April 2008
Volume 46 Number 2

Research in Brief

Evaluation of an Adult Extension Education Initiative: The Michigan Conservation Stewards Program

Heather A. Van Den Berg
Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
hav5@cornell.edu

Shari L. Dann
Associate Professor and Extension Specialist
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
sldann@msu.edu

Introduction

Conservation education and outreach programs can inform and involve the public to raise awareness, improve knowledge, acquire attitudes and skills, and encourage participation to help achieve resource management goals (Jacobson, McDuff, & Monroe, 2006). Conservation education seeks to foster an understanding of basic ecological principles and should be pleasant enough to motivate individuals to continue lifelong learning about the natural world (Jacobson, 1999; Tilden, 1977).

To coordinate adult conservation education and facilitate conservation service, Texas and Florida were the leading states to draw upon Extension's Master Gardener concept to develop a Master Naturalist^TM program (Bonneau, 2003; Main, 2004). After two National Master Naturalist^TM Workshops during 2004, several other states initiated their program development, building state Extension and natural resource agency partnerships (e.g., Savanick & Blair, 2005), basing their work on theory and research regarding adult education (Merriam & Caffarella, 2002; Franz, 2007).

Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) and the state Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) developed the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) as its state Master Naturalist^TM program. The partners' goals were to determine the educational needs of residents, pilot test the program, evaluate the initial effort and impacts, and make recommendations for a sustained effort.

To achieve these goals, partnering stakeholders worked with MSUE to shape the program during an action research process designed first to assess the needs for such a program, to identify desired outcomes from such a program, and to name the program (Archer et al., 2007). MSUE convened a Cooperators Leadership Team that consisted of MDNR, Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI), other MSUE staff (state and local), and staff members from The Nature Conservancy and The Stewardship Network.

This Leadership Team then drew together a stakeholder meeting involving more than 30 conservation and educational organization representatives and outlined an ecosystem-based curriculum. Collaborators included natural resources agencies, statewide organizations, county Extension educators, other branches of county government, and conservation organizations from the region of the pilot workshops.

Finally, in the action research and design phases of this project, lead instructors from partner groups developed draft curriculum units. These instructors presented their work to the Cooperators Leadership Team, to their peer instructors, and to a small number of potential pilot program participants (learners). Feedback resulted in major modifications to the CSP objectives and content for the next phase--pilot testing of the program.

The CSP consists of 40 hours of instruction regarding ecosystems and resource management. In addition, it requires 40 hours of volunteer service annually. The objectives of the CSP are to provide learning and stewardship opportunities for Michigan residents to:

1. Gain knowledge in natural resources ecology and conservation management;


2. Gain knowledge of and experience with ecosystem-based management;


3. Explore one's own attitudes and diverse attitudes of others towards natural resource management and the affiliated state and local agencies, organizations, and institutions;


4. Gain skills necessary to complete conservation management activities; and


5. Contribute to existing natural resources stewardship activities (Dann & Van Den Berg, 2006).

Diverse instructors share the CSP curriculum through classroom and in-field units during 8 weeknight sessions and 3 Saturday meetings hosted at local parks (Table 1).

Integrated research and Extension objectives with this pilot effort were 1) to determine whether the CSP could attract a new Extension and nontraditional conservation-related audience; 2) to observe program impacts and participants' reactions; and 3) to make recommendations for sustaining this adult Extension conservation education program.

Methods

We identified two counties in southeast Michigan and implemented the pilot program during February through April 2006. These counties have Priority Conservation Areas, the region has numerous state parks and other public lands, and Extension staff were willing to experiment with adult conservation education and volunteer programming.

We collected data through participants' registration forms, a pre-program questionnaire, session feedback forms, and a post-program questionnaire. In addition, we conducted an 8-week post-program meeting and open-ended questionnaire (Van Den Berg, 2006). All participants who were aged 18 years or older, completed 82% (9 of 11) or more of the training sessions, and voluntarily completed both the pre- and post-program questionnaires were considered study subjects. Layout and design of the questionnaires followed the guidelines established by Dillman (2000). We constructed questionnaires by modifying survey instruments used in previous studies (Schroeder, 2004; Bonneau, 2003; Koval & Mertig, 2002). MSU colleagues not associated with the program reviewed the questionnaires to help improve face validity. We used SPSS to analyze study data (SPSS, 2005). To compare pre- vs. post-CSP knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions, we used the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p<0.05).

Results

Response Rate

The pilot CSP had 65 registered participants. Of these, 97% (n=63) completed the training workshops, with 85% (n=55) qualifying to be study subjects.

Participant Characteristics

The CSP does attract a new Extension and nontraditional conservation-related audience. More than 75% had never taken part in Extension programs such as Master Gardener, Citizen Planner, Master Woodland Manager, or Lake and Stream Leader. About 62% are female (a higher proportion than in some traditional conservation organizations). More than 57% are residents of suburban or urban areas (with population greater than 25,000 people), and nearly half (48%) had grown up in such areas.

About half of the participating audience has had little conservation involvement prior to the CSP. About 19% belong to no organizations, and another 34% belong to only one or two conservation groups. In addition, only a small proportion of this group participates in the traditional outdoor recreation activities of hunting (15%) or fishing (28%) more than twice per year. Instead, this group has high levels of participation in the nontraditional active recreational activities of walking or hiking (90%), and in nature-related activities of wildlife viewing (87%), bird feeding (67%), nature study (65%), or bird watching (57%).

CSP program participants are from middle- and high-income families, are well educated (with nearly all having some post-secondary education), and predominantly Caucasian.

Impacts of the CSP

Participant knowledge of ecology and ecosystem management is significantly greater post-CSP vs. pre-program. Participants received a mean pre-test score of 15.2 correct answers (on a 22-item test), with a standard deviation of 4.8; their mean pre-test scores were equivalent to a "grade" of 69%. After the program, their post-test scores averaged 18.5 correct answers (with a lower standard deviation of 2.8); this equates to a post-program "grade" of 84%.

Attitudes toward specific conservation techniques and toward the state resource management agency likewise become significantly more positive with participation in the CSP. After the program, respondents have significantly more positive attitudes toward hunting as a technique to manage wildlife populations, prescribed fire as a means of maintaining ecosystems, herbicide use for invasive plants, clearcutting as acceptable for grouse habitat management, management of watersheds for biodiversity and ecological integrity, and managing for both wildlife and timber in forest communities (Van Den Berg, 2006). The strongest gain in attitudes toward the MDNR are in participants' agreement with the statements that the agency provides high-quality service to the public and provides adequate opportunities for public participation in natural resource decisions (Van Den Berg, 2006).

After the program, respondents are significantly more likely to agree with the statement "I will help with any conservation activities in my ecoregion," even though their pre-CSP agreement was quite high before the program started. Most CSP graduates are interested in contributing their volunteer time to complex, long-term, hands-on, in-field conservation projects, rather than administrative or outreach-related tasks.

CSP respondents have a high post-program self-rating of many specific conservation skills (Table 2). The conservation skills with the highest means are tasks related to accessing/locating information (e.g., locating information and resources about watersheds or locating information about specific wildlife, plants, or habitats) and carrying out local conservation volunteer work (e.g., assisting with implementation of local conservation projects, contributing to local natural resource decisions). The conservation skills with the lowest means are tasks related to identification/monitoring (e.g., skills to collect data and observe plants or animals or skills to manage nuisance species).

Reactions to CSP

Nearly all CSP respondents (98%) report that they learned something new or something not anticipated and that the in-field and hands-on learning opportunities met their expectations. Somewhat fewer (83%) note that they had adequate opportunities to practice knowledge and skills gained during the CSP.

Respondents indicate that the Wetlands Ecosystems and Management unit are most valuable (74%) followed by the Grassland Ecosystems and Management (70%) and the Making Choices to Manage Our Natural Resources (67%) units. Low proportions of participants report these units as most valuable: Introduction (17%), Conservation Heritage (12%), and Capstone Projects/Participant Recognition (10%).

