Educators, scientists, and researchers face specific challenges as they communicate technical information to educate the general public and other non-technical audiences. In some cases, they are writing and speaking to these audiences about health and safety concerns. Whether the objective is to motivate people to take action, calm people down when they are enraged, or to educate and inform, there are specific techniques and strategies to effectively communicate and educate regarding issues of health and safety.

Sometimes the educational objective is to deliver technical information that will motivate people to take action: instructing workers about how to properly use equipment and chemicals, teaching low-income families about good nutrition, explaining the importance of water quality. In other instances, educators may be telling people that a perceived hazard is not as serious as they may think. Food irradiation, pesticide application, and other issues can inflame the general public when the actual risk is very low. Another educational objective may be to inform people so that they will be prepared in the event of an emergency.

For each of these situations there are specific strategies to overcome the potential communicative and educational barriers that are presented. There are also general techniques and approaches that can be used to increase the effectiveness with which technical and complex information can be explained to non-technical audiences.

There are certain obstacles inherent in developing materials to inform and educate the public about potential health and safety risks. Some obstacles are specific to a particular topic. There also are some general principles and guidelines that apply to a broad range of health and safety topics. Perhaps the most basic goal in educating and communicating health and safety information is to promote greater knowledge and understanding by all parties involved of the particular risks, the possible solutions, and the accompanying issues and concerns (Oleckno, 1995).

There are many ways in which the communication of health and safety information can be improved. Several models have been developed that are helpful in specific situations. One way of thinking about risk is to consider the relationship between the potential hazard and the level of public outrage. Much of Sandman's (1993) work is anchored in the formula:

Public acceptability of certain risks depend largely on the degree of their outrage (Sandman, 1987). When public outrage about a perceived risk, such as the use of certain pesticides, is very high and the actual risk, according to experts, is low, the effectiveness of education efforts may be limited because of the defensive posture held by both parties. In this situation, educators and scientists must acknowledge the public outrage as a component of the risk equation. Simply acknowledging the outrage may not eliminate the concern, but failure to validate the values and feelings of the public can lead to mistrust and alienation.

Although Sandman's model is simple, it is useful in gaining understanding about why some traditional methods of educating and communicating about risks can fail. The following is a list of some of the common factors from the literature (Sandman, 1987).

Catastrophic Outcomes
Dreaded Outcomes
Fatal Outcomes
Invisible Risks
Involuntary Risks
Memorable Outcomes
Untrustworthy Sources
Risks Focused on Time and Space
Uncertain Risks
Uncontrollable Risks
Undetectable Risks
Unethical Risks
Unfair Risks
Unfamiliar Risks
Unnatural Risks

Think back to the Alar controversy of several years ago, which had a significant impact on apple producers and processors (Sandman, 1993). In hindsight it is understandable why so much public outrage erupted over a relatively small health hazard. The growth-regulating hormone Alar was perceived by the public as an involuntary, unfamiliar, unnatural and invisible risk with a potentially dreaded outcome, and its risk was downplayed by an untrustworthy source (Oleckno, 1995).

For the experts, attention to the public's perceptions should play an important role in the way in which publications are drafted. Figure 1 illustrates the possible views about several risks. The items in the lower left and upper right portions of the contingency table represent opposing views about the seriousness of the risks. Education about health and safety sometimes involves allaying public concerns on some issues (for example, food irradiation) and motivating action on other issues (such as, manual dishwashing). The way in which this is done has significant implications for the effectiveness of educational materials.

Once public outrage is considered, the next step in creating effective health and safety educational materials is to establish the existence and severity of potential risks. In some cases, more effort is needed to establish the existence of a risk than in other situations. This may be the case when outrage is low or non-existent. For instance, when developing materials about manual dishwashing there is more of a challenge to establish the existence of a potential risk than in developing materials about safety with farm tractors or chain saw safety. There is probably little or no outrage regarding the dangers of improper dish washing. On the other hand, there may not be true outrage related to equipment safety, yet the public is more likely to readily acknowledge the associated risks.

There are many reasons why "washing dishes" might be perceived as less of a risk situation than operating a chain saw. The less dramatic and more mundane act of washing dishes seems to be an unlikely threat to health. For this reason, more attention is needed to explain the existence of the potential risk. The following three steps outlined by Clark (1984) can help establish the existence of a potential risk:

1. Plausibility - provide an indication that the existence of a potential risk is plausible.
2. Sign Reasoning - note the signs of its existence.
3. Explanation - offer one or more explanations for the existence of the hazard.

The above three steps might be an effective strategy to help people understand how improper dishwashing can lead to bacteria which can harm people. These steps would not necessarily be appropriate for the chain saw example. In the latter example, it may be more helpful to demonstrate the severity of the problem and how the risk can affect people. Clark (1984) provides the following advice when this is the desired goal:

1. Overview of the Problem
Single statistics, number of people affected, comparisons, etc.

2. Indicate Multiple Implications
Undesirable consequences

3. Demonstrate that this problem is more serious than other problems
Compare to other hazards already thought of with great concern.

4. Suggest that the effects of the problem are enduring
Unreversiblity, cumulative effect.

Another way to communicate the impact of the problem is to demonstrate that the potential risk can threaten basic human abilities and values. In an educational publication about wearing protective headgear, a presentation of the technical information about hearing loss can be enhanced by also communicating some of the central values we associate with the ability to hear: enjoyment of music, hearing the laughter of children. These examples may seem melodramatic but this kind of association can help motivate people to pay closer attention to the information.

Gaining agreement that a problem exists can be accomplished with the help of the principles described above to (a) establish the existence and the severity of the risk and (b) demonstrate that the risk poses a threat to values and abilities. Agreement on the problem or potential risk, however, is only part of the goal. There are also potential obstacles and strategies to consider when describing specific steps for action. The following obstacles and strategies are recommended by Rowan (1991):

Obstacle: Belief that all action is hopeless.
Strategy: Acknowledge situation's difficulty; describe specific options still available.

Obstacle: Lack of clarity about what action to take.
Strategy: Describe specific steps or behaviors to enact not general goals.

Obstacle: Action seems too difficult, expensive, time-consuming.
Strategy: Make the first step easy, not time consuming, not expensive.

Obstacle: Doubt that one person's efforts will make a difference.
Strategy: Describe a similar situation in which small or individual acts resulted in great success.

Quasi-scientific explanations help the learner envision important points and critical connections in complex phenomena. Graphic aids, textual highlighting, and figurative language are ways to construct quasi-scientific explanations (Rowan, 1998). Many Extension materials use graphic illustrations very effectively. For instance, a publication on machine hazards may explain the difference between a "no energy spring" and a "stored energy spring" with a graphic illustration. These kinds of pictures might make it very apparent why a stored energy spring is much more dangerous.

