

Exner, D. N, & Thompson, R. (1998). The paired-comparison: A good design for farmer-managed trials. Retrieved March 18, 2003 from http://www.pfi.iastate.edu/OFR/OFR_worksheet.htm

General Accounting Office [GAO] (2001, August). Agricultural pesticides: Management improvements needed to further promote integrated pest management. GAO No. 01-815. Washington, DC: Author.

Grudens-Schuck, N. (2000). Extension and grassroots educators' approaches to participatory education: Interrelationships among training, worldview, and institutional support. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp. 145-149). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia and AERC. Available at: http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/2000/grudensschuckn1-web.htm

Grudens-Schuck, N., Othman, M., & Cramer, J. (2001, February). Farmer field day tips: Ten activities that involve participants based on adult learning principles. Fact Sheet. Ames, IA: Department of Agricultural Education and Studies, Iowa State University.

Hassanein, N. (1999). Changing the way America farms: Knowledge and community in the sustainable agriculture movement. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Heron, J. (1999). The complete facilitator's guide. London: Kogan Page.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Naylor, L. L. (1996). Culture and change: An introduction. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

van de Fliert, E., & Braun, A. R. (2002). Conceptualizing integrative, farmer participatory research for sustainable agriculture. Journal of Agriculture and Human Values, 19(1), 25-38.

An Assessment of Residents' Willingness to Pay for Green Space and Farmland Preservation Conservation Easements Using the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)

Thomas W. Blaine
Associate Professor
Ohio State University Extension
Wooster, Ohio
Internet Address: blaine.17@osu.edu

Frank R. Lichtkoppler
District Specialist
Ohio State University Extension/Sea Grant
Painesville, Ohio
Internet Address: lichtkoppler.1@osu.edu

Reed Stanbro
Chair, Lake County Farmland Preservation Task Force
Painesville, Ohio
Internet Address: rstanbro@lakecountyohio.org

Introduction, Problem Statement, and Purpose

During the late 1990s, an increasing number of communities throughout the United States began to witness the expansion of residential and commercial development into the countryside. The issue of land preservation became increasingly visible, especially in communities bordering on major metropolitan areas. As the discussion of "urban sprawl" became ubiquitous, articles in both the popular media and in academic journals highlighted concerns. These ranged from loss of wildlife habitat to lack of infrastructure in what were previously small towns which had in a short span of time became highly populated "bedroom communities." Extension educators across the country found themselves increasingly involved in land use issues.

Over the same period, a method of obtaining measures of public attitudes toward a variety of proposed projects, called the "contingent valuation method" (CVM), gained considerable attention among scholars, government officials, and others. With deep roots in the field of natural resource economics, CVM has emerged as a means of estimating citizens' willingness to pay taxes or fees for many public purposes, including human and social services, food safety, youth recreation programs, and local infrastructure like schools, roads, and public buildings. Extension educators who are helping communities assess public attitudes for these and other proposed initiatives will find CVM a relatively straightforward method of measuring citizen attitudes toward these and other issues.

This article explains how Extension educators used CVM to provide public officials in one community with residents' opinions on a proposed purchase of conservation easements program, including their willingness to pay to fund it. The article serves as a demonstration of the usefulness and workings of the method for the benefit of those who may want to consider using it in similar types of studies.

Conservation Easements

As the land use issue has intensified nationally, one of the key tools that has received a great deal of attention among those interested in the preservation of various types of land is the conservation easement. This is a relatively new concept for many Extension educators (Seidl, 2001; Schear & Blaine, 1998).

A conservation easement amounts to a permanent restriction on a parcel of land that prevents most forms of residential or commercial development from taking place on the land. When such an easement is adopted, the landowner retains all other previous rights associated with ownership, including the right to occupy, lease, farm, or sell the land. One of the reasons this tool has received such support throughout the country is because it achieves the objective of preserving land/open space, but does not place the property in the hands of a public agency. The private landowner still has the obligation of maintaining the land and paying taxes on it (Daniels & Bowers, 1997).