Discussion

The Michigan Conservation Stewards Program has a remarkably high level of participation and a high retention rate from an audience that can be considered nontraditional from both MDNR and MSUE perspectives. Future programs, however, will need to strive for greater participant diversity in income and ethnicity.

The CSP achieved its intended impacts of positive effects on ecosystem knowledge and attitudes toward resource management. Respondents note that two sessions (Wetlands and Grasslands) taught by MDNR staff are most valuable. Although this occurrence may be coincidental, respondents likely rate these sessions highest because they believe they are learning from resource management experts. In comparison, other instructors were equally qualified individuals who worked for MSUE, planning departments, or conservation organizations. Ironically, some MDNR staff were hesitant to serve as instructors and stated that they lack teaching experience. It will be important in future CSP or Master Naturalist^TM programs to sustain an ideal mix of types of instructors (i.e., resource managers and educators) in order to achieve similar impacts among adult learners.

Interest in volunteering for conservation work post-program was high, probably due to the agency staff serving as examples of dedicated individuals working to preserve, protect, and enhance natural resources for the general public (Russell & Kirkbride, 2004). This value-added component is important to take into consideration for Master Naturalist^TM programs; future work should focus on capacity building for a larger pool of instructors from diverse resource management agencies and organizations.

One of the main impacts of the CSP is that participants report gaining skills they can use to locate research-based ecological information. Having access to sound knowledge bases should enable informed contributions to local land and watershed planning and natural resources decision-making. Although respondents less frequently report that they have the post-program skills necessary for identifying and monitoring specific plants or wildlife, this is a skill set that CSP designers deliberately de-emphasized within the curriculum. Several educational opportunities already exist among partner organizations to develop field identification skills for native vs. invasive plants and for amphibian monitoring. Additional opportunities are possible for both MSUE and partners to offer "advanced" training in specialty topics such as easement monitoring, or various field natural history topics.

Implications

CSP respondents reacted favorably to the experience, suggesting that MSUE and its partners have been successful at implementing an adult conservation and Extension education program. The Conservation Stewards Program and Master Naturalist^TM programs result in knowledgeable volunteers wishing to contribute to ongoing resource management activities. This will be a tremendous asset for Extension, which is seeking new audiences to diversify its reach and support base, and for wildlife agencies seeking committed, long-term volunteers who can contribute to conservation efforts. Volunteers who are well-prepared and motivated to seek research-based information and engage with local conservation efforts may lead to the creation of local communities of practice--informal learning networks for conservation and volunteerism, where members share knowledge, pool resources, and stimulate innovations (Wenger, 1998; Cleveland & Thompson, 2007). Program coordinators have already used results of the pilot effort to revise the Capstone Project experience to foster greater participant interdependence and improve this final CSP unit, launching Conservation Stewards into their first successful volunteer service through Extension.

Acknowledgements

This project was supported through the Nongame Wildlife Fund of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grants (#511B4200043). We especially thank the following staff from Oakland and Livingston County offices of MSU Extension for their patience, wisdom, and local expertise in conducting the CSP: Beverly Terry, Bindu Bhakta, Mike Gaden, and Carol Lenchek. We thank the staff of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, and the MSUE Fisheries and Wildlife Area of Expertise Team for their contributions to the development and evaluation of the Conservation Stewards Program. Staff members from Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services/Environmental Stewardship program have been especially helpful. In addition, we thank the numerous state and local conservation organizations that help make this program possible. National Master Naturalist^TM program information and resources are available from the Alliance for Natural Resource Outreach & Service Programs (http://www.nralliance.org).

References

Archer, T. M., Warner, P. D., Miller, W., Clark, C. D., James, S., Cummings, S. R. et al. (2007). Excellence in Extension: Two products for definition and measurement. Journal of Extension [On-line], 45(1) Article 1TOT1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2007february/tt1.shtml

Bonneau, L. A. (2003). Texas Master Naturalist program assessment: changes in volunteer knowledge and attitudes as a result of training. Unpublished master's thesis, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX.

Cleveland, L. V., & Thompson, J. R. (2007). Extension education and volunteer service: Assessing motivation and action. Journal of Extension [On-line], 45(1) Article 1RIB1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2007february/rb1.shtml

Dann, S .L., & Van Den Berg, H. A. (Eds.) (2006, Winter). Conservation Stewards Program curriculum. (Available from Michigan State University Extension, 147B Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48823)

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Franz, N. (2007). Adult education theories: Informing Cooperative Extension's transformation. Journal of Extension [On-line], 45(1) Article 1FEA1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2007february/a1.shtml

Jacobson, S. K. (1999). Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Jacobson, S. K., McDuff, M. D., & Monroe, M. C. (2006). Conservation education and outreach techniques. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Koval, M. H., & Mertig, A. G. (2002). Attitudes towards natural resources and their management: A report on the "2001 Resource Attitudes in Michigan Survey" (PR project W-127-R-16). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife.

Main, M. B. (2004). Mobilizing grass-roots conservation education: The Florida Master Naturalist Program. Conservation Biology, 18(1), 11-16.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (2002). Learning in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Russell, R., & Kirkbride, E. (2004). Conservation of an overlooked resource--volunteers: Partnering with volunteers can accomplish great things for natural resources. Rangelands, 26(3), 20-23.

Savanick, M. A., & Blair, R. B. (2005). Assessing the need for Master Naturalist programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005june/a7.shtml

Schroeder, B. C. (2004). The Great Lakes fisheries leadership institute: Evaluation of An Extension programs' impacts in relation to regional Sea Grant and local Michigan participants' expected learning outcomes. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

SPSS, Inc. (2005). SPSS for Windows (Version 12) [Computer software]. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.

Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.) Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.

Van Den Berg, H.A. (2006). Impacts of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program on participants' knowledge, attitudes, and skills regarding ecology and resource management. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Investigating Marine Recreational Fishing Stakeholders' Perspectives Across Three South Carolina Coastal Regions: The First Step Towards Collaboration

Kyle M. Woosnam
Assistant Professor
Department of Recreation, Park & Tourism Sciences
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
woosnam@tamu.edu

Laura W. Jodice
Research Associate
Recreation, Travel and Tourism Institute
Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
jodicel@clemson.edu

Amber Von Harten
Fisheries Specialist
S.C. Sea Grant Extension Program
Beaufort, South Carolina
ambervh@clemson.edu

Raymond J. Rhodes
Research Professor
Department of Economics and Finance
College of Charleston
Charleston, South Carolina
rhodesr@cofc.edu

Introduction

Collaborative endeavors are increasingly utilized to assure active involvement of local stakeholders in natural resource planning and management. Expected outcomes include greater trust in scientists and managers, better management decisions, stronger belief in legitimacy and equity of management actions, and ultimately long-term compliance (Degnbol, 2003; Jentoft, 2000; Pinkerton, 2003; Weeks & Packard, 1997). However, building bridges between agencies, organizations, and individuals for resource management is not an end in itself, but rather a way to build understanding, support, and capacity (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000).

Such capacity includes collaboration across various policy arenas and levels of government by engaging citizens, communities, and nongovernmental organizations in problem-solving and implementation processes (Weber, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2005). These issues are relevant to fisheries management, where there is an identified need to better understand recreational anglers as stakeholders (Recksiek & Hinchcliff, 2002). The study reported here uses conceptual analysis of recreational angler input regarding regional level marine recreation resource needs to explore collaborative potential on the South Carolina coast.

Problem Statement and Purpose of Study

In South Carolina (SC), the Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has management and enforcement responsibilities for marine resources, and the state legislature has primary regulatory authority. As a result, regional stakeholder input may be undervalued. Also, given increasing coastal development and tourism pressures, the South Carolina Sea Grant Extension Program (SCSGEP) has recognized a growing need for Extension and outreach programs that can complement state regulatory and enforcement efforts. Specifically, SCSGEP is interested in obtaining expert stakeholder input regarding the education and outreach needs that could facilitate non-regulatory problem-solving.

