Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
348833069
label
Project Information: Farm A Syst [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
348833069
contentType
document
title
Project Information: Farm A Syst [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration)
AmeriCorps Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
348833069
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
311842741-20130661F-Seg3-033-002-2023
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
09e7320e9d38293a
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2013-0661-F
(3)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Americorps
Series/Staff Member:
General Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
24233
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Project Information: Farm A Syst [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
66
1
3
1
HOMALST NATI ERVICE A LVN A A M DENICOME
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
AN EVALUATION OF
THE FARMSTEAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
IN CRITICAL MICHIGAN WATERSHEDS
FINAL REPORT
Submitted to: Michigan Department of Agriculture
Submitted by: Christina Coulon, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
NATIONALS * IN TIONAL SE ERICOR A COMPLE
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
AN EVALUATION OF
THE FARMSTEAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
IN CRITICAL MICHIGAN WATERSHEDS
FINAL REPORT
Submitted to: Michigan Department of Agriculture
Submitted by: Christina Coulon, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page Number
1.
Background
1
2.
Objectives of Evaluation
2
3.
The Evaluative Study
2
4.
Rationale
2
5.
Design
3
6.
Data Collection
4
7.
Data Analysis
4
8.
Findings-Survey
5
9.
Findings-Tally Sheets
8
10.
Discussion
9
11.
Conclusion and Recommendations
13
12.
References
15
13.
Tables
14.
Appendices
BACKGROUND
In 1994, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service took a leading role in
groundwater protection by launching their USDA/AmeriCorps Farm*A*Syst program.
AmeriCorps, a national service program similar to the Peace Corps, provides volunteers to
communities that have identified unmet needs. The Natural Resources Conservation Service saw
an opportunity to advance groundwater protection efforts by using AmeriCorps members in the
communities it serves. The USDA/AmeriCorps members delivered the Farmstead Assessment
System, more commonly known as Farm*A*Syst, a risk assessment of farmstead structures and
practices for their potential to contaminate groundwater. The USDA/AmeriCorps program
began in October, 1994 and concluded in September, 1995.
Six watersheds were identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service as having
characteristics most favorable for groundwater contamination. These characteristics include soil
type, geology, pesticide and fertilizer sales, incidence of contamination and population. The six
watersheds selected are direct drainage to Lake Michigan, the Lower Grand River, the
Kalamazoo River, the Upper Grand River, the Raisin River and the Black, Belle and Pine Rivers
(see Appendix A).
The USDA/AmeriCorps members were placed in NRCS or Michigan State University
Extension offices within these watersheds. The members began delivering Farm*A*Syst after
completing their training in November, 1994. They used a variety of methods to solicit
participants in the Farm*A*Syst programs, including but not limited to newspaper and newsletter
articles, phone calls, group presentations, radio and TV spots and farm visits with a District
Conservationist or Extension Agent.
When conducting an assessment, the USDA/AmeriCorps member would look at the
farming operation at the farmstead with the farmer. After discussing the different farming
activities, the USDA/AmeriCorps member and the farmer would complete the worksheets that
are part of the Farm*A*Syst packet (see Appendix B for a sample worksheet). The farmer
would only complete the worksheets pertaining to their operation, although pesticide
recertification credits were given if certain worksheets were completed. A maximum of six
recertification credits could be obtained in this manner.
1
OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
The specific objectives of the evaluation are as follows:
1)
To gauge farmers perception of personal risk from
groundwater contamination after completing a farmstead
assessment.
2)
To determine what factors are associated with making changes
to lower risk from groundwater contamination.
3)
To solicit feedback from farmers on how to improve the
USDA/AmeriCorps Farm*A*Syst program.
THE EVALUATION STUDY
Although Farm*A*Syst has been used in Michigan since the early 1990's, no
comprehensive evaluation of its effectiveness has been completed. There have been summary
reports by Michigan State University Extension agents who have had Farm*A*Syst programs
in their county, however no scientific study has been attempted.
The intent of Farm*A*Syst is to provide information to rural landowners so they can
reduce the risk from practices around the farmstead that have been identified as high risk for
groundwater contamination. To do this, it is necessary for the landowner with a high risk
situation to make a change to lower their risk. This evaluation seeks to identify factors that can
be associated with making the changes necessary to reduce high risk farmstead practices.
Knowing what these factors or variables may be can also help focus education efforts.
RATIONALE
The ultimate reason for protecting groundwater from contamination is to protect the
health of those dependant on this water for consumption. Therefore, theories of health behavior,
and more specifically, preventative health behaviors are applicable in this case. Many
explanatory theories exist, including the theory of reasoned action, the health belief model, and
the subjective utility theory (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Becker, 1974; Sutton, 1982). While these
theories are useful and supported by empirical data, they are limited in scope. They look at the
decision to adopt a health precaution as a cost-benefit decision, and assume the precaution will
be adopted if the benefits outweigh the costs. They only consider one threat to health and one
2
preventive response. They also look at the factors that influence the decision to act as functions
in an algebraic equation, allowing only the factors to change value. The factors themselves must
remain constant and no other factors may be considered.
For this evaluation, a different type of model was used to assess preventive health
behavior. The Precaution Adoption Process proposed by Neil Weinstein of Rutgers University
views precaution adoption as a process involving distinct stages. The factors influencing change
in one stage of the precaution adoption process may differ from those factors in other stages.
Change is not seen along a continuum as in the other models. However, the factors influencing
the decision to adopt a precaution may be the same as those used in the other models. These
factors include the individuals perceived susceptibility to the threat, the perceived severity of the
threat, the perceived effectiveness of the precaution and the perceived costs of adopting the
precaution. The precaution adoption process assesses the stage of precaution adoption the
individual is in and attempts to determine if the factors in question affect their standing in that
stage. This evaluation was designed to assess precaution adoption according to Weinstein's
model using the influencing factors that have been empirically tested in previous studies on
preventive health behavior.
DESIGN
This study was designed to establish which stage of precaution adoption the individual
is in after identifying a high risk situation through the farmstead assessment. The stages include:
doing nothing about the situation, deciding what to do, planning to act but not acting yet, having
already acted. The influencing variables used in the survey include general knowledge of
groundwater pollution processes, the level of personal risk, level of concern about groundwater
contamination, the perceived difficulty of remediation, the effectiveness of precautions adopted,
property values if contamination were to occur, increased awareness of groundwater
contamination and the likelihood of contamination on the individuals property. Other aspects
of risk perception were addressed but not analyzed using the stages of precaution adoption.
3
DATA COLLECTION
The data were collected by surveying all participants in USDA/AmeriCorps
Farm*A*Syst. The data collection began in May, 1995. Due to confidentiality concerns, the
USDA/AmeriCorps members were not keeping official lists of those conducting assessments.
Unfortunately, imperfect recall of those participating in the first few months of the program
resulted in 100 participants excluded from the sample. In addition, a total of 145 assessments
were conducted in classrooms or in workshops and were not included in the evaluation.
The initial mailing resulted in an approximately 30% response rate. A follow-up mailing
was conducted one month after the first mailing. This increased the response rate considerably.
A total of 795 Farmstead Assessments were conducted and a total of 550 surveys were sent out.
The survey response rate was 56%, with a total of 308 surveys returned (see Appendix C for
a sample questionaire).
Another form of data collection used included tally sheets. The USDA/AmeriCorps
member recorded the high risk areas on a sheet listing the different structures and practices
covered in the Farm*A*Syst worksheets. If a high risk practice was encountered, a mark was
made on the sheet next to the practice. Using this method of data collection was helpful in
quantifying the number of high risk situation found given the restraints of confidentiality. It was
not without problems however. Some of the USDA/AmeriCorps members were extremely
reluctant to use the tally sheets and as a result did not keep an accurate count of high risk areas.
Even with these problems, the survey results used in conjunction with the tally sheets does
provide a good basis for both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
DATA ANALYSIS
The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, more commonly
known as SPSS for Windows. Descriptive statistics were run on all responses. Cross tabulation
for the determination of comparative frequencies were conducted. Analysis of Variance, or
ANOVA, was conducted on the variables thought to influence precaution adoption, as described
in the RATIONALE portion of this report. A multiple regression was attempted on the
independent variables as they pertained to the stage of precaution adoption. Finally, percentages
of high risk areas obtained from the tally sheets were tabulated. The results of these analyses
4
follows.
FINDINGS-SURVEYS
The Farm*A*Syst evaluation had a two-fold purpose. First, the evaluation sought to
obtain general information that would be helpful for program improvement. The second purpose
was to determine what factors influenced the farmers decision to make changes in high risk
situations, based on a theoretical perspective. The findings regarding general information about
the USDA/AmeriCorps Farm*A*Syst program will be presented first.
Marketing the Farm*A*Syst program was the first major task of the USDA/AmeriCorps
member. Various marketing techniques were used to promote Farm*A*Syst, including
publishing articles in newsletters and newspapers, direct mailings, radio or television
advertisements, addressing farmers directly in meetings, posting flyers and through word-of-
mouth. The survey asked farmers through which of these venues they heard of Farm*A*Syst.
A majority of participants heard of the program through meetings, word-of-mouth or newsletters
(see table 1 for the frequency of responses chosen).
The survey included a question
addressing the value of participating in Farm*A*Syst with a USDA/AmeriCorps member. The
responses were on a scale ranging from 1 (no value) to 5 (very valuable). An overwhelming
majority of participants rated their participation as being of some value to very valuable
(94.8%). When asked if they would be interested in participating in a Farm*A*Syst type
program for other aspects of their farming operation, most respondents indicated they would be
interested (49.4%), with 38% indicating they would not. Although an undecided category was
not included, 12.7% of respondents did not answer this question or answered it by pencilling in
an undecided category.
As the USDA/AmeriCorps member worked one-on-one with the farmer, a question was
included in the survey asking the farmer to rate the AmeriCorps member. A five point scale
ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) was used. A total of 96% of respondents rated the
assistance provided by the USDA/AmeriCorps member as good, very good or excellent.
There was interest in learning which agencies or individuals the farmer wanting to make
changes referred to for assistance. A list of options was given with the respondent instructed
to choose all options that applied. The results indicated that Michigan State University
5
Extension was consulted the most frequently, followed by the Soil and Water Conservation
Districts (see table 2 for a list of responses and frequencies).
To provide the most effective program possible it is necessary to know what those
involved in the program would most like as services. A question was asked about what other
assistance the respondent would like to have provided by the USDA/AmeriCorps member. The
results of this question are listed in table 3, with water testing and financial assistance being the
most popular responses.
The intent of Farm*A*Syst is to identify farmstead structures or management practices
that could result in groundwater contamination. It is hoped that the farmer will make some
change in those areas posing high risks as a result of the knowledge gained during the
Farm*A*Syst process. The evaluation focused on the high risk areas identified and the changes
made as a result.
When asked to recall the high risk area on their farmstead, about half of the respondents
acknowledged a high risk situation existed (56%), while 44% said no high risk situation was
present. Those having a high risk situation were asked to identify which of the Farm*A*Syst
worksheet categories the high risk situation was in. For the breakdown of these responses, see
table 4. The three most common high risk areas were petroleum product storage and handling,
pesticide storage and handling and well condition.
The question preceding the high risk area identification attempted to determine where the
respondent was in the precaution adoption process. The question asked the respondent to think
about the high risk identified that was of most concern to him or her. It was encouraging to find
that not a single respondent thought the high risk situation was unimportant. Many of the
respondents had already made changes (22.4%). Of those not making changes, most people
cited financial reasons for this decision. A cross-tabulation of the reasons for not making
changes with the high risk area was generated in an attempt to determine the frequency of
reasons given for not making changes with the practice in question (see table 5). Further
analysis was carried out to determine if the high risk area cited was correlated with where the
respondent is at in the precaution adoption process (see table 6).
The stage the respondent was at in the precaution adoption process was compared with
the variables thought to influence the decision to adopt precautions. The ANOVA test was used
6
to ascertain if the dependent variables (those thought to influence precaution adoption) could be
a factor in the variance of the responses. The stages of precaution adoption were divided into
two categories, Stage 1 and Stage 2. Stage 1 includes the decision that action is not needed,
being undecided about what to do and planning to act. Stage 2 includes the phases of planning
to act and having already acted. From responses received it seems only the variables 'level of
concern about groundwater contamination' and 'difficulty of remediation' can account for
variance in the stage of precaution adoption with any level of certainty (see table 7).
A question was included asking the respondent what type of assistance would be helpful
in making changes in areas where they have not already. A list of different types of assistance
was given. Cost-share was selected most frequently, followed by technical design/engineering
(see table 8).
Other findings of interest in the evaluation include the respondents awareness of the
negative health effects possible from groundwater contamination and the perceived severity these
effects. Not surprisingly, cancer was most frequently associated with contaminated groundwater
(see table 9). What was surprising, however, was that 20% of the respondents did not select
any of the negative health effects, instead leaving this question blank. There were two questions
addressing the perceived severity of health problems resulting from groundwater contamination.
When asked if they agreed that the health problems from polluted groundwater could be severe,
86.5% either agreed or strongly agreed. However, when asked how severe the health problems
from contaminated groundwater could be, 38.6% said they would be minor, while only 33.4%
said they would be serious.
Risk perception is directly related to whether or not someone will adopt precautions to
protect their health. A number of questions on the evaluation addressed this area. The
perception of risk was broken down into perceived risk to the respondent and his or her family,
and the perception of risk to others or the community. A question asked if groundwater
pollution is a problem in general, a problem for other or a problem for themselves (they were
allowed to chose as many options as desired). A majority of respondents did believe that it is
a problem (51.9%), and more respondents thought it a problem for themselves (43.5%) than for
others (32.1%). However, when asked this question a slightly different way further on in the
survey, a majority of respondents indicated that their families risk from groundwater
7
contamination is low (81.2%) versus believing others may be at risk from groundwater pollution
(86.1% either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement). Similarly, most respondents did
not believe their drinking water was likely to be contaminated from farmstead practices (81.3%)
although they did acknowledge risks of groundwater pollution from practices around the
farmstead are a problem (65.3% either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement).
Knowing someone negatively affected by the issue in question can influence ones
perception of risk. Two questions attempted to measure this in the survey. Most people did
not know someone that had problems caused by groundwater pollution (79.5%), and most had
not themselves had problems because of contaminated groundwater (95.5%). Having some
knowledge of groundwater dynamics also can influence risk perception. Three general questions
designed to measure knowledge were asked. Most of the respondents did know that what they
do may effect another's drinking water. They also know that the physical characteristics of the
land play a part in how fast contaminants reach groundwater. In addition, they know that when
groundwater does become polluted it is very difficult to clean up.
Another factor believed to affect an individuals likelihood to adopt a health precaution
is their perceived ability to effectively change the situation. Two questions attempted to
determine this quality and the results indicate that most participants in Farm*A*Syst believe the
precautions they can take to protect their drinking water will be effective in reducing their risk
(96% either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement).
Finally, the general level of concern about groundwater contamination was questioned.
A majority of people were either concerned or very concerned about groundwater pollution
(60%) but felt that the level of concern in their communities was somewhat less.
FINDINGS-TALLY SHEETS
As mentioned previously, the USDA/AmeriCorps members kept tally sheets of the high
risk situations found during assessments. Some members kept more complete records than
others, resulting in inaccurate numbers of high risk areas. However, the general trend in high
risk areas can be determined. Results from the tally sheet counts found the lack of secondary
containment for petroleum product storage to be the most frequent high risk situation.
Inadequate petroleum storage tank enclosure was the second most frequent high risk finding,
8
followed by the lack of a pesticide mixing and loading pad. The three most frequent high risk
areas are petroleum storage, pesticide storage and handling and hazardous waste management.
These findings will be compared with the survey findings in the discussion section of this report.
DISCUSSION
One of the major objectives of this evaluation is to determining the farmer's perception
of risk from contaminated groundwater. Many questions were asked in an attempt to measure
this perception, ranging from questions about risk in general to questions about personal risk.
The responses to these questions yielded some very interesting results.