Two key challenges emerge when discussing the viability of using conservation easements to protect farmland or green space. First is the establishment of a legal recognition of the easement. In other words, if a landowner places the deed restriction on the property in perpetuity, who is going to ensure that the easement is not violated in the future--especially once the ownership of the parcel is passed to another person?

The second challenge is compensation for the easement. In most cases, especially for parcels located near the rural-urban fringe, the highest market value for land is the value associated with its development potential. Once that is removed through a conservation easement, the value of the parcel typically falls, potentially to its value associated with agricultural production. Who compensates the landowner for this decline in value?

For the first challenge, a land trust or public agency that holds the conservation easement has the responsibility to monitor the restriction and to make sure it is enforced. If someone wishes to challenge the easement, however, the case will probably wind up in court. Courts may choose to recognize the easement, but if the state in which the property is located has enabling laws on the books that specifically recognize the legal status of conservation easements, the courts' discretion is removed and the easement can almost certainly sustain a legal challenge. As a result of public activism over the past two decades, most states currently have legislation that recognizes the status of conservation easements. This legislation has withstood a variety of legal challenges  (American Farmland Trust, 1997).

In terms of getting landowners to place conservation easements on their property, there seems to be a consensus among government officials and preservation activists that easements should be voluntary. Two types of monetary incentives have emerged, tax relief from donation of the easement or purchase of the easement through the use of public funds.

If a landowner chooses to donate an easement, he or she is able to place the value of the donated easement as a charitable contribution, just like a donation to any other charity. In most cases, the easement is jointly held by a non-profit 501 c 3 corporation (such as a land trust) and a public agency. In many cases the public agency involved is operated locally. It may be a county-wide land preservation board, for example, with members appointed by local officials such as county commissioners.

Donation of the easement may provide a substantial monetary gain for a landowner, especially if that landowner is in a high-income tax bracket. However, for many landowners, especially farmers, donation of an easement is not economically a realistic option. This is because in many cases, the chief source of the landowner's wealth is in the land itself. Many farmers count on the appreciation of the land over their lifetimes to allow for the funding of their retirement when they decide to quit farming.

But removing the development rights from the land will typically reduce its value substantially. On the other hand, if the landowner could sell the development rights, this would immediately provide a large portion of the income normally postponed until retirement. The landowner could still sell the land upon retirement, where (s)he would then recoup the remaining (i.e. agricultural) value of the land.

Because of these considerations, obtaining funding for the purchase of conservation easements (or purchase of development rights, PDR) programs has become a significant topic throughout the U.S. (Daubenmire & Blaine, 1998). As of 2002, a total of 18 states had publicly funded PDR programs. The sources of funding for these programs range from excise taxes on cigarettes in Pennsylvania to real estate transfer taxes in Maryland.

Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)

Public officials who are required to make decisions concerning the use of public funds for PDR programs often express the desire to know how their constituents feel about these programs in general, and about paying taxes to fund them in particular (Kline & Wichelns, 1994). Over the past few decades, the contingent valuation method (CVM) has emerged in the field of natural resource economics as the primary method economists use to elicit public attitudes towards funding many different types of environmental programs. Carson, Wright, Carson, Alberini, and N. Flores produced a bibliography of over 1,600 published articles using CVM (1994).

CVM seems to be especially appropriate for use in evaluating funding options for conservation easement programs because, although these programs have become very popular and widely discussed, the question as to "who pays" for them has yet to be answered in any consistent way. This is all the more important in an era of tight government budgets when local governments are being required to provide larger portions of funding for all types of programs than in previous years.

Study Area, Design, and Methods

Lake County Ohio (population 228,000) is located in northeast Ohio. It is adjacent to Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), a major metropolitan county with a population of 1.4 million residents. In many ways, Lake County is typical of American communities located at the rural-urban fringe. It is rapidly urbanizing in the portion nearest the metropolitan county, has a "small town" atmosphere near the center, and has a distinctly rural ambience in the area at the furthest distance from the city.

The type of green space in the county varies considerably. It includes marshy habitat in areas near Lake Erie and a highly specialized unconventional agricultural industry primarily located in the rural portion of the county. A number of reasonably well-preserved riparian corridors offer a great deal of wildlife habitat, aesthetic (scenic) amenities, and a source of clean water for Lake Erie.

