Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
1
Fostering the Participation and Implementation of Conservation Buffers in Clay
and Grant Counties (MN, USA) Using Community-based Social Marketing
Prepared by: Ann Burnett, Ph.D. and Mark Meister, Ph.D.1
In Collaboration with the Red River Basin Commission (RRBC)
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Table of Contents:
I.
Executive Summary
II.
Overview and Introduction
A)
III.
Objectives
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties
A)
B)
IV.
Research Context
Research Questions
Methodology and Procedures
A)
B)
C)
Focus Group Research Design
Focus Group Research Participants
Focus Group Protocol
V.
Findings and Analysis
VI.
Recommendations for Implementation
Recommendation #1: Linking Consistency and Commitment through Written Testimony
Establishing and Reinforcing Consistency and Commitment: Creating the Testimonial Booklet
Recommendation #2: Reducing Confusion and Prompting Consistency and Commitment
Creating the “Pocket Guide” for Reminding Participants about Buffer Programs
Recommendation #3: Providing Incentives for Consistent and Committed Behavior
Lobby Public Officials: Tax Reduction for Program Participants
Recommendation #4: Fostering Consistency and Commitment by Engaging Community Leaders
The Town-Hall Meeting and Informational Program
VII.
Conclusion
VIII.
Appendices
Focus Group Protocol and Questions
Diagram of Focus Group Context
1
Ann Burnett is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND. She specializes in applied communication research using focus groups and
discussion-based methodologies. Mark Meister is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Communication and affiliated faculty member in the School of Natural Resource Management at North
Dakota State University. Burnett and Meister were hired as consultants for this report with funding coming
from MPCA.
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
2
I. Executive Summary:
This report describes, analyzes, and offers suggestions about the success and
pitfalls of conservation buffer implementation in two rural Minnesota counties. In
collaboration with Red River Basin Commission (RRBC), the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), and, from Clay and Grant counties, the Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCD), Farm Service Agencies (FSA), and Natural Resource
Conservation Services (NRCS), this report addresses three significant issues related to
promoting participation in conservation buffer programs. First, this report addresses the
reasons as to why farmers choose to establish buffers; second, it reveals the disincentives
for participating in such programs; and third, this report identifies successful and
unsuccessful communication practices that promote or limit participation in conservation
buffer programs.
In order to investigate these three inter-related issues, the primary researchers
designed and implemented a research methodology and protocol consistent with
Community-based Social Marketing (CSM) practices. According to authors Doug
McKenzie-Mohr and William Smith in their book, Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An
Introduction to Community-based Social Marketing (1999, New Society Publishers:
Gabriola Island, B.C.), CSM focuses on identifying what sustainable behaviors should be
promoted, who should be “targeted” for participation in promoting sustainable behaviors,
and what conditions those responsible for designing, coordinating, and facilitating
sustainable behavior (commission members, local conservation agents, state and federal
conservation officials) face in creating programs that foster sustainable behavior. In sum,
this report incorporates CSM as a mechanism for addressing the communication
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
3
challenges faced by agents and officials responsible for promoting participation in
county, state, and federal conservation buffer programs.
The overall objective of this report is to offer suggestions that aid in the
facilitation of sustainable behavior by promoting participation in conservation buffer
programs. In adopting the CSM perspective, the research and suggestions contained in
this report focus on constructing meaningful and effective communication campaigns that
are not only informative, but also offer incentives for participation and suggestions for
overcoming barriers that lead to non-participation in conservation buffer programs.
Data for this report were collected during four in-depth focus group sessions.
Participants presently involved in conservation buffer programs in Clay and Grant
counties constituted two of the focus groups. The other two focus groups centered on
gathering information from FSA, SWCD, and NRCS agents—generally those holding the
responsibility of promoting and implementing participation of existing buffer programs.
In Grant County, the agents were asked specifically about their experience with
conservation buffers since the agents present all participated in such programs. In Clay
County, participants discussed approaches to conservation measures in general, as most
of the parties that participated in the buffer project have since left their positions at the
service center.
Three primary methods of data collection were used to capture the messages
shared during the three of the focus group sessions: farmers from both counties and
agents from Grant County. First, each focus group was recorded via videotape; second,
field notes were taken during each focus group session, and third, in preparing this report,
the primary researchers watched the video recordings of each session, again taking field
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
4
notes in order to understand the major themes and capture a strong understanding of the
issues. For the Clay county agents, the researchers hoped that an unrecorded session
would provide for maximum candor and forthrightness; therefore, the focus group
facilitator and the co-researcher took field notes during the session and discussed
observations immediately following the focus group to obtain as accurate a recall of the
information as possible.
After the data were captured, the primary researchers conducted two forms of
analysis: a descriptive analysis and a thematic analysis. The descriptive analysis allowed
the primary researchers to become familiar with the research data, while the thematic
analysis identified common themes among participants and issues captured by the data.
The dominant themes identified in the focus group data consisting of producers/farmers
are: advantages of participation, disadvantages of participation, motivation/incentives for
participation, and disincentives for limiting participation. The dominant themes from the
Grant county administrator group are: making contact, the role of the agents, motivating
factors, barriers, and measuring success. The dominant themes identified in the focus
group data consisting of administrators of the buffer programs in Clay county are:
ambiguity in the roles of the various programs sponsoring buffer programs, the use of
traditional communication mediums for diffusing information about the programs, the
frustrations and obstacles that limit participation, and the identification of successful
communication strategies.
