Content-Type: text/html
Comparative Approaches
to Segmenting Publics in Agricultural Information Campaigns
by
Robin Shepard
Assistant Professor, Department of Life Sciences Communication, and
Water Quality Coordinator, University of Wisconsin-Extension
216 Ag Hall, 1450 Linden Drive
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
[log in to unmask]
(608/262-1916)
Garrett O'Keefe
Professor, Department of Life Sciences Communication
440 Henry Mall
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 54706
[log in to unmask]
(608/262-1843)
Submitted for consideration at the AEJMC Convention, August 9-12, 2000 in Phoenix, Arizona.
Title: Comparative Approaches to Segmenting Publics in Agricultural Information Campaigns
Authors: Robin Shepard, Assistant Professor, Department of Life Sciences Communication,
216 Ag Hall, 1450 Linden Drive, University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI 53706
[log in to unmask] (608/262-1916)
Garrett O'Keefe, Professor, Department of Life Sciences Communication
440 Henry Mall, University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI 54706
[log in to unmask] (608/262-1843)
Abstract:
Governmental agencies, educational institutions, not-for-profit environmental interest groups, and corporations regularly conduct public information campaigns aimed at promoting their own special interests and needs with respect to the natural environment. In this analysis we will compare approaches to segmenting and targeting agricultural producers -- for informational campaigns. Results suggests that informational campaigns based on single medium delivery will not be effective at changing behavior in the studied watershed. Furthermore, the paper compares different methods of audience segmentation, including the use of behavior characteristics and among variables which identify audiences that need specific information most.
Comparative Approaches to Segmenting Publics in Agricultural Information Campaigns
Introduction:
A host of governmental agencies, educational institutions, not-for-profit environmental interest groups, and corporations regularly conduct public information campaigns aimed at promoting their own special interests and needs with respect to the natural environment (see, for example, Wilcox, Ault, and Agee, 1998; Sexton, Marcus, Easter, & Burkhardt, 1999; O'Keefe and Shepard, in press). Such campaigns pose unique obstacles to their planners, given the nature and context of environmental issues.
Some of the key problems noted by O'Keefe and Shepard (in press) in promoting environmental awareness, interest, attitudinal and behavioral change to the public include:
1. The interaction of physical, biological, geographic, economic and social behavior factors, making message delivery, understanding, and adequate information processing on the part of audiences difficult;
2. The sometimes conflicting scientific evidence available as to whether problems actually exist (e.g. man's role in global warming) and, if they do, solutions to them, arouses credibility problems among publics;
3. The social, political and economic risks that can serve as barriers to behavioral change, especially among such highly involved and invested public such as farmers;
4. The need to engage significant numbers of individuals -- often at a community vs. individual level -- in behavioral change before meaningful environmental protection or remediation can take place, as in improving air or water quality; and
Comparative Approaches to Segmenting Publics in Agricultural Information Campaigns
5. The often long time frame needed for visible change to occur in environmental quality, reducing the more immediate kinds of reinforcement publics typically respond to when they do take action.
These barriers call for, among other things, even more attention to formative, process and summative research on publics in carrying out such campaigns. Here we argue specifically for greater attention to formative research on discrete publics in environmental campaigns to allow more appropriate formulation and targeting of messages and other program components. These principles have in the past perhaps been best generalized in the environmental realm by Grunig 1977), Stamm & Grunig (1977), Grunig & Stamm (1979), and Grunig & Repper (1992). Here, we will compare approaches to segmenting and targeting agricultural producers -- for campaigns aimed at protecting surface and groundwater quality. The particular campaigns are aimed at promoting greater awareness, attitudinal change and behavior change among publics who are highly involved -- economically and otherwise -- in the situational contexts.
There are two traditional areas of research on how the communication of specific information can lead to behavioral change in agriculture. First, descriptive surveys have been used to identify the major sources of farmers' information. Secondly, the importance of that information versus other factors in the adoption process (Rogers, 1995) are commonly tested.
The descriptive surveys most often explore the use of different sources of information in the day-to-day farm management decision making process. Farmers who are young, well educated, and on the larger acreages have the highest information-use levels (Bultena, and Hoiberg, 1986; Nowak, O'Keefe, Bennett, Anderson and Trumbo, 1997). Moreover, previous research has demonstrated that distinct sources of information prevail at different stages of the decision making process (Rogers, 1995). During the awareness stage, farmers are shown to rely primarily on mass media for information (Nowak, et al., 1997; Rogers, 1995). Later in the decision making when additional information is sought the interpersonal communication sources such as friends and neighbors become more important (Shepard and O'Keefe, 1999).