The primary agricultural enterprises are horticultural (nurseries and grapes). The enterprises differ from most agriculture in Ohio (row crops and livestock) primarily because of the local climate (microclimate influenced by Lake Erie) and because high land values typically prohibit conventional agricultural production, which tends to produce relatively low revenues per acre.

In the fall of 2001, members of the Lake County Farmland Conservation Taskforce (LCFCT) asked the Ohio State University (OSU) Sea Grant College Program and OSU Extension to assist in conducting a survey of Lake County residents' attitudes toward land use issues in general and green space and farmland preservation in particular.

In January 2002 the LCFCT and the OSU Extension office mailed surveys to 1,000 randomly selected registered voters with a cover letter explaining the survey. The letter was signed by one of the Lake County Commissioners and the Chair of the task force. The sample size and survey procedure were selected using guidelines described by Dillman (1978) and Krejcie and Morgan (1970).

A total of 24 surveys were returned as undeliverable. Initially, 250 voters returned completed surveys (early respondents). Follow-up mailings produced an additional 181 usable surveys (late respondents), bringing the total number to 431, for a response rate of 44%.

The purpose of categorizing responses into waves of early and late respondents was to allow us to test for non-response bias (Miller & Smith, 1983). Research suggests that late returns are more like non-respondents than like early returns. Later in the article we discuss the methods we used to determine whether these results indicate a problem of "non-response bias" which could potentially prevent us from generalizing to the group sampled, and to the population of the county.

Results: Basic Attitudes

In the first section of the survey respondents were presented with a series of statements on land use issues and were asked to give their level of agreement on each item using a fully anchored five-point Likert scale. The scale was as follows: one equaled strongly agree, two equaled somewhat agree, three equaled neither agree nor disagree, four equaled somewhat disagree, and five equaled strongly disagree. The frequencies of responses to these items are presented in Table 1.

These results show that respondents overwhelmingly believe that protecting green space and agricultural areas are appropriate goals for the community. Respondents are also aware that open space offers benefits to the community that go beyond direct economic impacts from activities such as food production and tourism. Note that the amount of strong agreement on issues associated with preserving natural areas is slightly higher than for agricultural areas.

Next, respondents were given a description of a conservation easement program and asked to give their views on whether they favored the creation of the program in Lake County. The results are presented in Table 2.

These results show that a strong majority of respondents favor the establishment of conservation easement programs to preserve both natural areas and agricultural lands. Note that, as in Table 1, support is stronger for the natural areas than for agricultural lands. But in both cases there is very little opposition to the program.

Results: Contingent Valuation (Willingness to Pay)

In order to measure the response of residents to a proposal concerning payment of a purchase of natural areas conservation easement program we used a variation of the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) called the payment card method. In this method various levels of payment were proposed ranging from $0 to $56 in irregular whole dollar increments. Respondents were asked to circle the amount they would be willing to pay annually for the next 10 years to generate local funds needed for Lake County to participate in a natural areas conservation easement program. The results are found in the Table 3.

Using the results from Table 3, it is possible to calculate a lower bound mean (LBM) estimate of household WTP for conservation easements. The LBM represents a true lower bound estimate of average household willingness to pay for environmental programs. It is a conservative lower average WTP because the formula used to calculate it does not capture the interpolations of WTP that lie between the amounts offered in the survey. For example, we do not try to estimate the percentage of people who would pay more than $3 but less than $8 and use it in our LBM calculations. LBM is calculated by the formula:

 (1)  LBM = π₀(p₀) + ^k_i=1 π_i(p_i-p_i-1)

where π₀ is the cumulative percentage of respondents willing to pay the initial or smallest finite amount offered (p₀), and k is the number of subsequent amounts offered.