This report formulates recommendations from the descriptive and thematic
analysis by referencing CSM. Specifically, the primary researchers recommend four
strategies for promoting and increasing membership in existing conservation buffer
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
5
programs: 1) linking consistency-commitment, 2) prompting consistency and
commitment, 3) providing incentives for consistent and committed behavior, and 4)
fostering consistency and commitment by engaging community leaders. These
recommendations are consistent with the framework of CSM, but in many ways are
distinct from the social psychological grounding of CSM. Because the recommendations
focus on message construction, message consistency, and message style, they are more
applied than some of the behavior modification techniques espoused by social
psychology. In sum, the primary researchers considered the utility of each
recommendation within the context of rural Minnesota and the target audiences of
conservation buffer programs in making these recommendations.
Finally, the recommendations are supplemented with plausible communication
strategies that can be incorporated into a totalizing communication campaign designed to
increase participation and renewals in buffer conservation programs.
II. Overview and Introduction
Briefly, conservation buffers are small strips of land, planted with permanent
vegetation such as native grass, designed to trap pollutants and prevent erosion and runoff. In this project, the type of conservation buffer typically referenced is called a filter,
or buffer strip. The USDA National Resources Conservation Services defines a buffer
strip as “an area or strip of land maintained in permanent vegetation to help control
pollutants and manage other environmental problems.”2
The benefits of conservation buffers are numerous. In a report to the RRBC,
Olson and MacGregor contend that buffers serve as the “first line of defense” against
“National Conservation Buffer Initiative,” questions and answers, informational flyer produced by the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services.
2
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
6
sediment that flows into tributaries of the Red River.3 Soil and wind erosion present
serious problems in the Red River Basin, potentially transporting chemicals such as
phosphorus and nitrogen, as well as bacteria, into waterways. In their review of key
literature regarding environmental benefits of buffers, Olson and MacGregor posit that
buffers act like sponges, reduce soil erosion, prevent sediment movement, serve as wind
breaks, capture pesticide and fertilizer residue, reduce phosphorus and nitrogen in runoff, and create biodiversity.4
Olson and MacGregor also argue the conservation buffers provide economic
incentives for farmers. In many cases, it is more profitable to establish buffers than to
attempt to farm land that is not high quality. However, Olson and MacGregor caution
that economics are not as persuasive as the motivation to conserve the land.5 In their
review of literature, their sources found that farmers were more concerned about the
appearance of their land and the effect of their farming practices on neighbors than they
were about monetary benefits.
Despite the benefits of conservation buffers, there are disincentives for
establishing such programs. For example, some farmers do not believe that they are
contributing to an erosion or pollution problem.6 In fact, many consider themselves good
stewards of the land and sometimes feel they are blamed for problems out of their
control. Other farmers may not be aware that programs exist. Another barrier to
Tim Olson and Molly MacGregor, “Red River Basin Buffer Initiative Literature Review,” Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, NW Regional Office, September 2005, p. 1.
4
Ibid., p. 7
5
Ibid., p. 17.
6
Focus group of Grant County farmers, conducted June 16, 2006. See also “Addressing Nonpoint Source
Agricultural Pollution in the Minnesota River Basin: Findings from Focus Groups,” accessed July 2, 2006
at http://www.soils.umn.edu/research/mn-river/doc/fgsumweb.html,
3
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
7
implementation is that buffers require maintenance, especially in terms of weeds such as
thistle. Others may have concerns about the buffer program in general.7
Despite potential drawbacks, the benefits of conservation buffers are compelling.
On a national level, the National Conservation Buffer Initiative was initiated by Natural
Resources Conservation Services and is supported by other federal agencies such as the
Farm Service Agency and local agencies such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
On a local level, the RRBC is the local sponsor of the Red River Basin Buffer Initiative
that has been implemented in Clay and Grant counties; current plans are to implement the
program in Clearwater, Red Lake and Wilkin counties. For the upcoming campaigns, the
RRBC has targeted the Sand Lake, Silver Creek, and Whiskey Creek watershed areas. In
order to best target the campaign, the RRBC and MPCA deemed it important to study the
implementation processes in Clay and Grant counties. The following section outlines
those programs.
III. Conservation Buffer Programs in Clay and Grant Counties
In Clay County, after the flood of 1997, agents from Clay SWCD, USDA-NRCS, as
well as others, decided to use this “window of opportunity” to encourage farmers to
establish buffer strips on their land.8 The title of the project suggests that the goal was to
plant 2000 acres of native grass by the year 2000. Organizers sought potential partners,
developed an advertising campaign as well as a method of contacting landowners, offered
technical assistance, and oversaw the development of buffer strips.9 The project was
successful, in that 1,675 new acres of buffer strips were established. The agents
7
Olson and MacGregor, pp. 18-19.
“A Brief Synopsis of the Clay-Wilkin County Buffer Strip Project: 2000 Acres by 2000,” by the Red
River Basin Water Quality Team, March 28, 2005.
9
Ibid.
8
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
8
concluded that face-to-face contact worked best, that farmers were mostly persuaded by
the economic benefits, but that the creation of a habitat for hunting also played a role in
their decision to sign up for the buffer program.