Most people thought that there is some kind of general risk from contaminated
groundwater. This perception of risk seems to be amorphous, a feeling without any concrete
justification. When the risk was communicated in a more tangible form, such as the negative
health effects, the responses varied in an incongruous manner. For example, most people didn't
know that all of the negative health effects listed were possible from contaminated groundwater.
Some people felt so uncomfortable with this question that they didn't even respond. A few
respondents even went so far as to comment that one would need to be a doctor to answer the
health related questions! The questions of the perceived severity of the negative health
consequences of groundwater contamination had even more interesting twists. When asked if
the health consequences from contaminated groundwater could be serious to them, most people
said no. A few questions later in the survey, the respondents said the health consequences would
be serious. It is clear from these results that there is much ambiguity about the health problems
contaminated groundwater may cause and how severe these consequences may be. This
ambiguity may be a factor in the perception of personal risk.
Perceived severity of the negative health outcomes of certain behaviors (ie. not protecting
oneself from risk in a high risk situation) is a common variable in the various health protection
models. If the perceived severity is low than the perceived personal risk will be low. The
perception of personal risk in this evaluation was consistently low. This could mean that people
really did not think the health consequences would be severe. However, Weinstein's precaution
adoption process hypothesizes that for an individual to reach the stage of planning to act or the
stage of having acted they must perceive a higher degree of personal risk. This statement is
9
logical, a person would not be likely to invest the time, money or effort in changing a situation
that they do not see as risky. In the data analysis, a test was run to try and determine if the
perception of risk is related to the stage of precaution adoption. It was not possible to determine
a relationship with any degree of certainty. The low perception of personal risk related in this
evaluation does not support Weinstein's hypothesis. In fact, although most people saw their
personal risk as low, almost 75% of those having high risk situation were at the planning to act
or action stages.
It is interesting to learn that almost all of the respondents saw their risk as low when
indeed at least 50% of them admitted to having a high risk situation. There are many possible
explanations for this. It may be that some respondents may actually have a low risk. They may
have had a high risk situation that was easily corrected and when responding to the survey
referred to the risk present after they had taken precautionary measures. It may also be that the
questions were interpreted differently than intended. Denial of the high risk situation may be
a factor in the low risk perception. They may not agree that the risk actually is a "high" risk.
Or, it may be that they do understand they have one or more high risk situations, which
therefore should increase their perception of risk but does not because they have rationalized the
existence of this situation to fulfill a psychological need of feeling comfortable with a risky
situation. In psychology this is referred to cognitive dissonance and is a common phenomena
for maintaining a sort of mental equilibrium.
Another explanation for the low risk perception may have to do with what is referred to
by Weinstein as "optimistic bias". This is an "it won't happen to me" attitude, or unrealistic
optimism in risk perceptions. Although this was not an expected outcome of the evaluation, the
results support this bias. While respondents consistently saw their own risk as low, they
overwhelmingly perceived others risk from groundwater pollution to be high. According to
Weinstein in an article entitled "Reducing Unrealistic Optimism" there are "three processes that
may contribute to exaggerated optimism in comparative risk judgments: 1) Selective recall of
factors that reduce one's risk rather than factors that increase one's risk; 2) lack of information
about the self-protective activities of others; and 3) a failure to think very carefully about others'
risk status because of egocentrism." It is important to try and reduce this optimistic bias because
it may interfere with one's decision to take precautions in risky situations.
10
The second main objective of this evaluation is to determine which factors are associated
with making changes to lower risk from groundwater contamination. As stated earlier,
Weinstein's precaution adoption process was used to try and establish which factors may
influence where and individual is at in deciding to adopt precautions. A statistical analysis of
the variables (as listed in table 8) with the stage of precaution adoption was inconclusive. The
level of concern about groundwater contamination did seem to be associated with the stages of
planning to act and action. The difficulty of remediation also could be associated with the
stages of action not needed, undecided and planning to act. These results mean that a persons
feelings about those variables had some influence on their decision to adopt precautions. For
example, if there was a high level of concern about groundwater pollution the person would be
more likely to act than if the concern was low. Likewise, the perceived difficulty of remediation
is associated with being undecided or planning to act. Although the other findings were not
statistically significant, there did seem to be some association between some of the other
variables and the stage of precaution adoption (see table 10).
The significance of determining which factors may play a role in precaution adoption lies
in targeting education efforts. Those factors that seem to be associated with peoples decisions
should receive more attention that others in program planning. It would, however, not be
advisable to exclude the factors not shown to be significant in this study. Further research is
needed to confirm these findings.
There are other factors not explored in the theoretical framework that have an impact on
whether a farmer makes a change in a high risk situation. Most respondents said they plan to
act or have already acted to reduce the risk from the high risk practice. For the 25% that do
not plan to act, financial reasons were cited most frequently as the reason for this decision.
Referring to the tally sheet results, this reason makes sense because the most frequent high risk
findings were costly to remedy (installing a pesticide mixing and loading pad for example).
Perhaps the most interesting finding in this evaluation relates to the acknowledgement of
a high risk situation on the respondents farmstead. The survey results related that 50% of
participants acknowledged a high risk situation on their farmstead. The results from the tally
sheets, however, indicated that 70.5% of respondents had at least one high risk situation.
Furthermore, the USDA/AmeriCorps members verbally reported that nearly 100% of the
11
Farm*A*Syst participants had at least one high risk situation. It is likely that the last figure is
the most accurate of the three given the breadth and depth of the risk assessment.
This discrepancy is similar to that found with the precaution adoption questions in
relation to the risk perception questions. The possible explanations for the discrepancy is the
same. It may be the respondent did not understand what was meant by "high risk". It may be
that they understood the question but do not acknowledge to themselves that the high risk
situation exists. They may also be in a state of cognitive dissonance. Another possibility is that
they do know the high risk situation exists and admit this to themselves. However, they are not
reporting this on a survey for fear of regulatory action.
There are also many explanations for the difference between the tally sheet results and
the actual situation. As mentioned earlier, the USDA/AmeriCorps members did not keep a
complete record of the high risk findings. Also, the tally sheets were not used in the beginning
of the program. Another, more provocative explanation for the differences also exists. Upon
examination of the tally sheets, it becomes apparent that structural or physical high risk areas
are recorded more frequently than high risks that are due to management. It may be that this
is indeed the case, however it is likely that there is less difference between the two. types of
high risk areas. The landowner's intent to correct managerial high risks may result in him or
her reporting that the situation does not exist. However, physical high risk situations are
usually visible and are probably reported accurately. It may be that the USDA/AmeriCorps
member did not feel comfortable discussing management practices with the landowner, especially
if they were doing things that pose a high risk to groundwater. It is clear that this situation
warrants further research.
The last objective of this evaluation is to solicit suggestions from landowners about the
USDA/AmeriCorps Farm*A*Syst program. Surprisingly, many respondents made comments.
Most comments were positive or constructive. For example, one farmer said, "Real good
program, all landowners should be required to fill out the material." The negative comments
referred primarily to the perception of the program as more government (see Appendix D for
a summary of the comments).
The results from both the qualitative and quantitative data do indicate that the participants
of the program think that the USDA/AmeriCorps members did provide a valuable service. They
12
found Farm*A*Syst to be informative and their time with the USDA/AmeriCorps member well
spent.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings from this evaluation provides much insight into how the USDA/AmeriCorps
was received by the program participants. It seems the landowner found the USDA/AmeriCorps
member to be knowledgeable and helpful. The training the USDA/AmeriCorps members seems
to have prepared them well to promote and deliver Farm*A*Syst. Subsequent groups of
USDA/AmeriCorps members would benefit from similar training. It would be wise to focus
marketing efforts on the areas that were most successful in this program, specifically group
presentations, newsletters and word-of-mouth.
An effort should be made to provide the additional assistance the landowner requested,
such as water testing, cost-share and pesticide recertification credits. Offering these items will
not only attract more interest in conducting Farmstead Assessments, but will encourage action
for the protection of groundwater. Although confidentiality did not seem to be an overriding
concern of the landowner participating in Farm*A*Syst, the discrepancy with the results
pertaining to risk perception and "high risk areas" indicates that there may be a latent concern.
A continuing emphasis should be made about confidentiality and the voluntary, preventive nature
of Farm*A*Syst. Trust will improve over time given no breeches or perceived breeches in
confidentiality. It would be interesting to see if there is any difference in the level of trust of
the USDA/AmeriCorps member versus the groundwater technicians in the Michigan Department
of Agriculture groundwater program.
More attention needs to be given to the health issues related to contaminated groundwater
and the risks resulting from these issues. There was clearly a lack of understanding of the
different problems contaminated groundwater may cause. There was also a lack of awareness
about how others may be affected by groundwater contamination. A consistent "it won't happen
to me" attitude offers a false sense of security to the individual with that attitude and may result
in the individual failing to take preventive measures. The consequences of contaminated
groundwater at the community, state and national levels need to be communicated more
effectively. An accurate perception of risk will increase the likelihood of precaution adoption,
13
even though the findings in this evaluation do not seem to support that premise.
Future groundwater educational efforts should be targeted at those areas in the study
found to have an impact on the likelihood of adopting precautions, such as maintaining a high
level of concern about grounwater issues and communicating the difficulty of cleaning up a
contaminated area. Perception of risk and the severity of the possible health consequences may
also increase precaution adoption and should be emphasized as well.
Finally, further study needs to be conducted to try and understand the discrepancies in
this data and to hopefully gain a more accurate picture of why precautions are adopted after a
risk assessment such as Farm*A*Syst is completed.
14
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Becker, M.H. (Ed.). (1974). The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health
Education Monographs, 2(4).
Sutton, S.R. (1982). Fear arousing communications: A critical examination of theory and
research. In J.F. Eiser (Ed.), Social psychology and behavioral medicine (pp. 303-338).
New York : Wiley.
Weinstein, N.D. (1983). Reducing unrealistic optimism about illness susceptibility. Health
Psychology, 2, 11-20.
Weinstein, N.D. (1988). The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 7, 355-386.
Weinstein, N.D. & Sandman, P.M. (1992). A model of the precaution adoption process:
Evidence from home radon testing. Health Psychology, 11(3) 170-180.
15
TABLES
TABLE 1
How Farm*A*Syst participant heard of the program.
Method
Frequency
Newsletters
24.7%
Newspapers
4.5%
Radio
2.9%
Television
0.0%
Direct Mail
12.3%
Meetings
52.6%
Word-of-Mouth
30.8%
Flyer
6.2%
TABLE 2
Who was refered to for assistance in making changes.
Person or Organization
Frequency
Michigan DNR
5.8%
Michigan Dept of Agriculture
5.8%
MSU Extension
25.6%
Nat'l. Res. Conserv. Service
13.3%
Contractor
8.4%
Soil and Water Cons. District
21.1%
Farm Services Agency
9.1%
Ag Dealer
6.8%
Vocational Ag Instructor
0.0%
Farmer
9.4%
Consultant
2.9%
Health Department
5.8%
None
6.5%
TABLE 3
Other assistance desired of the USDA/AmeriCorps program.
Type of Assistance
Frequency
Water Tests
57.1%
Informational Brochures
25.6%
Soil Tests
31.8%
Soil Maps and Descriptions
16.9%
Pesticide Recertification Credits
37.7%
Cost Share
39.3%
Tax Breaks
34.1%
Pesticide Information
21.8%
TABLE 4
Farm*A*Syst worksheet area found to have a high risk.
Area
Frequency
Well Condition
8.4%
Pesticide Storage & Handling
16.6%
Fertilizer Storage & Handling
4.2%
Petroleum Product Storage
21.8%
Hazardous Waste Management
1.0%
Household Wastewater Mgmt.
1.3%
Manure Storage
3.2%
Livestock Yards Management
2.6%
Silage Storage
.3%
Milking Center Wastewater
1.5%
Site Evaluation
2.3%
TABLE 5
Cross tabulation of reason for not making a change with the high risk area.
REASON
Finan-
Lack of
Con-
Lack of
Lack of
cial
Info
flict-
Techni-
Time
ing Regs
cal
Assist.
Well Condition
58.3%
16.7%
25.0%
8.3%
25.0%
Pesticide Storage
75.0%
0.0%
18.8%
0.0%
12.5%
& Handling
Fertilizer Storage
88.9%
22.2%
55.6%
22.2%
11.1%
Petroleum Storage
48.0%
16.0%
44.0%
8.0%
28.0%
Hazardous Waste
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
Household Waste-
66.7%
33.3%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
water Mgmt.
Manure Storage
100.0%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
28.6%
Livestock Yard
0.0%
33.3%
33.3%
0.0%
33.3%
Silage Storage
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Milking Center
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Wastewater
Site Evaluation
25.0%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
TABLE 6
Cross tabulation of stage in precaution adoption with area of high risk.
Not going to
Deciding
Plan to act
Have
act at this
what to do
but not yet
already
time
acted
Well Condition
0.0%
8.0%
32.0%
64.0%
Pesticide Storage &
2.0%
27.5%
21.6%
51.0%
Handling
Fertilizer Storage &
7.7%
53.8%
15.4%
38.5%
Handling
Petroleum Storage
4.5%
24.2%
39.4%
36.4%
Hazardous Waste
0.0%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
Household Wastewater
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
75.0%
Mgmt.
Manure Storage
10.0%
50.0%
20.0%
40.0%
Livestock Yard
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
62.5%
Silage Storage
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Milking Center
0.0%
20.0%
60.0%
20.0%
Wastewater
Site Evaluation
0.0%
28.6%
0.0%
57.1%
TABLE 7
Variance in response (r squared) by stage of precaution adoption.
Factors potentially affecting
Stage 1
Stage 2
stage of precaution adoption
Action not needed vs.
Plan to act vs. have already
undecided vs. plan to test
done something
General knowledge
0.0
0.1
Families risk
0.3
0.9
Level of concern
7.1
4.0**
Difficulty of remediation
9.6*
2.3
Personal risk
0.7
0.7
Precautions effective
4.0
0.6
Property values
4.1
0.1
Likelihood of contamination
0.0
0.5
Increased awareness of
7.4
1.3
precautions to lower risk
*p=.05 **p=.03
TABLE 8
Type of assistance that would be helpful in
making changes in high risk areas.
Type of Assistance
Frequency
Technical Design/Engineering
14.6%
Equipment Recommendations
6.8%
Education on Mgmt. Options
11.7%
Cost Sharing
31.2%
Testing Services (soil, water)
14.9%
TABLE 9
Percentage of respondents that associate groundwater contamination with the listed
negative health effect.
Negative Health Effect
Frequency
Diarrhea
47.7%
Cancer
53.6%
Neurological Problems
35.1%
Birth Defects
42.9%
Blue Baby Syndrome
22.4%
TABLE 10
Factors affecting variance in stage.
Stage 1
Stage 2
Difficulty of Remediation
Difficulty of Remediation
**Risk 2
**Risk 2
Property values affected by contaminatied
Seriousness of negative health effects from
groundwater
contaminated groundwater
Precautions would be effective in reducing
*Risk 1
risk
Concern about groundwater contamination.
*
Risk 1 is the combination of the following factors that appeared to be related to each other
statistically: the seriousness of health problems, risks from groundwater contamination are a
problem and the risk to others from polluted groundwater.
** Risk 2 is a combination of the following factors that appeared to be related to each other
statistically: The affect of contaminated groundwater on property values, the effectiveness of
precautions taken to lower risk of contaminating groundwater and an increased awareness of
precautions available to the risk of groundwater contamination.