Materials on nitrate and groundwater may only textually establish connections and relationships in the explanation of nitrate and groundwater. For instance, one way in which nitrate gets into groundwater is by "leaching." Groundwater vulnerability is explained as being dependent on a number of characteristics including depth of water table, texture of soil, bedrock characteristics, glacial till, and so on. For the non-technical audience untrained in geology, a few graphic illustrations could help to explain some of the connections between these geological factors and nitrate in groundwater.

Elucidating explanations help people understand the meanings and uses of terms. Effective elucidating explanations contain (a) a typical instance of the concept, a definition that lists the concept's essential features, (c) an array of varied examples and non-examples (these non-examples are instances likely taken as examples), and (d) opportunities to practice distinguishing examples from non-examples (Merrill & Tennyson, 1977; Tennyson & Cocchiarella, 1986).

Materials on nutrition and aging may provide important and easy to understand information about how nutritional needs change as we age. One of the topics likely addressed would be fiber. High-fiber foods such as fruits, dried peas and beans, vegetables, and whole grains are explained as helpful in aiding food to move through the digestive tract, as muscles become weaker with age. Lawrence Prouix (1996. pD2) a Washington Post writer provides a good example of an elucidating explanation of what counts as fiber. He writes:

Much fiber is chemically similar to starch, but its atoms are so arranged that our stomach enzymes cannot break it down. It comes in two types, insoluble and soluble, and plant foods are the source of both. Insolubles, such as cellulose, fit the popular sawdust-like image of fiber (think of wheat bran). They absorb water and add bulk to the stool but pass out of the body unchanged..Soluble fibers are softer things, including gums and pectin; apples and oats are good sources....."

Rowan (1998) points out that although Prouix's explanation is a good example of an elucidating explanation, further examples and some non-examples could enhance it.

Transformative explanations help people understand ideas that are difficult to comprehend because they are counter-intuitive. There are four steps in a transformative explanation: (a) statement of the lay theory, (b) acknowledgement of the lay theory's apparent merit, (c) creating dissatisfaction with the lay theory, and (d) showing how a more orthodox notion better explains the phenomenon. Counter-intuitive concepts can be expressed with simple words and can be easily envisioned, yet still difficult to understand. Transformative explanations can be effective in these situations (Rowan, 1998).

Typical materials on bacterial contamination of household water might begin with the statement like, "How do you know your water is safe to drink? Appearances can be deceiving." This would be a good opportunity for a transformative explanation. The following example is how the four steps of creating a transformative explanation can be applied to this particular topic:

State the lay theory.
Given the choice, most people would rather drink a glass of crystal clear ice water instead of a cup of room temperature murky water.

Acknowledge the lay theory's apparent merit.
That certainly makes sense. The bottled water industry would probably never have gotten of the ground if its product did not look clean, clear, and refreshing.

Create dissatisfaction with the lay theory.
Looks can be deceiving. Take those same two glasses of water. What if the murky one was really tea and the clear one was a colorless odorless chemical that was deadly if ingested? Things are not always as they seem.

Show how a more orthodox notion better explains the phenomenon.
Next, information could be given about how to test water for bacterial contamination.

Transformative explanations are effective because they can surprise people into re-thinking some notions that were previously unquestioned (Rowan, 1998).

Information and education on health and safety related topics are a significant component of Extension activities. Many programming areas, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Leadership and Community Development, Consumer & Family Sciences, and 4-H & Youth each deal with risk-related subject areas. The application of strategies like those outlined here can help to increase the effectiveness with which Extension delivers education and information from a variety of subject areas to the general public.

Clark, R. A. (1984). Persuasive messages. NY: Harper & Row.

Groth, E. III (1991). Communicating with consumers about food safety and risk issues. Food Technology, 24, 248-253.

Merrill, M. D., & Tennyson, R. D. (1977). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Educational Technology Publication.

Oleckno, W. W. (1995). Guidelines for improving risk communication in environmental health. Journal of Environmental Health, 58(1) 20-23.

Prouix, L. G. (1996, March 21). It's no punch line: Fiber's good for you. The [Lafayette, Indiana] Journal and Courier, p. D2.

Rowan, K. E. (1998). Effective explanation of uncertain and complex science. [Chapter in preparation for] S. Dunwoody, S.M. Friedman, & C.L. Rogers (Eds). Uncertainty, science, and the media. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rowan, K. E. (1991). Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem solving approach to improving communication about risks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19, 300-329.

Sandman, P. M. (1987). Risk communication: Facing public outrage. EPA Journal, 13, 21-22.

Sandman, P. M. (1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.

Tennyson, R. D. & Cocciarella, M. J. (1986). An empirically based instructional design theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational Psychology, 56, 40-71.

Although education is often a major part of watershed protection programs, education strategies vary greatly from project to project and from educator to educator. For example, strategies may vary both in the way the information is delivered to the target audience and in the magnitude of the campaign. Since 1978, Wisconsin's nonpoint source pollution prevention strategies have been targeted toward watersheds, through a collaborative effort by the University of Wisconsin Extension, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (WDATCP).

Educational programming, often referred to as information and education (I&E) strategies, provides information to landowners in order to promote environmentally beneficial actions such as the installation of best management practices on farms. Educational strategies rely upon a planned approach to working with farmers. Such strategic approaches to educational programming by Extension Service professionals draw upon research-based knowledge to teach people to analyze information, identify problems, decide among alternative courses of action for dealing with those problems, and locate the resources to proceed with a preferred course of action (Rasmussen, 1989).

Prior research in Wisconsin's Priority Watershed Program by Shepard and Smetzer-Anderson (1997) has shown that I&E strategies, especially those that seek to reduce nonpoint source pollution from agriculture, generally rely on a combination of two approaches:

1. Diffuse communication campaign efforts that involve disseminating, somewhat randomly, information to a wide area - similar to the way a shotgun sprays lead shot over a target. These information delivery approaches attempt to reach as much of the target audience as possible, often through mailings, newsletters, and mass media.

2. One-on-one information transfer techniques such as on-farm visits, individual farm trials, and individual farmer consultation.

To assess the effectiveness of these two approaches, this research compares the rate of adoption of nutrient management strategies by farmers in two different Wisconsin watersheds over the same five-year period of 1990 to 1995. One watershed, a U.S. Department of Agriculture Water Quality Initiative Demonstration project, used intensive one-on-one information transfer processes. The other, a state-funded priority watershed project, relied on more diffuse educational communication campaign methods.

In Wisconsin, nonpoint source pollution has been identified as the greatest cause of water quality degradation affecting over 75% of inland lakes, many of the harbors and coastal waters on the Great Lakes, and substantial groundwater resources. The majority of this problem is attributed to agricultural land use (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1996).

Pervasive water quality problems are the symptom - the primary cause being the failure to implement existing remedial technologies (Lockertz, 1990; Nowak, 1992). While many reports have pinpointed excessive nutrients from animal manures as the major source of nonpoint source pollution, few of these reports provide reliable indicators of remedial technology adoption.