The purpose of the study reported here was to assess SC marine recreational fishing stakeholders' perceptions and understanding of problems, solutions, and priorities for recreational fishing resources. The process also served as a beginning step toward assessing collaborative capacity between recreational fishing stakeholders and management agencies. Although facilitated public comment sessions are common in resource management, few have involved in-depth analysis of recreational angler input specific to perceived needs, communications and stakeholder involvement issues (e.g., Conway & Opsommer, 2007; Connelly, Brown, & Knuth, 2000).

Methods

Study Setting

The study focused on three main SC coastal regions (Beaufort/Hilton Head, Charleston, and Myrtle Beach) as defined by tourism marketing literature. Beaufort/Hilton Head on the southern portion of the coast is a well-known recreational fishing area. Five rivers flow through Beaufort and into the Atlantic Ocean, making it a productive and accessible coastal fishery. North of Beaufort, the Charleston area has both adequate public access points and attractive angling locations, but is a larger metropolitan area that highlights cultural and heritage tourism. Myrtle Beach, which is located on the northern coastline, has few public access points, a considerably crowded waterway, and a focus on beaches, golf, and boating.

During the summer of 2005, 20 interviews were conducted with recreational angler stakeholders throughout the three coastal regions. Representatives from SCSGEP and SCDNR provided a list of potential interviewees with extensive recreational fishing experience and knowledge of the region. Participants were purposefully sampled (Babbie, 2006) to ensure diverse perspectives based on involvement in recreational fishing and regional representation.

Interviewees represented more than one interest in recreational fishing--15 identified themselves as anglers, seven as charter boat captains or fishing guides, six as fish "taggers" (i.e., assist SCDNR with tagging fish for population analysis), three as fishing pier employees, three as fish club members, and one as a marina owner. All were experienced anglers averaging over 30 years of fishing experience. All were Caucasian, and two were female. Data reached a saturation level (Creswell, 2006) with the twentieth interview, after which no other participants were contacted from the master list.

Data were collected using semi-structured, tape-recorded interviews (lasting between 20 and 120 minutes) with scripted questions and additional probing questions as topics emerged (Merriam, 2001). Examples of scripted questions include the following.

• How long have you been saltwater fishing? How did you first get involved in fishing?


• What is great about fishing along the SC coast?


• What are some problems with marine recreational fishing along the SC coast?


• What are some non-regulatory solutions that you can think of to fix these problems?

The interview process was designed to allow free-flowing dialog. Interviews occurred in locations selected by participants (Spradley, 1979), for example, home, work place, boat, local restaurant.

Data were transcribed and analyzed using an eight-step conceptual analysis (Table 1) procedure (Busch, DeMaret, & Flynn, 2005). The initial five steps involved making decisions regarding the level of coding and the last three steps involved data analysis.

Two researchers, who were knowledgeable about recreation, fisheries, and related resource management issues, coded the data. The inter-rater reliability test (Holsti, 1969) demonstrated a 79% agreement of themes. Data were then recoded according to revised themes, yielding near perfect inter-rater agreement.

Results

Problems

Stakeholder interviews resulted in 500 coded problems associated with marine angling along the SC coast, and these fit eleven major themes (Table 2). The most frequently identified problem was declining fish resources due to illegal fishing activity and lack of conservation ethic among anglers. Numerous boats and people and environmental degradation associated with increasing coastal development and resource use were the second- and third-most mentioned problems.

Problems Across Regions

Some overlap existed between regions for the top-mentioned problems (Table 2). Differences are likely due to differences in recreational opportunities and environments, and the degree of development in each area. The three most commonly mentioned problems by Beaufort stakeholders were: 1) environmental degradation of resources (e.g., pollution from boats, industry, and parking lots; littering; and abandoned crab traps), 2) declining fish resource (e.g., gear-related fish kills and illegal "fillet-and-release" activity), and 3) access (e.g., long waits at ramps, poor lighting at ramps, and limited dock space).

Other than declining fish resources, Myrtle Beach participants mentioned coastal capacity and user conflict. Participants claimed that fish numbers are decreasing because people are keeping fish outside size limits and/or fishing without licenses. According to participants, fish populations are also declining due to an increase in both coastal development and the number of boats. Conflict with recreational shrimpers and gill-netters and commercial fisherman also exists.

Charleston stakeholders shared two problem themes with Myrtle Beach--coastal capacity and user conflict. Participants mentioned that many new residents build a large dock on their property and buy a boat, thus increasing crowding on the water. Charleston stakeholders also indicated that "jet skiers," boaters traveling at high speeds and consuming alcohol, and recreational shrimping and crabbing conflicted with recreational angling.

Non-Regulatory Solutions

After stakeholders communicated the problems, they were asked to identify non-regulatory solutions to these problems. Nine themes (totaling 162 codes) emerged (Table 3). The most identified solutions included angler education, improving fishing access, and establishing collaborative partnerships.

Non-Regulatory Solutions Across Regions

Education was the top non-regulatory solution mentioned. For Beaufort participants, this meant educating anglers about the benefits of catch-and-release fishing, hook sizes, and fragility of estuaries. For Myrtle Beach stakeholders, this meant educating the public about fishery regulations and safe watercraft navigation and using brochures, television ads, postings at boat landings, and other printed media to reach all age groups. Stakeholder education in recreational fishing is viewed as a viable means of addressing problems (e.g., Reiss, Reiss, & Reiss, 2007; Johnston, Holland, Maharaj, & Campson, 2007).

Charleston stakeholders focused on the need for stakeholder collaboration in development of education strategies as well as forging conservation partnerships between anglers, charter captains, marina operators, fish clubs, and SCDNR. They felt partnerships would be instrumental in educating users at key access points. Collaboration among key recreational fishing stakeholders has become popular throughout the last decade (e.g., Sandersen & Koester, 2000; Morin, 2001).

Improving access was also considered an important solution. Beaufort stakeholders focused on ramp infrastructure improvements such as better lighting, fish cleaning stations, and ramps repair. Myrtle Beach stakeholders focused on adding additional floating docks, building new boat landings, and creating more artificial reefs.

Discussion and Implications

In the study reported here, it was difficult to find one dominant problem theme, which indicates the diversity of recreational fishing issues along the different SC coastal regions. However, the prevailing focus on education, collaboration, and partnership as solutions indicates stakeholders' willingness to partner on educational outreach endeavors facilitated by SCSGEP and SCDNR (e.g., marine retailers providing space for printed materials, marinas supporting sign placement, recreational angling associations assisting with development of education programs). Willingness to collaborate is an important precursor to the implementation of co-management and is as important as what happens later in the process (Chuenpagdee & Jentoft, 2007).

Input of recreational anglers is important to fisheries management, particularly as a fishery shifts from food production to recreation where aesthetic, non-consumptive activities take precedence (Smith, 1986). The interviewees involved in the study were all experienced marine recreational anglers with knowledge about the region where they fished and whose responses demonstrated their belief that resource protection is important.

Beaufort area stakeholders were particularly focused on conservation and resource protection, which is consistent with their comments regarding the aesthetic beauty of the area, the ecological sensitivity of the region as development intensifies (South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, 2005), and the apparent inexperience of the average angler in an area in which commercial fishing has also been traditionally important. The concern of Myrtle Beach residents that anglers and boaters had poor knowledge of general rules and regulations may reflect intensifying recreational user group conflicts resulting from increasing area development.

Consistent with the noticeable prevalence of print advertising in Myrtle Beach, stakeholders suggested many types of educational print media for public communication with inexperienced users. Charleston stakeholders' focus on public education about fishing, boating, and natural resource protection seems consistent with their familiarity with areas undergoing rapid development (similar to the Myrtle Beach area) and undeveloped areas (similar to those in the Beaufort area) in Charleston.

In addition to educational solutions stressed by stakeholders, other non-regulatory solutions should be considered. For example, SCSGEP in partnership with SCDNR and other state agencies responsible for marine recreational activities on the coast (SC Department of Health and Environmental Control and the SC Department of Parks Recreation and Tourism), local governments, the fishing industry, state Extension specialists, and other vested stakeholders should support assessment of boating and fishing access, capacity, and infrastructure needs relevant to each major coastal region.