In Grant County, during the period of time from 1996-1998, officials were
considering county-wide zoning to address problems with water quality. Farmers
suggested the problem instead could be solved with filter strips, so relevant conservation
agents began to get involved. A five-phase plan was developed: first, to target high
priority areas; second, to identify and create air photos of farmers’ land; third, to promote
the program by demonstrating unified support; fourth, to create a smooth implementation
process, and fifth, to enforce shore land rules. As a result, there are 14,000 acres of
buffers in Grant County, and water quality has improved. Agents in Grant County
consider their program a success; in fact, they lead the nation in buffer installation.10
As a result of successful buffer initiative programs in Clay and Grant counties,
and the need to extend such programs in three more Minnesota counties, it behooves
agents and members of the RRBC and MPCA to closely investigate how farmers who
established buffers perceive the initiative, and how agents who worked closely with the
farmers perceive their efforts. Such information will be useful in targeting specific
strategies for a community-based social marketing effort. Therefore, we pose the
following research questions to guide our study:
RQ 1: What do advantages and disadvantages do farmers report about establishing
conservation buffers?
RQ 2: What advantages and disadvantages do relevant administrators report about
establishing conservation buffers?
10
Joe Montonye, “Grant County Buffer Initiative Case Study,” discussion, May 16, 2005.
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
9
RQ 3: What types of communication are most effective in encouraging farmers to
establish conservation buffers?
IV. Methodology and Procedures
The data collected and analyzed for this report were collected during four separate
focus group sessions. Focus group data collection techniques are widely accepted in
both academic and professional settings because they allow for interaction between
research participants and the researchers/professionals.11 As an alternative to survey
design research in which the researcher/professional is not primarily engaged in the
research process (simply having participants respond to surveys), focus group-based
research assumes that the researchers are vital facilitators and observers in the data
collection process. The dynamics between research participants and facilitators is
critical to providing an accurate and truthful representation of the research context.
The benefits of focus-group based research are many. First, because the
researchers/professionals act as facilitators, they are free to interact with research
participants by requesting clarification from participants. The benefit is that the data
collected is seemingly accurate, at least in terms of understanding. Second, because
focus-group research is much like interviews, some participants may be uncomfortable
in participating. Yet, this potential obstacle is actually an opportunity for trust to be
developed between facilitators and participants. Third, focus-group research is vital in
establishing the relevancy of research issues to the general public. Rather than simply
diffusing surveys, focus group data collection allows participants to be heard and
researchers to respond directly to concerns.
11
Focus group designed research is consistent to the community based social marketing (CSM) approach
promoted by McKenzie-Mohr and William Smith. CSM is the primary investigative frame from which the
recommendations presented in this report are grounded.
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
10
A) Focus Group Research Design:
Two of the focus groups in this study consisted of buffer program participants (1
focus group each in Clay and Grant counties)12, and two focus groups generated
information from Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCS), Natural Resources
Conservation Services (NRCS), and Farm Service Agency (FSA) staff and field agents (1
focus group each in Clay and Grant counties). Each focus group lasted between 1 1/2
and three hours, with the longest sessions involving the two groups of farmers. Table 1
provides further details about the focus groups.
Table 1: Focus Group Profile
Focus Group #
# of Participants
1
6
2
10
3
5
4
6
Demographics
Farmers from Clay
county, MN who
presently use buffers.
Farmers from Grant
county MN who
presently use buffers.
Grant county SWCD,
NRCS, & FSA staff
Clay county SWCD,
NRCS, & FSA staff
Place
Moorhead, MN
Length
2 1/2 hours
Elbow Lake, MN
3 hours
Elbow Lake, MN
3 hours
Moorhead, MN
1 ½ hours
B) Focus Group Research Participants:
Farmers/Producers:
The participants for the first two focus groups involved farmers who are presently
participating in a buffer conservation program in either Clay or Grant counties. The
county SWCD director constructed a list of potential participants and, subsequently, each
potential participant was sent a letter of invitation. The letter detailed the place and time
of the focus group, and also outlined the terms of compensation each participant would
12
We refer to these participants as “farmers,” also termed “producers.”
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
11
receive for their participation.13 Approximately twenty-five letters were sent to potential
participants for each focus group. The letter noted that participation was limited to the
first twelve people accepting the invitation for each focus group. The date, place, and
time of focus group one and two were carefully determined so not interfere with daily
farming operations. Agents made follow-up calls and contacts, and ultimately sixteen
farmers participated overall.
Staff and Field Agents:
Participants in focus groups three and four were strongly encouraged to attend.
No monetary compensation was offered, but a light lunch was provided. Compensation
was not offered for participation because the external funding for this project does not
provide for SWCD, NRCS, and FSA staff compensation. However, the grant supporting
this project made a contribution to each service center.
C) Focus Group Research Protocol:
In preparation for the focus groups, the primary researchers and the directors of
the Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) and the MN Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) met on two different occasions to design the focus group sessions. Each
director agreed that their physical presence in the room during the focus group session
might not be beneficial to group dynamics, but both agreed that they would like to
observe the focus groups. Therefore, in addition to video recording three of the focus
groups, those sessions were transmitted to another room where the directors and other
field agents could observe and take notes. The video transmission allowed for the
directors and other staff members to observe not only group dynamics, but more
importantly, to understand the issues facing participants and staff. For the Clay county
13
Participants in focus groups one and two were compensated $50.00 and a light lunch.
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
12
staff, only the focus group facilitators were present, and the session was not videorecorded.
The primary researchers and the directors of the RRBC and MPCA constructed
the questions to be asked during each focus group. The questions for focus group one
and two were different from the questions presented to staff members during focus
groups three and four. In general, each of questions asked during focus groups one and
two was designed to understand why farmers participate in existing buffer programs, how
the farmers like the programs, and how staff members can best assist them with
understanding the program. The questions asked of staff members in Grant county were
designed to identify the methods and frustrations that exist in communicating about
buffer conservation programs, whereas the questions in Clay county were more broadly
focused on conservation programs in general since most of those participants had not
been part of the Clay county buffer initiative program.