APPENDIX A
United States Department Of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Americorp
Michigan Priority Watersheds
KEWEENAN
50
0
50 MILES
HOUGHTON
NJ
ONTONACON
BARACA
MARQUETTE
LUCE
COOOBIC
ALOOR
PRON
SCHOOLOWT
DELTA
MACHINAC
DICKINSON
DART
MEMOMINEX
CHEROYCAN
CHALEVOX
MONT-
ANTRM
OTSOOO
ALPOHA
MORENCY
A - Direct Drainage to Lake Michigan
UPCLANALE
PWO
KALKASKA
CAWAFORD
09000A
ALCOHA
Congressional District 1
SCHOOL
THERE
1 Americorp Employee
IOSCO
WD4FORD
MISSAUNDE
3 SCS Field Offices
MANISTEE
ROSCOMMON
OCEMAN
B - Lower Grand River
AROVIC
MASON
LAKE
OSCIDLA
CLARE
CLAIMIN
Congressional Districts 2, 3, 4
HURON
3 Americorp Employees
BAY
MEDOSTA
ISABELLA
MIDLAND
5 SCS Field Offices
OCEANA
MDMYGO
PUSCOLA
C - Kalamazoo River
ONTO
SIGNAR
GRATIOT
Congressional Districts 2, 3, 6, 7
MUSKETION
3 Americorp Employees
B
LAPER
KENT
OTTAWA
00-CMX
7 SCS Field Offices
/ OMA
CURTON
D - Upper Grand River
MACOME
OAMLAHO
Congressional Districts 3, 4, 7,8
ALLECAN
FAIDH
NOHN
UNICSTON
2 Americorp Employees
NAME
WWW.BUREN
7 SCS Field Offices
MOON
WASHTENNA
E - Raisin River
Congressional Districts 7, 16
BERWEN
CASS
ST.JOSOPH
BRANCH
HILLSOALE
LENANCE
ONCE
2 Americorp Employees
4 SCS Field Offices
F - Black, Belle, and Pine Rivers
District - Congressman
Congressional Districts 5, 9, 10
1 - Bart Stupak
7 - Nick Smith
1 Americorp Employee
2 - Peter Hoekstra
8 - Bob Carr
3 SCS Field Offices
3 - Vernon Ehlers
9 - Dale Kildee
4 - Dave Camp
10 - David Bonior
5 - James Barcia
16 - John Dingell
Map produced at the
6 - Fred Upton
Michigan State Office.
1994
APPENDIX B
MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
FARM
A
SYST
EXTENSION
Farmstead Assessment System
FAS 8
Worksheet #8
Assessing the Risk of Surface and Groundwater Contamination from
Livestock Yards Management
Why should I be concerned?
Livestock yards, such as barnyards, holding areas and feedlots, are areas of concen-
trated livestock manure. They can be a source of nitrate and bacteria contamination of
groundwater. This is especially true if there is no system to 1) divert clean water flow
from the livestock yard or 2) collect polluted runoff from the yard for diversion to an
area where its effect on surface water or groundwater is minimal. The potential for
livestock yards to affect groundwater is greatest if the yard is located over coarse-
textured permeable soils, if the water table is at or near the surface, if bedrock is
within a few feet of the surface, or when polluted runoff is discharged to permeable
soils and bedrock.
Nitrate levels in drinking water above federal and state drinking water standards of 10
milligrams per liter (mg/l; equivalent to parts per million for water measure) nitrate-
nitrogen can pose health problems for infants under 6 months of age, including the
condition known as methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome). Nitrate can also
affect adults, but the evidence is much less certain.
Young livestock are also susceptible to health problems from high nitrate-nitrogen
levels. Levels of 20-40 mg/l in the water supply may prove harmful, especially in
combination with high levels (1,000 ppm) of nitrate-nitrogen from feed sourcès.
Bacteria in livestock waste can contaminate groundwater if waste seeps into nearby
wells, causing such infectious diseases as dysentery, typhoid and hepatitis. Organic
materials, which may lend an undesirable taste and odor to drinking water, are not
known to be dangerous to health, but their presence does suggest that other contami-
nants are flowing directly into groundwater.
A livestock yard without a runoff control system typically has an earthen surface
compacted by animal traffic. This surface is not shaped for water drainage, so it is
usually dry in some places and muddy in others. Manure typically accumulates on the
surface, and decaying manure is mixed into the soil by animal traffic.
The goal of FarmASyst is to help you assess your current practices and deter-
mine how well you are protecting the groundwater that supplies your drinking
water and surrounding surface water.
How will this worksheet help me protect surface and groundwater?
It will take you step by step through your livestock yards management prac-
tices.
It will rank your activities according to how they might affect the groundwater
that provides your drinking water and surrounding surface water.
page 3
Worksheet #8
Livestock Yards Management: Assessing Water Contamination Risk
1. Use a pencil. You may want to make changes.
3. Look above the description you circled to find your "rank number"
2. For each category listed on the left that is appropriate to your
(4,3,2 or 1) and enter that number in the blank under "your rank."
farmstead, read across to the right and circle the statement
4. Directions on overall scoring appear at the end of the worksheet.
that best describes conditions on your farmstead. (Skip and
5. Allow about 15-30 minutes to complete the worksheet and figure out
leave blank any categories that don't apply to your farmstead.)
your risk ranking for livestock yards management.
LOW RISK
LOW-MOD RISK
MOD-HIGH RISK
HIGH RISK
YOUR
(rank 4)
(rank 3)
(rank 2)
(rank 1)
RANK
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Lot location in
Active livestock yards
Active livestock yard
Active livestock yard
Inactive livestock yard
relation to wells
on fine-textured soil or
on fine-textured soil or
on coarse-textured soil.
on medium to coarse-
paved lot. 100 feet or
paved lot. More than
100 to 300 feet upslope
textured soil, or inactive
more downslope from
50 feet downslope from
from well.
livestock yard on frac-
well or more than 300
well.
tured limestone. Within
upslope from well.
100 feet upslope of well.
Lot location in
Livestock yard is more
Livestock yard within
Livestock yard is more
Livestock yard is
relation to surface
than 300 feet from
300 feet of surface
than 75 feet from
located less than 75 feet
water
surface water Slope is
water. Slope 3 to 6%.
surface water. Slope
from surface water.
less than 3%. Dense
At least 150 feet of
less than 6%. Dense
Slope exceeds 6% and
vegetation that is
dense vegetation be-
vegetation grows in a
minimal vegetation
harvested exists be-
tween yard and surface
strip at least 75 feet
exists, or a stream runs
tween yard and surface
water.
wide adjacent to the
through livestock yard.
water.
surface water.
Runoff control
All roofwater and
Roofwater and upslope
Roofwater and upslope
Roofwater and upslope
system
upslope water drainage
watershed drainage is
watershed drainage is
watershed drainage
is diverted around
diverted around live-
diverted around live-
runs through yard and
livestock yard. All
stock yard. All runoff
stock yard. Runoff
no runoff control
yard runoff directed to
directed to a settling
directed to cropland.
system in place. Yards
a settling basing and
basing and vegetated
Does not discharge into
rarely scraped.
sealed runoff storage
infiltration strip where
streams or lakes. Soils
for at least 180 days.
vegetation is routinely
are fine to medium
harvested.
texture.
Use this total to calculate
TOTAL
risk ranking on back page
of worksheet.
APPENDIX C
FARM*A*SYST EVALUATION
Directions:
Answer each question as accurately as you can. Many questions can be answered by
circling the item that best describes your opinion or situation. Other questions require
you to check the response or responses that apply. All answers will be kept completely
confidential.
1. How did you hear about Farm*A*Syst and the service available through
USDA/AmeriCorps members? (check all that apply)
Newsletters
Newspapers
Radio
Television
Direct Mail
Meetings
Word-of-Mouth
Flyer
Other
2. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being of no value and 5 being extremely valuable, circle
the number that most closely describes your feeling aboút your participation in
Farm*A*Syst with a USDA/AmeriCorps member.
1
2
3
4
5
No value
of some
very valuable
value
3. How would you rate the assistance from the USDA/AmeriCorps member?
(circle one option)
a. poor
b. fair
c. good
d. very good
e. excellent
9. If someone in your home did have negative health effects from groundwater
contamination, how serious do you think they would be?
a. Very minor
b. Minor
C. Somewhat serious
d. Serious
e. Very serious
10. When you think about groundwater pollution, how do you feel?
a. Not at all concerned
b. Somewhat concerned
C. Concerned
d. Very concerned
11. In general, how would you rate the level of concern about groundwater pollution in
your community?
a. Not at all concerned
b. Somewhat concerned
C. Concerned
d. Very concerned
e. Don't know
13. The following opinions about groundwater have been expressed. We want to know
if you agree or disagree with them. (Please circle your opinion)
a. If my neighbor dumps oil in
Agree
Disagree
Don't Know
a drainage ditch the oil may
end up in my drinking water.
b. What people do on their
own property won't help
prevent well water con-
tamination unless their
neighbors also work to
prevent it.
Agree
Disagree
Don't Know
C. Physical characteristics
like soil and bedrock type
and depth to groundwater
affect the potential for
groundwater and well water
contamination at a specific
site.
Agree
Disagree
Don't Know
14. When groundwater is polluted it:
(circle one)
a. Can be cleaned very easily
b. Is very difficult to clean
c. Cannot be cleaned
d. Don't know
18.
Did the USDA/AmeriCorps member suggest a precaution that would lower your
risk ranking from the high risk practice? (check one)
Yes
No (skip to 20)
19.
If yes, how do you feel about the precaution suggested?
(check all that apply)
I remember that a precaution was suggested.
The precaution suggested was clear to me.
I believe the precaution suggested would reduce
risk from the practice in general.
I believe the precaution suggested would reduce
risk from the practice for myself.
20. For the high risk areas you have identified on your farmstead that you would like to
change, what type of assistance, if any, would be helpful in making those changes?
(check all that apply)
Technical design/engineering
Equipment recommendations
Education on management options
Cost sharing
Testing services (soil, water etc...)
Other (please specify)
Please use this space to write your comments about this survey.
Thank you for your cooperation with this evalution. Please return the completed survey
to:
Christina Coulon, USDA/AmeriCorps
Michigan State University Extension
11 Agriculture Hall
East Lansing, MI
48824-1039
APPENDIX D
COMMENTS FROM SURVEY
1.
You would have to be a doctor to answer question #5 on the second page.
2.
She (the USDA/AmeriCorps member) did a nice job.
3.
It (Farm*A*Syst) made me more aware of problems.
4.
Very important that the person doing the survey comes across as helping and not as a
'regulator'.
5.
The survey is good but I'm one of the lucky farmers who have never had a water
problem.
6.
Need to get more people to participate in on site assessments.
7.
Anytime you participate in a 1 on 1 program you've got to benefit from the program.
Your more apt to ask more questions at home than in a meeting place.
8.
Because of the emphasis on the soil rank in the scoring it averages down any management
attempts. Possibly separate the controllable factors vs. the uncontrollable and score them
separately.
9.
Thank you for doing such a good and important job.
10.
Survey (Farm*A*Syst worksheets) is not completed yet but am working on it.
11.
The size of the farm should affect the scoring on some answers. For example, a farmer
that mixes two tanks of spray without having a "mixing pad" I don't think is as high of a risk
as one who mixes twenty tanks full. Same goes for fuel, a guy who stores 500 gallons vs.
10,000 gallons.
12.
Probably good for the cause.
13.
Some questions could have been yes or no or agree or disagree instead of 'may disagree'.
Most every farmer has concern about our water.
14.
The farmer needs to do all of the sheets with the AmeriCorps representative and not the
AmeriCorps representative do some without the farmer. The farmer needs to have all the
factsheets so that they can read over before any sheets are filled out.
15.
Well done!
16.
Do it other than at spring planting time!
17.
I believe that the Farm*A*Syst program while beneficial-underestimates the technical and
general knowledge (ie. most people I know have at least some college level education).
18.
We covered some things that I didn't consider a risk until we did the survey. I think
every farmer could benefit from this survey.
19.
I basically already knew the problems I had. This survey prompted me to act on them.
It also brought to light the seemingly harmless substances like paint, parking a truck or tractor
that leaks can be potential problems.
20.
It made me more aware of the problem. I'm trying to clean some as I see them but can
not afford to spend much money to do this.
21.
The survey was O.K. but the survey members need more training.
22.
I work off the farm to like most farmers my age, and it helped me with a kind of hands
on class as well as giving me credits so I wouldn't have to take time off work. Thank you.
23.
Good program.
24.
Appreciate voluntary participation.
25.
I like it. Every farmer should be concerned.
26.
I am very much interested in our water condition. Here is a question for you: Why is
the city of Grand Rapids allowed to dump millions of gallons of raw sewage into the Grand
River each year? Each individual farmer should be responsible for his or her actions: Where
is the almighty DNR when GR decides to empty their cess pool? Please comment CHRISTINA
COULON. How concerned are you with our water quality?
27.
Very poor survey. The questions were worded like they were looking for answers they
already had in mind. Many questions did not have my answer in the choice of answers typed.
28.
Interesting. Informative. Comforting.
29.
This program allowed me to know what regulations are in effect and what agency to
contact to make beneficial changes- It also clarified conflicting regulations.
30.
This is an excellent survey and I hope other farmers try to improve their practices where
need be.
31.
The Farm*A*Syst program is very good in bringing to our attention the possibility of
problems that could be severe if left un-attended or not dealt-with.
32.
Good program- not politically/regulatory threatening. Enthusiastic young presenters- used
referral techniques well when they lacked background or experience.
33.
I feel I did my share in keeping groundwater clean when will the USDA survey non-
farmers about pollution.
34.
Several moderate and low risks were identified, and suggestions made for correcting
them.
35.
We are long overdue in testing to see the effect of chemicals and fertilizers used. I thing
it has caused cancer in people and animals in the last 20 to 40 years.
36.
Need to know approved methods for implementing and designing new safety
improvements, impoundments, enclosures etc...
37.
The AmeriCorps assessment by Ms. Faith Traylor was thorough and clearly understood.
Follow-up information was done well by Faith. We did not have anything High risk (our two
fuel tanks are currently tested and have not leaked). We have removed our underground gas by
specialized contractor and will remove fuel oil as it is too close to well. Am pleased with
assessment, will prevent program here, far better than 'curing' later.
38.
Very good program.
39.
Very complete, covered most all aspects.
40.
I thought the survey was very helpful, in that it addresses a wide range of questions
relating to my farming operation. It brought to my attention a couple of areas that needed to
be taken care of; of which I have.
41.
The AmeriCorps member was very helpful.
42.
Ms. Traylor was of great help to inform me to use safe practices so as to reduce
groundwater contamination.
43.
Need to tailor questions to particular areas of ag- N.W. Lower Michigan is quite tuned
in and maybe needs to be addressed on a higher level.
44.
The Farmstead Assessment Program made me aware more of what to do for prevention.
45.
Jennifer Blaker did a excellent job. She is a good person to do this type of work.
46.
Survey is fine but, what about private citizens that bury iron, junk, dump oil, antifreeze
and other items in ground. Report them and nothing happens. I even reported them to the
DNR.
47.
Very informative and helpful. Thank you for the information provided.
48.
Jennifer did ours and was quite knowledgeable and willing to answer our questions.
49.
We all get busy in our work and need to be reminded about things we might of let go.
50.
USDA/AmeriCorps rep. was knowledgeable and completing survey helped address
potential problem areas and solutions to problems.
51.
At another address located in a city where we had city water I had 4 pets plus my mother
die of cancer. This was always a concern for me.
52.
Most unsafe wells in this area are residential non approved wells kept secret from local
health department.
53.
It's important to protect our groundwater and environment, but sometimes people are
sacrificed for the sake of laws and lots of red tape. Somehow people need to be responsible to
their fellow man and government agencies and work for the common good of all mankind.
54.
Difficult questionnaire. It is probably very dear to you- but so many questions are
difficult to answer without explanation. Not clear on what you want to know or why. Evaluator
was excellent. We are continually aware of groundwater contamination and evaluate what we
can do and what we should not do.
55.
The survey opened by eyes to a few possible sources of contamination which will be
corrected.
56.
Just a make work program.
57.
I think this is a good way to build another very large bureaucracy for MSU and USDA.
The good it may do will be last.
58.
Just yet one more survey which contributes to mounds of paperwork and takes my time
away from productive work.
59.
Would like to solve all problems (chemicals) before they arrive.
60.
Everybody should go through the course. Very informative, brings out awareness of
subject.
61.
It is helpful to know there is a department on call if I have questions.
62.
Kristin was very pleasant to work with also very informative.
63.