From this research, SCSGEP was able to develop a list of priority problems and suggested solutions congruent with stakeholder perceptions. Stakeholders also identified the need to work together in problem-solving and suggested collaborative partnerships. Thus, through this preliminary dialog with marine recreational angling stakeholders, the project helped SCSGEP better understand the foundation for collaboration in the three main regions of the SC coast.

Future Research

The study reported here is an example for Extension professionals interested in determining appropriate collaborative efforts for regional level problem-solving when recreational user groups are involved. While the study was exploratory in nature, it represents the value of engaging recreational stakeholders in dialog as a means to understand the collaborative potential for addressing regional marine fisheries management issues. The study also highlights the fact that a "catch-all" solution generated by a larger Extension initiative may not account for regional differences in perceptions of problems or best solutions.

Further research could be conducted using a larger sample representing a wide range of angling experience (e.g., "novice" to "expert") within regions to refine and test the 20 themes that emerged. By surveying a larger sample of stakeholders, SCSGEP and other interested agencies (e.g., SCDNR) can be more confident about the level at which problems and potential solutions are shared and differ across the SC coastal regions.

References

Babbie, E. (2006). The practice of social research (11th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Busch, C., DeMaret, P., & Flynn, T. (2005). Content analysis. Writing at CSU. Colorado State University Department of English. Retrieved June 11, 2005 from: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/content/

Chuenpagdee, R., & Jentoft, S. (2007). Step zero for fisheries co-management: What precedes implementation. Marine Policy, 31(6).

Connelly, N. A., Brown, T. L., & Knuth, B. A. (2000). Do anglers and fishery professionals think alike? Fisheries, 25(2), 21-25.

Conway, F., & Opsommer, L. (2007). Communicating and interacting with Oregon's coastal marine recreational fishing community. Fisheries, 32(4), 182-188.

Creswell, J. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Degnbol, P. (2003). Science and the user perspective: The gap co-management must address. In D. C. Wilson, J. R. Nielsen, & P. Degnbol (Eds.), The fisheries co-management experience: Accomplishments, challenges and prospects, 31-49. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. New York: Random House.

Jentoft, S. (2000). The community: A missing link of fisheries management. Marine Policy, 24(1), 53-59.

Johnston, R., Holland, D., Maharaj, V., & Campson, T. (2007). Fish harvest tags: An alternative management approach for recreational fisheries in the US Gulf of Mexico. Marine Policy, 31(4), 505-516.

Merriam, S.B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morin, T. (2001). Sanctuary advisory councils: Involving the public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Coastal Management, 29, 327-339.

Pinkerton, E. (2003). Toward specificity in complexity: Understanding co-management from a social science perspective. In D. C. Wilson, J. R. Nielsen & P. Degnbol (Eds.), The fisheries co-management experience: Accomplishments, challenges and prospects, 61-77. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Reiss, P., Reiss, M., & Reiss, J. (2007). Catch and release fishing effectiveness and mortality. Acute Angling. Retrieved June 6, 2007 from http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.pdf

Recksiek, H., & Hinchcliff, G. (2002). Marine protected areas needs assessment final report. NOAA Coastal Services Center. Retrieved October 1, 2005 from: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/mpa/MPANAFINAL.pdf

Sandersen, H., & Koester, S. (2000). Co-management of tropical coastal zones: The case of the Soufriere Marine Management Area, St. Lucia, WI. Coastal Management, 28, 87-97.

Smith, C. L. (1986). The life cycle of fisheries. Fisheries, 11(4), 20-25.

South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium (2005). South Atlantic bight land use-coastal ecosystem study: Phase II (Final Progress Report). Charleston, SC. Retrieved January 18, 2006 from: http://www.lu-ces.org/documents/Reports/LU-CES.FinalProgressReport.11-04-05.pdf

Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Weber, E. P., Lovrich, N. P., & Gaffney, M. (2005). Collaboration, enforcement, and endangered species: A framework for assessing collaborative problem-solving capacity. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 677-698.

Weeks, P., & Packard, J. M. (1997). Acceptance of scientific management by natural resource dependent communities. Conservation Biology, 11(1), 236-245.

Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Grant-Funded Educational Program Aimed at Increasing Native Seed Collections in Nevada

Jason Davison
Area Forage & Alternative Crops Specialist
College of Cooperative Extension
Fallon, Nevada
davisonj@unce.unr.edu

Pamela Powell
Extension Educator
College of Cooperative Extension
Fallon, Nevada
powellp@unce.unr.edu

Marilyn Smith
Area Youth Development Specialist
College of Cooperative Extension
Elko, Nevada
smithm@unce.unr.edu

University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
Central/Northeast Area

Introduction

Wildfires in the United States are growing in number and size. In the period between 2000-2005, the average number of acres burned annually was 6,551,749, higher than any decade since the 1950's (National Interagency Fire Center, 2006). This massive wildfire trend is expanding and may accelerate due to global warming (Westerling, Hidalgo, Cayan, & Swetnam, 2006). In 2006, the United States Government Accountability Office reported that "the number of acres burned by wildfires annually from 2000 to 2005 was 70% greater than the average burned annually during the 1990's" (Nazzaro, 2006). According to the National Year-to-Date Report on Fires and Acres Burned, over 6 million acres were burned by wildfire in the 11 western states in 2006 (National Interagency Fire Center, 2007).

Revegetation of burned lands is critical. Responsible agencies are increasingly developing policies that encourage the use of native plant species in these efforts (Richards, Chambers, & Ross, 1998). This trend is echoed by state agencies. Because federal agencies control much of our nation's public lands, ranging from a high of 86% in Nevada to a low of 30% in Montana (General Services Administration, 2004), this revegetation policy is crucial.

Unfortunately, the increased demand for native seeds has not been matched by supply. Between 1996 and 2000, the price paid by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for native seeds tripled (General Services Administration, 2002). Congress responded, and, in 2002, the Interior Appropriations House directed "the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to report jointly to the Congress by December 31, 2001 with specific plans and recommendations to supply native plant materials for emergency stabilization and longer-term rehabilitation efforts." In 2002, the BLM and Forest Service appropriated approximately $15 million for the development of programs to increase the supply of native plant seeds.

In late 2002, personnel from the BLM state office in Nevada contacted Cooperative Extension with a request to submit a proposal aimed at the development of an educational program to increase native seed collections from lands in the state.

Because formal evaluations of grant-funded programs is becoming increasing more important to federal granting agencies as one tool to address the accountability standards demanded by Congress, the authors created and administered an evaluation survey. This article provides an example of a formal evaluation that was completed as a required activity in the grant aimed at increasing native seed collection activity on federal lands in Nevada.

While the evaluation tool and resulting data are not unique examples of program evaluation, it is interesting to see how perceived usefulness of the educational tool can be correlated to knowledge gain. Extension professionals are increasingly being asked to report these program impacts. The process used in evaluating this educational program may prove useful to other Extension professionals contemplating use of surveys as an evaluation tool.

Educational Program Development and Delivery

The proposal outlined four main objectives that were agreed to by the BLM and Cooperative Extension. The objectives addressed in the project included:

• Writing, publishing, and distributing a native seed collection manual in Nevada and other western states, as appropriate.


• Presenting the manual at conferences, technical sessions, and scientific meetings during 2003 and 2004.


• Completing a series of workshops in Nevada aimed at educating potential seed collectors about the seed collecting process using the manual as curriculum.


• Conducting a formal evaluation survey to determine the utility of the manual and to estimate the change in seed collecting activity from the responses.

A 135-page manual titled Field Guide for Collecting Native Seeds in Nevada was published in 2003. The manual was distributed to 458 individuals in 13 states. Following publication, it was presented at three scientific conferences in Idaho, Utah, and West Virginia, and two technical sessions in California and Colorado. It is available on the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Web site: <http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/2003/EB0303.pdf>.

An educational team consisting of representatives from Nevada Cooperative Extension, the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Department of Agriculture, and two representatives from the seed collection industry was assembled. The team developed workshop materials based on the manual and taught five workshops throughout Nevada to nearly 200 individuals. Workshop attendees included agency staff, Native American tribal members, and the general public. Approximately 600 individuals were exposed to the manual during 2003 to 2005 via direct and indirect contact.