Animal manures contain organic pollutants, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Prior studies in Wisconsin have shown that although many farmers do attempt to follow best management practices for nutrient management, few do so accurately (Nowak et al., 1998; Shepard, 1993;). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) estimates show that animal manures associated with the state's livestock industry produce an estimated 143 million pounds of phosphorus per year (Stevenson, 1993). WDNR estimates that at least 10% of this amount, approximately 14 million pounds, is lost to surface water. Consequently, livestock manure in Wisconsin contributes significant amounts of phosphorus to the state's surface water. With this in mind, the success of Wisconsin watershed projects in rural areas should be judged on the extent to which manure management practices are used.

Two watersheds were selected for this comparison of educational approaches. Both watersheds were selected in 1989 to begin nonpoint source pollution remediation programs due to degraded surface and groundwater quality. Both watersheds contained numerous dairy farms, making manure runoff from barnyards and fields a major concern.

In each watershed, a population of farmers was identified as all farmers in the watershed who operated on at least 40 acres of land and/or had 15 head of dairy cattle. In both watersheds, 75% of these populations completed an initial baseline survey in 1990. These surveys assessed nutrient management behaviors related to nitrogen and phosphorus application rates in the production of corn. Specifically, the rates of eight different sources of agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus were measured. Nitrogen and phosphorus derived from manure application was also measured by establishing the type of manure applied (dairy, beef, swine, and/or poultry) and estimating size and number of loads applied to the specific corn fields. The survey also measured nitrogen from legumes.

Nitrogen application rates were used as the principle comparison between the two watersheds. To determine nitrogen and phosphorus application, each farmer was asked to identify the form and rate of nutrients applied to a representative corn field. Due to logistical difficulties, this research used a representative field rather than collecting detailed information on multiple fields. The survey allowed the farmer to select a field that is fairly representative of how he or she grows corn. Then the farmer was asked to describe if the nutrient application rates were higher, lower or the same as on other fields in the production year of the assessment. This field was found to be representative of others in that 80% of the farmers did not vary commercial nitrogen application rates and 67% did not vary manure application rates on their corn fields.

Based on estimated University of Wisconsin fertility recommendations for corn production, and after adjusting for specific soil types (Bundy, 1989; Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, 1989), an estimate of appropriate nutrient application rates for each field was calculated. To account for differences in University of Wisconsin-Extension soil test recommendations between the two watersheds, soil maps were consulted to determine the general soil type for the area surrounding the respondent's farm. A University of Wisconsin-Extension recommended level of 160 pounds of nitrogen per acre was used for medium textured soils, 120 pounds of nitrogen per acre for sandy soils, and 140 pounds of nitrogen per acre for clay textured soils (Bundy, 1989).

Actual estimates of manure nutrients were determined by asking farmers to identify the type of manure, the size of their manure spreader, the number of loads applied to the representative field within 12 months prior to planting corn, and the size of that field. The amount of plant-available nitrogen was determined from university guidelines based on the type of manure applied. Manure credits were assigned for each form of manure: dairy cow manure, 3 pounds per ton; beef cattle manure, 3.5 pounds per ton; swine manure, 4 pounds per ton; poultry manure, 12.5 pounds per ton; and sheep manure, 10 pounds per ton. These values are based on no incorporation of manure. For liquid manure the values were, respectively, 8, 10, 12, 35 and 28 pounds per 1,000 gallons (Madison, Kelling, Peterson, Daniel, Jackson & Massie, 1986).

Nutrient credits for a first-year corn field coming out of a legume rotation also were estimated following University of Wisconsin guidelines. In calculating legume credits, it was assumed there was a 60% stand at plowdown. This results in a nitrogen credit of 100 pounds per acre (Bundy, Kelling & Good, 1990; Wolkowski, 1992).

Phosphorus (P2O5) application by farmers in the targeted watersheds also was assessed in a similar fashion. Each farmer's phosphorus application rate was calculated based on the type of nutrient applied. Phosphorus calculations only refer to the relative balance between phosphorus inputs and outputs. They do not consider current phosphorus soil test levels. Previous yields were used to determine how much phosphorus the previous crop would have removed, and that estimate was subtracted from the previous year's application rate.

Overall, the estimated nutrient application rates were calculated to be intentionally conservative in four ways: (a) they do not take into account residual soil nitrate other than first-year legume nitrogen credits, (b) they only account for first-year manure nitrogen credits, (c) they assume none of the manures were incorporated, and (d) only the lowest value was used when a range was presented for manure or legume credits.

In 1995, follow-up surveys were conducted in the two watersheds, through on-farm interviews. Respondents for this second survey were randomly selected from the original list of baseline survey respondents. Results were analyzed using direct comparison of individual farmers between their nutrient application rates in 1990 and in 1995.

In addition to measuring farmer management behavior, this study also asked local "watershed-based" educators to describe their approach to educational programming. Each educator monitored the amount of time dedicated to diffuse communication techniques versus the amount of time spent on face-to-face or direct information delivery to landowners.

Results of these 1990 baseline assessments indicated that over-application of nitrogen and phosphorus could be attributed to the farmer's failure to reduce commercial nutrient purchases by taking advantage of the availability of nutrients from field-applied livestock manure. During the ensuing years, each project focused on improving nutrient management practices in their respect watersheds. Each project relied on a full-time educator to provide information to farmers. The differences in how the educators approached their respective educational strategies is summarized in Table 1.

The two educators differed substantially in both their approaches to information delivery and to targeting landowners. Although educators used similar techniques, the degree to which certain techniques were favored over others separated their two approaches. The projects were very similar in the type of technical and financial assistance provided beyond purely educational information. Regulatory aspects for both projects were similar because they were administered by a WDNR program available in both areas.

The educator in the northern watershed began by specifically targeting 120 of the watershed's dairy farmers with personal farm visits. In addition, the northern watershed educator placed more attention on working with local COOP agronomists from the watershed's three main farm supply dealers. The northern watershed educator followed these approaches between 1993 and 1995.

The educator in the southern watershed gave greater attention to working with influential "peer" farmers in the watershed. This southern watershed educator also focused more on activities associated with watershed's citizen advisory committee. The southern watershed educator dedicated more time to delivering information through the news media, project newsletters, and local events such as on-farm demonstrations, tours, farm field days, watershed events, and in local schools. The educator in the southern watershed followed these approaches between 1991 and 1995.

Changes in nutrient management practices are critical to reducing nonpoint source pollution. Both watersheds in this study observed reductions in excessive nutrient application. However, as Table 2 indicates, the extent of change in nitrogen and phosphorus application was greater in the northern watershed where the educator followed a more targeted information delivery approach.

More specifically, in the watershed where the educator spent more time using one-on-one farm visits and working directly with COOP agronomists, the excess nitrogen application rates on corn decreased by more than 80 pounds per acre (Table 2). In the southern watershed, where the educator followed more diffuse program approaches, the decrease in excess nitrogen application was not statistically significant even though the average nitrogen application rates showed a slight reduction (Table 2).