I think USDA should check the cities, anyone can spray lawns and by laundries. It can
run off right into storm sewers and right into rivers.
65.
Conversation after the assessment was thought provoking in calling attention to possibility
of problems. the Extension Service is appreciated.
66.
It is a great program that keeps you aware of being cautious and doing correct farm
practices.
67.
I would like cost-sharing for liquid fertilizer storage.
68.
A worthwhile and informative program. A 'high quality' presentation was conducted by
Kristin Korutz.
69.
Well informed, easy to complete.
70.
I feel it was a good survey, it keeps us on our toes and makes us think about what we
can do to make our liver healthy.
71.
I enjoyed the assistance from the AmeriCorps member- nice experience and well worth
our time.
72.
The farm is not the only source for contamination. I have a hard time believing Amoco
"leaked" 60,000 gallons of gas from a pipe in the ground where the aquifer is only 4 feet deep
and we have NO contamination. Yet a gas station has contamination from the small amount of
gas spilled by customers. As far as I can tell the DNR feels there is no contamination. What
do you think the credibility of the DNR is in our area. DNR=Government Have a nice day!
73.
Christina,
I'm not sure I should have filled this out since I work on campus. However, I think that
the issues and awareness that the evaluation brings out among producers may be more valuable
than they would be willing to admit. If the producers you are working with don't feel that they
are on the defensive, they might gain a lot of valuable insight from this process. I think it is
hard to write a survey that gets to issues and attitudes of producers. This one is somewhat
subjective in places, but asks the right questions for the most part and should be a good feed
back tool. Anonymous.
74.
This is a bad situation on all fronts, just keep your eyes open.
75.
Teresa Rudnicki did a good job.
76.
Could be useful if more people fill it out.
77.
The young lady conducting the survey of our farm was very congenial, qualified and
helpful. Many things we as farmers do are harmful to ourselves and others because we have
been unaware of the consequences. Many things we are encouraged to do by MSU like burying
our fuel tanks to preserve octane.
78.
Good helpful program- keep it in effect with more credits.
79.
I think it is very important to have a survey like this hopefully it will help all of us in
the future and now.
80.
Poorly written survey- many questions make assumptions that aren't necessarily true.
81. I thought the meeting was very informational and it made me more aware of areas to
address and made me have a better understanding of what you agencies are trying to help with.
82. This additional lay of government seems unnecessary- the same thing could have been
accomplished through a mailing to the ag community, without hiring additional staff.
83.
Educational. AmeriCorps member very knowledgeable of survey process and willing to
provide assistance/information in a non-intrusive manner.
84.
Less than one sucker long. Very pleased with the information provided.
85. Where will the results go- will anything become of the survey and what benefit will I get
out of it!
86.
Survey information was helpful. AmeriCorps person should become more familiar with
both soil types and subsurface geology relative to potential for groundwater contamination.
87. O.K. but many farms need to have this done also city dwellers need to be aware of this
on their lawns! They over fertilize and use pesticides way too much! Farmers are the ones
afraid to use it or don't care. It should be promoted as a no risk no cost program.
88.
It was worth doing.
89.
Try and keep program simple, direct, and with results. The rules and regulations are
somewhat out of hand- common sense not too much red tape.
90.
Questionnaire well planned.
91.
Does this really do any good but create bigger government and waste my tax dollars on
surveys and self adhered envelopes and stamps.
92. I think information on general water and soil cleanness or contamination should be
publicly shared, along with ways to solve problems and get rid of contamination. Let
individuals know if their well water is very healthful or not healthful and what ways to improve
it if necessary.
93.
Our farm is leased by reliable farmers and our main concern is the lagoon system across
the road from our property.
94.
I think it was worth the time to do it.
95.
A bad time of the year to send out the survey.
96.
The concept that the results are for the property owner only is good. The biggest
problem is that corrections needed in many cases are so costly. The young people administering
these evaluations may have some of the answers, but don't realize what it is to have to pay for
the actual risk reductions practices.
97.
I am very skeptical about any information today because of our society of today,
misusing and gaining false information and using it to their advantage and that does include our
government agencies.
98.
No problems only I wish I could have taken it sooner since the evaluation.
99.
AmeriCorps and Farm*A*Syst did tests for groundwater pollution on my farm and did
not find any contamination problems. Every test came out good.
April 29, 1996
Katherine:
This is the first "quasi-scientific" study of one of our projects. It shows that 75% of the
farmers helped with farm-a-systs in Michigan plan to take concrete actions to implement the
AmeriCorps reccomendations to improve water quality.
Please work with Dave White to have NRCS prepare a press release and work to
development placments in AG and other speciality publications.
Thanks.
god
EVALUATING PROTECTIVE HEALTH BEHAVIOR ADOPTION OF
FARM*A*SYST PARTICIPANTS USING THE
PRECAUTION ADOPTION PROCESS MODEL
By
Christina Coulon
A PLAN B PAPER
Submitted to the Department of Resource Development,
Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
1996
ABSTRACT
EVALUATING PROTECTIVE HEALTH BEHAVIOR ADOPTION OF FARM*A*SYST
PARTICIPANTS USING THE PRECAUTION ADOPTION PROCESS MODEL
By
Christina Coulon
In 1995, the United States Department of Agriculture began promoting the
Farm*A*Syst groundwater risk assessment program through the Michigan Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Fifteen USDA/AmeriCorps members were used to conduct one-on-
one Farm*A*Systs with rural landowners, primarily farmers in Michigan watersheds that
were considered critical based on the potential for groundwater contamination.
The Farm*A*Systs were conducted for a ten month period and the participants in the
Farm*A*Syst program were surveyed after the completion of their assessment. The survey
was used to try and determine if participation in Farm*A*Syst prompted them to make
changes to protect their groundwater (the primary source of drinking water) where high risk
situations were found.
A theoretical model called the Precaution Adoption Process (PAP) Model was used to
analyze where the participant was at in the process of making changes to protect their
drinking water and ultimately their health. The PAP model looks at the adoption of
precautions as a process occurring in distinct stages, with certain variables affecting which
stage the adopter is in. Analysis of the findings from this evaluation demonstrated that
certain variables considered in the model did seem to influence whether the landowner
decided to make a change in a high risk situation. The two variable that did seem to make
the most difference in the stage of precaution adoption were the participants perception of the
difficulty of remediation of groundwater pollution and the level of concern among the
participants about groundwater contamination problems.
The results of this study made it clear that risk perception of groundwater
contamination and the actions resulting from this perception of risk are quite complex.
Almost half of the respondents reported having a high risk situation on their farmstead,
however more than 80% of the respondents stated they were at a low risk from groundwater
contamination problems. Nearly 75% of those reporting a high risk situation either plan to
act or have already acted to lower their risk from groundwater contamination problems. It
seems that something other than perception of risk is motivating these individuals to act in
the protection of their drinking water resources.
The findings reported in this study are useful for any change agent involved in
promoting health protective behaviors. A follow-up evaluation is being conducted by the
Michigan Natural Resources Conservation Service and will be available by October, 1996.
Dedicated to the:
Pioneer Michigan USDA/AmeriCorps members
and
Alan Herceg, Program Director,
Michigan USDA/AmeriCorps
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have been instrumental in the completion of this paper. I would like to
thank first and foremost my advisor, Dr. Cynthia Fridgen. She has offered guidance,
encouragement, and inspiration in the writing of this paper. But, most importantly, she has
shown infinite patience and faith in me as I took a rather unconventional approach to my
graduate studies. Without her astute perception and support of my nature I would not have
completed my program.
I am also deeply appreciative to my family and friends, including my children Alex
and Jesse, my parents, Tom and Mary, my sisters Cathy and Connie, my best friend Ana
Boiba, my fellow students Kenrick Pierre and Clyde Young, and my partner, George
Gonzalez. Their moral, emotional, academic and financial support has buoyed me through
these years as a graduate student and has made it possible for me to complete what I started.
The superlative faculty and staff in the Department of Resource Development and in
the other departments at Michigan State University, including Dr. Cynthia Fridgen,
my committee members, Dr. Eckhart Dersch and Dr. Ted Loudon, and Dr. Frank Fear, Dr.
Paul Nickel, and Dr. Murari Suvedi have challenged my mind and have given me the
incentive needed to follow through with this study. I am extremely grateful for everything
they have done and very proud to say I studied in the Department of Resource Development.
Finally, I would like to thank those in the agencies that have funded and assisted in
this study. Alan Herceg, the program director for the USDA/AmeriCorps program in
Michigan gave me the opportunity to fund my research and combine it with my work as a
USDA/AmeriCorps member. I am grateful for his support, faith in my abilities and vision
of what could be done. I thank the Michigan Department of Agriculture for generously
funding this study. Finally, I want to acknowledge the MSU Extension service and thank
those in that were in Rm. 11, Agriculture Hall during my stay there for their assistance and
support. Their smiles and friendship made all the difference.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
Title
I.
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
2
Research Objectives
3
Background to the Problem
4
Contaminants of Concern
4
Risk Perception
7
Farm*A*Syst
8
Rationale for Evaluative Study
10
II.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theories of Health or Preventive Behavior
11
The Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAP)
12
Assumptions of the PAP Model
13
Why the PAP in this Study
14
Risk Perception and Precaution Adoption
15
Risk Perception and Optimistic Bias
16
Risk Perception and Culture
16
Risk Perception and Uncertainty
18
III.
DESIGN, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Design
19
Data Collection
20
Data Analysis
21
IV.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
22
V.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
34
BIBLIOGRAPHY
36
APPENDICIES
A.
Map of Critical Michigan Watersheds
B.
Sample Farm*A*Syst Worksheet
C.
Evaluation Questionaire
D.
Comments to Questionaire
E.
UCRIHS Approval for Study
I. INTRODUCTION
The study and practical applications of risk perception and communication are
increasingly significant in our society. As humans continue to alter and exploit their physical
environments, the need for better information and transfer of that information becomes
paramount. The unknown affects of the manipulation of our environment requires a
maximum effort in prevention of the potentially far reaching consequences of environmental
contamination. This study attempts to take one critical, life-sustaining element in our
environment and analyze how one segment of the population has responded to the threat of
their activities on its sustainability.
Statement of the Problem
The realization that our groundwater resources may be at serious risk from
contamination by agricultural activities has resulted in a call for action by federal and state
regulatory agencies. To continue to use pesticides that leach readily into the groundwater,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandated the development of groundwater
protection programs by states wanting to use those pesticides. In response to this mandate,
the State of Michigan passed the Groundwater and Freshwater Protection Act (P.A. 247 of
1993). This act is designed to provide agrichemical users an opportunity to take a proactive,
non-regulated approach to pesticide and fertilizer management. Because clean-up of
contaminated aquifers is so costly, prevention provides the best means of managing this
situation.
2
Although we know prevention is the best method of avoiding groundwater
contamination from agricultural practices, we do not know how effective the attempts at
promoting this pro-active approach to groundwater prevention has been.
One of the tools used in by those implementing the state groundwater management
plan is called Farm*A*Syst. Farm*A*Syst is a groundwater risk assessment checklist
designed for use by farmers to assess their farmstead practices in respect to risk to
groundwater. Their perception of risk from groundwater pollution after completing a
Farm*A*Syst is not known. This study will evaluate how the farmers that participated in
Farm*A*Syst perceive risk from groundwater contamination and what precautions, if any,
they will adopt or have adopted to protect themselves from the potential harm exposure to
agrichemicals and other contaminants may inflict.
Research Objectives
The relationships between risk perception and precaution adoption was examined in
this evaluation. Specifically, this study sought to determine the following:
1)
What is the farmer's perception of personal risk from groundwater contamination
after completing a Farm*A*Syst?
2)
Do those individuals reporting a high risk situation perceive themselves to be at
greater risk from groundwater contamination than those individuals that don't report
a high risk situation?
3)
What factors are associated with making changes to lower risk from groundwater
contamination?
4)
Does the Precaution Adoption Process Model serve as a useful predictive tool in
determining who will make changes in this evaluation ?
3
Background to the Problem
Groundwater serves as the primary source of drinking water for over fifty percent of
the entire United States population and for nearly ninety-five percent of the rural U.S.
populace (USGS National Water Summary). There is no question that this resource is the
life-blood that sustains rural inhabitants. For this reason alone we must take extreme care of
the groundwater supplies available. Increasingly, however unintentionally, the activities of
those dependant on this resource jeopardize the quality of it. Agriculture and many of the
activities surrounding the production of food and fiber require inputs that find their way into
drinking water supplies. According to 1987 figures, nearly 330 million acres of farmland
used technology-intensive production systems, requiring large inputs of pesticides and
fertilizers. (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1989) These pesticides and fertilizers, even when
applied correctly, can migrate down into aquifers. Although the microorganisms in the soil
do naturally degrade some chemicals , rendering them harmless, other chemicals leach
quickly through the soil, circumventing this natural degradation process. Indeed, research
has shown that pesticides and fertilizers have contaminated groundwater, at times exceeding
the U.S. EPA's maximum contaminant level (MCL) allowable for drinking water (Lee and
Nielsen, 1987).
Contaminants of Concern
Nitrogen in the form of nitrate is the component of fertilizer that causes health
problems in humans. Other sources of nitrate-nitrogen from agricultural activities include
septic systems, animal feedlots, and leaking manure storage facilities. Infants comprise the
4
segment of the population most at risk from health problems resulting from the ingestion of
nitrate. Bacteria present in the gastrointestinal tract of infants converts the nitrate to nitrite,
inhibiting the absorption of oxygen. This causes methemoglobinemia, or blue baby
syndrome. This same effect can be found in the adult population, although in milder forms.
Excess quantities of nitrates may lead to impairment of the nervous system, a subclinical
form of methemoglobinemia. Studies have also shown that nitrate can react with amines in
humans to form nitrogen-nitrosoamine. These chemicals are known to cause cancer in lab
animals and are suspected human carcinogens (USGS, 1984). An Australian study has even
linked excessive nitrate exposure to congenital malformations (American Journal of
Epidemiology, 1984). The negative health effects of nitrates seem to occur when the levels
in water exceed 10ppm nitrogen as nitrate, the U.S. EPA's MCL for drinking water.
The myriad chemical constituents in agricultural pesticides comprise another category
of contaminants of concern in groundwater supplies. Until the mid 1970's it was believed
that pesticides would not find their way into groundwater except where coarse, cracked and
otherwise vulnerable soils overlay the aquifer (Bouwer, 1990). However, as more sensitive
testing methods developed and pesticide use increased, detection of pesticides increased.
U.S. EPA data indicate that of a sample of 45,000 wells in sensitive geographical areas,
5,500 had levels exceeding the MCL for at least one pesticide. The data also revealed the
presence of 46 pesticides in groundwater samples from 26 states where the pesticides were
applied according to normal agricultural practices. The pesticides found include alachlor,
atrazine, aldicarb, carbofuran, chlordane, ethylene dibromide (EDB), dibromechloropropane
(DBCP) and 1,2-Dichloropropane (Williams, 1988). The negative health effects associated
5
with these chemicals range from respitory problems, paralysis, heart, liver, kidney, spleen,
lung and testicular injuries, to cancer, birth defects and genetic mutations (State of
California, Assembly Office of Research, 1985). The conclusive evidence pointing to the
dangers of a few of these pesticides, such as EDB, has prompted the EPA to ban their use,
although residuals of the chemicals may still be present in the groundwater only to show up
years later.
Pesticides and fertilizers, although most frequently cited as the most prevalent
agricultural contaminants are only two of the potentially harmful categories of substances
resulting from agricultural activity. Petroleum fuel, necessary for the functioning of farm
equipment, is made up of a variety of carcinogenic substances such as benzene. Frequently,
fuel is stored in manner that increases the probability of it entering the ground. The results
from one survey done in Wisconsin indicated that one third of the farms had underground
fuel storage tanks of more than 20 years in age, about 50% of tanks were within 100 feet of
the well and 90% of farms had no spill or overflow protection (Taylor, 1990). The risk
from petroleum fuels may not seem as great due to the familiarity and frequent use of
gasoline. Nearly every farmstead has some sort of fuel storage. The shear number of fuel
tanks increases the potential risk for groundwater contamination and the certainty that
benzene causes cancer makes that risk all the more significant.