Evaluation of the first three objectives consisted of documenting manuals distributed, recording presentation sites, and recording the number of workshop attendees. The fourth objective was met using a mail-out evaluation survey that was given to manual recipients to ascertain the impact of the educational information presented in the manual. The survey purpose was to measure knowledge gained, manual utility, the sharing of information beyond workshop attendees, and change in seed collecting activities.

Methods

The evaluation consisted of a 23-question survey that was prepared by the authors and mailed to 186 individuals who had received the manual and had provided an address. A follow-up postcard was mailed 3 weeks after the first mailing reminding recipients to fill out the survey. Fifteen of the surveys were returned as undeliverable, resulting in a survey population of 171 people. A total of 53 valid responses were received from individuals in 10 states, giving a 30% response rate. Other mailed surveys targeting this agriculture and natural resource audience are showing similar rates of response, (Singletary & Smith, 2006; Smyth & Dillman, 2007).

The survey was used to describe the population of individuals interested in collecting native seed for Nevada and to evaluate the manual effectiveness. Respondents were queried about the type of organization they worked for, whether seed collecting was a primary source of their income, and their state of residence. Respondents answered two different Likert-type scales measuring knowledge gain and usefulness of the publication.

The first was a five-point Likert-type scale administered in the survey with 1) being strongly disagree and 5) being strongly agree. This scale was used to measure knowledge gained as a result of using the manual, whether respondents had begun or had increased their collection activity as a result of using the manual, and whether the manual was considered user friendly.

The second scale asked respondents to rate the "usefulness" of each of the nine chapter topics contained in the publication. Respondents completed a Likert-type scale (Dillman 2007) using a five-point response structure with 1 indicating "not useful" to 5 indicating "extremely useful." The nine topics respondents rated were:

1. Plant collecting priority list;


2. Native plant identification guides;


3. Potential native seed collection sites in Nevada;


4. Federal permits, fees, and regulations related to seed collecting;


5. Nevada state rules and regulations related to seed collecting;


6. Collecting and preserving voucher plant specimens;


7. Native seed collection, handling, and storage;


8. Marketing native seed; and


9. Appendices.

Descriptive statistics software (SPSS 14.0 Software, 2006) was used to analyze survey results. Regression analysis measured the influence of perceived usefulness of the topics in the publication on the perceived knowledge gain of reviewers related to native seed collection. This analysis was conducted to provide information to the developers of the publication regarding predictors of knowledge gain with regard to the nine topics surveyed.

Results

The respondents were asked to provide information on their employment status. Approximately 41% of those who responded to the survey were federal, state, county, or city employees. Private businesses, such as consulting, sales, seed collector and/or seed cleaning, and farming and ranching, comprised approximately 40% of the respondents. In addition, 19% of the respondents did not provide an answer to this question.

Cronbach's coefficient alpha was used to estimate internal consistency of the nine Likert-type scale items representing the ratings of usefulness of the manual. The Cronbach score was high (r = .84) and indicates that there was high internal consistency between the skill items (Carmines & Zeller, 1979).

Usefulness of Guide and Knowledge Gain

The respondents were asked to evaluate whether the manual was easy to use, improved their knowledge, and increased their activities relative to native seed collection. The responses were positive and are displayed as ranked mean scores in Table 1 below.

For the purposes of the study, mean scores were calculated for each of the nine chapter topic areas. Table 2 illustrates the ranked mean scores for the nine chapter topic areas. As shown in Table 2, the most useful topics included the native plant identification guides. Potential native seed collection sites rated last in the ranking of mean scores for the nine topic areas.

When respondents were asked whether the information in the manual had improved their knowledge of native seed collection, 73% agreed, while 20% reported neutral feelings, and 7% disagreed.

Increased Seed Collection/Sales

An important question on the survey asked the respondents if the manual had helped them increase their seed collecting activities. The results indicated that 31% of the respondents had increased their seed collecting activities as a result of receiving the manual, 55% indicated the manual did not help increase collection activity, and approximately 14% did not answer. The respondents who indicated the manual was helpful to them in increasing their seed collecting activity were asked to estimate how many pounds of seed were collected. Fifteen individuals indicated they collected 1-500 pounds, while two respondents indicated they had collected from 501-1,000 pounds, and one other individual indicated collecting in excess of 1,000 pounds of native seed.

The majority (73%) of respondents did not indicate where they had sold the collected seed. Of those responding, 2% sold to the federal government or at the retail level, 8% to a private vendor, and approximately 4% used all of these outlets to sell their seed.

Distribution of the Manual

The respondents were asked if they had shared the manual with friends, family, or colleagues in an attempt to determine how many additional people may have been exposed to this information. Approximately 67% of the respondents shared the manual with others. These respondents had shared the information with an additional 385 people. The employment sector did not affect the likelihood of sharing manual information with others.

Perceived Usefulness of the Educational Tool Correlated to Knowledge Gain

The knowledge gain variable was regressed as a block (stepwise procedure) against the nine seed collection publication chapter topics. In addition, the variable "overall usefulness of the information provided by the publication" was held constant to reduce any multicollinearity issues. Significant and positive relationships were revealed between knowledge gain and two of the publication topics: native plant identification guides (B=.594, t = 3.710, p<.01) and collecting and preserving voucher plant specimens (B=.259, t=2.159, p<.05). The adjusted R (.647) indicates that the model explains 65% of the variance. Although some variables were intercorrelated, there was no statistically significant problem with multicollinearity.

These results reveal, as shown in Table 3, that higher scores of publication usefulness of two topics of the publication: 1) native plant identification guides, and 2) collecting and preserving voucher plant specimen are predictive of increased knowledge gain reported by the respondents.

Conclusions

A grant-funded educational program and publication sponsored by the United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) included the publication and distribution of a native seed collection manual and presentations at numerous workshops and conferences. The program was formally evaluated using a mailed survey to determine the utility of the manual and if seed collection activity by program participants increased.

The data provided here indicate that the Field Guide for Collecting Native Seeds in Nevada manual was effective in creating knowledge gain and behavior change. This program evaluation report may be helpful to other natural resource professionals working on this issue as they contemplate (1) program approaches that are working to create change, (2) program funding sources, and (3) program evaluation processes. This formative and summative evaluation data will be used by the authors and the granting agency to focus future educational programs aimed at increasing native seed collection activity.

Cooperative Extension professionals not working in this programming area may be interested in the process used in evaluating this educational program. It is interesting to see how perceived usefulness of the educational tool can be correlated to knowledge gain. Extension professionals are increasingly being asked to report these program impacts.

Cooperative Extension is one of the few organizations that routinely and formally evaluates its educational programs. The experience with formal evaluation activities provides Cooperative Extension organizations an advantage when competing for targeted funds with an educational component. Cooperative Extension administrative and field level personnel should market this advantage when seeking extramural funds.

References

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA.

Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed., updated). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

General Services Administration. (2004). Overview of the United States Government's owned and leased real property: Federal real property profile as of September 30, 2004. Retrieved August 15, 2007 from: http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/ Annual%20Report%20%20FY2004%20Final_R2M-n11_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf

National Interagency Fire Center. (2006). Wildland fire statistics. Retrieved August 15, 2007 from: http://www.nifc.gov/stats/ytd_st.htm

Nazzaro, R. N. (2006) Wildland fire management: Update on federal agency efforts to develop a cohesive strategy to address wildland fire threats. Letter to House Committee on Appropriations May 1, 2006. United States Government Accountability Office. GAO-06-671R Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy.

Richards, R. T., Chambers, J. C., & Ross, C. (1998). Use of native plants on Federal lands: Policy and practice. Journal of Range Management. 51(6), 625-632.

Salant, P., & Dillman, D. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Singletary, L., & Smith, M. (2006). Nevada agriculture producer research and education needs: Results of 2006 statewide needs assessment. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, EB-06-02. 118 pages.