For the natural areas program, the LBM is:

(2) LBM _NA= .85(3.00) + .80(8.00-3.00) + .74(11.00-8.00)+ .63(19.00-11.00) + .52(24.00-19.00) + .32(29.00-24.00) + .28( 34.00-29.00) + .21( 37.00-34.00) + .19(44.00-37.00) + .17(47.00-44.00) + .16( 51.00-47.00) + .10(56.00-51.00) = $23.05

For agricultural areas, the LBM is:

(3) LBM _AG= .77(3.00) + .70(8.00-3.00) + .59(11.00-8.00)+ .43(19.00-11.00) + .35(24.00-19.00) + .20(29.00-24.00) + .14(34.00-29.00) + .11(37.00-34.00) + .09(44.00-37.00) + .08(47.00-44.00) + .08(51.00-47.00) + .06(56.00-51.00) = $16.25

The lower bound mean for a natural areas conservation easement program is $23.05 per household per year. Multiplying by the number of households in the county (89,700) yields an aggregate WTP of slightly more than $2.0 million per year for natural areas conservation easement efforts.

The lower bound mean (LBM) for an agricultural conservation easement program is $16.25. Again, multiplying by the number of households, we get an aggregate WTP of  $1.46 million per year for agricultural conservation easement efforts.

Regression Results:  Willingness to Pay for Green Space Preservation

In order to understand the characteristics of those respondents who were more (less) willing to pay for the preservation of natural areas and agricultural lands, we used a statistical procedure called multiple regression analysis. Regression is not new to Extension educators (Gorham, DeVaney, & Bechman, 1998). In this study, we used the procedure to generate an equation that expresses willingness to pay (WTP) as a function of a set of socioeconomic and attitudinal variables.

In the first analysis we specified WTP to preserve natural areas as a function of perceived importance of preserving these areas, gender, age, income, area of residence (rural versus urban), and whether the respondent replied early or late to the survey. The results are displayed in Table 4.

These results show that age, gender, and time of response (early/late) played no role in determining individual WTP. Next, we deleted those irrelevant variables and re-ran the regression, with the results shown in Table 5.

The results of this regression may be interpreted in a straightforward manner. For every one unit higher on the one to five scale respondents ranked the importance of preserving natural areas, residents are willing to pay $12.14 more per year. For each income category increase ($20,000 increments), respondents would pay $3.47 more, and urban residents average a willingness to pay of $6.81 more than rural residents.

All of these results are highly statistically significant, as was the equation as a whole as measured by the F statistic. The R Square value indicates that the three factors identified here explain 27% of the variation in respondents' WTP. This is a relatively high amount for this kind of analysis, but it indicates that there is still a great deal we do not know about why people support or oppose specific environmental initiatives.

The lack of statistical significance on the early/late response variable means that there is no difference in willingness to pay between early and late respondents. This is an indicator that non-response bias is absent from this study. As a result, we believe that the findings presented throughout this article can in fact be generalized to the voting population of Lake County with a margin of error of plus or minus 5%.

In any case, the analysis reveals that the profile of someone most willing to support the program is a high income urban resident who strongly agrees that preservation of natural areas in Lake County is important.

Regression Results: Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation

In the next segment, we regressed WTP for agricultural land preservation as a function of the same set of variables, this time replacing perceived importance of natural area preservation with importance of preserving farmland (also registered on a 1-5 scale). The results are presented in Table 6.

These results show that age, gender, and early/late response played no role in determining WTP. Again, non-response bias appears to be absent from the survey. Unlike the regression for natural areas preservation, however, this model shows that area of residence plays no role in estimating WTP.

In running a second regression equation, we discarded age, gender, and early/late response, but retained area of residence in order to see whether the omission of these three variables caused a change in the estimation of the impact of area of residence on WTP. The new regression is shown in Table 7.

Again, these results may be interpreted in a straightforward manner. For every one-unit increase in perceived importance of preserving agricultural lands, residents are willing to pay $7.71 more to protect farmland. For every one-unit increase in income ($20,000), they are willing to pay $2.13 more. Unlike the case for preservation of natural areas, WTP to protect agricultural land is not related to area of residence.

The analysis reveals that the profile of someone most willing to support the farmland preservation program is a high-income voter who strongly agrees that preservation of agriculture in Lake County is important.