The nitrogen over-application can also be linked to an over-application of phosphorus by the same farmers, due to the way animal manures are handled on the farm, and because of the ratios of nitrogen and phosphorus contained in manure. Therefore, it is likely that nitrogen over-application through excessive manure application also would result in an over-application of phosphorus. Indeed, calculation of phosphorus application rates also found substantial over application in 1990 for both watersheds. Over time, just as with reductions in nitrogen application, there was a greater reduction in phosphorus application in the northern watershed (Table 3). In the southern watershed the rate of nitrogen and phosphorus appears to be increasing, however, these differences are not statistically significant.

Nitrogen crediting refers to a reduction in commercial nitrogen purchases based on the application of nitrogen from animal manure. Just as with the reduction in the percent of farmers over-applying nitrogen and phosphorus, farmers in the northern watershed were more likely to credit nitrogen than farmers in the southern watershed. In the southern watershed there was no change in nitrogen crediting behaviors -- only 38% of the farmers attempted to credit nitrogen in manure in 1990 and the same percentage was recorded in 1995. In the northern watershed, 26% were crediting nitrogen from manure in 1990, but in 1995 that number increased to 32%. Another contributing management practice that may have helped decrease over-application of nitrogen and phosphorus in the northern watershed was the increase in the number of farmers using soil tests. During the five years of the program, the percent of farmers using soil tests in the northern watershed increased from 60% to 91% (a 31 percentage point increase). In the southern watershed, 74% used soil tests before the program, while 79% said they used soil tests five years later (a 4 percentage point increase).

*Both educators worked full time (40 hours per week), an estimated 260 days per year. The above represent annual estimates of days dedicated to educational approaches.

Farmers in the northern watershed also lowered their commercial nitrogen purchases, due to manure application of nitrogen in corn, from 26% to 32%. In the southern watershed, only 1% of the farmers changed their commercial nitrogen rates due to manure nitrogen.

Other positive management changes occurred in both watersheds. Changes were recorded in the percent of farmers reducing commercial nitrogen purchases due to nitrogen from prior legume crops, the percent of farmers using soil tests, and the percent of farmers practicing regular daily manure hauling. Both watersheds showed increases in environmentally beneficial practices, but the northern watershed experienced a greater rate of change than did the southern watershed.

Prior research on the adoption of farm practices has indicated that one-on-one information transfer is more effective than the more diffuse methods of communicating technical ideas (Rogers, 1983). While this research upholds such previous work, it also offers insight into how to structure water resource protection programs. The research supports an integration of a diverse set of educational approaches such as on-farm visits, and small group demonstrations, and workshops. An over-reliance on diffuse information dissemination may come at the expense of interpersonal information transfer through direct farmer contact. The more effective educational program does not force one approach over the other, but rather emphasizes the interpersonal communication by dedicating staff time and program resources to such approaches.

If a project does commit staff to educational programming, opinions often differ concerning how best to target educational assistance to farm and rural landowners. Other studies have supported the importance of helping people through one-on-one contact. Cobourn and Donaldson (1997) found that by visiting ranches and helping participants design management improvements, watershed program participation increased. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) also stress the importance of interpersonal information delivery in the adoption process of more than 20 different agricultural innovations. Furthermore, the one-to-one contact also allows for greater experiential opportunities, which may further enhance adoption (Richardson, 1994).

Even though this research supports targeted educational programming, in practice water resource protection programs rarely achieve such a level of specificity. In addition, approaches that attempt to educate landowners often focus on randomly selected activities (Geller, Winett and Evertt, 1982). Carefully designed, multi-year strategies that reach the landowners who need specific assistance, are rare (Shepard and Smetzer-Anderson, 1997).

Providing locally-based educational assistance may seem overwhelming to those coordinating a local watershed project. Such demands on staff time make program targeting and priority setting even more important. In the northern watershed, the identification of key audiences was essential to increasing nutrient management adoption and reducing excessive nutrient rates. This targeting of key audiences allowed the northern watershed educator to acknowledge individual growers and their farm firm characteristics, perceptions of problems, current use of practices and preferences for educational formats (Alston and Reding, 1998).

This comparison of educational approaches supports watershed-based educational programming that emphasizes local, direct farmer contact. This comparison of diffuse communication information delivery versus one-on-one consulting shows that greater rates of management adoption are found in projects that emphasize direct transfer of information to farmers through one-on-one contacts. Lower rates of adoption (for example, reductions in nitrogen application) are found in more diffuse communication-based efforts that rely more heavily on secondary transfer of information to farmers through newsletters, mass media and events.

One-on-one information transfer is important for farmers because they need more types of information than other project participants do, especially if the watershed project is focused principally on reducing agricultural pollution. For the farmer to make informed decisions, he or she must be able to integrate all levels of information into crop and animal production decisions. Direct information exchange may be critical for farmers to adopt water quality practices. When locally-based educators are privy to site-specific information about individual fields, they can learn more about the effectiveness of BMPs on water quality and, in turn, persuade farmers to use appropriate BMPs. Likewise, when farmers are knowledgeable about BMPs and their positive effect on water quality, they are motivated to implement recommended BMPs (Coffey, Jennings & Humenik, 1998).

With reduced budgets and cutbacks in personnel it is even more important to focus natural resource protection programs on the audiences who need assistance most. Moreover, since specific groups of farmers have specific needs, extra effort is required to focus on these groups to help them adopt sustainable agricultural practices. The local one-on-one transfer of information, similar to a consulting approach, allows for the information to be targeted to farmer needs. Also, working directly with the farmer provides additional benefit in that the farmer may feel he/she has influenced water quality in their area. This is supported by other studies which examine the role of participatory decision-making, enlisting the farmer to participate in selecting and conducting appropriate program approaches and even in BMP research/evaluation (Drost, Long, Wilson, Miller & Campbell, 1996).

Other findings of this research include:

Superficial program targeting is insufficient. Target audiences should be identified and then program resources, especially educational programs, should be deployed in ways that insure that they actually reach those who need them most.

An over-reliance on mass dissemination of information (diffuse communication campaigns) can diminish the effectiveness of educational programs that encourage farmers to make specific management changes.

Staff positions and program commitment should acknowledge the effectiveness of one-on-one information delivery techniques.

Alston, D.G., & Reding, M.E. (1998). Factors influencing adoption and educational outreach of integrated pest management. Journal of Extension, 36 (3). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Bundy, L.G. (1989). The new Wisconsin nitrogen recommendations. A briefing paper prepared for the Area Fertilizer and Aglime Dealer Meeting, November 28 - December 14, 1989. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Extension.

Bundy, L.G., Kelling, K.A., & Good, L.W. (1990). Using legumes as a nitrogen source. Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Publication (A3517).

Cobourn, J. & Donaldson, S. (1997). Reaching A New Audience. Journal of Extension, 35 (1). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Coffey, S.W., Jennings, G.D., & Humenik, F. (1998). Collection of information about farm management practices. Journal of Extension, 36 (2). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Drost, D., Long, G., Wilson, D., Miller, B., & Campbell, W. (1996). Barriers to adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Journal of Extension, 34 (5). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Geller, E.S., Winett, R.A., & Evertt, E.B. (1982). Preserving the environment: New strategies for behavior change. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Lockertz, W. (1990). What have we learned about who conserves soil? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 45(5),517-23.