Smyth, J., & Dillman, D. (2007). Family farming and ranching in Washington: Research results. Washington State University: CRS Information Series No. 1-07. Retrieved August 15, 2007 from: http://www.crs.wsu.edu/1-07-farmranchwa.pdf

Statistical Package for Social Sciences for Windows (Version 14.0) [Computer Software]. Chicago: Author, 2006.

Westerling ,A. L., Hidalgo, H. G., Cayan, D. R., & Swetnam. T. W. (2006). Warming and earlier spring increases western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science, July 6, 2006. (10.1126/science.1128834).

An Exploratory Study of Farmers' View on Aquaculture Development in Indiana

Kwamena Quagrainie
Aquaculture Marketing Specialist
Department of Agricultural Economics
kquagrai@purdue.edu

Steven Hart
Soy-in-Aquaculture Project Coordinator
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources
sdhart@purdue.edu

Paul Brown
Professor of Aquatic Nutrition
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources
pb@purdue.edu

Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Introduction

In 1998, a number of individuals from the Indiana Aquaculture Association, Indiana state government, and Purdue University developed the "Indiana Aquaculture Plan," designed to offer insights into Indiana's aquaculture industry and describe various methods of production, species suitable for culture, regulatory policies, marketing strategies, information on financing aquaculture operations, and management of fish culture facilities (Reed & Isaacs, 1998). The primary goal of the plan was to assist planning efforts for Indiana's aquaculture development.

The first USDA aquaculture census in 1998 reported 24 aquaculture farms in Indiana, with a sales value of $2.7 million (USDA-NASS, 2000). By 2002, the number of farms had increased to 47, with a sales value of $3.2 million (USDA-NASS, 2004), indicating an increase, but this is relatively low compared to neighboring states. In Ohio, for example, the number of aquaculture farms in 2002 was 100, with a sales value of $3.3 million, compared to 33 farms and a sales value of $1.8 million in 1998 (USDA-NASS, 2002, 2004).

Undoubtedly, there is increased interest in aquaculture in the Midwest and the North Central region, but the growth of the industry has generally been slow compared to growth in other parts of the nation, particularly in the South. The South accounts for about 70% of the total value of U.S. aquaculture products sold, compared to 3% for the North Central region (USDA-NASS, 2004). Climatic conditions in the South favor outdoor pond culture, which is relatively cheaper than other production methods. In Indiana, about 50% of aquaculture production occurs in ponds and the rest in cages and re-circulating systems (USDA-NASS, 2000).

Purpose

The purpose of the study reported here was to assess Indiana aquaculture and determine what producers thought were hindrances to its development in the state.

Methodology

The study involved a mail survey to Indiana aquaculture producers in 2005. The list of producers was obtained from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and the Indiana Aquaculture Association, Inc. The questionnaire solicited information on number of years in the aquaculture business, income from aquaculture and allied industries, type of operation, species reared, product forms, and marketing strategies. A second section asked respondents to rank a series of 11 statements relating to what they believed to be constraints to the development of aquaculture in Indiana. These statements were developed from discussions with the Indiana Aquaculture Association, Inc.

The survey questionnaire was pre-tested. Responses from the pre-test were used to develop the final survey instrument. The mail survey was used because of its relatively lower cost compared to other data collection methods, and it provided thoughtful responses that could be analyzed statistically.

There were three mailings to every contact name from the list: an introductory postcard, the survey and cover letter, and a reminder/thank you notice. Two additional mailings including a cover letter and survey were sent to non-respondents of the initial mailings. A test-retest method was adopted to check the reliability of survey responses. Three respondents were contacted in 2006 asking them to rank again the 11 statements relating to constraints to Indiana aquaculture development. The correlation coefficient between the two sets of responses was 0.93.

Results and Discussion

A response rate of 42% was obtained (38 out of 91 contacts responded). Twenty-three of the 38 who responded were actively involved in aquaculture production. Most (73%) had been in aquaculture for at least 5 years (Figure 1). This level of experience of respondents could be beneficial to learning about constraints to aquaculture development in the state.

The results presented here must be interpreted with some caution because of the sample size and the response rate. However, given that the 2002 USDA agricultural census indicated 47 Indiana aquaculture farms, responses from 23 producers are a good representative sample of producers and what they perceived as significant constraints to the development of the industry in the state. Most Indiana operations are for food fish production and recreational or sports fishing.

Figure 1.
Percentage of Responses by Years Producing Fish/Aquatic Organisms

Level of Indiana Aquaculture

The level of Indiana aquaculture production is generally low (Figure 2). Over 84% of respondents produce at most 10,000lb of aquaculture products a year. It suggests aquaculture is a minor part of Indiana's agricultural production. Most operations are part-time business ventures. This agrees with Figure 3, which shows that aquaculture constituted at most 25% of total agricultural sales for 67% of respondents (Figure 3). It confirms that the level of production in the state is largely small-scale.

There are a few producers in the state who produce quite substantial amounts of aquaculture products. About 12% of respondents reported total gross sales estimates from aquaculture and allied activities of over $100,000 in the 2004/2005 farming season. These producers are among the 8% reported in Figure 2 who produced from 50,001-100,00lb. They are also among the respondents who indicated aquaculture accounts for at least 75% of total gross farm sales (Figure 3). Allied aquaculture activities include fee fishing operations, design and sale of aquaculture equipment, sale of other inputs, and management/consulting services.

Figure 2.
Percentage of Responses by Category of Production Levels

Figure 3.
Percentage of Responses by Aquaculture Percentage of Total Gross Farm Sales

Constraints to Development

Respondents were asked to rank 11 constraints in terms of significance to aquaculture development in Indiana (where 1 is the most significant and 11 is the least significant). Figure 4 presents the average ranking for the suggested constraints. Overall, it appears from Figure 4 that no single factor constituted a major constraint, but rather, several factors need to be addressed if Indiana aquaculture is to develop. The average rankings reported in Figure 4 are all below 7 in a scale of 1 – 11, suggesting that no individual constraint was ranked consistently low in terms of significance.

However, the top three constraints to aquaculture development were identified as high start-up costs, lack of well-established market for aquaculture products, and high costs of day-to-day operations. These constraints relate to economics and management of aquaculture enterprises, which is consistent with previous assessment of the industry. In a 2004 fact sheet, The Midwest Is Hungry for Aquaculture, the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College program reported that economics and marketing were key factors to proceeding beyond the region's crossroad in aquaculture development (IISG, 2004).

Figure 4.
Average Ranking of Constraints

Findings from the study suggested a course of action involving programming and policy that will help address economics and marketing issues confronting aquaculture. Currently, the level of investment in aquaculture by commercial lending institutions in Indiana is either minimal or nonexistent. Consequently, Purdue University aquaculture applied research and Extension programs have focused on aquaculture business development, analysis of market potential, assessment of aquaculture's place in the general seafood industry, and development of value-added aquaculture products. One major focus of Extension programming for the industry is educating financial lending institutions on the economic potential of aquaculture, exploring the services of the agriculture insurance industry in aquaculture, and exploring investment capital for aquaculture development. It is hoped that these efforts will provide a promising platform for expanding aquaculture in the region.

Conclusions and Implications

The level of aquaculture production in Indiana is largely small-scale. Several constraints plague the industry's development, particularly issues related to economics and management of aquaculture enterprises. The approach adopted by Purdue Extension to helping aquaculture develop has primarily focused on funding sources for aquaculture businesses, analyzing market potential, assessing aquaculture's place in the general seafood market, and developing value-added aquaculture products. Recent county aquaculture workshops emphasizing economics of production and marketing have played a major role in helping to address these constraints.

Aquaculture is considered an alternative to traditional agriculture in Indiana, and it is likely that some minor fruits and vegetable industries have similar constraints. Consequently, the form of assistance to Indiana's alternative agriculture enterprises should be from a holistic perspective to address issues that include financing, economics, marketing, policy, science, and technology transfer. In particular, financial lending institutions in the region should be educated in these forms of agricultural enterprise.