Unfortunately, a great amount of uncertainty surrounds many chemicals, including
pesticides, due to the difficulties of performing long-term epidemiological studies. Most
scientific studies of these chemicals involves the use of lab animals given large doses of the
chemical in question. The results of the exposure to the chemical is then extrapolated to
6
humans. Based on their findings, scientists make calculated guesses about the risk the
chemicals pose to the population in question based on the dose and the exposure. This so
called "scientific" risk calculation is then communicated to those thought to be at risk from
exposure to the chemical in question. But how does the public perceive this risk? Often the
risk felt by the public differs from the scientific assessment of the risk.
Risk Perception
Many factors, other than scientific knowledge of the risk, contribute to an individuals
perception of risk. Paul Slovic has researched the area of risk perception extensively, and
has concluded that one major determinant of risk perception is the voluntariness of the risk
(Slovic, 1987). Does the individual willingly engage in the risky behavior with full
knowledge of the risk inherent in that behavior, such as smoking, or is the risk imposed
involuntarily, such as from having to live near a radioactive waste site? Another factor
contributing to the perception of risk is the level of dread associated with the risk. Taking
aspirin is seen as less risky than parachuting from an airplane due to the level of fear (dread)
most people experience from heights. The differing views of risk may play a part in how
farmers view the potential contamination from pesticides, fertilizers, fuels and other
chemicals in their drinking water.
7
Farm*A*Syst
Studies show that pollution resulting from agricultural activities is more likely to
occur at the farmstead where the chemicals are stored than from leaching in the field where
the chemicals are applied (Taylor, 1992). Improper storage, leaky containers, spills from
filling tanks and sprayers, improperly maintained septic systems, animal feedlots and many
other activities all can cause contamination of the groundwater at the most undesirable
location, near the drinking water well. The well, especially an older well without casing,
can provide a direct conduit to the groundwater aquifer. Even more hazardous are
abandoned wells that may be located near the farmstead. In Michigan it is estimated that
there are nearly one million abandoned wells (Michigan Department of Agriculture, 1995).
The activities taking place around the farmstead and around the drinking water well
are the focus of one risk assessment tool. The Farmstead Assessment System, or
Farm*A*Syst for short, was developed in a collaborative effort between the University of
Wisconsin, the University of Minnesota and Region 5 of the EPA (Jones and Jackson, 1990).
Farm*A*Syst is an attempt to provide a systematic method of evaluating the activities around
the farmstead in relationship to their risk to groundwater. The Farm*A*Syst package
consists of 12 worksheets and 10 fact sheets that evaluate the risk to groundwater from the
following practices; pesticide and fertilizer storage and handling, petroleum product storage,
hazardous waste management, household wastewater management, manure storage, livestock
yards management, silage storage and milking center wastewater. Well condition, a site
evaluation and an overall assessment are also covered. The worksheets list various practices
and conditions that are ranked from low risk to high risk on a 4 point scale. When the
8
worksheets are completed a risk ranking is calculated for the practice the worksheet
evaluates.
Research has shown that farmers do not have access to enough information and
technical assistance to identify potential causes of groundwater contamination or management
practices to reduce contamination risks. Farmers also lack a means to evaluate their farms'
potential pollution sources in a systematic manner (Jones and Jackson, 1990). Farm*A*Syst
gives the farmer a general idea of how they are managing the farmstead with regards to
groundwater protection. The fact sheets that accompany the worksheets offer information
about the practice evaluated in the worksheet and gives information about further assistance
available.
In Farm*A*Syst pilot studies conducted in Michigan by Michigan State University
Extension a variety of methods of delivering Farm*A*Syst were attempted. The delivery
methods included allowing the farmer to complete the worksheets alone, in group settings,
such as in meetings, or with personal assistance. Farmers indicated that when the assessment
was completed with a trained individual they were more easily understood (source). In
response to this finding, Michigan State University Extension and the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) proposed a Farm*A*Syst program using volunteers
from the new community service program, AmeriCorps, to assist farmers with the
assessments. In 1994 the USDA/AmeriCorps Farm*A*Syst program was launched. The
program began in October of '94 and ran through August '95. Placement of the
USDA/AmeriCorps members was based on an analysis of the different watersheds in
Michigan. Investigations indicated that six large Michigan watersheds had the most potential
9
for groundwater contamination from agricultural activities (Michigan Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 1994). Fifteen USDA/AmeriCorps members were assigned to the six
watersheds, with twelve members in NRCS or MSU Extension field offices and three
members in the state NRCS and MSU Extension headquarters. The twelve field members
advertized Farm*A*Syst to farmers with the goal of assisting with 1000 assessments by the
years end.
Rationale for this Evaluative Study
Although Farm*A*Syst has been used in Michigan since the early 1900's no
comprehensive evaluation of its effectiveness in influencing precaution adoption has been
completed. There have been summary reports by MSU Extension agents who have had
Farm*A*Syst programs in their counties, however no scientific study has been attempted.
The intent of Farm*A*Syst is to provide information to rural landowners so they can
reduce the risk from practices around the farmstead that have been identified as high risk for
groundwater contamination. To do this, it is necessary for the landowner with a high risk
situation to make a change to lower their risk. This study is an evaluation of precaution
adoption by the participants in Farm*A*Syst, focusing on identifying factors that can be
associated adopting precautions necessary to reduce high risk farmstead practices. Knowing
what these factors or variables are may help focus education efforts.
10
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Theories of Health or Preventative Behavior
Researchers have developed a variety of theories and models to explain why
individuals take measures to protect themselves from harm in situations that threaten their
health. There is no clear cut universal explanation for the adoption of precautions, as the
action taken to protect one's health will be called here. Four such models or theories have
served as the basis for most of the research in health prevention studies. They include the
Health Belief Model (HBM), proposed by a group of social psychologists at the U.S. Public
Health Service (Rosenstock, 1974), The Subjective Expected Utility Theory and the Theory
of Reasoned Action (Edwards, 1954 and Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), which were not developed
solely as health behavior models but lend themselves to the topic, and Protection Motivation
Theory developed by Rogers in 1975 and revised in 1983 (Rogers 1975, 1983). Each one of
these models has held up in empirical testing and holds the common assumption that the
anticipation of and desire to avoid a negative health outcome creates a motivation for self-
protection. In addition, they assert that it is necessary to believe that his resultant action will
reduce the likelihood of harm to the individual (Weinstein, 1983). The four theories assess
the effect of several principle variables, including the probability of a negative health
consequence, the severity of that consequence, the costs of taking an action to prevent the
consequence and the effectiveness of the precautions taken. The essential difference between
the theories is how they measure and combine variables. Some of the theories may attempt
to measure a certain variable directly while others may infer the value of the variable
11
indirectly. Whether the variables are handled as additive or as multiplicative also differs
between theories. Nevertheless, all of the theories attempt to boil the decision to adopt a
precaution down to a single prediction rule. It is increasingly hypothesized that precaution
adoption is to complex an issue to be summarized in that manner. In response to this
realization, Neil Weinstein has developed the Precaution Adoption Process Model.
The Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAP)
Weinstein's Precaution Adoption Process model views the decision to take measures
to protect one's health as occurring in five core stages (Weinstein & Sandman, 1992).
Simple awareness of a threat to health is the first, necessary stage in the process of deciding
to change. Although this may seem elementary, it is important not to assume that the target
group of a prevention campaign even knows what you're talking about. An amazing
example illustrating the importance of this stage recently occurred. Even with the
widespread media and educational efforts in AIDS education, the commissioner of the
northeast boxing association did not know what AIDS was until boxer Tommy Morrison
tested positive for the HIV virus which cause AIDS!
The second stage it is necessary to reach for making the decision to adopt
precautions goes beyond awareness of the issue to the judgement of the threat as significant
enough to warrant attention. Weinstein labels this stage "engagement". If the individual
does decide that the issue poses enough of a threat, or risk, to themselves then they are
poised to go on to the next stage, "engaged and deciding what to do". If they do not think
the threat is important enough to themselves to take precautionary measures, it may be very
12
difficult to change this opinion. The extensive research done by Leon Festinger (1957) on
cognitive dissonance has shown that once a person has committed to a particular viewpoint,
they will selectively seek out information to reinforce their opinions and disregard
information that contradicts what they believe. They do this remain in a type of
psychological comfort zone.
The fourth stage of precaution adoption in this model, "planning to act" is thought to
occur only if the preceding three stages, awareness, engagement and deciding what to do
have been reached. In this model the important distinction between planning to act and
acting, the final stage, "acting" is made. In earlier research (Kuhl, 1985; Fishbein, 1975)
intentions were considered equivalent to action because of a self-regulatory process thought
to keep the individual committed to their decision. Later findings brought this assumption
into question (Ajzen, 1985). The PAP accounts for barriers to action that may interfere
with following through with the precaution. By analyzing the adoption of precautions in a
stage-wise manner, differentiating between the intention and the action, impediments to
action can be identified.
Assumptions of the PAP Model
The precaution adoption process model has one important assumption that is shared
by many of the preventive health theories. It assumes that the reason people take action is to
avoid harm and reduce risk (Weinstein, 1988). This may be a fatal assumption for
evaluative purposes as the motivation for adopting risk averting behaviors may have nothing
to do with the risk. The PAP does not take into consideration social, cultural or economic
13
factors that may affect the decision to make change. However, social influence in the form
of peer pressure or economic reasons, such as resale values on property may be the
determinants of action.
Another assumption of the model is that the behavior in question is relatively complex
and non-habitual. There needs to be a cognitive component of the decision to change the
behavior that requires planning. Other models may be more appropriate if they do not meet
those criteria.
Why the PAP in this Study?
Evaluating a program using the PAP is especially useful because it allows the
researcher to analyze the adoption of precautions by specific stages. Determining where the
individual is at in this process will then allow for the development of interventions focused
specifically on where the individual is at in the process to move them on to the next stage,
thereby hopefully making changes based on the evaluation for program improvement. (It
must be noted that the model does not assume unidirectionality for all stages. One may have
decided to act but for some reason is unable to carry through with their intention. They may
then decide that they will not act.)
The other models presented previously use a linear equation, plugging the different
factors thought to influence precaution adoption into the equation as variables. As the value
of the equation varies, the probability of precaution adoption either increases or decreases.
Precaution adoption is seen along a continuum, rather than as a process with distinct stages.
It is difficult to determine exactly which variable most affects the decision to adopt the
14
precaution.
Risk Perception and Precaution Adoption
There is one factor that usually is present in some form when people decide to make
changes, the perception of risk. In the case of precaution adoption for the protection of
health it is assumed the risk perceived relates to the individuals perception of risk to their
health, but the risk could also be seen as affecting their economic standing or social status
(Weinstein, 1993). Whatever the case, this risk perception is necessary for the individual to
progress through the stages of precaution adoption, from awareness of the health threat
through acting. If the precaution is seen as being effective by the individual, then a reduced
level of risk perception will result (Weinstein, 1988).
How a person determines his or her personal level of risk is rarely a straightforward
or even logical process. Many studies have been conducted on how people perceive risk,
including Paul Slovic's classic study, Characterizing Perceived Risk (Slovic, Fischhoff &
Lichtenstein). Slovic asked subjects (students, members of the League of Women Voters and
Active Club members) to rate thirty hazards with regard to how they perceived the risks
from these hazards. He then asked experts (scientists) to rate these same risks. There were
glaring differences between what the experts saw as the most risky activities and those of the
lay community. This discrepancy between how people view risks is not news. Many
researchers have tried to uncover the complexities behind the individuals determination of
risk.
15
Risk Perception and Optimistic Bias
Neil Weinstein has published a series of articles on what he calls "Optimistic Bias",
the tendency of individuals to perceive risk to themselves as less than the risk to others even
though both themselves and others may have the same circumstances (Weinstein, 1983, 1984,
1989). In his first study, Weinstein described three factors that contribute to how people
make comparative risk judgements; remembering factors that reduce ones risk as opposed to
factors that increase the risk, not knowing what others are doing to protect themselves from
harm, and thinking only of the risk to oneself and not much about the risk to others
(egocentrism) (Weinstein, 1983). In a subsequent study, Weinstein found control over the
risk to be associated with unrealistic optimism (Weinstein, 1984). Probability of the risk and
personal experience with the risk also seem to contribute to optimistic bias (Weinstein,
1989). It is important to consider the phenomena of optimistic bias because the existence of
this in the individual can seriously interfere with efforts to promote risk-reducing behaviors.
If the individual does not perceive risk, they probably will not be motivated to adopt
precautionary measures.
Risk Perception and Culture
Although not accounted for in the Precaution Adoption Process Model, cultural
factors are important to consider when researching a rather homogeneous population with a
strong cultural foundation. The American farmer fits this category and is perhaps the
epitome of the American way. When referring to farmers at the cultural level, one will often
hear the adjectives "independent", "self-reliant", "protective", and "private". The
16
characteristic of "individualism" seems to be the unique distinction between the American
culture and other world cultures (Fitchen, 1987). In Fitchen's article on Individualism and
Chemical Contamination of Groundwater she concludes that, "individualism may be a force
working against the protection of groundwater for the future".
Fitchen also found that Americans place a heavy emphasis on their own senses as a
source of accurate information about risk. If something cannot be perceived as threatening
by it's smell, taste, color or texture than it is likely to be considered "safe". She states,
"When told that 'routine' sampling has shown their water to be contaminated, people express
doubt about the existence or significance of the chemical contaminants. They exhibit rather
little concern about health issues because their individual sensors for judging reality give
them no reason to worry."
Another cultural factor with the potential to hinder attempts at risk communication is
the tendency of the American to judge risk at the micro level as opposed to the macro. Risk
messages concerning groundwater contamination are generally expressed in terms of
probabilities and aggregates, while the American is more likely to judge risk on how likely
they personally may be affected. Because experts cannot say with certainty how the
individual will be affected, the individual is left to make their own risk judgements. If a
definite cause and effect relationship is apparent, the individual may exaggerate the risk. If
this causal relationship is less certain and the negative effects of the exposure may only
appear after much time has passed, people have a tendency to underestimate the risk
(Fitchen, 1987). Unfortunately, most risk from the chemical contamination of groundwater
fall in the latter category, making the risk communicator's job more difficult.
17
Risk Perception and Uncertainty
A discussion of risk perception would be incomplete without a mention of uncertainty
as they are closely related (Wilson & Crouch, 1987). Risk implies a level of uncertainty, but
how uncertain a risk is will dictate how the risk is perceived. According to Tversky, the
more certain outcome will be seen as more risky than the less certain outcome, even if the
less certain outcome is more probable (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974). In a different take on
this same relationship Zechhauser and Viscusi state that with risk, "We know the states of
the world that may prevail and the precise probability of each state", while with uncertainty,
"the precise probabilities are not known" (Zechhauser and Viscusi, 1990).
Uncertainty also plays a role in the adoption of precautions. Most precautions entail a
cost of some sort, whether it be financial, psychological etc... Tversky postulates that while
the costs of adopting the precaution are certain, the resultant benefit may not be. This
situation may play a definite role in deciding to adopt the precaution or not.
18
III. DESIGN, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Design
In this study the Precaution Adoption Process Model was used to try and determine
where the individual is at in the precaution adoption process and what factors might be
associated with the stage of the process the individual is in. In addition to determining the
stage of precaution adoption, a list of variables that are thought to influence the adoption of
precautions was compared with the stage of precaution adoption (Weinstein, 1992). These
influencing variables include general knowledge of groundwater pollution processes, the
perception of personal risk, the level of concern about groundwater contamination, the
perceived difficulty of remediation, the perceived effectiveness of precautions if adopted,
variation in property values if contamination were to occur, awareness of groundwater
contamination and the perceived likelihood of contamination on the individuals property.
Other issues related to risk perception were addressed as well.