Madison, F., Kelling, K.A., Peterson, J., Daniel, T.C., Jackson, G., & Massie, L. (1986). Managing manure and waste: Guidelines for applying manure to pasture and cropland in Wisconsin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Publication (A3394).

Nowak, P. (1992). Why farmers adopt production technology. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 47(1),14-16.

Nowak, P., Shepard, R., & Madison, F. (1998). Farmers and manure management: A critical analysis. In J.L. Hatfield and B.A. Stewart (Eds), Animal waste utilization: Effective use of manure as a soil resource. Ann Arbor, MI: Sleeping Bear Press.

Rasmussen, W.D. (1989). Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of Cooperative Extension. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Richardson, J.G. (1994). Learning best through experience. Journal of Extension, 32 (4). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. NY: The Free Press.

Rogers, E M., & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. NY: Free Press.

Shepard, R. (1993). Beyond superficial targeting-designing strategies for water quality education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Shepard, R., & Smetzer-Anderson, S. (1997). Planning for water quality education: Where do we stand? An evaluation report prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Report/Publication.

Stevenson, G.R. (1993). Watershed management and control of agricultural critical source areas. In Kenneth Steele (Ed.), Animal waste and the land-water interface (pp. 273-281). NY: Lewis Publishers.

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension Service (1989). Nutrient and pesticide best management practices for Wisconsin farms. Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Publication A-3466.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (1996). Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report to Congress. 1996 Addendum. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Publication Publ-WT254-96-REV.

Wolkowski, R. (1992). A step-by-step guide to nutrient management. Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Publication (A3578).

Teen years can be a training ground for responsible money management, but O'Neill (1992) describes these years as a time of "premature affluence" where spending is primarily on non-essentials and limited planning takes place. Alhabeeb (1996, p. 131) concurs and says that "there is virtually little evidence that adolescents practice or even appreciate saving." Teens, as a group, spend significant sums of money, $108 billion in 1997 (Klein, 1998). National and state trends indicate a need for financial education for youth.

The National Education Goals Panel of governors, federal administrators, members of Congress, and state legislators established eight national education goals. Goal 3 states that "by the year 2000, all students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including ...economics...and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our Nation's modern economy." (Bayh, 1995, p. 2).

In Colorado, House Bill 93-1313 (1993) mandates teachers to address economic standards. The purpose is to provide students with "an understanding of basic economic concepts in order to become productive members of the workforce, responsible citizens, effective participants in an international economy, and competent decision-makers throughout their lives." These concepts, including public policy and personal financial skills, may be taught by a variety of educational experiences. There will not be a designated economic education curriculum that all teachers will use.

Nationally, a Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, composed of public and private organizations (with Extension System leadership provided by Jane Schuchardt, national Cooperative Extension program leader in family economics), joined forces to meet the goal that by 1997 "every secondary student in the United States will have skills to be financially competent in a core set of personal financial competencies upon graduation from high school" (Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, 1997).

Extension educators, including Colorado State University specialists and the Denver County 4-H/Youth development agent, agreed that financial education of youth was critical. They were aware that a number of organizations working together can successfully increase the financial competence of young people. Thus, an opportunity emerged - the creation of a partnership with leading organizations in the state that shared a common goal to enhance the financial skills of youth.

Cooperative Extension educators decided to initiate collaboration focused specifically on financial education for youth. The following definition of collaborative problem solving developed by the United Way of Franklin County guided the process: "Collaboration is defined as the process through which multiple stakeholders identify a common mission, allocate resources, and engage in activities designed to achieve that mission" (Julian, 1994, p. 3).

The collaboration model used to address financial education for youth was based on Flynn and Harbin's (1987) concepts. They suggest that collaboration will result in favorable results if the attitudes of team members and key decision makers are supportive, that adequate resources exist, that the organizational process is complimentary for all organizations, and that skilled, committed people are involved in the planning and outcome. The collaborative process takes place in four stages:
a) Formation stage: stakeholders are identified and agreed-upon goals are identified.
b) Conceptualization stage: collaborators shared diverse philosophies in order to identify strategies for achieving goals.
c) Development stage: specific plans are developed.
d) Implementation stage: plans are implemented.

Additional theoretical concepts were used to achieve a successful collaboration. Participating organizations maintained their unique missions while collaborating on this joint project (McRae, Lawlor & Nelson, 1984). The on-going collaboration started with shared goals and progressed through role clarification and continued communication among team members (Iles & Auluck, 1990). Regular participation and information exchange fostered trust and progress toward the goal (Lawless and Moore, 1989). Members of the planning committee agreed that the financial education issue was one that no one organization could solve alone (Weiss, 1987). Resources were available to support the collaborative problem-solving efforts (Flynn & Harbin, 1987).

Cooperative Extension granted seed money to create a collaboration to explore new ways to link financial education resources to youth. A number of youth financial education organizations were invited to begin a planning process. The organizations joining the collaboration included the Colorado Council on Economic Education; Financial Counseling Associates; Governor's School to Career Partnerships; Junior Achievement; National Endowment for Financial Education; Young Americans Education Foundation; and Youth Biz, Inc. The group immediately found common concerns and issues relating to financial education for youth. Although many of the organizational leaders knew each other, they had not, for the most part, worked together.

Educational efforts and the organizational missions of those represented included personal finance, economic education, entrepreneurship, career planning, and more. Several facilitated sessions addressed such questions as "What are our dreams?" "How can we make a difference?" and "Who are we trying to reach?"

The group used new computer technology and decision-making software, to generate numerous ideas. One of the most difficult challenges was to decide who the targeted audience(s) would be. After much discussion, the collaboration team agreed to focus on educators, both formal classroom instructors and informal out-of-school leaders. The project's purpose was to train K-12 teachers, Extension agents, youth agency directors, and others committed to educating young people in basic economic principles coupled with practical, motivating, exciting and fun applications. In addition, economic and personal finance concepts would be connected with workforce preparation and school-to-career efforts.

The group decided that the best way to reach educators and youth agency directors was to hold an event to demonstrate new resources, to share educational ideas and to create new connections. The event was named the Economic Education Expo. The Expo was scheduled for January as part of Financial Literacy for Youth Month.

The following principles were incorporated into all sessions: interaction, experiential activities, networking opportunities, shared resource programming, and fun. The Expo goals were to:

• address coordination with economic standards,
• provide opportunities for collaboration,
• introduce the draft economic K-12 standards,
• relate theoretical economic education to what is happening in the real business world, and
• insure that every participant would leave with at least one new idea for educating youth in the area of personal finance and economics.