Aquaculture Extension staff and state agricultural officials can use the findings from this study to strengthen subject matter of their programs geared toward alternative agriculture development.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by The Office of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Indiana (now Indiana State Department of Agriculture) through the value-added research program.

References

Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program. (2004). Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant: Impacts – The Midwest is Hungry for aquaculture, Publication # IISG-04-04. Retrieved April 14, 2008 from: http://www.iisgcp.org/products/program/ImpactsAQ0420.pdf

Reed, C., & Isaacs, D. (1998). The Indiana aquaculture plan. Retrieved April 14, 2008 from: http://aquanic.org/publicat/state/il-in/inplan.pdf

USDA-National Agricultural Statistics, NASS (2000). 1997 Census of Agriculture AC97-SP-3, Census of Aquaculture (1998), Vol. 3, Special Studies Part 3. Retrieved April 14, 2008 from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/table1.pdf

USDA-National Agricultural Statistics, NASS (2004). 2002 Census of Agriculture AC-02-A-51, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series Part 51. Retrieved April 14, 2008 from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/st99_2_002_002.pdf

Breaking the Bonds of Isolation: Can Home-Based Education Increase Social Support Levels?

Dawn A. Contreras
Program Leader and Assistant Professor
Michigan State University Extension
East Lansing, Michigan
contrer7@msu.edu

Introduction

Historically, Extension educators have used home-based education to teach people about a variety of topics, including nutrition education, parenting, and financial management. This type of education is appealing because it allows educators to reach individuals who may be unable or unwilling to receive education outside of the home. Once inside the home, educators are often able to form a trusting relationship with the individuals and encourage them to engage in additional external sources of social support. Studies suggest that emotional connectedness between the individual and home visitor can reduce stress and isolation, build social support networks, and increase family resources (Green & Rodgers, 2001).

Social support is particularly important for parents. Research shows that perceived social support predicts increased parental feelings of competence, decreased punitiveness, and greater sensitivity (Conley, Caldwell, Flynn, Dupre, & Rudolph, 2004). Availability of adequate social support can also enhance parental coping skills and provide relief from daily burdens that might otherwise accumulate and lead to maladaptive parenting behaviors (Bishop & Leadbeater, 1999; Conley, et al., 2004; Kotchick, Dorsey, & Heller, 2005; Ostberg & Hagekull, 2000).

However, social support is only beneficial to parents when they are satisfied with the type and amount of support they are receiving. For example, a parent who receives large amounts of unwanted parenting advice may become emotionally distressed and potentially exhibit harsh parenting behavior (Deater-Deckard, 2004). Research shows that social support is perceived as most helpful when the support is requested by the recipient and the type of support offered matches the need (Conley, et al., 2004; Lakey & Cohen, 2000; Wills & Shinar, 2000). Home-based education is a venue that allows the educator to customize the education and make referrals that match the specified needs of the parent.

The study reported here examined the influence of Michigan State University Extension's home-based parent education program (Building Strong Families) on perceived social support levels of parents. Specifically the study assessed how "helpful" diverse sources of social support were to parents of children ages birth to 36 months.

Methods

Sample

The sample for the study consisted of 122 parents of children ages birth to 36 months, selected from six counties in Michigan. The research sites were a mixture of urban and rural counties that had ongoing Building Strong Families (BSF) parent education programs and indicated a desire to be in the study. All parents who expressed interest in the BSF program were invited to participate in the study. The first 12 families in each county who agreed to become part of the study were assigned to the treatment group and began parenting classes immediately. All other parents who agreed to become part of the study were assigned to the control group and put on a waiting list to begin parenting classes. One hundred and sixty-one parents were asked to join the study, of which 139 parents agreed. Seventeen parents (8 treatment; 9 control) left the study prior to completion.

Descriptive statistics for all key demographic variables are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Average ages of the parents in the study were 23 years (treatment group) and 26 years (control group). A majority of the parents were Caucasian (79%, n=96), had a 12th-grade education or less (66%, n=81), lived in two-parent households (65%, n=79), and earned $1,000 or less a month (75%, n=91).

Comparison of Treatment Group and Control Group Participants

Analysis using independent t-tests and Pearson Chi Square showed equivalency for education, household composition, and monthly income (Tables 1 and 2). Both groups of parents tended to live in two-parent households and reported lower levels of income and education. Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups of parents for age and ethnicity. The treatment group was slightly younger than the control group and had a higher percentage of African-American and Asian parents, whereas the control group had a higher percentage of Hispanic parents.

However, the two groups showed equivalency when comparing numbers of white and nonwhite participants (X²=3.89(2), p=.143). This is important to note because research shows that social support variations among ethnic groups may exist due to past socio-historical experiences and cultural differences. African-American and Hispanic parents often have social support systems that reflect greater numbers of close and distant kin and the godparents of children in the family (Dilworth-Anderson & Marshall, 1996). In the study reported here there were statistically equivalent numbers of nonwhites in the two groups.

Pre- and Post-test Instruments

A Family Support Scale (Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1994) was used to collect data for the study. The Family Support Scale (FSS) is a list of 18 people or groups who are often helpful to parents of young children. The list includes such items as, "my parents," "my relatives/kin," "my friends," "co-workers," "social groups," "my family physician," and "school/day care center." Parents are asked to rate how helpful each source of social support has been to them within the past 3 to 6 months. Ratings are made on a five-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from (1) "Not-At-All-Helpful" to (5) "Extremely Helpful." The scoring form also has a "not available" option for any sources of support that are not accessible to the parent.

Previous studies have shown that the coefficient alpha computed for the 18 scale items is .79 (Dunst et al., 1994). Reliability analyses were also conducted for the sample involved in the study. The Cronbach's Alpha for the study was .71. The FSS was selected to measure parental ratings of social support "helpfulness" because it is a relatively short standardized instrument that deals specifically with sources of social support related to parenting.

The FSS was administered twice to the participants. It was administered as a pre-test on the first visit to both the treatment and the control group participants. Following the pre-test, parents in the treatment group participated in 12 parent education classes. During this time the control group did not receive any education or services. The FSS was given to the treatment group parents as a post-test following the 12th and final lesson. It was also administered to the control group participants through a home visit conducted 12 weeks following completion of the pre-tests. The pre-test and post-test were identical, except that the pre-test also contained demographic items, such as age, ethnicity, household composition, and income.

Informed consent procedures for the educational treatment study were approved by the appropriate university committee on research involving human subjects.

Treatment

The treatment used in the study was the Building Strong Families (BSF) parent education curriculum (Michigan State University Extension, 1989). The curriculum has four units covering the topics of child development, positive discipline, parent-child interaction, and parental problem solving and goal setting. Each unit lasted 3 weeks, for a total of 12 sessions. The target audience was limited income parents of children ages birth to 36 months. Lessons lasted approximately 1 hour and were presented in the participant's home. Instructors for the BSF program were paraprofessional staff members employed by Michigan State University Extension. All instructors held a high school diploma or a GED, received 40 hours of training in parenting and home visitation skills, and had daily supervision from a county Extension educator.

The treatment used in the study was posited to increase parental ratings of social support "helpfulness" because one of the goals of the BSF program is to decrease perceived isolation of parents and increase availability of appropriate community resources. Throughout the program parents are encouraged to assess their needs related to parenting, develop plans to meet the needs, and implement the plans. Instructors provide one-to-one assistance in the parent's home to support the parents in developing and implementing the plans.

This individual assistance in the natural setting of the parent helps the instructor customize the information being provided to each parent. Additionally, the trusting relationship developed between the parent and instructor allows the instructor to serve as a liaison to various types of support outside the home, including community resources related to employment, education, income assistance, child care support, and health care. At the end of the program parents are asked to report the degree of "helpfulness" of referrals and their progress toward implementing their plans.

Measures and Analysis

The study hypothesized that parents who participate in a parent education program would report higher post-test ratings of social support "helpfulness" than parents in a control group. Hypothesis testing was done through the use of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) tests. In the ANCOVA computations the pre-test score from the FSS instrument was used as the covariate, the post-test FSS score was the outcome variable, and the groups (treatment group and control group) were used as the factor.