The physical setting of the focus group consisted of chairs set around a
rectangular table. The primary researchers were seated at the head of the table, while the
research participants filled in the remaining seats. A videographer was stationed toward
the front of the room. The videographer recorded the proceedings on video tape, and
coordinated the transmission of the session through closed circuit television to a separate
room where the directors observed the process. Appendix A and B list the questions
asked during each focus group and provide a diagram of the focus group context.
D) Data Analysis Procedures:
Initially, the primary researchers reviewed the field notes taken during the focus
groups in order to familiarize themselves with the data. Next, the primary researchers
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
13
viewed the videotapes of each focus group session; in doing so, the primary researchers
validated their field notes and began an initial analytical process of identifying major
themes and content. The process of identifying major themes and content then began in a
second viewing of the videotapes. During this viewing, the primary researchers
familiarized themselves with the data by conducting a descriptive analysis.14
The primary researchers conducted the descriptive analysis together, coding their
field notes and notes taken while watching the videotape. The coding process used the
communication characteristics sanctioned by the descriptive analysis technique as
categories.15 After conducting the descriptive analysis, the primary researchers again
viewed the videotapes; this time, however, they independently coded for significant
themes.16 In all 75 distinct themes were initially coded. Discussion between the primary
researchers further limited the themes until agreement for thematic coding was
established. Thus, the initial 75 distinct themes were then synthesized and clustered until
the primary themes emerged.
V. Findings and Analysis
This section of the report describes the processes that guided the analysis of the
focus group data. Once the process of investigation and analysis is provided and the
14
For a discussion of the descriptive analysis technique, please see: Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (2005). The
Rhetorical Act. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Descriptive analysis directs the researchers to identify in the
data major themes, words, content, and ideas related to the following communicative characteristics: the
Act (the actions being promoted in the data), the Scene (the primary “place” or context described in the
data), the Agency (the modes or mediums of communication identified in the data), the Audience (the
primary groups, institutions, and/or individuals identified in the data, and the Purpose (the reasoning,
evidence, or rationale provided in the focus groups.
15
The coding process involved accenting themes and content related to Act (red), Scene (green), Agency
(orange), Audience (yellow) and Purpose (blue) with florescent highlighting markers.
16
Thematic analysis is a qualitative data analysis technique that identifies key ideas and categories within a
qualitative data set. Generally, thematic analysis begins with a technique that allows the researchers to
familiarize themselves with the data. Themes are constructed through a process of deduction; whereby the
researcher(s) code prominent ideas and significant content into identifiable themes. For a discussion of
thematic analysis, please see: Harry F. Walcott (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data: Description,
Analysis, and Interpretation. Sage: Thousand Oaks: CA.
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
14
findings of the analysis are presented, the primary researchers conclude this section of the
report by interpreting the findings with relation to CSM principles outlined by McKenzieMohr and Smith.17
Recall that the focus groups were guided by three primary objectives: 1) to
identify the incentives and disincentives farmers have for establishing buffers, 2) to
identify the incentives or disincentives administrators/agents report when working with
farmers to establish buffers, and 3) to identify effective communication strategies to use
when targeting farmers in other counties. Tables 2, 3 and 4 provide the summary of
themes and examples of the paraphrased statements used to cluster the themes for farmer
and staff focus groups respectively.
In terms of the farmers, the most common incentives for participation in the
buffer initiatives were financial and environmental. As one participant stated, “It’s either
got to come from the wallet or the heart.” When the farmers signed up for the program,
the financial incentives were compelling; the concern for these farmers is whether or not
the incentives to re-enroll will be as convincing in the next several years. Additionally,
farmers consider themselves “stewards of the land.” Most of the farmers in this study
had a genuine concern for conservation and wildlife issues, and in fact, had participated
in other conservation projects such as CRP, land for hunting, sloughs from Fish and
Wildlife programs, berms, gullies, sediment basins, wetlands, tillage, EQIP, fertilizers,
and CRP2.
17
Doug McKenzie-Mohr and William Smith (1999). Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to
Community-based Social Marketing. New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC.
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
15
Table 2: Prominent themes related to Communication and Conservation Buffers: Farmer/Producer Incentives and Disincentives
Theme
Statements
Advantages: statements illustrating the advantages of
participating in the program.
Farming
Land Use
Environment
Disadvantages: statements illustrating the disadvantages of
participating in the program.
Smaller acreage to farm
Spraying
Thistle
Motivation/Incentives: statements about reasons for joining the
program.
Financial
Environmental
Less erosion
Wildlife
Desire to care for the land
Incentives from agencies
Helpful agents
Projects that could be combined
Farming
Easier to farm
Land was bad
Disincentives: statements about reasons for not joining the
program.
Program is flawed
Lack of equipment
Not enough information
Renewal contracts not attractive
Agency barriers
Lack of flexibility
Negative communications
Not enough assistance
Farming issues
Financially not beneficial
Buffer maintenance
Farming: “The buffers help square the fields.”
“I gain a couple of days in seeding because I don’t have to wait
to get into a lot of wet areas.”
Land Use: “The buffers establish good root beds that hold rivers
and streams back.”
“They [the buffers] reduce snow and dust blow.”
Environment: “There is more wildlife on my land.”
“The water quality is better because the buffers help control runoff.”
“I farm smaller acreage with buffer strips.”
“It’s a hassle to spray because you have to avoid CRP land.”
Thistle was mentioned by many as a significant problem.
Financial: “Good pay.”
“I get more from the buffers than I do to rent the land.”
Environmental: “Overall, I stay in the program because it’s the
right thing to do.”