In studies by Bultena, Hoiberg and Nowak (1984), the information sources selected by farmers as being the "most useful" differed depending upon whether they reported high or low levels of information use. For example, magazines were most often named as "most useful," but were only infrequently mentioned as sources where the respondents would themselves purposely turn for designated types of information. Therefore, a person may select magazines as useful sources for general information, but choose more specific sources when confronting the applicability of a particular practice to their own farming situations.
Another perspective is that some individuals will try to seek only that information that they expect will satisfy specific needs. Such a "uses-gratifications" approach stems from the individuals's social psychological origins of specific needs, values and beliefs, which give rise to motives for behavior (Rosengren et al, 1985). This selective message exposure can occur when members of an audience group use a specific information source that has a given reputation. For example, the more audience members are motivated in their use of the information from a given source or channel, the more they perceive various types of gratification, the result becomes the more active they are in their use of that message source or channel (Levy and Winhdahl, 1984). For agricultural information some specific farm magazines and farm supply representatives have a reputation for being useful in determining which agrichemicals are most effective for certain crops and specific situations (Dittrich, 1993). Therefore, the past orientation of being a preferred delivery point for information means that farmers may again seek information through these "selective communication channels.
Much of this research implies that if educational messages are to reach those who need them most, then they must be tailored to attract and meet the needs of a particular audience (Grunig and Repper, 1992). These messages also must be presented at a time when this audience is able to listen to or view the message. Audience appeal is necessary because viewing, reading, or listening is a voluntary matter and because of competition in the market place of selling these audiences to advertisers. Thus, the effectiveness of purposively placed information to farmers is highly dependent on the ability of the professional communicator to anticipate the farmers' information needs and information-seeking behavior, and to deliver messages in an attractive, understandable, timely way (Crosby and Taylor, 1981).
When messages are designed and delivered in such ways to meet specific needs and to accommodate the information processing habits of targeted groups, the result is a strategic communication campaign (Kotler and Roberto, 1989). Much of the research on scientific communication campaigns has concentrated on health information and energy conservation, and little published to date specifically considers soil and water conservation (Contant, 1990; Nowak et al., 1997). For the public agencies or organizations which are trying to promote a specific behavior, these communication campaigns are often very costly and require careful planning and consideration for message design and delivery. Conducting communication campaigns with environmental messages can be very complex because agricultural research has focused on what it takes to grow crops by increasing yields, subsequently government organizations are left to interpret and restructure information in a form acceptable to farm audiences (Toon, Chadwick and Castle, 1986; Nowak et al, 1997; Shepard and O'Keefe, 1999). It has proven difficult for the government to complete in a communication setting dominated by the private sector, and to a certain extent public land grant universities promoting yield enhancing practices.
The geographic, demographic, lifestyle and institutional changes within rural society all effect the way those living there process information. While institutions are less influential in contemporary rural society; mass media and peer groups have greater influence (Phillips, Donnermeyer and Wurschmidt, 1982; Cuperus, 1987.). This would lend support to the earlier findings of Ryan and Gross (1943) that both interpersonal communication between farmers, and the mass media account for the main sources of information needed in the adoption of hybrid seed corn in Iowa.
When a farmer receives a message or messages through various communication channels about a specific management strategy, such as manure crediting, the messages often lack depth, insight or the sight-specific details to influence the farmer's adoption or rejection decision. Assuming the information about reducing commercial fertilizer based on the nutrients found in crop-land applied animal manures (also called manure crediting) is received by the farmers who need the information, the secondary problem is portrayed by what is lost in the translation by the farmer. Selection of message content should be based on farmer need. In other words, this information need is identified by knowing which farmers do not practice manure crediting but should. Content of the message then address more specific barrier for why the farmers are not engaging in more beneficial behaviors (Nowak, 1983) Once this content is determined the message is designed based on these specific needs. Selection of an appropriate delivery method then follows determination of message content. The delivery method or communication channel must reflect audience preferences and how well the message can be transmitted in that form. Too often, the delivery method is selected out of convenience to communicator, and not convenience of the intended receiver or on compatibility of the message with the channel in which it is being transmitted. The delivery of educational messages should be based on the audience to be reached, what type of behavior changes are being sought, what additional incentives are available to the target group, and compatibility between message content and the medium in which it is transmitted (Pfau and Parrott, 1993; Winett, Leckliter, Chinn, Stahl and Lover, 1984).