Summary on WTP for Programs

These results reveal a number of interesting phenomena. One is to corroborate research findings that demonstrate that residents of communities located at the rural urban fringe believe that preservation of natural areas and agricultural lands are appropriate socioeconomic goals. In this particular case, the findings are to a large extent a reflection of land use patterns in Lake County itself, but they can almost certainly be applied to other similar communities across the nation. In the face of growing development, Lake County still has significant natural areas and a highly specialized intensive form of agriculture.

The results demonstrate that people who live in urbanized portions of the community are willing to pay significantly higher amounts to preserve natural areas than those living in the rural portions, but they are not willing to pay more than their rural counterparts for agricultural land preservation. This should not be all that surprising, because these urban residents probably are somewhat more sensitive to the scarcity of green space than those who live in rural areas, but they do not necessarily associate green space itself with farmland.

At the same time, it is very important to note the meaning of the findings here with respect to the linkage between public attitudes on the importance of preservation with willingness to pay for programs designed to accomplish preservation goals. Note from Table 1 that overwhelming majorities of all respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that preservation of natural areas and agricultural lands is important. The coefficients on these variables in the regressions (Tables 5 and 7) show why this feature is so critical.

For example, in moving from "somewhat agree" on natural areas preservation to "strongly agree," the average respondent increases WTP by over $12. The magnitude of this association is rather striking when we consider that this amount alone is over half the mean WTP for the sample.

We find the same proportion on agricultural land preservation. In moving up one unit on the "importance of preservation" scale, the average respondent's willingness to pay increases by nearly $8.00, again roughly half of mean WTP. The similarity of these two ratios is also worthy of note.

Overall, the findings demonstrate that even though land preservation enjoys widespread support, the willingness of residents to pay money for preservation programs is extremely sensitive to their intensity of feelings toward the issue. Moving residents from "somewhat agreeing" to "strongly agreeing" with preservation objectives is highly likely to increase average WTP for conservation easement programs. Likewise, even a slight diminution of commitment to these programs by members of the public will probably cause a disproportionate decline in willingness to pay for them.

Conclusions: Implications for Communities and Extension Educators

It seems obvious that as communities continue to struggle with issues of land preservation, elected officials are going to need to have information concerning their constituents' views on the use of public funds for this purpose. This is even more relevant now than in the past, because federal and state governments are increasingly requiring local matching funds for environmental programs.

Given these issues and trends, it is likely that local officials in communities across the country are going to be expecting Extension educators to provide them with information they need as they make funding decisions. Providing these officials with summaries of public attitudes concerning a variety of programs is a role that Extension educators ought to be able to play. Use of survey instruments to describe public attitudes toward environmental preservation, including estimates of willingness to pay for conservation easements obtained via contingent valuation method (CVM), should emerge as a priority in Extension in the future.

References

American Farmland Trust. 1997. Saving American farmland: What works. Northampton, MA.

Carson, R. T., Wright, J. L., Carson, N., Alberini, A., & Flores, N. (1994). A bibliography of contingent valuation studies and papers. National Resource Damage Assessment, Inc. La Jolla, CA.

Daniels, T., & Bowers, D. (1997). Holding our ground: Protecting American farms and farmland. Washington D.C: Island Press.

Daubenmire, J., & Blaine, T. W. (1998). Purchase of development rights. Ohio State University of Extension Fact Sheet CDFS 1263-98. Available at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1263.html

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Gorham, E. E., DeVaney, S. A., & Bechman, J. C. (1998). Adoption of financial management practices: A program  assessment. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998april/a5.html

Kline, J., & Wichelns, D. (1994). Using referendum data to characterize public support for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Economics. 70:223-233.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement.

Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension [On-line], 21(5), 45-50. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1983september/83-5-a7.pdf (PDF)

Seidl, A. (2001). Colorado professionals' concerns, abilities, and needs for land use planning. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/rb5.html

Schear, P., & Blaine, T. W. (1998). Conservation easements. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet CDFS 1261-98. Available at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1261.html

Watershed Stewardship Education Program--A Multidisciplinary Extension Education Program for Oregon's Watershed Councils

Flaxen D.L. Conway
Community Outreach Extension Specialist
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
Internet Address: Flaxen.Conway@orst.edu

Derek Godwin
Watershed Management Extension Specialist
Oregon State University
Salem, Oregon
Internet Address: Derek.Godwin@orst.edu

Mike Cloughesy
Oregon Forest Resources Institute
Portland, Oregon
Internet Address: cloughesy@ofri.com

Tara Nierenberg
Watershed Stewardship Education Program Coordinator
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
Internet Address: Tara.Nierenberg@orst.edu

Introduction

Watersheds nationwide have been, and are still, experiencing significant alteration. Anthropogenic land and water uses have dramatically affected the quality and quantity of surface and ground waters, as well as fish and wildlife habitat. The nature of these impacts is diffuse and cumulative throughout the watershed.

Watersheds have become a point of emphasis regarding land management. In several states "watershed councils" (community-based, semi- to formally-appointed associations or groups of people with diverse interests and values) have emerged to help address the need for managing natural resources and improving watershed conditions across property boundaries and at the watershed scale.

Members of watershed councils acknowledge that they need education and technical assistance to be successful in implementing enhancement programs that improve current and pending watershed problems. They need to know these programs are researched-based and that they have been designed--in terms of breadth and depth--to be optimal in delivery of knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Practical educational programs with clear written materials, research-based information, and hands-on trainings, demonstrations, and tours are necessary for landowners, managers, contractors, and volunteers to understand and integrate concepts. Extension is viewed in many communities as the organization most effective in providing credible, research-based educational materials and programs that meets community needs through building their capacity to make practical decisions (Wright & Shindler, 1999).

Land and water management practices of individuals and groups, in both urban and rural areas, need to be changed if watershed functions are to be enhanced for declining fish and wildlife populations and drinking water quality. Programs that effectively educate and build the capacity of communities to address local water resource issues are critical to building an awareness of the situation and taking actions to improve it. Extension has a major role to play in developing and delivering these educational programs.

The Watershed Stewardship Education Program (WSEP) is the response to this educational need. WSEP was created in 1996 by the Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service, to be conducted in partnership with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) and the Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI). Through trainings and educational materials, WSEP helps watershed councils, landowners, and others understand multiple components of their watersheds and, through working together, apply this knowledge to assessments, project development, and water quality and habitat monitoring.

Context

The Cooperative Extension System has a history of developing and delivering successful in-depth natural resource curricula for landowners and others. Master programs, such as the Oregon Master Woodland Manager (MWM) program (a 10-module program designed to help woodland owners manage their lands better and to serve as volunteers working with other landowners), have been successful in helping to educate the public on basic (forest) management information. The MWM program has been around for nearly 15 years and has trained over 300 volunteers.

Extension has also partnered on innovative, collaborative efforts that link local economic development with ecosystem restoration. OSU Extension was a core member of the Ecosystem Workforce Project (EWP), the educational component of President Clinton's Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (a.k.a. Jobs in The Woods program, a program that linked dislocated timber workers with forest restoration efforts through training and family-wage jobs). The EWP curriculum was largely developed by OSU Extension and served as the formal educational component for those who wanted to become trained and employed as ecosystem workers.

The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) was developed by state governmental agencies under the leadership of Governor John Kitzhaber as a strategy to protect and enhance salmon habitat and watershed (condition) function. It has been adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service to serve as the recovery plan for Coho and other salmon species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal endangered species act (ESA). The OPSW addresses agricultural management by requiring the Oregon Department of Agriculture to work with landowners in developing basin-wide management plans to improve water quality. The OPSW also endorses local voluntary watershed management by supporting watershed councils statewide with monetary support, restoration manuals, and other technical necessities.

The creation of the OPSW merged public concern and community-based action, as it attempts to restore and enhance habitat for salmon through voluntary actions leading to positive measurable results, rather than through new federal regulations. Watershed councils are the heart of this initiative, as they are charged with identifying, prioritizing, planning, and implementing projects through voluntary local efforts that would improve conditions enough to increase the numbers of fish in the system (Conway, 2000). Yet, despite the provision of incentives (financial support, etc.) and the encouragement of collaborative project design and implementation, watershed councils have struggled and often fail due to lack of support for working together (Huntington & Sommarstrom, 2000).

