October 2007
Volume 45 Number 5

Research in Brief

Profitability Benchmarks: A Tool for Cooperative Educators

James Pritchett
Assistant Professor
James.Pritchett@colostate.edu

Susan Hine
Associate Professor
suehine@lamar.colostate.edu

Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado

Introduction

Cooperative mergers and consolidations are occurring at record levels in the United States, reflecting the current trends in decreasing numbers of full-time farms, increased costs, intense competition, and declining profits (Richards & Manfredo, 2003; Vandeburg, Fulton, Hine, & McNamara, 2000). Yet cooperatives remain an integral part of rural communities and provide important services to customers. This puts increasing pressure on Extension specialists and other professionals to find ways to help these rural cooperatives remain a viable business entity within their individual communities.

One obvious factor that is essential for cooperative survival is sound financial performance (Fulton, Popp, & Gray, 1996; Vandeburg et al., 2000). Given the importance of this factor, a system of profitability benchmarks was developed that could be used by professionals to help cooperative boards and managers better position themselves in this ever challenging environment. Financial benchmarks are particularly useful for diagnosing opportunities for improving business performance, although they are not well suited to describing the unique characteristics or all of the advantages of cooperatives relative to other organizational forms.

Our main objective is establishing appropriate financial benchmarks that help cooperative management teams and boards make sound operational and strategic investment decisions. These decisions should enhance the rate of return to local equity (ROLE). Once these benchmarks are developed and understood, Extension specialists can assist individual cooperative management teams assess their performance, note weaknesses, and address opportunities for improvement. In this article we first discuss the key financial characteristics and benchmarks. We then present our research results, followed by a discussion of how they can be used by Extension specialists in their educational programming. Recommendations for future research and training are presented in the final portion of the article.

Key Financial Measures

The first task was to identify those key financial characteristics that were associated with the greatest rates of return to local equity (ROLE) for agricultural cooperatives. The first step in this process included ranking cooperatives according to their ROLE and then categorizing the ranked cooperatives into subsets based on ROLE. The final step included calculating meaningful financial performance measures that firms might compare against the best performers and then establishing specific areas of improvement. The financial performance measures used in the analysis are listed in Table 1.

The rate of return on local equity (ROLE) is chosen as the primary measure of performance because it measures profitability attributed to local members' ownership. The ROLE is calculated for each cooperative firm as local savings (profits) divided by local equity. Local savings includes the cooperative's local operations only and does not include any regional investment. By the same token, local equity does not include regional investments. This simply provides a better picture of the firm's ability to generate savings or profits from their business operations.

Rate of return on assets (ROA) is chosen as a measure of profitability without firm debt structure, while the asset turnover ratio (ATR) reflects efficiency in deploying assets. Operating profit margin (OPM) is meant to reflect the firm's cost efficiency. The cost of financing the cooperative's assets is inherent in the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) calculation, and the overall debt structure of the cooperative is found in the debt to equity ( D to E) ratio. Although this is a brief synopsis of some important financial concepts, they include some of the most important relationships associated with business profitability. For a more detailed discussion, the reader is referred to Gitman, 2003.

Results and Discussion

Data was drawn from qualified financial statements that were provided by CoBank, a large lender to cooperatives. The sampled financial statements are for both farm supply and marketing cooperatives in thirty-four states. Ratios are calculated from statements ranging in years from 1995-2003 and are then averaged over the time period, using 505 cooperatives. Firms are sorted in descending order from the highest average rate of return on local equity (ROLE) to the lowest and categorized into quintiles, 101 firms are in each quintile. The average financial performance ratios for each quintile are found in Table 2.

The rows of Table 2 describe the quintile's various financial measures and average local equity. The columns of Table 2 indicate the quintile for which the financial performance measures have been calculated. The first quintile (1st) contains the 101 firms with the highest average ROLE over 1995-2003, followed by the next 101 firms (2nd quintile) etc. Values reported in the table are the averages calculated within the quintile.

The first quintile contains the highest performers with respect to ROLE, with an average rate of return to local equity of 16.44%, which is much higher than the mean ROLE of each of the other four quintiles. Important differences are also noted when comparing profitability per dollar asset (rate of return on assets, ROA), at 7.46% for the first quintile, cost efficiency (OPM) at 3.18%, and the cost of asset financing (WACC), at 7.48%. Thus, it appears that the first quintile's advantage in ROA, and ultimately ROLE, lies in its cost efficiency (OPM), which is higher with respect to each of the four other quintiles. The first quintile's weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is relatively larger than other quintiles' WACC averages, which may be a result of the opportunity cost of the cooperative's own capital. That is, the WACC is calculated as a weighted average of equity financing (proxied by ROLE) and debt financing, and the first quintile's ROLE is larger than all others.

It is interesting to note that size is not necessarily a factor with respect to profitability, at least within the first three quintiles because they do not differ substantially in debt structure ( D to E), amount of local equity, or total assets. Substantial differences are found between the 1st and 4th quintiles in terms of equity and assets, but it does appear, however, that the 4th and 5th quintiles are more similar in terms of asset and equity size than they are to the 1s quintile.

In summary, Table 2 is a snapshot of cooperative competitiveness during the years 1995-2003 as measured by financial performance. Cooperatives compete against one another to capture equity and business from producer-members, to garner the inputs and services from regional cooperatives, and to secure cooperative specific financing. The most competitive firms are those in the first quintile where, on average, the rate of return to local equity is 7% higher than the next quintile and substantially higher than the remaining quintiles. For firms in the lower quintile, improving cost efficiency would improve its competitiveness vis a vis other cooperatives.

Use in Extension Training Programs

What does this mean for Extension specialists? As stated in the introduction of this article, cooperatives are an essential and integral part of their rural communities. If they are to survive, they need some tools with which to accomplish this task. Based on this research, the Extension specialist might want to focus on ways to help cooperative managers and directors track and understand their financial ratios. As shown in this research, size alone does not correlate with profitability; a smaller cooperative has just as much potential for success as do the larger firms. In fact, cooperatives in the first quintile actually had fewer assets and equity on average than some of the other cooperatives that were less profitable.

Management efficiency is obviously important as represented by the ATR, but as shown by this study, it is not enough to guarantee success. Cooperatives need to analyze their financial positions relevant to the more successful ones in an attempt to see where weaknesses may lie and where there is room for financial improvement. As always, it should be noted that these are benchmarks and as such are not meant to be the final word on any cooperative's total performance. But they can serve as another tool for these businesses as they strive to compete in a very challenging environment.

It is our hope that this article provides some "concrete" evidence for Extension specialists who might need to motivate local cooperatives to improve their performance. These cooperatives may compare themselves against other cooperatives to see where they fit--are they performing at the level of other successful cooperatives or is there room for improvement?