Models of strategic communication campaigns and audience segmentation are found in mass communication research, public opinion studies, political science, and sociology. Communication and adoption research studies have also explored using targeted message delivery approaches. However, in most research, targeting strategies are used infrequently on a large scale because of cost, logistical and political considerations (Geller, Winett and Everett, 1982). Related to this is the fact are theories of audience segmentation in the field of mass communication are few in number and generally poorly developed (Grunig, 1989).
Another major reason for this lack of implementing a targeted information strategy in water quality programs has been few applied examples of how such strategies can be followed by public agencies charged with protecting water quality. Past research from consumer science, diffusion theory and exchange theory all offer suggestions on ways to target information campaigns, but there are only limited applied models or "how to" examples for public officials to follow.
This analysis explores three methods of audience segmentation that test how information can be targeted to farmers who need information about manure crediting. Those three processes include: 1) dividing the target audience into groupings based on farm scale or size of their operation, 2) dividing the target audience based on spacial location and levels of farm management sophistication, and 3) dividing the target audience into groupings based on their management practices which may pose a potential contribution to water quality problems.
Methods:
A representative southern Wisconsin watershed was selected for this study. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) identified this watershed as a Wisconsin Priority Watershed in July of 1990. This selection as a Wisconsin Priority Watershed DNR and DATCP was due to degraded water quality parameters, and the impact of sedimentation on aquatic habitat in the watershed's main river system. The watershed is almost entirely rural with crop land, pasture and woods dominating the land use patterns. Dairying is the major agricultural activity making manure runoff from barnyards and fields a major concern.
A population of respondents was identified as all farmers in the watershed who operated at least 40 acres of land and/or had at least 15 beef or dairy cattle. There were 261 operators who met this criteria and were asked to complete a survey that assessed their nutrient and pest management practices. This survey was designed using high quality graphics, color, easily understood language, and a variety of question styles that included Likert scales, multiple choice answers and fill in the blank numerical responses. The survey contained 48 questions.
The survey was administered in 1990, in face-to-face meetings between county based (watershed) staff and 208 farmers resulting in a 79.6 percent response rate. Respondents who completed the survey operated over 44,000 acres of tillable land, which was approximately 75 percent of all 1990 tillable acres within the watershed boundaries.
The initial survey identified knowledge gaps and varying levels in management sophistication associated with field nitrogen application strategies. More specifically, a lack of accurate manure nitrogen crediting by nearly all farmers in the watershed.
One year later a mail follow-up survey was conducted with the original 208 survey respondents. This second survey asked a series of questions about where farmers receive information regarding the previously identified management needs. This second survey focused on prior use of these practices, preconceived attitudes toward the needed changes and where farmers received specific farm management information. From the original survey group of respondents, 183 responded to the communication survey (87.9% response rate).
In this second survey, respondents were asked a series of questions to determine whether or not they had used some designated information sources for obtaining information about manure management and manure crediting. Additionally, in this study, respondents were queried about their uses of several sources, including personal contact with public agencies on nutrient and pest management practices for their farming operations. These information usage patterns considered both information-seeking behavior and passive information acquisition.
Results:
Each respondent's nitrogen use was assessed independently to determine the total rates of application on their most productive corn field. The most productive corn field was used to gather detailed nutrient input data on a representative field. This field was found to be representative in 80 percent of the farmers because they did not differentiate between other corn field in nitrogen application rates. Each farmer was asked to identify the form and rate of nutrients applied to their most product corn field. Manure application estimates were determined by asking farmers to identify the type of manure, the size of their manure spreader, the number of loads applied to the most productive corn field and the size of that field. Farmers were then asked if they reduced commercial sources of nitrogen (credited nitrogen) because of the manure and if so, the amount of the reduction. The accuracy of the crediting was determined by looking at claimed credits versus a conservative estimate of actual manure nitrogen applied on the most productive corn field.
Overall results in the study watershed show that only one-third (38 percent) actually credited manure as a source of nitrogen. Further, only 2 percent of these farmers who could credit manures were accurately crediting manure nitrogen within 10 percent from university recommendations. These results serve to identify educational needs associated with manure management and crediting nitrogen from manure applications.
The respondents were also asked a series of questions to determine which information channels they commonly use regarding nutrient and pesticide decisions. In addition, farmers were instructed to consider more than 21 information channels ranging from personal to mass media channels, and then asked to identify their most important channel of manure management information. Channel refers to the form of medium in which the message is transmitted to farmers. In comparison, information source refers to that person or entity which constructed the message and placed it in the channel.