“I like the programs because it makes use of the land in a good
way.”
“I don’t get a lot of money for being in the program. I just know
that the farm is better off.”
“I can see the benefit it has: reducing erosion and spill-off.”
Incentives from agencies: “They are willing to work with the
farmer.”
“They do what you want, not what they want.”
Farming: “The program allows me to make use of land that is not
very functional.”
“The program makes farming easier.”
Program flaws: “I don’t have the right equipment for planting
the grass.”
“My head often spins, trying to understand the programs.”
Renewal contracts aren’t attractive because there’s no overlap
with existing programs.
Agency barriers: “I don’t like that the programs look at calendars
and not soil conditions.”
“I’m just told what I can’t do, not what I can do, so I guess I get
confused because I know what is good for the land.”
“They [FSA, SWCD, & NRCS staff] only communicate with us
when regulations are needed.”
“I get nasty postcard reminders.”
“I didn’t know about the programs until someone at coffee told
me.”
Farming issues: “Financially, there is not a huge benefit.”
“Buffer maintenance is a hassle.”
Data from agents/administrators were separated into Tables 3 and 4, as the
responses from each group were significantly different. The Grant county agents (Table
3) emphasized the importance of all three agencies working together and cooperating
with one another. Together, they found that a face-to-face approach, using the
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
16
Table 3: Prominent themes related to Communication and Conservation Buffers: Characteristics of Successful/Unsuccessful Buffer
Campaigns as Identified by Staff in Grant County
Theme
Making Contact: ways of contacting farmers
Letters
Door knocking
Computerized maps
Community township boards
Role of Agents: focused on what the three agencies did to
encourage participation
Coordinated efforts
Joint training
Communication
Hard work
Motivating Factors: what made farmers want to participate –
agencies were key
Barriers: arguments heard from farmers about reasons not to join
the buffer program
Farming
Financial
Rules and regulations
Measuring Success: how the staff knows their efforts are working
Statements
“It helped to have farmers on the local steering committee.”
“One-on-one contact worked best.”
“We moved from one township to another.”
“We had credibility through agents with buffer strips.”
Coordinated efforts: “cooperated with one another.”
Timed mailings so farmers would not get them all at once.
Training: “We had Barney training.” [USDA workshop on
getting along]
Communication: about eligibility, updates on meetings, crop
history, attempting to do fast turnarounds with farmers, day-today scheduling, problems, working with farmers on a case-bycase basis
Hard work: “strong work ethic”
“Our agencies are service-oriented.”
Did cross-training and developed a common business plan
“Treat everyone consistently.”
“Our organizations get along. No one puts the organization ahead
of colleagues; we help each other look good.”
“Agents are easy to work with.”
“Desire to take care of the land.”
Farming: “Filters cut up fields.”
“Thistle.”
Financial: “Money.”
Rules and regs: Changing guidelines, rigidity of guidelines, lack
of cooperation between state and national levels
Differences between DNR standards and CRP guidelines.
Confusion about maintenance and who does the reviews.
“The number of acres enrolled.”
“Increased water clarity.”
“Success stories.”
“Lack of a need for enforcement.”
computerized map images worked the best in terms of making contact with farmers.
They concurred with the farmers that the primary incentives for participation are financial
and environmental. The major barriers were those imposed by governmental guidelines
that are confusing or overlapping (or not overlapping when they should be). They
measure their success by the sheer number of acres enrolled, the documentable change in
water clarity, and the fact that they do not need to engage in much enforcement.
The Clay county agents (Table 4) discussed various methods of contacting the
farmers, and concluded, along with Grant county agents, that one-on-one interaction
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
17
Table 4: Prominent themes related to Communication and Conservation Buffers: Characteristics of Successful/Unsuccessful Buffer
Campaigns as Identified by Staff in Clay County
Theme
Frustration/Obstacles: staff from all agencies in Clay related
frustration with the buffer programs.
Traditional Communication Mediums: traditional communication
mediums such as newsletters, press releases, lenders, and
websites.
Ambiguity: staff from both Clay and Grant county shared their
own confusion about the programs.
Measuring Success: how the staff knows their efforts are working
Statements
“Much of our budget for the next fiscal year is based on getting
participation, so if we don’t know what we are selling, we will
suffer next year.”
“We are swamped; we are facing budget cuts; we can only do so
much.”
“We all get along and like each other (staff from various
agencies), but we can’t always share information with one another
because we are funded differently, and funding is tight.”
“There is not enough of us to do the work; we need more staff.”
“I’m not sure we are doing good customer service; we could do
better; we are just swamped.”
“We send out press releases, but the major newspaper does not
print it.”
“We put the information in newsletters, but I’m not sure
producers read it.”
“I’m not sure if our website is up-to-date.”
“The members of the local producer steering committees help
spread the word.”
“How can I market these programs to producers when the
guidelines have yet to be determined?”
“I don’t blame the producers for questioning the programs; they
are not clear.”
“It is never really clear who has the maintenance responsibilities
for reviewing the buffers.”
“Farmers like the tidy look of their farms where the buffers are.”
“Measured in the amount of money given out.”
“I seen an increase in conservation interest by those who are
participating.”
worked best. Unlike Grant county, they appear to be overworked and not able to service
their customers as they would like. Conflicting guidelines and rules make cooperation
with one another a challenge. Their success is measured through the success stories and
through the amount of money paid out each year, as the government will only provide
more money as more individuals enroll in the program.
With limited resources in terms of money and personnel, it appears that general
approaches of mass mailings and website creation might not be effort well-spent.