More generally, cooperatives represent an innovative business structure that addresses shortcomings that private businesses may not be able to overcome. Specific research into the nature of the cooperative organizations can be found in James and Sykuta (2005), Chaddad, Cook, and Heckei (2005), Chaddad and Cook (2004). Professionals advising the formation of cooperatives, especially new generation cooperatives, may benefit from these articles.

Further Research

The next step in this process would be to survey cooperatives to add the more qualitative element of cooperatives' successful performance. The process has started to assess cooperatives by gathering some important quantitative data, but information with respect as "how" some of these financial ratios are actually accomplished would be very useful.

References

Chaddad, F. & Cook, M. (2004). Understanding new cooperative models: An ownership-control rights typology. Review of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 26. No.3 (Fall 2004): 348-360.

Chaddad, F., Cook, M., & Heckei, T. (2005). Testing for the presence of fianancial constraints in US agricultural cooperatives: An investment behaviour appracoh. Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 56. No. 3. (December 2005): 385-397.

Fulton, J. R., Popp, M. P., & Gray, C. (1996). Strategic alliance and joint venture agreements in grain marketing cooperatives. Journal of Cooperatives 11, 1-14.

Gitman, L. J. (2003). Principles of managerial finance. Boston. Pearson Education, Inc.

James, H. & Sykuta, M. (2005). Property right and organizational characteristics of producer-owned firms and organizational trust. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. Vol. 76. No. 4. (December 2005): 545-580.

Richards, T. & Manfredo, M. (2003). Postmerger performance of cooperatives. Agricultural Finance Review. Vol. 63. No. 2. 175-192.

Vandeburg, J., Fulton, J. R., Hine, S., & McNamara, K. (2000, December). Driving forces and success factors for mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, and strategic alliances among local cooperatives. Paper presented at NCR 194 (Research on Cooperatives) Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV. Online. Available at: http://www.agecon.ksu.edu/accc/ncr194/Events/2000meeting/VandeburgFulton.pdf

Knowledge of Sustainable Agriculture Practices by Extension Agents in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia

Harry N. Boone, Jr.
Associate Professor
Department of Resource Management
hnboone@wvu.edu

Erin M. Hersman
Graduate Student

Deborah A. Boone
Assistant Professor
Department of Resource Management
debby.boone@mail.wvu.edu

Stacy A. Gartin
Professor
Department of Resource Management
sgartin@wvu.edu

West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia

Introduction

Agriculture continues to experience a crisis that includes, in addition to rapid financial and structural changes, an awareness of farming's enormous influence on ecosystem health (National Research Council, 1989). When determining the level of environmental stewardship necessary to maintain an ecologically sound farmland system, sustainable agriculture comes into play. The National Research Council (1993) argues that sustainability is necessary to "keep the productive capacity of natural resources in step with population growth and economic demands while protecting and, where necessary, restoring environmental quality" (p. 66). Sustainable agriculture refers to an agricultural production and distribution system that:

• Achieves the integration of natural biological cycles and controls;


• Protects and renews soil fertility and the natural resource base;


• Optimizes the management and use of on-farm resources;


• Reduces the use of nonrenewable resources and purchased production inputs;


• Provides adequate and dependable farm income;


• Promotes opportunity in family farming and farm communities;


• Minimizes adverse impacts on health, safety, wildlife, water quality, and the environment (Sustainable Agriculture Network, 2002, p.1).

Sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Feenstra, 1997). In other words, sustainable agriculture challenges educators and farmers to think about the long-term implications of practices and the broad interactions and dynamics of agricultural systems. Sustainable agriculture relies on three primary goals:

• Providing a more profitable farm income;
• Promoting environmental stewardship, including:
• Protecting and improving soil quality
• Reducing dependence on non-renewable resources, such as fuel and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and
• Minimizing adverse impacts on safety, wildlife, water quality and other environmental resources; and
• Promoting stable, prosperous farm families and communities (Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture, n.d., p.2)

Agriculturists throughout the world are continuously experimenting and enhancing agricultural practices in an effort to reach the goals of sustainability. By using a variety of farming strategies producers are meeting the goals in their operations, their environments, and their communities (Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture, n.d.). The methods being used, however, are as "different as prairie flowers dotting a Midwest landscape" (Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture, n.d., p.2).

There are many ways to improve the sustainability of a given farming system, and these vary from region to region. However, there are some common sets of practices among farmers trying to take a more sustainable approach, in part through greater use of on-farm and local resources (Sustainable Agricultural Network, 2002). For example, in order for farmers who practice sustainable agriculture to be successful in managing their farmlands, there must be a continuous network of information, new technologies, and innovations that are available to them. Educators must remain current on the latest agricultural research and technology, enabling them to understand the needs and problems that their clientele are facing.

The Extension Service can play a crucial role in providing this network of information on sustainable agriculture education. Extension not only has a long history of service to farmers, but Extension agents have also gained their respect and trust (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997; Warner & Christenson, 1984). The 1990 Farm Bill states that Extension agents must be trained in sustainable agriculture in order to "develop their understanding, competence, and ability to teach and communicate the concepts" to farmers and others (Agunga, 1995, p. 172).

The Extension Service, due to its large network of personnel, is in position to formulate a cohesive structure for promoting sustainable agriculture education; however, if Extension agents are not convinced of the value of sustainability, they cannot be expected to educate farmers on the concepts (Agunga, 1995). Because the Extension Service can play a critical role in the evolution of sustainable agriculture education, it is vital to understand the preparation levels of Extension educators regarding the relatively new concepts involved with sustainable agriculture. Knowledge about the concept of sustainability is necessary in order to move the program forward (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000).

The purpose of the study reported here was to determine the level of knowledge and preparation that Extension educators possess related to the numerous dimensions of sustainable agriculture. The objectives of the study are reflected in the following research questions:

1. Do Extension educators have a clear understanding of sustainable agriculture?


2. What is the number of sustainable agriculture workshops or other information sessions that Extension educators attended? And


3. What areas of sustainable agriculture training are Extension agents interested?

Methods and Materials

The target population for the study was 179 Agriculture and Natural Resource Extension Agents employed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. A descriptive survey research method was used to collect data from the target population. "Descriptive surveys focus on determining the status of a defined population with respect to certain variables. They basically inquire into the status quo; they attempt to measure what exists without questioning why it exists" (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990, p. 407).

The questionnaire was developed by the researcher based on the review of literature and the objectives of the study. Content and face validity of the instrument were established by a panel of experts. Based on the results of a split-half statistical procedure, the instrument was found to have "exemplary" reliability (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). The questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letter that explained the purpose of the study and gave directions for completing and returning the survey and a self addressed stamped envelope to encourage response. The instruments were coded to identify non-respondents for follow-up, and the code was destroyed before the data were analyzed. Follow up letters with a questionnaire were sent 3 weeks after the initial mailing. Out of the 179 questionnaires administered, 126 were returned. Of those returned, 121 (67.5%) were usable.