Most natural resource users (landowners, fishermen, citizens, etc.) recognize the need to participate in the scientific decision making process to control decisions affecting their livelihoods (Smith & Jepson, 1993). However, research and experience indicate that participation is most effective when it is interactive, involves communication that is two-way, and promotes shared decision-making (Walker & Daniels, 2000).

User groups, such as watershed councils, make decisions and act when they feel that they have a strong enough base of local and technical knowledge. Ultimately, successful watershed-focused projects come about only when there is an informed and effective group making the decisions. Smith and Gilden (2002) identified seven asset categories that move watershed councils from figuring out what needs to be done (assessment) to actually doing something (action):

• Leadership,
• Vision,
• Trust,
• Social networks,
• Capital,
• Power, and
• Local and technical knowledge.

Their work mirrors our experience. Distrust, fear of difference, dysfunctional leadership, and non-inclusive watershed groups stagger and often fail altogether in doing the on-the-ground work to solve the issues that brought them together.

Currently there are over 90 local watershed councils in Oregon. These citizen-based groups strive to understand complex watershed processes and land use management practices that affect stream habitat, temperature, sediment, coliform bacteria levels, and other water resource concerns. They want to make informed and lasting ecological and social decisions, as well as to evaluate the results of their efforts. They have experienced the unfortunate scenario of decisions made on non-factual or missing information and how that can lead to scarce dollars being wasted on unnecessary data collection, data analysis, labor, repair of mistakes, and duplication of effort.

Over the past decade, scattered throughout the region, programs have been implemented to provide education to improve watershed stewardship. However, they lacked standardization, multiple disciplines, and elements of collaboration or connection with other education providers. In some areas of the state, watershed councils and others approached their local OSU Extension Agents for help. The agents did what they could, but with no statewide watershed education program in existence, their delivery was limited.

Creating a Flagship Program

The combination of a history of successful curriculum development and an increasing demand for watershed education at the local level led OSU Extension to create a three-person, multidisciplinary team responsible for pulling together the resources necessary to create and pilot-test a watershed stewardship education program in 1996. The project team recognized that watershed stewardship education is a multidisciplinary effort and invited members of the Forestry, Agriculture, and Sea Grant Extension Program Areas who were interested in watershed education to join our team.

This team--working together with watershed council coordinators and members, as well as other local landowners and concerned citizens--conducted several planning meetings to decide upon the optimal topics to be included in the WSEP and to design the educational materials and program delivery that best met the needs of a varied audience. After these meetings, OSU Extension embarked on the development and pilot testing of the formal WSEP program. The WSEP was pilot tested in three regions along the Oregon coast. More than 1,000 copies of the curriculum were purchased and used, and 20 workshops were delivered and yielded evaluations averaging very good or excellent. It appeared we were on target in addressing this educational need.

The stakeholder-driven pilot program taught us that the WSEP should have four main components: a learning guide (curriculum), a series of eight basic trainings, a Master Watershed Steward volunteer program, and advanced training. We will discuss each of these components in detail; discuss the funding, coordination, and future of WSEP; and conclude with a discussion of implications for Extension.

Practical, Easy-to-Use Educational Materials

Watershed Stewardship: A Learning Guide is the foundation of the WSEP program. It was created collaboratively and received local, regional, and national review. It serves as the basis of the WSEP trainings and as a reference manual in other educational programs. The Learning Guide is packaged in a loose-leaf format in a 3-ring binder so that individuals can add new chapters and other supplementary materials from WSEP trainings and other sources. The Learning Guide (publication number EM 8714) is distributed by OSU Extension and Experiment Station Communications (EESC). Information on ordering the Learning Guide is available on the EESC web site at http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/wsep/publications.cfm or by calling 541-737-2513.

The Learning Guide is divided into three major sections, based on three thematic areas identified in the planning sessions (described above). The first section, Working Together to Create Successful Groups, contains chapters on:

• Successful Partnerships,
• Organizational Structures,
• Effective Meetings Management,
• Decision Making,
• Communication, and
• Common Stumbling Blocks.