Additionally, if farmers view agents as “nasty” or the “enemy,” they will not be
persuaded to even enter the doors of a service center. On the other hand, if agents make
an effort to meet farmers one-on-one; if they, too, are involved in using filter strips, and if
they make a genuine effort to work between agencies and for the client, significant results
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
18
are much more likely to occur. Additionally, despite what the literature says, money does
make a difference in the decision to establish filter strips, but appealing to environmental
issues also is important.
Analysis:
Linking Consistency-Commitment
One of the guiding ideas of CSM, as promoted by McKenzie-Mohr and Williams,
is that people have a strong desire to be seen as consistent by others. Those who behave
in a consistent manner are perceived as trustworthy and credible. Yet, this notion of
consistency, as illustrated in the data from both the farmers/producers and the staff, is a
major obstacle for participation and for promoting participation. For example,
farmers/producers and agents point out that one of the major disadvantages of existing
programs is confusion associated with the programs. Therefore, it is very difficult to act
consistently, and therefore, to act in a sustainable way, when confusion and ambiguity
counter-acts a desire to act consistently. Yet, consistency is possible in the promotion of
sustainable behaviors by establishing a desired sense of commitment. CSM practices that
provide written commitments rather than verbal commitments are seemingly more
effective. For example, Grant county staff found that farmers are more willing to
participate in such programs if they see county commissioners and agents establishing
buffer strips.
Supporting this idea of consistency and commitment are a variety of responses by
both farmers/producers and staff. The data reveal a strong value of commitment by
farmers/producers to their land and to conservation efforts. In short, farmers/producers
are impressively committed to their operation and lifestyle. Likewise, the data also show
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
19
that administrators are committed to providing reliable information about buffer
programs, but get frustrated because the programs are inconsistent and confusing.
Therefore, it is of primary importance that staff target commitment to programs through
acting in a consistent manner when communicating with farmers/producers. Linking
consistency and commitment is best diffused by generating written forms of
communication rather than face-to-face verbal interactions. That which is written is
more “solid” than that which is simply verbalized.
Prompting Consistency and Commitment:
Given the complexity and ambiguity of conservation buffer programs, it is certain
that farmers/producers and potentially even administrators will forget, or at least be
unclear, about the guidelines for participation. The fact is that both groups are
bombarded by details: farmers/producers are concerned about what to plant where and at
what time, not to mention the details associated with reporting their farm practices to
lenders and agencies, while staff is often overwhelmed with details associated with a
myriad of conservation programs. CSM points out that in order to overcome
“forgetfulness” and to clarify guidelines, as well as to bolster consistency and
commitment, using prompts, or simple visual or auditory communicative aids, encourages
repetitive behaviors. Repetitive behaviors often reinforce commitment to programs
through engaging a strong desire to be consistent.
Providing Incentives for Consistency and Commitment:
The most frequent incentive mentioned by farmers and agents is the financial
reward. Yet, as the focus group data show, many farmers/producers question the “worth”
of participating in buffer programs because the financial motivation is reduced as new
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
20
programs and guidelines are imposed. It appears that those farmers/producers who
choose not to participate are not convinced of the incentives for participating.
Additionally, administrators noted that they are over-worked (and underpaid), yet they
are responsible for marketing participation and renewing participation in buffer
programs. Given the lack of funding available for providing incentives, it is necessary to
promote incentives to both farmers/producers and administrators that are low cost.
According to CSM, when people are rewarded, even in non-monetary ways, for acting
consistently and for behaving in committed ways, they are motivated to do so in the
future.
Fostering Consistency and Commitment by Engaging Community Leaders:
CSM is based on the idea of social diffusion. Social diffusion is the process in
which the communities and/or participants are active in bolstering program support. In
short, social diffusion is premised on the notion of interaction, not only between program
administrators and participants, but more significantly between program participants and
non-participants. Emphasizing social diffusion requires an emphasis on those
participants who are credible among their peers. The focus group data indicate that a
strong motivating factor among farmers/producers who participate in buffer programs is
that the program targets the ethic of conservation. According to CSM, increasing
participation and renewing participation in a program is more effective when a peer, or
program leader, provides credible testimony to the benefits of the program, than simply
an administrator soliciting participation. Notice that the focus group data from
farmer/producers in one county illustrates a perception of administrators as “watchdogs”
or “regulators,” while in another county the perception is of administrators enrolling in
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
21
the same program alongside peer farmers. By engaging credible program participants as
vital “diffusers” of the program benefits and incentives, administrators are less likely to
be perceived as merely “regulators,” but as facilitators and co-participants of the
program.
VI. Recommendations for Implementation:
As discussed above, CSM targets people’s desire to be consistent by emphasizing
the relationship between behavior and committed action. Interestingly, the notion of
sustainability also highlights these concepts. Sustainable behavior needs to be promoted
to overcome the many inconsistent and uncommitted actions and behaviors that have led
toward over-consumption, over-population, and social injustice.18 What can be done to
change unsustainable behaviors? The answer may be as simple, and as complex, as
establishing meaningful communication that emphasizes conservation and sustainable
behavior by targeting all people’s desire for consistency through commitment. The
following recommendations are provided to emphasize the importance of communication
in promoting consistency and commitment for bolstering participation in conservation
buffer programs throughout Minnesota. These recommendations are practical,
manageable, and in many ways, “untraditional,” yet they are certainly consistent with the
CSM perspective that links consistency and commitment.
Recommendation #1: Linking Consistency and Commitment through Written Testimony.
As discussed above, written communication is often perceived as a sign of
commitment. The primary researchers propose two forms of written communication to
18
McKenzie-Mohr and Williams, p. x.