At the same time, planning meetings were scheduled with selected departments on campus. A major Extension goal was to connect Colorado State University more closely with external educational groups. This effort provided an ideal opportunity to connect faculty from Cooperative Extension, the College of Applied Human Sciences, the School of Education, and the Department of Design, Merchandising & Consumer Sciences to educators throughout Colorado to address the economic education needs of educators (and ultimately youth) throughout the state.

More than 100 educators from 32 Colorado communities attended the Economic Education Expo, and more than 40 inner-city, ethnically diverse young people participated.

The opening joint session featured Scott Shickler, from Educational Designs That Generate Excellence (EDGE). In a short period of time, he demonstrated a number of self-responsibility principles, interspersed with hands-on activities and prizes. Everyone had fun and the Expo was off to a great start.

Breakout sessions were divided into two tracks, with a choice of workshops for adults, and a entrepreneurship track for youth. Topics included Economic Standards for Teachers; Successful Entrepreneurship Efforts of Youth; "Be Money Wi$e" - a hands-on, learning by discovery curriculum; Animated Financial Concepts; Young AmeriTowne Program; Inner City Teen Run Business and Leadership Training; High School Financial Planning Program; and Junior Achievement Meets Economic Standards.

Following lunch, a collaboration wall exercise formed issue-based groups. These newly formed collaboration teams were offered the opportunity to write brief proposals for $250 mini-grants that would be used to further their dreams. Mini-grants provided funding for curricula, classroom materials, speakers, community collaboration, application of new technology such as PowerPoint for exciting concept presentation, teacher training opportunities, etc. Although the funding per project was small, educators said it made the difference in providing engaging, interesting, exciting curriculum to bring financial education to life for youth.

When asked if the Expo met their expectations, 84% agreed. Eighty two percent said that the Expo would help them do a better job. Comments included: "Wonderful opportunity to network/collaborate." "A very good workshop - excellent materials to take back for immediate use." "I enjoyed learning more about how to invest in order to teach children." The large majority wanted additional workshops similar to the Expo.

The rationale for holding an Expo came in response to public outcry to give young people the tools they need, while they are in school and active in youth organizations, to make good, responsible financial decisions throughout their adult lives. Extension does not have all of the answers to the challenge of educating youth. As catalysts, however, Extension staff can make things happen. The experience with Expo demonstrated that collaboration is a strong and sustaining process for helping educate Colorado's youth.

Alhabeed, M.J. (1996). Teenagers' money, discretionary spending and saving. Financial Counseling and Planning, 7, 123-132.

Bayh, E., Chair. (1995). The National Education Goals Report, Executive Summary. National Education Goals Panel, Washington, DC.

Colorado Model Content Standards for Economics. (1996).

Flynn, C.C. & Harbin, G.L. (1987). Evaluating interagency coordination efforts using a multidimensional, interactional, developmental paradigm. Remedial and Special Education, 3, 35-44.

Iles, P. & Auluck, R. (1990). Team building, interagency team building and social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 20, 151-164.

Julian, D.A. (1994). Planning for collaborative neighborhood problem-solving: A review of the literature, Journal of Planning Literature, 9, 3-11.

Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy. (1997). Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy Fact Sheet. Available: http://www.jumpstartcoalition.org [1998, April 8].

Klein, M. (1998, February). Teen green. American Demographics, 20(2) p 1.

Lawless, M.W., & Moore, R.A. (1989). Interorganizational systems in public service delivery: A new application of the dynamic network framework. Human Relations, 12, 1167-1184.

McRae, J., Lawlor, L., & Nelson, B. (1984). Counteracting bureaucratic resistance in welfare and mental health -- A working agreement approach. Administration in Mental Health, 2, 123-32.

O'Neill, B. (1992). Youth, money, and financial planning. Journal of Home Economics, Fall, 12-16.

Weiss, J. A. (1987). Pathways to cooperation among public agencies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1, 94-117.

On any given summer Saturday, a visitor to a farmers' market in Ithaca, New York; Madison, Wisconsin; Lawrence, Kansas; Knoxville, Tennessee; Cochise County, Arizona; or any one of the 2,476 markets (Johnson, 1998) throughout the country will be greeted with mounds of fresh-picked produce and, in a lot of places, fresh baked goods, meat, cheese, and eggs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that two decades ago, less than 100 farmers' markets operated in the nation. The first directory, published in 1994, listed 1,755 markets (Johnson & Bragg, 1998).

Farmers' markets and other direct marketing venues were the norm during the 19th century, but lost popularity when refrigeration and improved transportation systems made it possible to ship produce long distances (Hughes & Mattson, 1995). Recent decades have seen a revival in farmers' markets as health conscious consumers demonstrated a desire to get the freshest produce possible (Hughes & Mattson, 1995). In surveys conducted throughout the country, consumers rank freshness as the number one reason for buying produce from farmers' markets, and as the main factor that they consider when buying produce anywhere (Anderson, Hollingsworth, Van Zee, Coli, & Rhodes, 1996; Bruhn, Vossen, Chapman, & Vaupel, 1992; Connell, Beierlein, & Vrooman, 1986; Eastwood, Brooker, & Gray, 1995; Hughes & Mattson, 1995; Kezis, King, Toensmeyer, Jack, & Kerr, 1984; Leones, 1995; Lockeretz, 1986; Thomson & Kelvin, 1994). These surveys also indicate that consumers perceive the freshest produce to be available at direct markets like farmers' markets.

The resurgence in farmers' markets is good news for consumers, communities, and farmers. Outlets for locally produced foods provide more than just the freshest possible food. They help establish connections between consumers and food producers, provide an additional income source for farmers, and in general, serve as a tool for community development. However, starting them and keeping them in operation demand a great deal of attention to consumer, vendor, and community needs. This article explores the benefits of farmers' markets and ways that Extension educators can help support and sustain these efforts in their communities into the next century.

Benefits to Farmers

Farmers' markets are effective at keeping food dollars in a given region, helping to keep family farms in business (see Table 1). For a farmer trying to get by on grain sales, growing a small amount of vegetables and/or fruits may add enough annual income to help him/her make a profit during a less than ideal grain harvest (Hughes & Mattson, 1995). Selling at a farmers' market can also provide an opportunity for a part-time grower to make the transition to a larger vegetable and/or fruit operation (Hilchey, Lyons, & Gillespie, 1995; Hughes & Mattson, 1995). Gross returns to producers from farmers' market sales are generally 200% to 250% higher than sales to wholesalers/distributors (Integrity Systems Cooperative, 1997). Also, at present farmers earn $22 for every $100 spent by consumers, but with direct marketing methods that amount can increase to $30 (Integrity Systems Cooperative, 1997).

A study of Alabama food producers found that over two thirds of those surveyed preferred farmers' markets over other forms of direct marketing because of "the presence of more buyers, easy way to sell, convenience and better prices," (Adrian, 1982, as cited in Hughes & Mattson, 1995, p. 1). Vendors at Kansas farmers' markets cited the following benefits to vendors: "the opportunity to meet and visit with people, a source of seasonal income, an outlet for excess produce, and provides advertising and contacts for on-farm and in-home operations," (Hughes & Mattson, 1995, p. 9).