Early and late respondents were compared on three demographic variables using a chi-square statistical procedure and 17 knowledge questions using an independent t-test. No statistical differences were found between early and late respondents. Because non-respondents are similar to late respondents, it was assumed that the respondents were an unbiased sample of the population and generalizations could be made to the population (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, & Sorenson, 2006).

Results/Findings

Demographic Information

The respondents were asked to provide basic demographic information, including age, years worked, education level, and state of residence. The median age category for the respondents was 50-59 years of age (n = 41, 33.9%). Eleven to 15 years was the median category for years worked in Extension. A majority of the respondents (87.2%) had a Master's degree or above.

Sustainable Agriculture: Understanding and Research Availability

Using a six-point Likert scale with 1 = very strongly disagree, 2 = strongly disagree, 3 = disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree, 6 = very strongly agree, Extension agents were asked a series of questions to determine their understanding of sustainable agriculture and their perception of the availability of research findings on the topic. A six-point scale was used to encourage respondents to ponder the questions and not take the lazy way out by using a "neutral" response (Ary et al., 2006; Patten, 2001). The responses were averaged, and the following scale used to interpret the results: 5.5 - 6.0 very strongly agree, 4.5 - 5.49 strongly agree, 3.5 - 4.49 agree, 2.5 - 3.49 disagree, 1.5 - 2.49 strongly disagree, and 1 - 1.49 very strongly disagree.

Respondents strongly agreed (M = 4.56, SD = 0.89) that environmental protection readily came to mind when they heard the term "sustainable agriculture." Respondents also agreed that small-scale agriculture (M = 4.36, SD = 0.94), profitability (M = 4.23, SD = 1.03), low chemical input (M = 4.22, SD = 1.02), productivity (M = 4.05, SD = 0.99), and organic farming (M = 3.96, SD = 1.13) readily came to mind when they heard the term "sustainable agriculture." Respondents disagreed that non-animal agriculture (M = 2.81, SD = 0.93) readily came to mind when they heard the term "sustainable agriculture."

Respondents agreed that sustainable agriculture was a priority for present clientele interactions (M = 4.33, SD = 0.88). Participants strongly agreed that sustainable agriculture was a priority for future clientele interactions (M = 4.54, SD = 0.92). Respondents also agreed that if farmers were provided information on sustainable agriculture, it would increase the likelihood they would adopt the concepts (M = 4.08, SD = 0.72).

Respondents were asked a series of questions about the scientific evidence to support sustainable agriculture's concepts. Agents agreed that there was scientific proof that sustainable agriculture was socially acceptable (M = 4.20, SD = 0.88), environmentally sound (M = 3.97, SD = 0.77), and economically feasible (M = 3.86, SD = 0.83). Although respondents agreed that that sustainable agriculture was socially acceptable, environmentally sound, and economically feasible, they also agreed that research on sustainable agriculture was still in its infancy (M = 3.90, SD = 1.04).

Extension agents were asked a series of questions on their knowledge of sustainable agriculture's principles, where to locate information on sustainable agriculture, and if they would communicate sustainable agriculture concepts to clients. Agents strongly agreed that if researchers make innovations available on sustainable agriculture, they would communicate the information to farmers (M = 4.65, SD = 0.75). Respondents disagreed with the statement that they did not know enough about sustainable agriculture to inform others (M = 2.99, SD = 1.02) and they did not know where to get information on sustainable agriculture (M = 2.80, SD = 0.91).

Professional Development in Sustainable Agriculture

Many of the Extension agents had participated in professional development opportunities on the central concepts of sustainable agriculture. Ninety respondents (74.4%) had participated in conferences, 99 respondents (81.8%) had participated in workshops, 28 respondents (23.1%) had participated in dinner meetings, and 31 respondents (25.8%) had participated in professional development activities other than those listed. Ninety-two respondents (77.3%) had participated in professional development activities that specifically dealt with environmental soundness, 96 respondents (80.0%) had participated in professional development activities that specifically dealt with economic viability, and 47 respondents (39.2%) had participated in professional development activities that specifically dealt with social acceptability. Ninety-two respondents (76.0%) perceived most of their education on agricultural practices has sustainable implications, 15 respondents (12.4%) perceived that most of their education on agricultural practices used sustainable examples, and nine respondents (7.4%) perceived most of their education on agricultural practices to be in direct conflict with their perceptions of sustainable agriculture.

Areas of Sustainable Agriculture that Extension Agents Desired Training

Using a 6-point Likert scale with 1 = very strongly disagree, 2 = strongly disagree, 3 = disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree, 6 = very strongly agree, Extension educators were asked to identify the areas where they desired sustainable agriculture training. The responses were averaged, and the following scale used to interpret the results: 5.5 - 6.0 very strongly agree, 4.5 - 5.49 strongly agree, 3.5 - 4.49 agree, 2.5 - 3.49 disagree, 1.5 - 2.49 strongly disagree, and 1 - 1.49 very strongly disagree.

Respondents strongly agreed that they desired training in economics of sustainable agriculture (M = 4.75, SD = 0.96), innovative farming systems (M = 4.64, SD = 0.96), and marketing of sustainable agricultural products (M = 4.55, SD = 1.09). Agents agreed that they desired training in grazing/forage management (M = 4.42, SD = 1.14), farm management practices (M = 4.37, SD = 0.88), integrated insect pest management (M = 4.29, SD = 0.92), crop rotations (M = 4.28, SD = 0.99), organic matter management (M = 4.20, SD = 0.93), recycling farm wastes (M = 4.19, SD = 0.87), educational communication/Extension in sustainable agriculture (M = 4.15, SD = 1.08), water quality with respect to agrichemicals (M = 4.11, SD = 0.93), grass fed livestock (M = 4.10, SD = 1.16), restoration of the family farm (M = 4.08, SD = 1.13), food safety and pesticide residues (M = 4.06, SD = 1.03), natural resource conservation (M = 4.02, SD = 0.87), composting (M = 3.99, SD = 1.05), and system theory including biological systems (M = 3.67, SD = 0.99).

Conclusions/Recommendations

Conclusions

Based upon the findings of the study, the following conclusions were reached. Extension agents were familiar with and associated terms such as environmental protection, small-scale agriculture, profitability, low chemical input, productivity, and organic farming with sustainable agriculture. Extension agents felt sustainable agriculture was a priority for present and future clientele. Extension agents believed scientific proof existed for the concepts of sustainable agriculture; however, they also indicated sustainable agriculture research was in its infancy.