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
22
be enacted by both participants in the buffer program and by administrators of the
program.
Establishing and Reinforcing Consistency and Commitment: Creating the
Testimonial Booklet
Administrators of the program are encouraged to create a Testimonial Booklet. A
Testimonial Booklet is a collection of written letters and statements by both participants
and administrators that can be used to diffuse information about the program, and also
highlight the commitment of farmer/producers engaged in the buffer program.
The Testimonial Booklet should also include informative essays about the buffer
programs written by county SWCD, FSA, and NRCS administrators and staff. These
essays need to be descriptive, highlighting the benefits of the program and not the
regulatory guidelines. The “tone” of these essays should be supportive and encouraging,
not directive and technical. The message to communicate in these essays should address
participants’ and potential participants’ desire to be perceived as consistent in their
beliefs and lifestyles.
The Testimonial Booklet should be organized with essays from agency
administrators, followed by letters written by the participants. These booklets should be
made available in spiral-bound booklets and also as PDF files linked to agency websites.
Administrators also should encourage farmers/producers to write letters in this
campaign. The purpose of these letters is to provide participant testimony to the
motivations and benefits of the program. The letter can be simply a letter-to-the-editor,
an informative essay, or a statement of benefits sent to local and regional newspapers,
farm publications, and agency newsletters. By asking participants to write letters, the
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
23
participants reinforce their commitment to the program. Administrators are advised to
invite as many participants as possible to write the letters and provide those invited with
the addresses, envelopes, and postage to relevant media outlets. These letters function as
testimony to the motivations and incentives that exist in the programs. The letters should
be written in everyday language and should be concise (no more than 1 typed page), and
the letters should focus on the economic and conservation benefits gained by the
program. Administrators should then collect the published letters and present them in a
bound booklet for distribution through a door-to-door campaign.
Recommendation #2: Reducing Confusion and Prompting Consistency and Commitment
Anything that is confusing and ambiguous is not going to generate consistent and
sustainable behavior. The focus group data provide evidence by both participants and
administrators that the buffer programs are exceedingly detailed, convoluted with
guidelines, and redundant. It is recommended that the SWCD, FSA, and NRCS staff
work together to create a simple medium of communication that can be distributed to
program participants.
Creating the “Pocket Guide” for Reminding Participants about Buffer Programs
This recommendation should NOT be confused with the traditional pamphlet. A
pamphlet is a marketing tool that provides general information about agency programs.
Pamphlets are generally disposed of once they have been read, if they have been read.
It is recommended that a laminated “Pocket Guide” with detailed, but not
technical information, be created and distributed to program participants. Much like a
condensed phonebook, the “Pocket Guide,” unlike a pamphlet, is a reference where
program participants and administrators could refer for important information about the
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
24
variety of programs sponsored by each agency. Included in the guide should be the
following: a summary of buffer programs sponsored by the FSA, SWCD, and NRCS
specific to each county, contact information for agency staff, “tips” for buffer
construction and maintenance, benefits of the program, links to informative websites, and
any other information deemed important by agency staff. In all, the guide should serve
participants by offering “prompts,” or reminders. An ideal reference source should be
large enough to fit in the glove box of the participant’s farm vehicle.
Recommendation #3: Providing Incentives for Consistent and Committed Behavior
Incentives to stay in the program as well as to join the program need to be
developed. First, participants should be acknowledged for their “loyalty” to the program
by being recognized in a positive and public way. Yet, the most significant motivating
incentive for participants and potential participants is undoubtedly financial. The data
from the farmer/producer focus groups show a declining interest in the buffer programs
because the financial “payback” is dwindling. Yet, through orchestrated lobbying efforts
by both administrators and program participants, it is possible that tax reductions and
lower interest rates would be very attractive to participants and potential participants.
Lobbying Lenders and Public Officials: Tax Reduction/Reduced Interest Rates for
Program Participants
The practice of lobbying certainly has negative connotations. Because
professional lobbyists are often accused of governmental fraud or unethical behavior, the
practice of lobbying is often frowned upon. Yet, lobbying for a program such as
conservation buffers is distinct because it is grounded in ethical behavior that promotes
the public good. At the heart of ethical lobbying is the enactment of public trust and
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
25
credibility. With this in mind, it is recommended that the following campaign be devised
to “lobby” lenders and county officials for tax and reduced interest rate incentives
program participants.
It is recommended that staff and administrators lobby county, state, and federal
governmental officials for tax incentives for program participants. In addition, this
lobbying effort should be extended to lenders within the financial institutions for a
reduction in interest rates for program participants. This is, by far, the most ambitious
recommendation offered in this report. This recommendation is longitudinal, meaning
lobbying practices need to be nurtured through networking with politicians, public
officials and lenders. Networking implies cultivating an existing relationship and/or
facilitating a new relationship with potential targets for consideration. Since most of the
politicians, public officials, and potentially even some lenders are difficult to meet with
face-to-face, a scheduled meeting with the representative’s staff might begin the process.
In networking for incentives, it is recommended that buffer program staff and
administrators call, write, and/or email all potential targets about the program.
Networking often begins with simple correspondence communication, and eventually
these simple interactions provide the familiarization necessary for meaningful
partnerships to develop.
Recommendation #4: Fostering Consistency and Commitment by Engaging Community
Leaders
Because people identify with others who are similar to them, persuasion and
motivation often are most effective as a peer-based social activity. It is recommended
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
26
that town-hall meetings be organized for buffer participants, potential participants, staff,
and administrators.