Questions aimed at gleaning demographic data were purposely omitted from the
survey. The Farm*A*Syst program is a highly confidential and there was great concern that
the results of the survey may somehow be used against the participant. This was the first
year Farm*A*Syst had wide spread use in Michigan. In subsequent years, as trust between
the participants and the agencies providing assistance to the participants increases, it may be
possible to ask questions regarding demographics.
19
Data Collection
The data were collected through a mail a survey. The USDA/AmeriCorps members
sent the surveys from their offices and the survey was returned to the campus office of
Michigan State University Extension. The survey population included all rural landowners
that completed a Farm*A*Syst with a USDA/AmeriCorps member. The data collection ran
from May through August, 1995. The surveys were sent approximately two weeks after the
Farm*A*Syst was completed.
The initial mailings were yielding an approximate 30% response rate. In an attempt
to improve this, follow-up mailings were sent out. This increased the response rate
considerably. A total of 550 surveys were sent out. The survey response rate was 56%,
with a total of 308 surveys returned.
Another form of data collection used included tally sheets. The USDA/AmeriCorps
member recorded the high risk areas on a sheet listing the different structures and practices
covered in the Farm*A*Syst worksheets. If a high risk practice was encountered, a mark
was made on the sheet next to the practice. This was not a completely accurate method of
record keeping. Some of the USDA/AmeriCorps members were extremely reluctant to use
the tally sheets and as a result did not count all high risk areas. Even with this problem, the
survey results used in conjunction with the tally sheets does provide a good basis for both
qualitative and quantitative analysis.
20
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, more
commonly known as SPSS for Windows. Descriptive statistics were run on all responses.
Cross tabulation for the determination of comparative frequencies were conducted. Analysis
of Variance, or ANOVA, was conducted on the variables thought to influence precaution
adoption versus the stage of precaution adoption. A multiple regression was attempted on
the independent variables as they pertained to the stage of precaution adoption. Finally,
percentages of high risk areas obtained from the tally sheets were tabulated. The results of
these analyses follows.
21
IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
One of the major objectives of this evaluation is to determining the farmer's
perception of risk from contaminated groundwater. Many questions were asked in an attempt
to measure this perception, ranging from questions about risk in general to questions about
personal risk. The responses to these questions yielded some very interesting results.
As mentioned previously, the USDA/AmeriCorps members kept tally sheets of
the high risk situations found during assessments. The tally sheets demonstrate the general
trend in high risk areas. Results from the tally sheet counts found the lack of secondary
containment for petroleum product storage to be the most frequent high risk situation.
Inadequate petroleum storage tank enclosure was the second most frequent high risk finding,
followed by the lack of a pesticide mixing and loading pad.
It was interesting to find that the acknowledgement of a high risk situation on the
respondents farmstead differed depending on the data collection method used. The survey
results related that 50% of participants acknowledged a high risk situation on their farmstead.
The results from the tally sheets, however, indicated that 70.5% of respondents had at least
one high risk situation. Furthermore, the USDA/AmeriCorps members verbally reported
that nearly 100% of the Farm*A*Syst participants had at least one high risk situation. It is
likely that the last figure is the most accurate, if using the categorical ranking of risk in the
Farm*A*Syst worksheets. It is possible that the respondent defined risk in a way different
than the categorical ranking. The Farm*A*Syst worksheets each cover a separate topic
relating to the farmstead operation. For example, one worksheet analyzes the risk to the
22
drinking water well, another addresses pesticide storage and handling. The eleventh
worksheet looks at the soils and geology at the farmstead, and the last worksheet incorporates
the findings from each of the first ten worksheets with the soils and geology information on
the eleventh worksheet to come up with an overall risk ranking from each structure or
practice on the farmstead. This overall risk ranking may lower the risk from an individual
practice if the soil is heavy (a clay for example) and the bedrock is deep under the surface.
It is quite possible that when answering the risk questions, the respondent was considering
the overall risk ranking as opposed to the individual risk ranking calculated for each structure
or practice separately.
Upon examination of the tally sheets, it becomes apparent that structural or physical
high risk areas are recorded more frequently than high risks that are due to management.
(see Table 1 for an example of this difference using the Pesticide Storage and Handling
Worksheet). It may be that this is indeed the case, however it is likely that the ratio between
structural and management high risks is less. Managerial high risks are easier to hide, the
USDA/AmeriCorps member must rely on what the landowner tells them. Physical high risk
situations are usually visible. It may be that the USDA/AmeriCorps member did not feel
comfortable discussing management practices with the landowner, especially if they were
doing things that pose a high risk to groundwater.
23
Worksheet #2: Pesticide Storage and Handling
Structure
# of Farmsteads with a high risk
Mix/load pad spill containment
256
Backflow prevention
91
Spill or leak control in storage
67
Formulation of pesticide (liquid vs. dry)
35
Distance to well from mix/load area
23
Leachability of pesticide
9
Distance to surface water from mix/load
8
area
Pesticide handling system
4
Total
493
Management Practices
# of Farmsteads With a High Risk
Security
101
Amount of pesticide stored and duration
47
Water source (nurse tank vs. well)
22
Container disposal (location)
17
Spray cleaning and rinsate disposal
9
Containers properly labeled
6
Supervision while filling sprayer
0
Total
202
Table 1- Differences between the number of structural and managerial high risks regarding
pesticide storage and handling recorded on tally sheets.
24
A majority of respondents thought that there is some kind of general risk from
contaminated groundwater. Chart 1 illustrates the perception of a problem from the risks of
groundwater pollution.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Not a problem
Is a problem
Problem for others Problem for self
Chart 1 - Respondents perception of a problem from groundwater pollution (reported as the
percentage of total respondents)
Most respondents felt the risks of problems resulting from groundwater pollution were a
problem in general as well as specifically for themselves. It is interesting to find that
further along in the survey this question was asked in a slightly different way with strikingly
different responses. When asked if risks from groundwater pollution around the farmstead
(most respondents lived on farmsteads) are a problem, 93.2% of respondents said the risks
are not a problem! Eighty-six percent of respondents also stated that although they were not
at risk from problems resulting from groundwater pollution, others were at risk. It would
appear that in the first case, the perception of risk seems to be amorphous, a feeling
without any concrete justification. When the risk was communicated in a more direct form,
25
relating specifically to their residences, the perception dropped dramatically. This low
perception of risk to the residence, and thus to the inhabitants of the residence, was
consistent with another question which was aimed at determining perception of personal risk.
When asked directly the risk of groundwater contamination to the family, 81.2% stated the
risk as low (see Chart 2). This was the perception even though at least 50% of the
respondents admitted to having a high risk situation. Although these findings may seem
illogical, they are supported by theory and similar findings in other studies.
High risk 81.2%
No response 1.0%
Low risk 1.9%
Medium risk 15.9%
Chart 2 - The perceived level of risk from groundwater contamination (reported as
percentage of total respondents).
It is part of the American culture to feel shielded from harm in our dwellings
(Fitchen, 1987). Home is seen as a place of comfort and safety. We are protected from the
elements and physically removed from dangerous influences, including contaminated drinking
water entering our homes through the pipes. A similar psychological phenomena allows
individuals to feel this shield of safety in their bodies. The attitude "It can't happen to me,"
protects one from the discomfort of having to deal with the possibility that harm may occur.
26
Neil Weinstein calls this phenomena "optimistic bias". It is important to try and reduce this
optimistic bias because it may interfere with one's decision to take precautions in risky
situations. Denial of a high risk situation may be a factor in the low risk perception. Even
though the respondent may have been told by an "expert" that the risk situation on his or her
farmstead is a high risk, they may continue to block this out of their consciousness in an
attempt to maintain a level of psychological comfort. This psychological trick has been
coined "cognitive dissonance" (Festinger, 1957).
There are other possible explanations for the inconsistencies in the findings. It may
be that some respondents may actually have a low risk. They may have had a high risk
situation that was easily corrected and when responding to the survey referred to the risk
present after they had taken precautionary measures. Or, it may be that they do know the
high risk situation exists and admit this to themselves. However, they are not reporting this
on a survey for fear of regulatory action.
Another issue of interest in this study related to risk is whether or not those that
actually reported a high risk situation saw themselves as having a greater risk from
groundwater contamination than those that did not report a high risk situation. To answer
this question we need to know information about those reporting a high risk situation. Table
2 breaks down the responses to the survey with regard to high risk situations and stage of
precaution adoption.
Of the 308 responses to the survey, 152 individuals stated they did not have a high
risk situation on their farmstead. The remaining 156 respondents did report a high risk
situation and varied in their stage of precaution adoption.
27
Percentage of respondents vs. stage of precaution adoption
Stage
Percentage of respondents
Aware of groundwater contamination
100%
problem
Engaged but not going to act
2.3%
Deciding what to do
11%
Planning to act
15.3%
Acting or have acted
22.4%
No high risk reported
49.3%
Table 2 - High risk situation vs. stage of precaution adoption
The PAP states that for an individual to reach the stage of planning to act or the stage
of having acted they must perceive a higher degree of personal risk. This statement is
logical, a person would not be likely to invest the time, money or effort in changing a
situation that they do not see as risky. In the data analysis, a test was run to try and
determine if the perception of risk is related to the stage of precaution adoption. It was not
possible to determine a relationship with any degree of certainty.
In fact, although most
people saw their personal risk as low, almost 75% of those having high risk situation were at
the planning to act or action stages.
There is a possible explanation for the respondents making changes in the absence of
a perception of risk. As stated earlier, one of the underlying assumptions of the Precaution
Adoption Process Model is that people take action for the purpose of avoiding harm and
reducing risk. If this is not the reason for taking action, the PAP model will not apply. The
respondents in this evaluation may have had altogether different reasons for taking action.
28
They may have made a change for economic reasons, to increase the value of their property
or to prevent possible future liability in the event of a lawsuit. They may have made a
change because the change required was simple and low cost, not requiring much effort.
Perhaps they made a change because someone seen as an expert said they should do so. Risk
may have had little to do with their decision. Indeed, when analyzing the variables thought
to influence precaution adoption, it seems likely that risk to the respondents health was not a
determining factor in the adoption of precautions.
The third objective of this evaluation was to determine which factors may be
associated with making changes to lower risk from groundwater contamination. As stated
earlier, the PAP model was used to try and establish where the respondent is in the process
of making changes and which factors may influence where and individual is at in this
process. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to try and establish a relationship
between the factors chosen for comparison and the PAP model. The results of this analysis
appear in Table 3.
29
Factor or variable
Stages of precaution adoption used for comparison
potentially affecting stage
of precaution adoption
Action not needed vs.
Plan to act vs.
Undecided vs. Plan to act
Already acted
General knowledge
0.0%
0.1%
Families risk
0.3%
0.9%
Level of concern
7.1%
4.0%**
Difficulty of remediation
9.6%*
2.3%
Personal risk
0.7%
0.7%
Precautions effective
4.0%
0.6%
Property values affected
4.1%
0.1%
Likelihood of contamination
0.0%
0.5%
Increased awareness of
7.4%
1.3%
precautions to lower risk
* p=.05
** p=.03
Table 3 - Percentage of variance in response (r squared) by stage of precaution adoption.
(r squared is called the coefficient of determination and helps illustrate the strength
of the relation between the variables being compared)
The level of concern about groundwater contamination did seem to be associated with
the variability between the stages of planning to act and action with a reasonable degree of
certainty. The difficulty of remediation also could be associated with the variability
between the decisions of action not being needed, undecided and planning to act with some
degree of certainty. These results mean that an individual's response to those factors had
some influence on their decision to adopt precautions. For example, if there was a high level
of concern about groundwater pollution the person would be more likely to act than if the
concern was low. Although statistical significance could not be conclusively determined,
30
there did seem to be some association between some of the other factors and the stage of
precaution adoption.
Another variable that is theoretically related to the adoption of precaution is the
perception of the severity of the potential negative health effects, The responses regarding
this factor varied in an incongruous manner. For example, most people didn't know that all
of the negative health effects listed were possible from contaminated groundwater. Some
people felt so uncomfortable with this question that they didn't even respond. A few
respondents even went so far as to comment that one would need to be a doctor to answer
the health related questions! When the question of severity was communicated as the
"seriousness" of the negative health consequences resulting from polluted groundwater even
more puzzling responses were given. When asked if the health consequences from
contaminated groundwater could be serious to them, most people said no. A few questions
later in the survey, the respondents said the health consequences would be serious. It is clear
from this inconsistency that there is much ambiguity about the health problems contaminated
groundwater may cause and how severe these consequences may be. This ambiguity may be
a factor in the low perception of personal risk. However, this may not necessarily mean
that the probability of adopting a precaution against these health threats will be lowered.
Some research has shown that the seriousness or severity of the illness resulting from
exposure to contaminated groundwater may not influence peoples decision to adopt
precautions. It has been found that when respondents didn't know the severity of the threat
they may base their decision to act on some other variable (Kunreuther et al, 1978).
Never the less, perceived severity of the negative health outcomes of certain behaviors
31
(ie. not protecting oneself from risk in a high risk situation) is a common variable in the
various health protection models. It is hypothesized that if the perceived severity is low than
the perceived personal risk will be low. The perception of personal risk in this evaluation
was consistently low. This could mean that people really did not think the health
consequences would be severe, thereby confirming the hypothesized relationship. And as
stated earlier, it could also mean that the respondents are framing risk not in the realm of
heath, but perhaps from an economic or social perspective.
It is important to try and determine which factors may play a role in precaution
adoption for education efforts. Focusing on those factors that seem to be associated with
peoples decisions to adopt precautions would perhaps yield better results than focusing on
those that do not seem to be association with precaution adoption. It would, however, not be
advisable to completely ignore the factors not shown to be significant in this study. Further
research is needed to confirm these findings.
There are other factors not explored in the theoretical framework that have an impact
on whether a farmer makes a change in a high risk situation. Most respondents said they
plan to act or have already acted to reduce the risk from the high risk practice. For the 25%
that are still deciding what to do or do not plan to act, financial reasons were cited most
frequently as the reason for this decision. Referring to the tally sheet results, this reason
makes sense because the most frequent high risk findings were costly to remedy (installing a
pesticide mixing and loading pad for example).
The final objective of this evaluation was to test the Precaution Adoption Process
model as a tool for predicting who will make changes after conducting a Farm*A*Syst. To
32
do this, the model is used in conjunction with the variables thought to influence precaution
adoption. The model can demonstrate a relationship between those variables and the stage of
precaution adoption. In this study, the model did not show a relationship between most of
the variables and the stages of precaution adoption. There may really be no relationship
between the variables and the stage of precaution adoption in this case. It also may be that
the conditions needed to be present for the model to fit the evaluation (the underlying
assumptions) were not fulfilled. Further study would be necessary to determine why the
PAP model did not fit this evaluation.
33
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
One of the primary concerns of the agency representatives promoting the
USDA/AmeriCorps Farm*A*Syst program was the impact the AmeriCorps members would
have on the relationship developed between the agency and the landowner. The cornerstone
of these relationships is trust, which can only be developed over time and is very easy to
destroy. Farm*A*Syst is a confidential groundwater risk assessment program, but the belief
on behalf of the landowner that confidentiality would be maintained was uncertain. Although
outwardly confidentiality did not seem to be an overriding concern of the landowner
participating in Farm*A*Syst, the discrepancy with the results pertaining to risk perception
and "high risk areas" indicates that there may have been a latent concern. A continuing
emphasis should be made about confidentiality and the voluntary, preventive nature of
Farm*A*Syst. Trust will improve over time given no breeches or perceived breeches in
confidentiality. This may aid in lessening the discrepancy between risk perception and the
"high risk areas" reported.
Although a conclusive relationship between perception of health risks and precaution
adoption was not demonstrated in this evaluation, more attention needs to be given to the
health issues related to contaminated groundwater and the risks resulting from these issues.
There was clearly a lack of understanding of the different problems contaminated
groundwater may cause. In this case, many of the respondents had not even reached the first
step necessary for precaution adoption according to Weinstein's model, awareness.