Extension agents were willing to communicate sustainable agriculture principles to their clients. Extension agents expressed a need for training in areas of sustainable agriculture such as economics of sustainable agriculture, innovative farming systems, marketing of sustainable agricultural products, grazing/forage management, farm management practices, integrated insect pest management, crop rotations, organic matter management, recycling farm wastes, educational communication/Extension in sustainable agriculture, water quality with respect to agrichemicals, grass fed livestock, restoration of the family farm, food safety and pesticide residues, natural resource conservation, composting, and system theory including biological systems.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made to Agriculture and Natural Resource Extension Agents employed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia included in the study. Researchers, specializing in sustainable agriculture, should include Extension agents as potential clientele for the distribution of their research findings. Agents should also be invited to all professional development activities involving research on sustainable agriculture. Extension administrators should include sustainable agriculture topics in all professional development events. Additional research should be completed to determine if knowledge and attitudes toward sustainable agriculture influence the topics and delivery of information to Extension clientele. Extension agents should continue to participate in professional development activities on sustainable agriculture and distribute the information to their clients.

References

Agunga, R. (1995). What Ohio Extension say about sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 5(3), 169-187.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A., Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7^th ed.). California: Thomson Wadsworth.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to research in education. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture. (n.d.). Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education.

Feenstra, G. (1997). What is sustainable agriculture? UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. University of California, Davis, CA.

Minarovic, R. & Mueller, J. P. (2000). North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service professionals' attitudes toward sustainable agriculture. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(1). Retrieved October 9, 2002, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2000february/a1.html

National Research Council (1993). Sustainable agriculture and the environment in humid tropics. Washington, D. C.: The Academy Press.

Patten, M. L. (2001). Questionnaire research: A practical guide. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1-16) New York: Academic Press.

Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through cooperative Extension. Albany: Delmar Publishers.

Sustainable Agriculture Network. (2002). What is sustainable agriculture? Retrieved October 9, 2002, from http://www.sare.org/htdocs/docs/SANand SARE.html

Warner, P. D. & Christenson, J. A. (1984). The Cooperative Extension Service: A national assessment. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Citizen Involvement in Water Resources Issues in New England

Julie Wawrzynek
Former Graduate Student
University of Idaho

Robert L. Mahler
Water Quality Coordinator
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
bmahler@uidaho.edu

Arthur J. Gold
Professor/Natural Resource Program Leader
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island
agold@uri.edu

Alyson McCann
Water Quality Coordinator
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island
alyson@uri.edu

Introduction

As water resources planning and management moves forward, there is also an increased awareness of the need for all individuals to take actions in and outside the home to conserve and preserve water quality (Campbell, Johnson, & Larson, 2004). Extension programs seek to educate and encourage citizens to take personal responsibility for actions that ensure preservation and conservation of water resources (Beierle, 1999). Experiential learning has been shown to be very effective at promoting lasting conservation behaviors (Barr, 2003). Therefore, developing educational programming to increase citizen's knowledge and direct experience is very important to guarantee adequate water quality in the future.

Current data is needed to establish a baseline to measure the effectiveness of Extension programs that address the issues of water conservation and quality. Learning more about the degree that citizens are involved and care about water quality issues will allow Extension faculty from the Land-Grant Institutions (LGI's) and other educational organizations to target citizens and citizen groups that are lacking in involvement and to formulate the best strategies to increase citizen participation.

In order to evaluate the degree of current citizen involvement in water resources issues in New England, a public opinion survey was developed and conducted in May of 2005. This survey was based on a template developed in the Pacific Northwest (Mahler, Simmons, Sorensen, & Miner, 2004; Mahler, Simmons, & Sorensen, 2005). This article focuses on citizen actions taken to preserve or conserve water quality in the New England region.

Materials and Methods

A 53-question survey was designed to assess public attitudes about water issues in the New England states. This article focuses on the following four questions from the survey that address specific actions of survey respondents:

Q-1. How important is involving citizens in collecting water quality information in protecting our water resources? (Circle one answer)

• Not important
• Somewhat important
• No opinion
• Very important
• Extremely important

Q-2. Have you or someone in your household done any of the following as part of an individual or community effort to conserve or preserve water quality? (Circle all that apply)

• Changed the way your yard is landscaped
• Changed how often you water your yard
• Changed your use of pesticides, fertilizers, or other chemicals
• Pumped your septic system (if you have one)
• Tested your drinking water

Q-3. Have you participated in any of the following activities? (Circle all that apply)

• Master Gardener program
• Volunteer water quality monitoring
• Lake, river, or bay protection groups
• Town conservation commissions
• Other water or environmental protection groups

Q-4. If you had the following kinds of learning opportunities available, which would you be most likely to take advantage of for water quality issues? (Circle up to three items)

• Read printed fact sheets, bulletins, or brochures
• Visit a web site for information and tips
• Attend a short course
• Look at a demonstration or display
• Read a newspaper article or series
• Watch TV coverage
• Watch a video of information
• Take part in a one time volunteer activity to learn or do something (for example, water monitoring, streamside restoration or education)
• Take a course for certification or credit
• Get trained for a regular volunteer position (for example, as a watershed steward or water quality monitor)
• Learn how to conduct a home, farm, or workplace water practices assessment
• Attend a fair or festival

The four survey questions discussed in this article were developed for similar surveys used in other regions of the U.S. In addition to the questions, gender, age, education level, state of residence, and community size data were also collected. Surveys were sent to residents in each state on a proportional population basis using the Dillman survey methodology (Dillman, 2000). Residents in each of the six states were identified through a list of randomly selected residents purchased from a commercial survey business (survey Sampling International, Fairfield, CT). A target response rate (50%) was designed to be achieved through four mailings using the Dillman mail survey methodology (Salant & Dillman, 1994). The first mailing took place in March of 2005, and the survey process was completed by the end of June.

Survey answers were coded and entered into Microsoft Excel. Incorrect and missing data were assigned the numbers 8 and 9, respectively, and were excluded from the statistical analysis. The survey data were analyzed on two levels using SAS (SAS, 2000). The first level of analysis was a basic data summary that provided the number and percentage of respondents for each question. The second level consisted of constructing contingency tables (cross tabulation) to determine if specific demographics (i.e., age, community size, etc.) affected responses to particular questions. A chi-square distribution was used to test significance (0.05).

Results and Discussion

The overall survey achieved a return rate of 43.8 %, and return rates for the individual states ranged from 37.0% to 51.4% (Table 1). The return rate was deemed high enough that the estimated margin of error was only +/-3%.

More males than females returned the survey (63% vs. 37%) even though half of the surveys initially mailed were sent to females. The respondents were older and better educated than the population of New England, based on recent census data.