The Town-Hall Meeting and Information Program
Whereas agents are engaged in a variety of methods of contact with farmers, it
was clear from the focus group discussions that face-to-face contact results in the best
outcome – persuading a farmer to establish buffer strips. However, massive postcard or
newsletter mailings might appear to reach more people and be more efficient than door
knocking. Unfortunately, it appears that the mass mailings have not had a tremendous
effect; in fact, to some farmers, the letters have been threatening and are a turn-off.
An alternative to the existing campaigns is to hold bi-monthly town hall meetings,
partnering with a variety of organizations for assistance. For example, service
organizations such as Lions, Rotary and Kiwanis clubs are often eager for individuals
who will give presentations to their groups. If they provided a pancake feed or spaghetti
meal to their members and interested farmers in the community, then asked agents from
FSA, NRCS or SWCD to speak about the buffer initiative, a large number of people
could be targeted in a short period of time. Another variation on this town hall approach
would be to have agents from each of the organizations available at various tables in a
community center one night, creating a one-stop open house for farmers to attend. Yet
another option is to hold town hall/joint meetings with farmers and groups such as
Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited. Such partnerships can help farmers to see the
wildlife benefits of conservation buffers, and Grant county participants indicated an
eagerness on the part of wildlife groups to work together with farmers.
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
27
The benefits of a town hall approach are numerous. Farmers can come to one
place to have all their questions answered. Unlike the existing service centers, the agents
come to the farmers, hopefully taking away some of the intimidation of going to “town”
to face the agents. Questions that one farmer has may answer questions for many.
Farmers can visit with others who have implemented the program and may view agents
as farmers/peers in the process. Finally, the attraction of food and the social aspect of the
event may help lower barriers to enrollment.
VII. Conclusions
The purpose of this project was to study two counties in Minnesota in which
buffer strip initiative programs had been established. Researchers interviewed farmers
and staff/agents involved using a focus group format. Results of the focus groups
enabled researchers to offer observations with regard to consistency and commitment,
then, using those principles, to make recommendations for implementation. It is hoped
that, when the buffer initiatives are advanced in Clearwater, Red Lake, and Wilkin
counties, that these observations and recommendations can be implemented, and that
success will be measurable and noteworthy.
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
28
Appendix A: Focus Group Questions and Protocol
Farmer Focus Group Protocol:
1. Ice breaker – to make sure everyone gets acquainted, and that we get acquainted
with them
2. Have you been involved in other conservation projects (other than buffers)? (fish
and wildlife, wetland restoration, shelterbelts, snow fences, DNR prairie,
conservation tillage, EQIP, water and sediment control basins, tree planting,
WRP, CRP, CREP)
3. Describe the buffers on your farm. Where are they? When were they
established?
4. What motivated you to establish the buffer strips?
5. Have there been any roadblocks in the process? (permits, personality issues)
6. How do the buffer strips affect your operations?
7. If you had to do a cost/benefit analysis of the buffers, what would your
assessment be?
8. What are the benefits of buffer strips? (ease of farming, squaring up fields for
more efficient use of larger machinery and use of fuel, hunting, deer, wildlife,
decreased noise and odor, improved surface water quality, flood damage
reductions)
9. What do you think are the largest barriers to implementing buffers? (if these
factors don’t come up, ask about: lack of awareness about non-point pollution,
difficulty in maintaining buffer, fear of losing control of property, fields divided
up, spring flooding would last longer, doing it on their own and don’t want to be
checked by govt, paperwork, weeds, turning equipment)
10. Would you recommend buffer strips to other farmers? Why/why not? What
would you say to entice another farmer?
11. How would you evaluate the technical assistance you received?
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
29
12. When your 10-15 year CRP contract expires, what will you do with the buffers?
a.
Would you consider extending your CRP contract?
b. Would you consider re-enrolling it into another CRP, or equivalent
program?
c. If CRP isn’t available, will you maintain the buffer? (If you aren’t paid for
it, will you maintain the buffer?)
13. Debrief.
Administrator/Staff Focus Group Protocol for Grant County:
1. Ice breaker
2. Who in the group was involved in the 1999 buffer initiative? If not, what is the
level of familiarity with the 1999 project?
3. What were all the different ways you made contact with farmers about installing
buffer strips?
4. What ways were the most effective/farmers most receptive?
5. What role did you see your organizations playing in implementing buffer strips?
6. How many of the farmers already had been involved in conservation projects?
7. What were the strongest motivating factors for farmers to install conservation
buffers on their land?
8. What were the farmers’ strongest arguments against installing conservation buffer
strips on the land?
9. What is your opinion about the technical services the farmers receive from your
groups?
10. How did you measure your success?
11. What were your biggest frustrations with the buffer initiative?
12. If you were sent to another Minnesota county to start a buffer initiative, what
kinds of messages would you recommend using?
13. Debrief.
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
Administrator/Staff Focus Group Protocol for Clay County:
1. What kinds of ways do you make contact with farmers about establishing
conservation projects?
2. What types of contact are most effective/farmers most receptive?
3. How many of the farmers that are receptive are already involved in
conservation projects?
4. What are the strongest motivating factors for farmers to establish
conservation projects?
5. What are the farmers' strongest arguments against establishing
conservation projects?
6. What is your opinion about the technical services the farmers receive
from your groups?
7. How do you measure your success?
30
Conservation Buffers in Clay and Grant Counties (MN)
31
Appendix B: Diagram of Focus Group Context
Focus Group Session Room
Focus Group Observation Room
Videographer
TV
Table
surrounded
with chairs
for
participants
and
facilitators.
Table with chairs
for Observers