There was also a lack of awareness about how others may be affected by groundwater
34
contamination. A consistent "it won't happen to me" attitude offers a false sense of security
to the individual with that attitude and may result in the individual failing to take preventive
measures. Communicating the message of groundwater contamination at the micro level,
how pollution affects the individual and what the problem is like in the individuals local
community, will serve to personalize the message.
Future groundwater educational efforts should be targeted at those areas in the study
found to have an impact on the likelihood of adopting precautions. Maintaining a high level
of concern where there is a high likelihood of having a groundwater contamination problem,
and communicating the difficulty of cleaning up a contaminated area seem to be the two
factors associated with precaution adoption. The other factors considered may also
increase precaution adoption and should be emphasized as well.
The issues explored in this evaluation indicate that there is much more to be learned
about why people will protect themselves from the problems caused by polluted groundwater.
It is vital to attempt to apply a theoretical approach to evaluation of on-going programs. By
doing so, predictive models can be developed and utilized to elicit change for the protection
of health. These models can be used for a variety of different programs that are aimed at
getting people to make changes.
A follow-up evaluation will be conducted for the USDA/AmeriCorps Farm*A*Syst
program. Similar questions will be asked and new ones added based on the results of this
evaluation. Demographic data will be requested and other variables thought to affect risk
perception will be tested. The results of this study will available from the Michigan
Department of Agriculture, Groundwater Protection Programs section in October, 1996.
35
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ajzen I., & Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1980.
Ajzen, I. "From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior." In J. Kuhl and J.
Beckmann (Eds.), Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Berlin, Federal
Republic of Germany: Springer-Verlag. 1985.
Becker, M.H. (Ed.). "The Health Belief Model and Personal Health Behavior." Health
Education Monographs, 2 (4), 1974.
Bergsrud, F.G., Anderson, J.L. and Koehler, T.A. " Evaluation of the Farmstead
Assessment System." Paper presented at the 1992 International Summer Meeting of
the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Charlotte, N.C.
Bouwer, Herman. " Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Quality." Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation. March-April 1990: 184-189.
Dorsch, Margret M. " Congenital Malformations and Maternal Drinking Water Supply in
Rural South Australia: A Case-Control Study." American Journal of Epidemiology,
119 (4), 1984:211-215.
Edwards, W. "The Theory of Decision Making." Psychological Bulliten, 51, 1954: 380-
417.
Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
1957.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 1975.
Fitchen, Janet M. "Cultural Aspects of Environmental Problems: Individualism and
Chemical Contamination of Groundwater. Science, Technology and Human Values,
Spring 1987: 1-12.
Jones, Susan A. and Jackson, Gary W. " Farmstead Assessments, A Strategy to Prevent
Groundwater Pollution." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
March-April 1990: 236-238.
Kuhl, J and Beckmann, J. (Eds.) Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Berlin,
Federal Republic of Germany: Springer-Verlag. 1985.
36
Kunreuther, H., Ginsberg, R., Miller, L. Sagi, P., Slovic, P., Borkan, B., and Katz, N.
Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons. New York: Wiley. 1978.
Nielson, Elizabeth G., and Lee, Linda K. "The Magnitude and Costs of Groundwater
Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals." Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 1987.
Rogers, R.W. "A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change."
Journal of Psychology, 91, 1975: 93-114.
Rogers, R.W. "Cognitive and Psychological Processes in Fear Appeals and Attitude
Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation." In J.T. Cacioppo and R.E.
Petty (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology. New York: Guilford. 1983.
Rosenstock, F.M. " Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model." Health Education
Monographs, 2, 1974: 328-335.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. " Characterizing Perceived Risk." In R.
Kates, C. Hohenemser, R.J. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous Progress: Managing the
Hazards of Technology. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1985.
State of California, Assembly Office of Research. " The Leaching Fields: A Non-Point
Threat to Groundwater." Sacramento: Joint Publication Office, March 1985:18-19.
Stinson, Brent. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Michigan. Geographic
Information Systems generated maps. 1994.
Sutton, S.R. "Fear Arousing Communications: A Critical Examination of Theory and
Research." In J.R. Eiser (Ed.), Social Psychology and Behavioral Medicine. 1982:
303-338. New York: Wiley.
Swartz, Mark. Michigan Department of Agriculture, Plant and Plant Pest Management
Division, Groundwater Programs, personal conversation. 1995.
Taylor, Marcia Zarley. The Clean Water Pledge." Farm Journal. April 1990:17-21.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. "Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristic and biases."
Science, 185, 1974: 1124-1131.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States, 1989.
Washington, D.C.
37
United States Geological Survey. National Water Summary 1984: Hydrologic Events, Selected
Water Quality Trends and Groundwater Resources. Washington D.C.
Weinstein, N., & Nicolich, M.M. " Correct and Incorrect Interpretations of Correlations
Between Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors." Health Psychology, 12, 1993:235-
245.
Weinstein, N. " Why it Won't Happen to Me: Perceptions of Risk Factors and
Susceptibility." Health Psychology, 3 (5), 1984:431-457.
Weinstein, N. " Optimistic Biases About Personal Risks." Science, 246, 1989:1232-1233.
Weinstein, N. "Reducing Unrealistic Optimism About Illness Susceptibility." Health
Psychology, 2 (1), 1983:11-20.
Weinstein, N. " Testing Four Competing Theories of Health Protective Behavior." Health
Psychology, 12 (4), 1993:324-333.
Weinstein, Neil D. " The Precaution Adoption Process." Health Psychology. 7, 1988: 355-
386.
Weinstein, N., Sandman, P. " A Model of the Precaution Adoption Process: Evidence From
Home Radon Testing." Health Psychology, 11 (3), 1992: 170-180.
Williams, W.M., Holden, P.W., Parsons, D.W., and Lorber, M.N. Pesticides in
Groundwater Database. Interim report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1988.
Wilson, Richard and Crouch, E.A.C. " Risk Assessment and Comparisons: An
Introduction." Science, 236, 1987: 267-270.
Zeckhauser, Richard J. and Viscusi, Kip W. " Risk Within Reason." Science, 248,
1990: 559-564.
38
APPENDIX A
United States Department Of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Americorp
Michigan Priority Watersheds
KFWDENAN
50
0
50 MILES
HOUGHTON
NJ
ONTONACON
BARACA
LLKE
MARQUETTE
COOOBIC
FLOOR
FROM
SCHOOLOPIT
MACHINAC
DELIA
DICKINSON
of
DATE
MONOMINI
CHEROYOAN
PROCIOUSLE
CHALEVOOL
MONT-
ANTRIU
OTSORO
ALPOHA
MORONCY
URCLANALE
A - Direct Drainage to Lake Michigan
WALKASHA
CAWAFORD
OSCOOA
ALCONA
Congressional District 1
BOOK
THERE
1 Americorp Employee
ISSCO
MANISTEE
KOVE
RELIMACH
3 SCS Field Offices.
B - Lower Grand River
ARENIC
BASON
LANE
OSCIDLA
CLARK
CLAIMS
Congressional Districts 2, 3, 4
HUROH
3 Americorp Employees
BAY
MICLAND
5 SCS Field Offices
OCEANA
MEDOSTA
65ABOLLA
PUSICOLA
C - Kalamazoo River
ONION
SIGNAME
CANTIOT
Congressional Districts 2, 3, 6, 7
MUSHITON
B
LAPOR
3 Americorp Employees
KENT
COCKI
CATANA
CLINTON
I
7 SCS Field Offices
D - Upper Grand River
MACOME
ONLAND
ALLECAN
UMICSTON
Congressional Districts 3,4,7,8
2 Americorp Employees
WARE
WWW.BURCH
7 SCS Field Offices
E - Raisin River
ours
STATEM
EWOI
BOWEN
HILLSOALE
Congressional Districts 7, 16
2 Americorp Employees
4 SCS Field Offices
F - Black, Belle, and Pine Rivers
District - Congressman
Congressional Districts 5, 9. 10
1 - Bart Stupak
7 - Nick Smith
1 Americorp Employee
2 - Peter Hoekstra
8 - Bob Carr
3 SCS Field Offices
3 - Vernon Ehlers
9 - Dale Kildee
4 - Dave Camp
10 - David Bonior
5 - James Barcia
16 - John Dingell
Mop produced ot the
6 - Fred Upton
Michigon State Office.
1994
APPENDIX B
MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
FARM
A
SYST
EXTENSION
Farmstead Assessment System
FAS 8
Worksheet #8
Assessing the Risk of Surface and Groundwater Contamination from
Livestock Yards Management
Why should I be concerned?
Livestock yards, such as barnyards, holding areas and feedlots, are areas of concen-
trated livestock manure. They can be a source of nitrate and bacteria contamination of
groundwater. This is especially true if there is no system to 1) divert clean water flow
from the livestock yard or 2) collect polluted runoff from the yard for diversion to an
area where its effect on surface water or groundwater is minimal. The potential for
livestock yards to affect groundwater is greatest if the yard is located over coarse-
textured permeable soils, if the water table is at or near the surface, if bedrock is
within a few feet of the surface, or when polluted runoff is discharged to permeable
soils and bedrock.
Nitrate levels in drinking water above federal and state drinking water standards of 10
milligrams per liter (mg/l; equivalent to parts per million for water measure) nitrate-
nitrogen can pose health problems for infants under 6 months of age, including the
condition known as methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome). Nitrate can also
affect adults, but the evidence is much less certain.
Young livestock are also susceptible to health problems from high nitrate-nitrogen
levels. Levels of 20-40 mg/l in the water supply may prove harmful, especially in
combination with high levels (1,000 ppm) of nitrate-nitrogen from feed sources.
Bacteria in livestock waste can contaminate groundwater if waste seeps into nearby
wells, causing such infectious diseases as dysentery, typhoid and hepatitis. Organic
materials, which may lend an undesirable taste and odor to drinking water, are not
known to be dangerous to health, but their presence does suggest that other contami-
nants are flowing directly into groundwater.
A livestock yard without a runoff control system typically has an earthen surface
compacted by animal traffic. This surface is not shaped for water drainage, so it is
usually dry in some places and muddy in others. Manure typically accumulates on the
surface, and decaying manure is mixed into the soil by animal traffic.
The goal of FarmASyst is to help you assess your current practices and deter-
mine how well you are protecting the groundwater that supplies your drinking
water and surrounding surface water.
How will this worksheet help me protect surface and groundwater?
It will take you step by step through your livestock yards management prac-
tices.
It will rank your activities according to how they might affect the groundwater
that provides your drinking water and surrounding surface water.
page 3
Worksheet #8
Livestock Yards Management: Assessing Water Contamination Risk
1. Use a pencil. You may want to make changes.
3. Look above the description you circled to find your "rank number"
2. For each category listed on the left that is appropriate to your
(4, 3, 2 or 1) and enter that number in the blank under "your rank."
farmstead, read across to the right and circle the statement
4. Directions on overall scoring appear at the end of the worksheet.
that best describes conditions on your farmstead. (Skip and
5. Allow about 15-30 minutes to complete the worksheet and figure out
leave blank any categories that don't apply to your farmstead.)
your risk ranking for livestock yards management.
LOW RISK
LOW-MOD RISK
MOD-HIGH RISK
HIGH RISK
YOUR
(rank 4)
(rank 3)
(rank 2)
(rank 1)
RANK
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Lot location in
Active livestock yards
Active livestock yard
Active livestock yard
Inactive livestock yard
relation to wells
on fine-textured soil or
on fine-textured soil or
on coarse-textured soil.
on medium to coarse-
paved lot. 100 feet or
paved lot. More than
100 to 300 feet upslope
textured soil, or inactive
more downslope from
50 feet downslope from
from well.
livestock yard on frac-
well or more than 300
well.
tured limestone. Within
upslope from well.
100 feet upslope of well.
Lot location in
Livestock yard is more
Livestock yard within
Livestock yard is more
Livestock yard is
relation to surface
than 300 feet from
300 feet of surface
than 75 feet from
located less than 75 feet
surface water Slope is
water. Slope 3 to 6%.
surface water. Slope
from surface water.
water
less than 3%. Dense
At least 150 feet of
less than 6%. Dense
Slope exceeds 6% and
vegetation that is
dense vegetation be-
vegetation grows in a
minimal vegetation
harvested exists be-
tween yard and surface
strip at least 75 feet
exists, or a stream runs
tween yard and surface
water.
wide adjacent to the
through livestock yard.
water.
surface water.
Runoff control
All roofwater and
Roofwater and upslope
Roofwater and upslope
Roofwater and upslope
system
upslope water drainage
watershed drainage is
watershed drainage is
watershed drainage
is diverted around
diverted around live-
diverted around live-
runs through yard and
livestock yard. All
stock yard. All runoff
stock yard. Runoff
no runoff control
yard runoff directed to
directed to a settling
directed to cropland.
system in place. Yards
a settling basing and
basing and vegetated
Does not discharge into
rarely scraped.
sealed runoff storage
infiltration strip where
streams or lakes. Soils
for at least 180 days.
vegetation is routinely
are fine to medium
harvested.
texture.
Use this total to calculate
TOTAL
risk ranking on back page
of worksheet.
APPENDIX C
FARM*A*SYST EVALUATION
Directions:
Answer each question as accurately as you can. Many questions can be answered by
circling the item that best describes your opinion or situation. Other questions require
you confidential. to check the response or responses that apply. All answers will be kept completely
1. How did you hear about Farm*A*Syst and the service available through
USDA/AmeriCorps members? (check all that apply)
Newsletters
Newspapers
Radio
Television
Direct Mail
Meetings
Word-of-Mouth
Flyer
Other
2. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being of no value and 5 being extremely valuable, circle
the number that most closely describes your feeling aboút your participation in
Farm*A*Syst with a USDA/AmeriCorps member.
1
2
3
4
5
No value
of some
very valuable
value
3. How would you rate the assistance from the USDA/AmeriCorps member?
(circle one option)
a. poor
b. fair
c. good
d. very good
e. excellent
9. If someone in your home did have negative health effects from groundwater
contamination, how serious do you think they would be?
a. Very minor
b. Minor
C. Somewhat serious
d. Serious
e. Very serious
10. When you think about groundwater pollution, how do you feel?
a. Not at all concerned
b. Somewhat concerned
C. Concerned
d. Very concerned
11. In general, how would you rate the level of concern about groundwater pollution in
your community?
a. Not at all concerned
b. Somewhat concerned
C. Concerned
d. Very concerned
e. Don't know
13. The following opinions about groundwater have been expressed. We want to know
if you agree or disagree with them. (Please circle your opinion)
a. If my neighbor dumps oil in
Agree
Disagree
Don't Know
a drainage ditch the oil may
end up in my drinking water.
b. What people do on their
own property won't help
prevent well water con-
tamination unless their
neighbors also work to
prevent it.
Agree
Disagree
Don't Know
C. Physical characteristics
like soil and bedrock type
and depth to groundwater
affect the potential for
groundwater and well water
contamination at a specific
site.
Agree
Disagree
Don't Know
14. When groundwater is polluted it:
(circle one)
a. Can be cleaned very easily
b. Is very difficult to clean
C. Cannot be cleaned
d. Don't know
18. Did the USDA/AmeriCorps member suggest a precaution that would lower your
risk ranking from the high risk practice? (check one)
Yes
No (skip to 20)
19.
If yes, how do you feel about the precaution suggested?
(check all that apply)
I remember that a precaution was suggested.
The precaution suggested was clear to me.
I believe the precaution suggested would reduce
risk from the practice in general.
I believe the precaution suggested would reduce
risk from the practice for myself.
20. For the high risk areas you have identified on your farmstead that you would like to
change, what type of assistance, if any, would be helpful in making those changes?
(check all that apply)
Technical design/engineering
Equipment recommendations
Education on management options
Cost sharing
Testing services (soil, water etc...)
Other (please specify)
Please use this space to write your comments about this survey.
Thank you for your cooperation with this evalution. Please return the completed survey
to:
Christina Coulon, USDA/AmeriCorps
Michigan State University Extension
11 Agriculture Hall
East Lansing, MI
48824-1039
APPENDIX D
COMMENTS FROM SURVEY
1.
You would have to be a doctor to answer question #5 on the second page.
2.
She (the USDA/AmeriCorps member) did a nice job.