The second section, Watershed Science and Monitoring Principles, has chapters on:

• Planning,
• Watershed Hydrology,
• Stream Processes,
• Watershed Soils,
• Erosion,
• Conservation, and
• Assessment and Monitoring Considerations.

The third section, Evaluating, Managing, and Improving Watershed Functions, has chapters on:

• Riparian Area Functions;
• Management, Evaluation and Enhancement;
• Livestock and Forage;
• Stream Ecology and Assessment;
• Rural Homes and Acreages;
• Wetland Functions; and
• Water Quality Monitoring.

The Learning Guide is written at a basic level with the goal of identifying a base of material that should be understood by all who are involved in watershed management and enhancement. Like watersheds, it continually evolves and was revised in January 2002 in response to audience needs and to keep the price of the Learning Guide affordable.

Training to Establish a Firm Foundation

One of the major themes of successful restoration and water quality improvement programs is effective collaboration by a number of different parties. In addition to the local landowners, watershed councils include funding and regulatory agency staff, volunteers, diverse local expertise, businesses, and local officials. All involved must arrive at common water resource goals and understand how specific projects fit in with the larger goal of watershed restoration. Local watershed councils are groups of diverse people with varying levels of knowledge and skills. Most watershed councils have acknowledged that the group itself should establish some core, common foundation of knowledge and skills. The basic WSEP trainings, called the "Core Program," are designed to provide this foundation.

A team of Extension Agents and Specialists, technical professionals from federal and state resource agencies, and industry experts teach the WSEP Core Program. The Core Program consists of eight basic thematic modules:

• Watershed and Stream Processes;
• Salmonid Biology;
• Soils, Erosion, and Conservation;
• Riparian Area Functions and Management;
• Stream Assessment and Restoration;
• Wetland Evaluation and Enhancement;
• Creating Successful Groups; and
• Water Quality Monitoring.

Core Programs are hosted regionally by a local Extension Agent and co-organized by the regional watershed council and Soil and Water Conservation District representatives. They are coordinated at the state level by a .75 FTE WSEP Coordinator and a full-time Program Assistant. Members of up to two to four watershed councils in the region participate in the trainings. While the overarching principles of each module are standardized (there is an instructor guide for each module), the examples and delivery format of the trainings is be tailored to meet the local needs and desires of the councils attending. Each module consists of one 2-hour classroom plus one 4-hour field learning session. By completing the 48 hours successfully, participants of a Core Program graduate as Watershed Stewards. There is also an option to become a Master Watershed Steward, as described below.

Master Watershed Stewards

Becoming a Master Watershed Steward entails completing the 48-hour Core Program plus completing an additional 40-hour watershed project (with assistance from the OSU Extension Service, resource agencies, or watershed groups). The project can vary in type (on-the-ground activity; property management planning; monitoring; survey or assessment; or working with a group) and can be on the Steward's own property or in the local area. Projects apply what has been learned in the trainings to further each participant's goals as well as address local watershed issues.

After completing the Core Program and their projects, Master Watershed Stewards use their applied knowledge (watershed functions and processes), strive to maintain or improve watershed conditions for salmon and water quality, and support watershed groups with similar goals. Master Watershed Stewards serve as "points of contact" for community members seeking assistance and refer people to OSU Extension Service and local supporting agencies and watershed groups for reference materials, training, and assistance. Master Watershed Stewards are not expected to serve as watershed management educators to the community.

Advanced Watershed Stewardship Education

As the Core Program is completed in an area, there are frequent requests for more in-depth, advanced training on certain topics covered in the Core Program. Advanced training can be developed and delivered by local- or state-level Extension educators, in partnership with other resource professionals, and can be offered locally, regionally, or centrally. Advanced training programs offered to date include a Fish Passage Short Course (offered regionally throughout the state), a centrally offered Forest Road Stewardship Conference, a centrally offered workshop on developing Forest Stewardship Plans that are consistent with the Oregon Plan, and an advanced communication skills program (offered regionally). Advanced programs under development include locally delivered trainings o