Results

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for treatment and control group participants on post-test social support "helpfulness" scores, before and after controlling for pre-test scores. As is evident from the table, differences between the two groups remain after differences in pre-test scores are controlled. The results of this analysis show that parents who completed the BSF program found their social support networks to be more helpful to them in their parenting role than parents in the control group.

Table 4 shows the results of analysis that were conducted to assess whether differences between the post-test social support "helpfulness" scores of the two groups were statistically significant. Results indicate that after controlling for pre-test scores, there were significant differences between the treatment group and the control group for perceived "helpfulness" of their social support network F(1, 116)=10.37, p=.002. The Eta² of .46 shows a medium effect size, indicating that the differences are of practical value to program planners. Moreover, pre-test scores for social support "helpfulness" were also significantly related to post-test scores F(1, 116) =99.39, p=.000.

Discussion

The results of the study reported here give additional credence to the idea that home-based education can serve to increase social support for parents. As mentioned earlier, post-test scores for the treatment group participants were significantly better than the control group scores. These results remained positive even after adjusting for differences in pre-test scores.

A couple of elements may have contributed to the positive results of the study. First of all, the treatment was conducted in the home. This allowed the instructor to view the parent within the context of his/her typical environment and customize suggestions for additional social support.

The use of "peer educators" may have been another element that contributed to the successful increase in parental ratings of social support "helpfulness" found in the study. Peer educators are instructors who have a similar background to the participants and have been able to overcome comparable challenges. It has been suggested that peer educators are better able to respect the values and needs of the audience, present information in a manner that is nonjudgmental, offer resources that are acceptable to the program recipients, and serve as positive role models for the program recipients (Gomby, Culross, & Behrman, 1999).

While the findings of the study provide some additional support to the idea that home-based education can reduce isolation and increase social support for families, there are still many questions to be answered. Additional studies that manipulate possible predictors of social support should be conducted with larger samples to test the hypothesis of the study.

References

Bishop, S. J., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1999). Maternal social support patterns and child maltreatment: Comparison of maltreating and nonmaltreating mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69 (2), 172-181.

Conley, C. S., Caldwell, M. S., Flynn, M., Dupre, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2004). Parenting and mental health. In M. Hoghughi & N. Long (Eds), Handbook of parenting: Theory and research for practice. (pp.276-295) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Deater-Deckard, K. (2004). Parenting stress. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Marshall, S. (1996). Social support in its cultural context. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 141-172). New York: Plenum Press.

Dunst, C., Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (1994). Supporting and strengthening families. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Green, B. L., & Rodgers, A. (2001). Determinants of social support among low-income mothers: A longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29 (3), 419-441.

Gomby, S. D., Culross P. L., & Behrman, R. E. (1999). Home visiting: Recent program evaluations - analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children: Home Visiting, 9 (1), 4-26.

Kotchick, B. A., Dorsey, S., & Heller, L. (2005). Predictors of parenting among African American single mothers: Personal and contextual factors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 (2) 448-460.

Lakey, B., & Cohen, S. (2000). Social support theory and measurement. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention (pp. 29-52). New York: Oxford University Press.

Michigan State University Extension. (1989). Building strong families: Parenting young children. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Ostberg M., & Hagekull, B. (2000). A structural modeling approach to the understanding of parenting stress. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29 (4) 615-625.

Wills T. A., & Shinar, O. (2000). Social relationships and health. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention (pp. 86-135). New York: Oxford University Press.

Urban Extension Clientele Competencies by Mass Media Delivery Strategy

Dorothy M Woodson
County Extension Agent-Horticulture
Texas Cooperative Extension
Fort Worth, Texas
Texas A&M University
d-woodson@tamu.edu

James R. Lindner
Associate Professor
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
j-lindner@tamu.edu

David E. Lawver
Professor
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas
david.lawver@ttu.edu

Introduction

Historically, Extension has accomplished its mission of providing research-based information from land-grant universities and experiment stations to people who will benefit from the information (Boone, Meisenbach, & Tucker, 2002; Rasmussen, 1989; Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, (1997). Richardson and Mustian (1994) wrote that a variety of delivery methods can be effective in disseminating information to Extension clientele and that clientele preferences for particular delivery methods were often dependent upon specific subject being taught and the personal characteristics of the target audience.

Richardson and Mustian (1994) noted, further, that in rural counties, Extension has been a major source of continuing adult education and youth education in traditional Extension program areas. Fritz, Karmazin, Barbuto, and Burrow (2003) recognized the strength of Extension in effectively reaching rural clientele, while recognizing Extension's need to better reach urban clientele.

Fehlis (1992) reported that with 50% of the Texas population in six urban counties, Extension's future in Texas is dependent on effective programs in urban counties. Fehlis noted that water quality and conservation are major issues in both rural and urban counties but that Extension must use different resources and delivery methods to provide educational programs to these two audiences. In rural counties, issues such as dairy and feedlot manure waste disposal are of particular concern. In urban counties, however, issues such as homeowners' improper use of fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, and yard waste disposal are of greater concern.

Purpose

The purpose of the study reported here was to examine the relationship between Extension clients' knowledge about landscape maintenance and mass media format (seminar, fact sheet, newspaper article, video, control). Specific objectives of the study were to: describe research participants by their knowledge about landscape maintenance and determine what differences, if any, existed between mass media format and gains in knowledge about landscape maintenance.

Methods

The research design used in the study was experimental. The researchers used a post-test-only control group design with random assignment of participants to one of four treatment groups or the control group (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). According to Campbell and Stanley, this particular true experimental design controls for all the major threats to the internal validity of a study.

The study reported here was a part of a larger effort looking at perceptions of Extension clients with respect to their learning preferences for mass media related to landscape maintenance and to describe the effects of various mass media on clienteles' short-term cognitive development (Woodson, 2005). The final sample for the study was 159 participants attending one of two garden seminars (on an unrelated topic) who were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups or control group. The population from which the sample was drawn included 203 people attending the seminars. Of those attending the seminar, 168 agreed to participate in the study, and 159 provided usable responses. A limitation of the study was that generalizing the findings beyond the target population is tenuous because participants were not selected randomly from the population.

The mass media formats used in this study included seminar, fact sheet, newspaper article, and video. The newspaper article was a regularly appearing weekly newspaper column. The video was a tape of a daily scheduled television program on community cable access channel. The fact sheet was a part of the Texas Cooperative Extension Fact sheet series. The newspaper, video, and fact sheet were all developed by one of the researchers. The seminar script was also developed by one of the researchers, but the actual seminar was presented by a county Extension specialist agent not involved in the research project.

The instrument used to collect data for this study was designed to measure the participants' knowledge of landscape management practices after participating in a treatment or control. The instrument consisted of a 20 question multiple choice test that participants completed after the treatment. The control group took the test receiving no treatment. Reliability for the instrument was estimated by calculating a Cronbach's alpha coefficient (r=.73). Content and face validity of the instrument were established by a panel of experts consisting of faculty and professionals who had expertise in the field.

Findings

The first objective of the study was to describe research participants by their knowledge about landscape maintenance. As shown in Table 1, participants (n=159) had a mean score of (14.57, SD=2.68) on the 20 question multiple choice test. No participant had a perfect score of 20. A majority of participants (n=90) answered at least 75% of the questions correctly.

The second objective of the study was to determine what differences, if any, existed between mass media format and gains in knowledge. As shown in Table 2, statistically significant differences were found in knowledge about landscape maintenance by treatment level, F(4, 154)= 8.40, p<.05. A large effect size (f=.47) was found. A Scheffe post hoc analysis of the data shows that participants who received the treatments newspaper, fact sheet, and video scored higher than the control group on the knowledge about landscape maintenance test. Paired comparisons among variables resulted in two homogeneous subsets.

Subset one included the variables newspaper, video, fact sheet, and face-to-face. No statistically significant differences were found between knowledge about landscape maintenance and these variables. Subset two included the variable face-to-face and control group. No statistically significant differences were found between knowledge about landscape maintenance and these variables.