3.
It (Farm*A*Syst) made me more aware of problems.
4.
Very important that the person doing the survey comes across as helping and not as a
'regulator'.
5.
The survey is good but I'm one of the lucky farmers who have never had a water
problem.
6.
Need to get more people to participate in on site assessments.
7.
Anytime you participate in a 1 on 1 program you've got to benefit from the program.
Your more apt to ask more questions at home than in a meeting place.
8.
Because of the emphasis on the soil rank in the scoring it averages down any management
attempts. Possibly separate the controllable factors vs. the uncontrollable and score them
separately.
9.
Thank you for doing such a good and important job.
10.
Survey (Farm*A*Syst worksheets) is not completed yet but am working on it.
11.
The size of the farm should affect the scoring on some answers. For example, a farmer
that mixes two tanks of spray without having a "mixing pad" I don't think is as high of a risk
as one who mixes twenty tanks full. Same goes for fuel, a guy who stores 500 gallons vs.
10,000 gallons.
12.
Probably good for the cause.
13.
Some questions could have been yes or no or agree or disagree instead of 'may disagree'.
Most every farmer has concern about our water.
14.
The farmer needs to do all of the sheets with the AmeriCorps representative and not the
AmeriCorps representative do some without the farmer. The farmer needs to have all the
factsheets so that they can read over before any sheets are filled out.
15.
Well done!
16.
Do it other than at spring planting time!
17.
I believe that the Farm Syst program while beneficial-underestimates the technical and
general knowledge (ie. most people I know have at least some college level education).
18.
We covered some things that I didn't consider a risk until we did the survey. I think
every farmer could benefit from this survey.
19.
I basically already knew the problems I had. This survey prompted me to act on them.
It also brought to light the seemingly harmless substances like paint, parking a truck or tractor
that leaks can be potential problems.
20.
It made me more aware of the problem. I'm trying to clean some as I see them but can
not afford to spend much money to do this.
21.
The survey was O.K. but the survey members need more training.
22.
I work off the farm to like most farmers my age, and it helped me with a kind of hands
on class as well as giving me credits so I wouldn't have to take time off work. Thank you.
23.
Good program.
24.
Appreciate voluntary participation.
25.
I like it. Every farmer should be concerned.
26.
I am very much interested in our water condition. Here is a question for you: Why is
the city of Grand Rapids allowed to dump millions of gallons of raw sewage into the Grand
River each year? Each individual farmer should be responsible for his or her actions: Where
is the almighty DNR when GR decides to empty their cess pool? Please comment CHRISTINA
COULON. How concerned are you with our water quality?
27.
Very poor survey. The questions were worded like they were looking for answers they
already had in mind. Many questions did not have my answer in the choice of answers typed.
28.
Interesting. Informative. Comforting.
29.
This program allowed me to know what regulations are in effect and what agency to
contact to make beneficial changes- It also clarified conflicting regulations.
30.
This is an excellent survey and I hope other farmers try to improve their practices where
need be.
31.
The *Syst program is very good in bringing to our attention the possibility of
problems that could be severe if left un-attended or not dealt-with.
32.
Good program- not politically/regulatory threatening. Enthusiastic young presenters- used
referral techniques well when they lacked background or experience.
33.
I feel I did my share in keeping groundwater clean when will the USDA survey non-
farmers about pollution.
34.
Several moderate and low risks were identified, and suggestions made for correcting
them.
35.
We are long overdue in testing to see the effect of chemicals and fertilizers used. I thing
it has caused cancer in people and animals in the last 20 to 40 years.
36.
Need to know approved methods for implementing and designing new safety
improvements, impoundments, enclosures etc
37.
The AmeriCorps assessment by Ms. Faith Traylor was thorough and clearly understood.
Follow-up information was done well by Faith. We did not have anything High risk (our two
fuel tanks are currently tested and have not leaked). We have removed our underground gas by
specialized contractor and will remove fuel oil as it is too close to well. Am pleased with
assessment, will prevent program here, far better than 'curing' later.
38.
Very good program.
39.
Very complete, covered most all aspects.
40.
I thought the survey was very helpful, in that it addresses a wide range of questions
relating to my farming operation. It brought to my attention a couple of areas that needed to
be taken care of; of which I have.
41.
The AmeriCorps member was very helpful.
42.
Ms. Traylor was of great help to inform me to use safe practices so as to reduce
groundwater contamination.
43.
Need to tailor questions to particular areas of ag- N.W. Lower Michigan is quite tuned
in and maybe needs to be addressed on a higher level.
44.
The Farmstead Assessment Program made me aware more of what to do for prevention.
45.
Jennifer Blaker did a excellent job. She is a good person to do this type of work.
46.
Survey is fine but, what about private citizens that bury iron, junk, dump oil, antifreeze
and other items in ground. Report them and nothing happens. I even reported them to the
DNR.
47.
Very informative and helpful. Thank you for the information provided.
48.
Jennifer did ours and was quite knowledgeable and willing to answer our questions.
49.
We all get busy in our work and need to be reminded about things we might of let go.
50.
USDA/AmeriCorps rep. was knowledgeable and completing survey helped address
potential problem areas and solutions to problems.
51.
At another address located in a city where we had city water I had 4 pets plus my mother
die of cancer. This was always a concern for me.
52.
Most unsafe wells in this area are residential non approved wells kept secret from local
health department.
53.
It's important to protect our groundwater and environment, but sometimes people are
sacrificed for the sake of laws and lots of red tape. Somehow people need to be responsible to
their fellow man and government agencies and work for the common good of all mankind.
54.
Difficult questionnaire. It is probably very dear to you- but so many questions are
difficult to answer without explanation. Not clear on what you want to know or why. Evaluator
was excellent. We are continually aware of groundwater contamination and evaluate what we
can do and what we should not do.
55.
The survey opened by eyes to a few possible sources of contamination which will be
corrected.
56.
Just a make work program.
57.
I think this is a good way to build another very large bureaucracy for MSU and USDA.
The good it may do will be last.
58.
Just yet one more survey which contributes to mounds of paperwork and takes my time
away from productive work.
59.
Would like to solve all problems (chemicals) before they arrive.
60.
Everybody should go through the course. Very informative, brings out awareness of
subject.
61.
It is helpful to know there is a department on call if I have questions.
62.
Kristin was very pleasant to work with also very informative.
63.
I think USDA should check the cities, anyone can spray lawns and by laundries. It can
run off right into storm sewers and right into rivers.
65.
Conversation after the assessment was thought provoking in calling attention to possibility
of problems. the Extension Service is appreciated.
66.
It is a great program that keeps you aware of being cautious and doing correct farm
practices.
67.
I would like cost-sharing for liquid fertilizer storage.
68.
A worthwhile and informative program. A 'high quality' presentation was conducted by
Kristin Korutz.
69.
Well informed, easy to complete.
70.
I feel it was a good survey, it keeps us on our toes and makes us think about what we
can do to make our liver healthy.
71.
I enjoyed the assistance from the AmeriCorps member- nice experience and well worth
our time.
72.
The farm is not the only source for contamination. I have a hard time believing Amoco
"leaked" 60,000 gallons of gas from a pipe in the ground where the aquifer is only 4 feet deep
and we have NO contamination. Yet a gas station has contamination from the small amount of
gas spilled by customers. As far as I can tell the DNR feels there is no contamination. What
do you think the credibility of the DNR is in our area. DNR=Government. Have a nice day!
73.
Christina,
I'm not sure I should have filled this out since I work on campus. However, I think that
the issues and awareness that the evaluation brings out among producers may be more valuable
than they would be willing to admit. If the producers you are working with don't feel that they
are on the defensive, they might gain a lot of valuable insight from this process. I think it is
hard to write a survey that gets to issues and attitudes of producers. This one is somewhat
subjective in places, but asks the right questions for the most part and should be a good feed
back tool. Anonymous.
74.
This is a bad situation on all fronts, just keep your eyes open.
75.
Teresa Rudnicki did a good job.
76.
Could be useful if more people fill it out.
77.
The young lady conducting the survey of our farm was very congenial, qualified and
helpful. Many things we as farmers do are harmful to ourselves and others because we have
been unaware of the consequences. Many things we are encouraged to do by MSU like burying
our fuel tanks to preserve octane.
78.
Good helpful program- keep it in effect with more credits.
79.
I think it is very important to have a survey like this hopefully it will help all of us in
the future and now.
80.
Poorly written survey- many questions make assumptions that aren't necessarily true.
81. I thought the meeting was very informational and it made me more aware of areas to
address and made me have a better understanding of what you agencies are trying to help with.
82. This additional lay of government seems unnecessary- the same thing could have been
accomplished through a mailing to the ag community, without hiring additional staff.
83.
Educational. AmeriCorps member very knowledgeable of survey process and willing to
provide assistance/information in a non-intrusive manner.
84.
Less than one sucker long. Very pleased with the information provided.
85.
Where will the results go- will anything become of the survey and what benefit will I get
out of it!
86. Survey information was helpful. AmeriCorps person should become more familiar with
both soil types and subsurface geology relative to potential for groundwater contamination.
87.
O.K. but many farms need to have this done also city dwellers need to be aware of this
on their lawns! They over fertilize and use pesticides way too much! Farmers are the ones
afraid to use it or don't care. It should be promoted as a no risk no cost program.
88.
It was worth doing.
89.
Try and keep program simple, direct, and with results. The rules and regulations are
somewhat out of hand- common sense not too much red tape.
90.
Questionnaire well planned.
91. Does this really do any good but create bigger government and waste my tax dollars on
surveys and self adhered envelopes and stamps.
92. I think information on general water and soil cleanness or contamination should be
publicly shared, along with ways to solve problems and get rid of contamination. Let
individuals know if their well water is very healthful or not healthful and what ways to improve
it if necessary.
93.
Our farm is leased by reliable farmers and our main concern is the lagoon system across
the road from our property.
94.
I think it was worth the time to do it.
95.
A bad time of the year to send out the survey.
96.
The concept that the results are for the property owner only is good. The biggest
problem is that corrections needed in many cases are so costly. The young people administering
these evaluations may have some of the answers, but don't realize what it is to have to pay for
the actual risk reductions practices.
97.
I am very skeptical about any information today because of our society of today,
misusing and gaining false information and using it to their advantage and that does include our
government agencies.
98.
No problems only I wish I could have taken it sooner since the evaluation.
99.
AmeriCorps and Farm*A*Syst did tests for groundwater pollution on my farm and did
not find any contamination problems. Every test came out good.
APPENDIX E
MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
April 10, 1995
TO: Christina Coulon
11 Agriculture Hall
RE: IRB#:
95-160
TITLE:
EVALUATING FARM*A*SYST USING THE PRECAUTION
ADOPTION PROCESS MODEL
REVISION REQUESTED:
N/A
CATEGORY:
1-c
APPROVAL DATE:
04/10/95
The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to advise that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision
listed above.
RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with the original approval letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek updated certification. There is a
maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators
wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it
again for complete review.
REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human
subjects, prior to initiation of the change. If this is done at
the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year,
send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB # and title. Include
in your request a description of the change and any revised
instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMS/
CHANGES:
Should either of the following arise during the course of the
work, investigators must notify UCRIHS promptly: (1) problems
(unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human
subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human subjects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to contact us
AND
at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517) 336-1171.
GRADUATE
STUDIES
Sincerely,
University Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects
David E. Wright, Ph.D.
(UCRIHS)
UCRIHS Chair
Michigan State University
DEW:pjm
232 Administration Building
CC: Cynthia Fridgen
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1046
517/355-2180
FAX: 517/432-1171
The Michigan State University
IDEA is Institutional Diversity,
Excellence in Action.
MSU is an affirmative-action,
equal-opportunity institution
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
12
Farmstead Assessment Program
Pre-Assessment Survey of
Farmers in Louisiana
March 1994
FARMSTEAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
(Farm *A* Syst)
A PRE-ASSESSMENT SURVEY
OF FARMERS IN LOUISIANA
Louisiana Agricultural
Extension Service
in association with
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Agricultural Economics
March 1994
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
11
Farmstead Assersmet Program
Post- Assessment Survey of
Farmers in Louisiana
March 1994
FARMSTEAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
(Farm *A* Syst)
A POST-ASSESSMENT SURVEY
OF FARMERS IN LOUISIANA
Louisiana Agricultural
Extension Service
in association with
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Agricultural Economics
March 1994
Joseph L. Wysocki
NPL-Family Housing & Environment
Home Economics and Human Nutrition
Extension Service, USDA
Room 3444 South Building
Washington, DC 20250-0900
(202) 720-8344 FAX: (202) 690-2469 Internet: [email protected]
Date: may 10,1994
For information
For action
To: Joel Buy
As requested
Per phone call
Please return by
Subject:
Current information about the
Farm. A- Syst prgrm
STRENGTHENING FAMILIES THROUGH EDUCATION
Fain
FARMSTEAD
POLLUTION PREVENTION
UPDATE
NEWS ABOUT FARMSTEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
March 1994
Student labor boosts Wisconsin Farm* A*Syst assessments
(adapted from a "Keeping Current" newsletter article)
Wisconsin Extension agents may have found a natural
partnership for Farm * when they teamed up with
students from Fox Valley Technical College in Appleton.
Future natural resource managers benefit from the hands-
on training, while farmers may respond more openly with
students who are still learning the ropes.
7057
Last fall, Waupaca County Extension Agent Greg
Blonde and Outagamie County Extension Agent John
Biese helped soils instructor Bruce Cecka turn theory into
practice for 44 students who were trained to conduct
assessments.
"Before they [students] got involved in this project,
"This interaction with the farmers was a real lesson in
they would drive by a farm and just see buildings and
human relations for many of the students," Cecka ob-
machinery. Now they see it entirely differently," says
served. "I told the students to be very up-front with the
Cecka, whose students teamed up to conduct assessments
farmers I also advised the students to show an interest
on 27 area farms.
in what the farmer said and to not argue with the farmer's
From Blonde's standpoint, the experience was "time-
judgement about a particular situation. A farmer may not
consuming, but we all agree that it was time well spent. I
wish to admit that he has a problem in a certain area, but
see it as a way to expand the number of farmstead
just by raising it, I can guarantee that they will be
assessments in my county and I'm willing to give it two
thinking about it. The students really caught on to this,"
weeks of my time every year. Not only are we getting
he said.
these assessments completed, but a large group of
Blonde noted that there are still some bugs to work out
students is getting excellent training experience that they
with the collaboration- "We need to refine the program
will take with them to their jobs throughout the state."
to [better] meet farmers' needs," he said. The lengthy
Biese added, "This is an excellent program. The
time needed by staff to develop individual action plans
farmstead assessment process ought to be much more
tends to deflate farmer interest in the program. "The
widely available. Using these technical college students
longer we wait, the further from farmers' minds it
helps us achieve that."
becomes," he noted.
The learning process started in September with a two-
And, like every class graded on a curve, there are the
hour orientation session on the Farm* Syst assessment
"A" students and the "F" students. Using students does
system and a lesson on the basics of groundwater and
not ensure every assessment will be conducted properly,
groundwater pollution, using a groundwater model. Then
he added, although using teams lessens the effect.
a week later, Biese arranged for the class to visit a nearby
All in all, Blonde feels the effort has a "lot of poten-
farm for a live run-through of the farmstead assessment
tial. Eventually, all of the farms in our county may be
process.
assessed There's no way I could reach 27 farms by
In early October, the students were provided with soil
myself."
surveys and well logs to conduct the groundwater and
For more information about creating a partnership
subsurface assessments for their assigned farms. This
with vocational-technical students and your Farm*A*Syst
activity tied the project to the soils curriculum of the
program, contact Greg Blonde, Waupaca County Exten-
class. Then the students had about 30 days to establish
sion, 715/258-6230, or the Farm* national office,
contact with the farmers and complete the ten worksheets.
608/262-0024.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
Farm*A*Syst
Farmstead Assessment System
Farm*A*Syst Programs Across America
Modification Done
In Progress
Planned
National Farm*A*Syst Directory
April 1994