Approximately 21% of respondents were under 40 years of age, 45% were between the ages of 40 and 60, and 34% of residents were older than 60 years. Twenty-five percent of respondents had completed some college, 30% graduated from a 4-year college, and 27% reported to have obtained an advanced degree. Only 19% of respondents had a high school education or less. Most respondents lived in communities having populations between 7,000 and 25,000 or 25,000 and 100,000 residents (64% of respondents). The demographic factors of state of residence, age, and community size most often influenced responses to questions addressing actions of respondents.

Citizens as Data Collectors

It is important to involve citizens in the collection of water quality data because it can help to educate the general public and increase awareness about water quality issues (Nerbonne & Nelson, 2004). Approximately 55% of respondents felt that involving citizens in collecting water quality information was very or extremely important. This response is important because it indicates that New England residents realize that citizen participation is an important part of protecting water resources.

The demographic factors of state of residence, age, and community size were not significantly related to the importance of involving citizens in collecting water quality information. Gender was a significant factor: 62% of females vs. 50% of males felt that it was very or extremely important to involve citizens in collecting water quality information.

Citizen Actions

Citizens taking direct actions towards protecting and improving water quality is important because these actions indicate awareness of water quality issues and responses indicate that citizens may place a high value on protecting water resources. Almost half of surveyed respondents indicated that they had changed how often they watered their yard. Forty-three percent had changed the way they used pesticides, fertilizers, or other chemicals; 32% had pumped their septic system; and 28% had changed how their yard was landscaped (Table 2).

These reported actions are high and encouraging because they show that a substantial portion of citizens desire to protect water resources, and, consequently, desires are translating into actions. Changing how often a yard is watered and changing use of pesticides and fertilizers may even be economically motivated (money-saving) actions for some residents. However, even if economics are not the primary motivation, the results indicate that the desire to protect water resources is worth the change in action for many people. The response to the septic system pumping question was excellent as the value reported is close to the actual percentage of residents that are on septic systems for sewage disposal (Wawrzynek & Mahler, unpublished data). Changing the way a yard is landscaped was the least popular action, which may be due to the cost and/or intensive labor involved.

Both state of residence and age had an impact on actions toward changing the way yards were watered. Residents of Massachusetts and Connecticut were most likely to change how often they watered their yard (Table 3). Urban states (MA, CT) are more likely to contain cities and communities that place restrictions on yard watering in an effort to conserve municipal water supplies. Conversely, residents of the more rural states of Maine and Vermont would be least likely to have yard watering restrictions explaining the lower percentage of change.

Age also influenced responses regarding changes in yard management. Residents older than 40 years were most likely to change how often they water their yard (Table 4) and their use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals. Respondents aged 30 years or less were least likely to change their approach to water use, pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals.

Water Activity Participation

Research has shown that access to opportunities such as becoming a member of an environmental group helps citizens develop a greater sense of environmental responsibility for their community and increases their likelihood that they will engage in environmental/conservation actions (Barr, 2003). When asked about participation in specific activities, less than 12% of New England residents had participated in any of the activities listed in survey question three (Table 5). The survey respondents who had participated in one or more of the listed activities were 30% more likely to have changed actions to protect water resources (Table 2) than the 71% of citizens who had not participated in an activity noted in Table 5.

The demographic factor of community size affected respondent participation in lake, river, or bay protection groups. The rate of citizen participation was 12.2, 11.5, 11.4, 5.1, and 2.9% for community sizes of <3,500, 3,500 - 7,000, 7,000 - 25,000, 25,000 - 100,000, and >100,000, respectively. Even though the percentages of participating respondents in larger communities was less in smaller communities, the number of participating respondents in the large communities was actually numerically greater due to the higher population of potential participants.

It should also be noted that education level also affected residents' participation in lake, river, and bay protection groups. Participation in these groups increased with increasing education level (2.2% high school graduates vs. 12.2% college graduates). This is logical because it is more likely that residents with more formal education would have increased awareness of these activities and groups, and their importance and, therefore, are more likely to participate in them. The increased affluence of college graduates may also result in more discretional time that can be devoted to volunteer activities.

Learning Opportunities

Determining preference for the types of learning opportunities will help Extension determine the appropriate outreach activities that maximize the effectiveness of delivery, time, and monetary resources. Fifty-five percent of respondents indicated that they were interested in learning about water by reading printed fact sheets, bulletins, or brochures (Table 6). In addition, 43% were interested in reading a newspaper article or series, 42% would visit a Web site for information, and 37% were interested in television as a source for water resources information.

Age significantly affected a resident's interest in obtaining water resources information from newspapers. In general, residents older than 40 years of age were more likely to read a newspaper compared to residents younger than 40 years of age (Table 7). The demographic factor of age also affected residents' willingness to visit a Web site for information. Residents younger than 40 years of age were most likely to visit a Web site, residents greater than 60 were least interested, while residents between 40 and 60 were intermediate in interest level. This is most likely due to older residents being less familiar with the Internet. Consequently, older respondents rely on the more traditional media sources such as newspapers for water quality issue information.

Education level also affected residents' willingness to visit a Web site for water-related information. Residents claiming to have completed a bachelor or advanced college degree were more likely to visit a Web site than residents with less formal education (49% vs. 27%). Residents with more formal education are more likely to have Internet access at home or at work.

Conclusion

It is encouraging that 50% of survey respondents had changed their yard watering practices and 43% had changed their use of pesticides. Working with those residents who have already changed their actions or are willing to change their actions may be a key to influencing residents who have yet to take action.

Only 12% of respondents indicated that they were actively participating in water quality or other environmental protection groups. This does not indicate that residents do not care about water resources issues, but rather may indicate that they are simply not aware of the types of opportunities available. Research shows that citizens are most likely to join these types of groups if they are visible as well as easily accessible. Therefore, the number of residents participating in these groups can be increased through outreach and programming that publicizes these groups and provides citizens with information on how they can become involved. Education level also affected resident's involvement in water protection and environmental groups. The infrastructure for all citizens to become involved is already in place (e.g., watershed groups, voluntary monitoring, Master Gardeners, NEMO, etc), so the challenge becomes delivering this information in a user-friendly fashion to citizens without a college education.

The survey findings support many of the pre-existing educational efforts by Land-Grant Institutions (LGI) in the New England states; however, many of the findings presented in this article suggest both new foci and delivery strategies. The survey results have been presented to the LGI water quality coordinators in the region. In response to this information, Extension delivery of water programs is being modified and enhanced. An example is the increased availability of pdf-based materials on the regional Web site <http://www.usawaterquality.org/NewEngland>. The Extension coordinators have also developed a common set of messages that can be delivered across the six-state region that improve coordination and enhance educational programming.

References

Barr, S. (2003). Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behavior. Area 35 (3): 227-241.

Beierle, T. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review 16: (3/4):75-104.

Campbell, H., Johnson, R., & & Larson, E. Hunt. (2004). Prices, devices, people, or rules: The relative effectiveness of policy instruments in water conservation. Review of Policy Research 21 (5): 637-662.

Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, New York.

Leach, W., & Pelkey, N. (2001). Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 127

(6):378-386.

Mahler, R. L., Simmons, R., & Sorensen, F. (2005). Drinking water issues in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(6) Article 6RIB6. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005december/rb6.shtml

Mahler, R. L., Simmons, R., Sorensen, F., & Miner, J. R. (2004). Priority water issues in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Extension. [On line], 42(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004october/rb3.shtml

Nerbonne, J., & Nelson, K. (2004). Volunteer macro invertebrate monitoring in the United States: Resource mobilization and comparative state structures. Society and Natural Resources 17 (9): 817-839.

Salant, P., & Dillman, D. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 10-55.

SAS (2000). SAS/STAT Users Guide, Volume 8. SAS Publishing Company. Carey, North Carolina.

How Do Forest Landowners Desire to Learn About Forest Certification?

David C. Mercker
Extension Forester
Jackson, Tennessee
dcmercker@utk.edu

Donald G. Hodges
Professor Forest Economics
Knoxville, Tennessee
dhodges2@utk.edu

The University of Tennessee

Introduction

Forest certification is a relatively new development. Unlike certification in other industrial sectors, forest certification deals not with the final product, but with the practice of forestry, its growth, harvesting, and ecological impact after the trees have been removed from the site (Klingberg, 2003). Forest certification is gradually gaining widespread attention by a variety of stakeholders, including environmentalists, policy makers, professional foresters, social activists, loggers, and the public (Viana, Jamison, Donovan, Elliot, & Gholz, 1996; Mater, 1999).

The situation for forest certification in the United States is somewhat unique when compared to the global picture, in that such a large percentage of the total forest area in the U.S. is under nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) ownership. In 2003, more than 10.3 million NIPF landowners in the U. S. controlled 42% of the nation's forest land. The largest portion of the nation's total forest land is located east of the Mississippi River, where 88% of all NIPF owners are located (Butler & Leatherberry, 2004).

Even more significant is the strong regional identity of the 13 southeastern states. NIPF landowners in this region number 5 million and control 89% of the forest area (Wear & Greis, 2002). Further, nearly 60% of the nation's timber production is produced by these 13 states, with a striking 18% of the world's industrial timber products originating from the region (Prestemon & Abt, 2002). Wood production in the southeast is expected to increase by over 50% between 1995 and 2040, or an average of 1.6% per year (Prestemon & Abt, 2002; Wear & Greis, 2002).

The timber resources of the southeastern region of the U. S. are essential to both regional and global economies. This region will retain the distinction as the single largest producer of timber products in the world (Prestemon & Abt, 2002). Uniquely, these lands are principally owned, controlled, managed, purchased, and sold by NIPF landowners.

Some stakeholders are beginning to debate the necessity of implementing forest certification on NIPFs. This ownership group is particularly important in Tennessee, where it comprises 79% of the state's 14.4 million acres (5.8 million hectares). Moreover, these forests contribute more than 84% of the state's annual hardwood removal volume (Schweitzer, 2000). NIPFs are also vital for the protection of the state's soil, water, and wildlife resources, and for the production of non-timber goods and services.

Having a good knowledge of certification is a precondition for NIPF landowner participation in it. Without sufficient knowledge of certification, landowner involvement is not likely, no matter how good the certification system. Dissemination of the information via various education methods is essential (Lindström, Hansen, & Juslin, 1999).

If NIPF landowners are to be included in certification, a better understanding is needed of how this ownership category desires to be educated. Considerable variation exists in NIPF landowner's preferences on educational methods. Pennsylvania forest landowners prefer active educational delivery methods over passive, including workshops and demonstrations rather than Web sites, videos, and correspondence courses (Downing & Finley, 2005). If delineated by demographic sectors, would the results differ?

In contrast, South Carolina's private longleaf pine landowners ranked the more passive newsletters and publications over field tours and workshops when stating their preference for educational delivery methods about longleaf pine (Radhakrishna, Nelson, Franklin, & Kessler, 2003). Only 18.7% of Michigan farmers prefer computer or internet courses such as software packages, e-mail, and the World Wide Web to learn more about watershed conservation, and those most interested in this method are younger, are more educated, and have high gross annual income (Howell & Habron, 2004).

For educators to best target efforts to inform landowners about forest certification, the methods landowners prefer to be educated, as well as who among them will consider certification, must be understood. Therefore the goals of the study reported here were to:

1. Establish baseline sociodemographic data for the NIPF landowners in the study area;


2. Determine forest landowners' preferences for certification education methods (as an entire population);


3. Determine the desired methods of education among only those landowners most willing to consider certifying their forest land; and


4. Narrow the educational focus to those landowners with characteristics that can be captured.

Study Area

The project represents a regional study in western Tennessee and includes 9 counties within the 18-county Forest Inventory and Analysis West Tennessee Region. The nine counties were selected because they represent 70% of the total forest area in the region (Schweitzer, 2000). Three counties were randomly selected from the list of nine for survey purposes. The three counties include 564,300 acres of forest land for an average percent forest cover of 47.8 per county.

Methodology

Mail surveys were used for data collection to allow coverage of a large geographical area in a cost-effective manner. The database of landowners was obtained from the Tennessee State Division of Property Assessment. Only landowners controlling 40 acres or more of forest land were targeted for the study. A draft version of the questionnaire was developed and pre-tested. Refinements were made based on feedback received.

In August 2004, 1,153 landowners were sent a postcard notifying them of the project and the intent of the research. The questionnaire was mailed 2 weeks later. 1Landowners were assured that the information would be kept strictly confidential. A reminder postcard was mailed, followed by a second questionnaire to the non-respondents, then another reminder postcard. The Dillman Tailored Design method was followed as closely as possible (Dillman, 2000). The respondents were given the opportunity to receive a summary of the results for participating in the study. One hundred and three of the questionnaires were determined ineligible and were removed from the list, bringing the eligible target population to 1,050. The final number of usable returned questionnaires was 532, with a total response rate of 50.7%.

After reading a definition of forest certification, participants were asked a binary (yes/no) question of their willingness to consider certification. This became the prominent dependent variable from which the educational variables were examined. Chi-square tests were used to examine relationships between variables when the data were ordinal scale, and Spearman's correlation when data were interval. Results were reported as statistically significant when P ≤ .05.

Results

Sociodemographics

The average forest ownership size was 217 acres (Table 1), and the median was 122 acres. Most landowners purchased their land, have owned it 21 years, and intended to retain it for more than 15 years. In general, most landowners indicated that they own their land so that it can be passed on to their children or heirs, to enjoy the scenery, to supply food and habitat for wildlife, and as a long-term investment (Table 2). Seven out of 10 landowners have harvested trees from their land, and of those, one-third used a professional forester.