Vendors surveyed at markets in New York added that "an increased customer base, direct feedback from customers, increased publicity, having a stable market for products, an increased volume of sales and increased net income" are benefits to them (Hilchey, Lyons, & Gillespie, 1995, p. 4). The New York vendors also indicated that they improved the following skills through participation in farmers' markets: "self-confidence in business, advertising and consumer relations; understanding consumer needs; and merchandising" (improving farmstand appearance/display) (Hilchey, Lyons, & Gillespie, 1995, p. 6).

Benefits to Consumers

At least six taste test studies cited by Hughes and Mattson (1995) have shown that consumers typically prefer produce sold at farmers' markets to that from other sources. Consumers cite freshness, taste, appearance, and nutritive value as reasons for preferring farmers' market produce ( Bruhn et al., 1992; Connell et al., 1986; Hughes & Mattson, 1995; Kezis et al., 1984; Leones, 1995; Thomson & Kelvin, 1994).

Besides fresh and nutritious produce, there are other benefits to consumers patronizing farmers' markets (see Table 1). Active marketing strategies can inform consumers about how produce is grown and can encourage people to seek out sustainably produced foods.

A project of the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University and University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension studied farmers' market consumer reactions to the active marketing of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) certified sweet corn. When consumers learned about the benefits of IPM practices from the farmers themselves, rather than from posters or fliers, they were more likely to seek out produce with the IPM-certification label (Anderson, Hollingsworth, Van Zee, Coli, & Rhodes, 1996). Organic farmers and others who produce their products using sustainable practices, therefore, have an opportunity at farmers' markets to inform consumers about their growing methods and their product certification status.

Many consumers also cite the farmers' market's atmosphere as a primary reason for choosing to shop there (Eastwood et al., 1995; Hughes & Mattson, 1995; Leones, 1995). Farmers' markets provide a unique opportunity for consumers to get involved in their food system by getting to know the people who produce food in their region. Many markets also feature educational displays, cooking demonstrations with unusual vegetables, and festivals that help consumers get involved in the farmers' market experience.

Benefits to Communities

Farmers' markets also bring economic benefits to the communities in which they are located (see Table 1). "They tend to draw people downtown that otherwise would not be there. Many of these people, as well as vendors, will then shop in the surrounding stores because they are convenient. The result is favorable attitudes about the downtown among consumers and vendors," (Hughes & Mattson, 1995, p. 1).

Farmers' markets in urban centers can increase residents' access to fresh produce in areas where full service supermarkets are rare. These markets also create opportunities for people who do not typically participate in food production to grow and sell food. Recent initiatives have created income-generation opportunities for low-income residents and high school students. In New York City, Cornell Cooperative Extension's New Farmers/New Markets program trains inner city residents in fruit and vegetable production and marketing. Through the program, more than ten market-farm projects have been developed and the nonprofit organizations that worked with Cornell Cooperative Extension on their establishment are supplied with food for their summer camp kitchens and city community centers, plus income from the sale of the produce (Nettleton, 1995 & 1999).

Similar projects have likewise succeeded in other cities. In Tacoma, Washington, one of the projects of the Tacoma Food System (a nonprofit organization which works closely with Pierce County Cooperative Extension) is Youth Food Employment and Entrepreneurial Development (Youth FEED). Inner city high school students grow food at a local church, sell it in a low-income neighborhood, and work at a farmers' market selling honey that they buy wholesale. The Detroit Growers' Cooperative (a project of Michigan Integrated Food and Farming Systems) is working with urban gardeners to market organic produce and a barbecue sauce.

What Extension Can Do

Although sales from farmers' markets make up a relatively small percentage of total food sales in the country (in California they account for only 1% of produce sales (Bruhn et al., 1992), the increasing numbers of these markets and their social and economic benefits indicate a need to foster their growth and improvement. Extension already promotes farmers' markets through the creation and dissemination of how-to publications. These publications typically include tips about having a market coordinator, developing some form of advertisement, establishing a prominent and easily accessible market location, and offering a sufficient product variety to ensure consumer satisfaction (Hughes & Mattson, 1995). A review of reasons why consumers do not shop at farmers' markets can help clarify the ways that advocates of these venues can contribute to their viability.

Consumers cite inconvenience as one of the main reasons for not shopping at farmers' markets (Bruhn et al., 1992; Connell et al., 1986; Eastwood et al., 1995; Hughes & Mattson, 1995; Kezis et al., 1984; Lockeretz, 1986; Thomson & Kelvin, 1994). To increase patronage of farmers' markets, they need to be located in areas where the greatest number of people can easily reach them. They should operate during days and times that are convenient to the most people in the area. In a study of three farmers' markets in Tennessee, consumers interviewed at two centrally located markets reported that they frequent these markets much more often than those interviewed at a market that was located further out of town (Eastwood et al., 1995). Extension educators can help connect farmers to community economic development officials to select a site that is best suited for everyone concerned (see Table 1).

Demographic surveys at farmers' markets have shown that patrons are generally white females with above average incomes, age, and education (Connell et al., 1986; Eastwood et al., 1995; Hughes & Mattson, 1995; Leones, 1995; Lockeretz, 1986; Thomson & Kelvin, 1994). Hughes & Mattson (1995) note that farmers' market shoppers typically patronize a greater number of food stores than non-farmers' market shoppers. They, therefore, suggest that low-income consumers do not frequent farmers' markets because "despite the price savings at farmers' markets, [they are] not inclined to make as many stops because of the extra time and gasoline involved," (Hughes & Mattson, 1995, p. 2).

Farmer and consumer interests could be well served by establishing farmers' markets in low-income neighborhoods (see table 1) which are typically underserved by supermarkets (Ashman, de la Vega, Dohan, Fisher, Hippler & Romain, 1993; Weinberg, 1998). As of 1995, there were 32 farmers' markets in New York City which provided outlets for 200 farmers, but there are still many communities in the New York City area that would like to have farmers' markets close by (Nettleton, 1995). As mentioned before, efforts by Extension offices and nonprofit organizations to start such markets in certain cities are already paying off for consumers, vendors, and communities. Involving those who will purchase as well as produce the foods sold at the markets should diversify the audience Extension educators reach. Traditionally, those with limited incomes, low levels of education and those who are ethnic and racial minorities have not used Extension as much as the white middle class segment of the population (Warner and Christenson, 1984).

Another way that Extension can contribute to the success of farmers' markets in low-income areas is by encouraging the dissemination of Women Infants and Children (WIC) Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) coupons. In 1993 in New York City, over 42,000 families received these coupons, generating $600,000 in sales (Nettleton, 1995). The FMNP has resulted in the growth of farmers' markets in urban areas that do not have ready access to quality, locally grown produce. This program is operated by 39 state agencies, including 33 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and four Tribal Organizations (USDA Food and Nutrition Service Online, 1999). Extension nutrition educators can work to increase awareness about area farmers' markets and the FMNP among the populations they serve.

