attitudes toward soil and water conservation needs and potential climate change scenarios by farmers...
TRANSCRIPT
Attitudes toward Soil and Water Conservation, Climate Change and Information Sources by Farmers
in Dryland areas of the Inland Pacific Northwest
R. L. Mahler, J. D. Wulfhorst and S. D. Eigenbrode
University of IdahoMoscow, ID
Sponsors
• USDA-NIFA-406 Regional Water Quality
- 2000-2004- 2005-2010
• USDA-NIFA-406 CEAP• USDA-NIFA-REACCH
www.reacchpna.org
Methodology
• Statistically designed surveys were developed and administered to growers within the region
• The Dillman mail-based survey methodology was used.
• Over 5,000 farmers have been surveyed since 2002
Methodology (continued)
• Five different surveys were conducted in this 12-year time period
• Four step mail-based survey:- Step 1: letter, survey, return envelope- Step 2: reminder postcard- Step 3: more urgent letter, survey- Step 4: reminder postcard
Methodology (continued)
• Survey methodology was designed to achieve a grower response rate of at least 40%.
• Grower response rate exceeded 50% in two the the five surveys.
• Sampling error was less than 6%.
Reported Findings
1. Sources of Farmer Information2. Internet Use3. Use of New Technologies4. Views toward Climate Change5. Soil Conservation6. Water Conservation
1. Sources of farmer information
• Growers were asked about the trustworthyness of sources for farming information
Trustworthyness of farming information sources
Information source TrustProducers in same county 84.8%Company crop advisors 81.3%University Extension 73.0%Independent crop advisors 67.7%Local SWCDs 64.3%NRCS-state level 49.8%
2. Internet Use
• Growers were asked what they use the internet for and how frequently they use it
Use of Internet by Growers
Task Use, %Visiting web sites 88.1E-mail use 81.9Managing finances 56.4Sharing photos 49.6Downloading budgets/ag software
31.3
Watching movies/videos 19.3
Frequency of Internet Use
Frequency %Everyday 63.6Once or twice a week 16.9Few times a month 4.8Few times a year 3.3Never 7.9
App Use (smart phone or tablet)
App use %Yes, I use 25.4Yes, I have – but don’t use for farming
12.0
No 54.1I don’t know 4.1
3. Use of New Technologies
• Growers were asked of they use some of the newer farming technologies including:
- Guidance systems- Auto-steer systems- Section controllers- Variable rate systems
Adaptation of New Technologies
Technology Adoption rate, %Guidance systems 46.8Auto-steer systems 36.6Section controllers 25.5Variable rate systems
20.4
Impact of Age on TechnologyTech 20 to 40
years41 to 60
years>60
yearsP-value
Guidance 63.3 52.6 30.0 0.0001
Auto-steer
51.0 40.4 20.0 0.0023
Section controls
34.7 28.4 11.2 0.0260
Variable rate
22.5 25.3 10.2 0.0074
Impact of Years FarmingTechnology Years farming
contrastP-value
Guidance systems
16 to 30 vs. 46 to 60 0.0001
Variable rate systems
16 to 30 vs. 46 to 60 0.0074
4. Climate Change Views
• Grower views were compared to the urban public in the Pacific Northwest.
• The importance and merit of the climate change issue was surveyed.
• Grower sources on climate changes were evaluated on their trustworthyness.
Importance of Climate Change - URBAN
Importance 2011 2014% %
Important, must address 52 62Important, address if economical 15 13Don’t know 20 14Not important, don’t address 10 10
Importance of Climate Change - 2014
Importance URBAN FARMER% %
Important, must address 62 23Important, address if economical 13 29Don’t know 14 31Not important, don’t address 30 17
Merit of climate change - URBAN
How compelling?
2011 2014
% %Overwhelming 15 20Good 32 51Don’t know 14 10Science in disarray
29 13
Not compelling 10 6
Merit of climate change - 2014
How compelling?
URBAN FARMER
% %Overwhelming 20 9Good 51 24Don’t know 10 42Science in disarray
13 10
Not compelling 6 15
Trustworthyness of climate change information sources
Information source TrustUniversity Extension 47.8%Local SWCDs 42.7%Company crop advisors 41.6%Producers in same county 38.8%Independent crop advisors 37.2%NRCS-state level 35.3%
5. Soil Conservation
• Growers were asked about:- the importance of soil
conservation- their engagement in soil
conservation
Soil Conservation - Importance
Importance Percent of growersExtremely important 32.4Important 30.1Somewhat important
13.2
Less important 12.1Not important 12.2
Soil Conservation - Engagement
Engagement level Growers, %Highly engaged 42.8Moderately engaged 29.1Somewhat engaged 12.6Low engagement 7.1No engagement 8.4
6. Water Conservation
• Growers were asked about:- the importance of water
conservation- their engagement in water
conservation
Water Conservation - Importance
Importance Percent of growersExtremely important 16.6Important 24.5Somewhat important
34.2
Less important 16.6Not important 8.1
Water Conservation - Engagement
Engagement level Growers, %Highly engaged 17.4Moderately engaged 24.1Somewhat engaged 20.2Low engagement 18.0No engagement 20.3
Conclusions1. Growers consider local producers and local company crop advisors to have the best farming information.
LOCAL BESTSTATEWIDE WORST
2. Growers are internet literate; 63% use everyday; 80%+ visit web sites and use e-mail.
Conclusions3. A majority of growers use the internet to manage their finances.
4. Growers are adapting new farming technologies in the region; younger growers are much more likely to use these innovative techniques.
Conclusions5. The urban PNW public wants climate change addressed. Conversely, farmers are more cynical about climate change science.
6. Farmers trust University Extension more than other sources for climate change information.
Conclusions7. Over ¾ of farmers consider soil conservation important. In fact over 71% of growers are moderately or highly engaged in the use of soil conservation practices.
8. Farmers also consider water conservation important – but not as important as soil conservation. Over 41% of farmers are highly or moderately engaged in the use of water conservation practices.