The owners, on the average, were 61 years of age, with 70% being 50 years or older. Most had at least some post high school education, with one-third being college graduates. Over 40% of the owners were retired, with an additional 43% either professional or owning a business/farm. Less than one in 10 were employed as a craftsman or blue collar worker. Younger landowners had higher education and desired to stay up-to-date with new forestry practices and programs.

Landowners were asked to read the following definition of forest certification and answer the questions that followed:

Forest certification means that forests are managed in a sustainable manner and that trees are harvested with environmentally sound practices. These management practices are certified by objective third parties. Landowner participation is voluntary.

Most landowners were not familiar with forest certification, but when presented with this definition, 81% indicated that they were willing to consider it.

Preferred Methods of Landowner Education

Using a scale (1= not useful and 5 = very useful), participants indicated the usefulness of 10 different methods of learning about forest certification. This question was directed to all participants, even those not willing to consider certification. Based on mean score, the top two preferences were talking with a professional forester and publications/books/pamphlets. The two least preferred were video conference and evening workshop (Table 3).

The results broadened when the 10 different methods of learning about certification were analyzed against only those landowners who would consider certification (Table 4). Landowners willing to consider certification indicated that all methods of education would be useful (P<0.0001).

Table 4.
Significant Relationships Between Preferred Methods of Learning About Certification and Landowners Who Are Willing to Consider It

Method of Education	Chi-Square	P Value	n
Active methods
Talk with a forester or professional	113.61	<0.0001	408
Talk with other woodland owners	72.44	<0.0001	389
On-site forestry field day	61.07	<0.0001	388
Evening workshop	66.17	<0.0001	376
Video conference	45.52	<0.0001	360
Passive methods
Publications, books, pamphlets	114.68	<0.0001	403
Newsletters, magazines, or newspapers	86.18	<0.0001	397
Video tapes for home viewing	84.68	<0.0001	387
Television or radio programs	44.19	<0.0001	377
Web site that explains the process	44.67	<0.0001	376
Sampled landowners in three west Tennessee counties.

Narrowing the Educational Focus

Five sociodemographic variables were identified as being significantly related to landowner's willingness to consider certification. These included landowners who: (1) were well educated (Χ²=25.95, P<.0001), 2) were new at land ownership (Χ²= 74.74, P=0.0478), 3) were professionals (Χ²=22.14; P=0.0047), 4) have received forestry advice or information (Χ²=14.34, P=0.0002), 5) desired to stay up to date with new forestry practices and programs (Χ²=36.61, P<.0001).

Of these five variables, two can be more easily captured, then targeted, for educational programs. They include new owners (lists available from tax assessor office), and those who have received forestry advice and information (lists available from state, consulting, and industrial foresters). An analysis of the 10 preferred educational methods with these two sociodemographic variables indicated that landowners who had received advice or information about their forest would accept all methods of education. New owners, however, were more selective in their educational preference. They chose the active methods of talking with a forester or professional, talking with other woodland owners, and visiting an on-site forestry field day, and the passive methods of viewing a video at home, and visiting a Web site (Table 5).

Conclusion and Implication

Not all NIPF landowners will certify their forest land, but a facet (81%) indicated they would at least consider it. Educational focus should be with those landowners having the characteristics most favorable toward considering certification. Five sociodemographic variables were identified as significantly related to landowner's willingness to certify, including landowners who: 1) were well educated, 2) were new at land ownership, 3) were professionals, 4) have received forestry advice or information, and 5) desired to stay up to date with new forestry practices and programs.

Two of these variables can be isolated and should become the focus for NIPF education efforts about certification. The first variable includes new landowners. Landowner names in this group can be obtained through tax assessor records. The second variable includes landowners who have received forestry advice or information about forestry. The contact information for many of these landowners should be available through the records of state employed and consulting foresters.

A clear picture emerged of how these two groups desired to be educated about certification. These landowners preferred the passive methods of visiting a Web site and viewing a video tape at home, and the active methods of attending an on-site forestry field day, talking with a forester, and talking with other woodland owners.

For passive methods, forest certification can be explained via digital video. By visiting certified state forests and select NIPF lands, certification concepts can be video taped then streamlined into a Web site or reproduced for home videos or DVDs. Each educational method could explain certification principles plus include action steps on how landowners can become certified.

Active methods of certification education require that landowners not only hear the message but participate in observing it. Because landowners indicated a preference for learning about certification from professional foresters and other landowners, these two groups should be educated about certification via a train-the-trainer approach. The State Division of Forestry and consulting foresters were the two objective third parties most preferred as potential third party forest certifiers. Extension should develop educational programs for these foresters as well as for select, highly motivated landowners, to train and equip them on the purpose and process of certifying NIPF landowners. Such individuals regularly have direct contact with NIPF landowners and can explain and demonstrate forest certification concepts.

The other active method of education included on-site forestry field days. Partnerships between county forestry associations, the State Division of Forestry, Extension, and consulting foresters can develop forestry field days that give NIPF landowners hands-on view of certification. State forest sites should be used because they provide an excellent, standard-setting example.

Subsequent research to analyze successful enrollment into certification based on the five forms of active and passive educational methods is needed. This would allow for streamlined duplication on a regional and perhaps national scale.

References

Butler, B. J., & Leatherberry, E. C. (2004). American's family forest owners. Journal of Forestry, 102(7), 4-9.

Downing, A., & Finley, J. (2005). Private forest landowners: What they want in an educational program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(1) Article 1RIB4. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/rb4.shtml

Howell, J. L., & Habron, G. B. (2004). Agricultural landowners' lack of preference for Internet Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/a7.shtml

Klingberg, T. (2003). Certification of forestry: A small-scale forester perspective. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 2(3), 409-421.

Lindström, T., Hansen, E., & Juslin, H. (1999). Forest certification: The view from Europe's NIPFs. Journal of Forestry, 97 (3), 25-30.

Mater, C. (1999). Understanding forest certification: Answers to key questions. Pinchot Institute for Conservation. Washington, DC.

Prestemon, J. P., & Abt, R. C. (2002). The Southern timber market to 2040. Journal of Forestry, 100(7), 16-22.

Radhakrishna, R., Nelson, L., Franklin, R., & Kessler, G. (2003). Information sources and Extension delivery methods used by private longleaf pine landowners. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/rb3.shtml

Schweitzer, C. J. (2000). Forest statistics for west Tennessee, 1997. U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Resource Bulletin SRS-41. Southern Research Station. Asheville, NC.

Viana, V. M., Jamison, E., Donovan, R. Z., Elliot, C. & Gholz, H. (1996). Certification of forest products: Issues and perspectives. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Wear, D. N., & Greis, J. G. (2002). The southern forest resource assessment summary report. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Asheville, NC.