Another complaint of consumers about farmers' markets is that they offer a limited variety of products. In a study of Kansas City consumers, more than half spent less than $10 per week on fresh produce and around two-thirds purchased no more than three different vegetables a week (Hughes & Mattson, 1995). Farmers' markets can cater to consumer desires for wide variety by offering baked goods, cheese, meat, eggs, honey, cider, fresh and dried flowers, jams and other preserves, and plants (Connell et al., 1986). Extension educators can aid in this effort by encouraging market vendors to diversify their offerings and to produce and sell value-added products.

Many Extension offices offer guides to the direct marketing venues in their counties, such as farmers' markets, pick your own operations, roadside stands, and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms. Once such a guide is produced, educators can distribute it at workshops and inform local media about the guide so that they can publicize it. Having this guide will help consumers know where they can go for locally produced foods and will help farmers who are not currently selling at farmers' markets to identify possible outlets for their products. The guide can also serve as a way to determine which communities in a particular county are not being served by farmers' markets.

Clearly, developing farmers' markets that work for communities requires the cooperation of many different individuals and groups. In all efforts to develop, publicize and improve farmers' markets, Extension educators should seek to involve those groups who can advance the growth of such markets. Potential collaborators could include community economic development organizations, consumer groups, churches, food banks, land preservation organizations, schools, farmers' organizations, and other community groups.

Extension educators can also contribute to the improvement of existing markets by offering workshops for vendors in business management, advertising, marketing, bookkeeping, personnel management, and food preservation. Present farmers' market vendors and those that are considering selling at markets in the future can all benefit from such workshops. Extension can also help groups interested in starting a market by suggesting that they write bylaws, appoint a coordinator, decide on fees to charge vendors, and hold periodic meetings to address any concerns.

Offering workshops for consumers on food preservation or cooking can help them learn what to do with unfamiliar vegetables and can encourage them to stock up in the fall in order to preserve food for the winter. Eastwood et. al (1995) found that in areas where people are familiar with canning and freezing techniques, they tend to make more bulk purchases at farmers' markets.

Another strategy to link food producers with communities is to bring them into schools to teach children about food production. Educating children about from where their food comes will make them aware of what is available in their region. As shown in the Tacoma, Washington, example, students can also play a part as vendors at their community farmers' markets. Programs aimed at starting market gardens at schools or in community plots and then selling the produce in farmers' markets provide students with training in biology, food production, business management, and teamwork.

Farmers' markets also provide an opportunity for Extension to support its food safety programming, both by educating vendors about handling techniques and by urging them to reinforce safe handling and sanitation, preparation and storage practices among consumers. Extension educators could also use farmers' markets as a venue for food safety demonstrations.

From education to advocacy, from research to advising, Extension educators have multiple roles to play in promoting the growth of farmers' markets. The impetus for new markets, however, needs to come from vendors and communities, as they will be responsible for sustaining the markets. It is, therefore, essential that Extension engage others who are interested in seeing the markets succeed and create opportunities for such groups to make the market unique in their given communities. Markets flourish when they address the needs of the community they serve. The New York City, Tacoma and Detroit examples illustrate that farmers' markets can provide good business and learning opportunities for high school students, low-income residents, and other community gardeners. Extension offices in urban areas would do well to attract a diverse array of vendors to new markets.

While farmers' markets cannot meet all the food needs of a given community, they can fulfill a valuable role in helping to support a segment of local economies. If they are well managed, these markets can provide economic, nutritive, educational, social and psychological benefits to vendors and the community.

Anderson, M. D., Hollingsworth, C. S., Van Zee, V., Coli, W. M., & Rhodes, M. (1996). Consumer response to integrated pest management and certification. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment, 60, 97-106.

Ashman, L., de la Vega, J., Dohan, M., Fisher, A., Hippler, R., & Romain. B. (1993). Seeds of change: Strategies for food security in the inner city. Los Angeles: Department of Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles.

Bruhn, C. M., Vossen, P. M., Chapman, E., & Vaupel, S. (1992, July-August). Consumer attitudes toward locally grown produce. California Agriculture, 13-16.

Connell, C. M., Beierlein, J. G., & Vroomen, H. L. (1986). Consumer preferences and attitudes regarding fruit and vegetable purchases from direct market outlets. A. E. and R. S. Report 185. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Agricultural Experiment Station.

Eastwood, D. B., Brooker, J. R., & Gray, M. D. (1995). An intrastate comparison of consumers' patronage of farmers' markets in Knox, Madison and Shelby counties. Research Report 95-03. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Institute of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station.

Hilchey, D., Lyons, T., & Gillespie, G. W. (1995). Farmers' markets and rural economic development. Community agriculture development series. Ithaca: Cornell University, Farming Alternatives Program, Department of Rural Sociology.

Hughes, M. E. & Mattson, R. H. (1995). Farmers markets in Kansas: A profile of vendors and market organization. Report of Progress 658. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Agricultural Experiment Station.

Integrity Systems Cooperative Co. (1997). Adding values to our food system: An economic analysis of sustainable community food systems. Report prepared for the United States Department of Agriculture, Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program. Logan: Utah State University.

Johnson, D. N. & Bragg, E. R. (1998). National farmers' market directory. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture.

Kezis, A. S., King, F. R., Toensmeyer, U. C., Jack, R., & Kerr, H. W. (1984). Consumer acceptance and preference for direct marketing in the Northeast. Journal of Food Distribution Research, Sept., 38-46.

Leones, J. (1995). Farm outlet customer profiles. Direct farm marketing & tourism handbook (1-3). Tucson: The University of Arizona College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension.

Leones, J., Dunn, D., Worden, M. & Call, R. (1995). A profile of visitors to fresh farm produce outlets in Cochise County, AZ. Direct farm marketing & tourism handbook (5-12). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension.

Lockeretz, W. (1986). Urban consumers attitudes toward locally grown produce. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 1 (2), 83-88.

Nettleton, J. S. (1995). Regional farmers' market development as an employment and economic development strategy. In Lockeretz, W. ed. Proceedings of the environmental enhancement through agriculture conference (235-243). Boston: Tufts University, Center for Agriculture, Food and Environment.

Nettleton, J. S. (1999). The New Farmers/New Markets 1998/9 project highlights. New York: Cornell University, Cooperative Extension.

Thomson, J. S. & Kelvin, R. E. (1994). A community systems approach to sustain agriculture in urbanizing environments: Developing a regional market infrastructure. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Online. (1999). WIC farmers' market nutrition program [WWW page]. URL http://fns1.usda.gov:80/wic/CONTENT/farmers/farm.html

Warner, P. D. & Christenson, J. A. (1984). The cooperative extension service: A national assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Weinberg, Z. (1998). Community Food Security Coalition federal policy perspective. Prepared for the 2nd annual Community Food Security Coalition conference in Pittsburgh, PA. Not published.

This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/ent-a.html.

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