Development and Impact of an Extension Web Site

J. J. Wiersma
Assistant Extension Professor
Department of Agronomy & Plant Genetics and Northwest Research and Outreach Center
University of Minnesota
Crookston, Minnesota
wiers002@umn.edu

When Carrascal, Pau, and Reiner (1995) reviewed the potential of the Internet for information transfer in agriculture, the authors concluded that the Internet offered great opportunities for information dissemination in agriculture and suggested that Extension Services should take the lead to adopt the Internet. In the spring of 1995, the author started the development of a Web site dedicated to wheat and barley production.

The concept of the Small Grains Web site, hereafter referred to as "Small Grains," was not only to be a library of production information but rather to create a digital platform of news, weather, markets, and production information dedicated to wheat and barley (Figure 1). The goal Small Grains was to create access to timely and accurate production information, thereby empowering wheat and barley producers in Minnesota and North Dakota to find answers to their wheat and barley production related questions.

Figure 1.
The Design of Small Grains in 1997

This article reports the results of an evaluation to determine 1) whether, after nearly a decade, Small Grains has reached the intended users, 2) whether it has met the informational needs of those users, and 3) whether those same users learned from the information provided on Small Grains.

Materials & Methods

To evaluate the impact of Small Grains as an educational program, a voluntary mail and online survey were conducted in the fall of 2003. The mail survey was sent to 500 producers in both Minnesota and North Dakota, respectively. These producers were selected at random from a mailing list of all producers who paid the wheat check-off at least once in the previous 3 years. The online survey was placed prominently on the home page of Small Grains.

The survey questions and wording of answers were developed with assistance the University of Minnesota's Center for Survey Research and piloted on a small group of producers. The mail and online surveys consisted of 13 multiple choice questions. The mail and online survey shared 11 questions. The question about the occupation of the respondent had additional choices in the online survey, while the question about the residence of the respondents in the online survey was substituted with the question whether they had heard of Small Grains (Table 1, in "Results & Discussion"). The online survey form was developed with Quask's Form Artist (Quask, 81 Coast Avenue, Suite 324, New Canaan, CT 06840). The mail survey included a pre-paid envelop with the return address to facilitate the survey.

No special announcements, advertisements, or reminders were posted on Small Grains or mailed to the randomly selected producers to promote participation in either the online or mail survey. If the respondents to the mail survey had not heard of Small Grains, they were asked not to complete the remainder of the survey.

The results of the online and mail survey were tabulated with Form Artist. To allow comparisons between the mail and online surveys, all results were expressed on a percentage basis of the total number of respondents to each individual question. Non-respondents were not included in the results, nor were the mail survey respondents that did not know of Small Grains prior to the survey included in the data analysis of the remaining survey questions.

Results & Discussion

The mail survey was mailed on September 1, 2003, and replies received prior to December 31, 2003 were included in the results. Using cookies, the visitors to Small Grains were able to submit a survey once between September 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003. The mail survey yielded 194 responses, or 19.4% of the number of surveys mailed. The online survey yielded 112 responses, or approximately 1% of unique visitors to the site in the period of September 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. The response rates are difficult to interpret, because there is little data available to compare the attained online response rate with. In a similar study, Walker and Holden (2000) reported a response rate of 10% to their online survey. However, the authors announced their online survey in topic-related discussion groups and e-mail distribution lists. In the study reported here, similar venues to promote the survey were largely unavailable and posed the risk of introducing bias.

No efforts were made to exclude mail survey recipients from answering the online survey, but we assumed that participants would complete this 20-minute survey only once as no rewards or prices were awarded. Nonetheless, it is conceivable that mail survey recipients answered the online survey and skewed the results of the mail survey; most likely those recipients of the mail survey who answered the online survey rather than the mail survey are early adopters of the Internet and more frequent users of Small Grains.

Likewise, it may have been possible for individuals to answer the online survey multiple times by using different computers and avoiding being recognized by the cookie that was generated a previous time. Again, we assumed that participants would complete the survey only once as no rewards or prices were awarded. Given the marked differences between the two surveys, the results are presented separately in Table 1.

Usage statistics of Small Grains were collected between January 1, 1997 and August 31, 2001 (Figure 2). From the small beginnings in 1995, the average number of user sessions had increased to slightly more than 2,000 unique user sessions per month just 2 years later. By the fall of 2001, this number had increased to more than 16,000 unique user sessions per month. This equals a doubling of the number of unique user sessions each year.

Figure 2.
Average Number of Unique User Sessions per Month for Small Grains Between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2001

Small Grains is largely used by the target audience. Of the online respondents, 85% (N=95) live in Minnesota/Northern Plains, and 68% (N=76) of these respondents are producers and crop consultants (Table 1, Items 1 and 2). Nearly 80% (N=29 and N=83) of both mail survey and online respondents had known the site longer than 1 year. Seventy two percent (N=81) of the online respondents visit the sites a couple of times a month or more versus 48% (N=23) of the mail survey respondents (Table 1, Item 8). This indicates that Small Grains is a valued source of information for wheat and barley production.

When asked 'How did you learn about Small Grains' the online survey respondents showed a more diverse response, with 19% (N=21) of the respondents arriving via a link at another web site or with the help of a search engine like Google (Table 1, Item 7). The results of both the mail and online survey show that the audience learned about Small Grains mainly through professional communications (i.e. trade journals and colleagues). The responses clearly indicate that creating awareness and/or promotion of a web site in other media is therefore important.

When asked "What information about wheat and barley do you need most," both the mail and online survey respondents indicated similar needs (Table 1, Item 3). Specific information about growing wheat and barley was the highest need for 44% (N=85) of the mail survey respondents and 46% (N=52) of the online survey respondents. Market news was the second highest need for both mail survey and online survey respondents, with 29% (N=57) and 24% (N=27), respectively. Both mail and online survey respondents indicated that local weather and general information about wheat and barley production were the least important needs.

However, when asked how the respondents used Small Grains, 55% (N=62) of online survey respondents used the site for general information about wheat and barley, 54% (N=60) used the site for the latest agricultural news, and 50% (N=56) used the site for the latest market updates (Table 1, Item 9). Detailed production information was important for 38% (N=43) of the online survey respondents and detailed market analysis accounted for 28% (N=31) of the visits. Of the mail survey respondents, 45% (N=21) used Small Grains for the latest market information, 38% (N=18) used the site for general information about wheat and barley, and 36% (N=17) used the site for the latest agricultural news. While 28% (N=13)of the mail survey respondents used the detailed market analysis information, only 19% (N=9) used Small Grains for detailed production information.

The answers to these two survey questions point to a discrepancy between the information needs and the information use. Both the mail and online survey respondents indicated that detailed production information and market information are most needed (Table 1, Item 3). The same respondents, however, value the general information about wheat and barley and the latest agricultural news higher than either the market information or detailed p