The results for nitrogen management and communication behavior were analyzed to test the three methods of audience segmentation explored: 1) segmentation based on farm scale or farm size, 2) segmentation based spatial location of the farm, and 3) segmentation based on the farmer's potential contribution to a water quality problem.
Segmentation Based on Farm Scale or Farm Size
The physical and economic size of the farm operation can be a potential barrier to the adoption of improved management practices. The number of cows or the amount of tillable ground the manager is responsible for, when large, can be seen as a constraint to adopting practices that require more of the farmer's time. The degree to which the farm is operated as business can be helpful to further explain economic and management barriers to making more labor intensive decisions or decisions that require structural changes in the operation (Nowak and Korsching, 1983). Using gross farm income and tillable acres (owned and rented), farmers were divided into four groupings of scale.
Farmers were initially divided into quartiles based on their estimated gross farm income. They were also divided into quartiles based on the number of tillable acres in their operation. Finally, the scores from both categories were added together and divided into scales. These final quartiles describe four different levels of farm scale: 1) small, 2) small to medium, 3) medium to large, and 4) large farms.
Results of nitrogen management behavior, including communication on this issue, segmented by farm scale is found in Table 1. Farmers in the medium to large size category apply the most nitrogen. In contrast, farmers in the small category apply the least nitrogen. The mean nitrogen application rate for the small farmers is the closest to the 160 pounds per acre average university recommendation for corn. Based on nitrogen application, farmers in the medium to large size category are the farmers who need nutrient management education more that the other groups.
An important consideration is how to deliver appropriate nitrogen management messages to this segment of farmers. Farmers in these four groups indicated different preferences for the most important delivery channel of this information (see Table 1). Reaching those farmers in the
Table 1. Nitrogen management behaviors by farm scale.
Small Small to Medium to Large Overall
Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Farms Farms
(N=24) (N=50) (N=46) (N=38) (N=158)
Mean Nitrogen Application 154 lbs/A 236 lbs/A* 281 lbs/A* 266 lbs/A 244 lbs/A
Those crediting 0% 39% 46% 46% 38%
manure nitrogen.
Those crediting within 0% 5% 3% 3% 2%
10 pounds of estimated value.
Most important General Farm Farm Independent Extension Farm
channel for manure Magazines Newspapers Crop Consultants Agents Newspapers
management information.
percent selecting 30% 17% 14% 14% 11%
Second most important Farm Supply General Farm Extension Farm General Farm
channel for manure Dealers Magazines Agents Dealers Magazines
management information.
percent selecting 20% 17% 11% 10% 10%
LinkageA to personal 5.4 5.5 6.3 8.5 6.7
Contact sources of manure
management information.
*=significance at the .05 level, using a test of means.
A=linkage scores were calculated based on the number of personal or face-to-face contacts dealing with nutrient management in the past year, and multiplying that number by the quality of those contacts where: 1=no use, 2=limited use, 3=somewhat useful, and 4=very useful.
medium to large farm category with manure management information would best be delivered through independent crop consultants and extension agents. Reaching farmers in the other segments would not be as effective with these same information delivery channels.
Segmentation Based on Spacial Location
This method of segmenting the study watershed is based on a five step process. Five criteria are used in this segmentation process: 1) landscape and topography, 2) soil texture, 3) farm firm characteristics, 4) farm management, and 5) linkage and network characteristics. Three unique areas from the total watershed emerge. Each sub-area is represented by statistically different levels of nitrogen application for corn production (Table 2). Based on this model of segmentation, farmers operating in Region 1 and Region 3 represent the farmers in most need of informational assistance with nutrient management. The farmers in Region 3 should be the subject of initial information campaigns on manure management due to the high level of nitrogen application and low accuracy in crediting by those who claimed to reduce commercial nitrogen purchases due to manure applications. Region 1 farmers should also receive special attention because farms in this region are more likely to have more coarse textured soils which require less nitrogen for corn production.1 These sandy soils increase the risk of groundwater contamination from nitrogen application.
_______________
1 Soil maps were consulted to determine the general soil type for the area surrounding the respondent's farm. A recommended level of 160 pounds. nitrogen per acre was used for medium textured soils, 100 pounds nitrogen per acre for sandy soils, and 140 pounds nitrogen per acre for clay textured soils (Bundy, 1989). Reaching farmers in these three regions requires careful consideration of the differences in information preferences for manure management information. In Region 3, farmers indicated that independent crop consultants and extension agents are their most important channels of manure management information. In Region 1, general farm magazines and farm supply dealers rank as the most important. Equally important are the results for the overall watershed. If information campaigns relied solely upon the overall data interpretation, campaign planners would be tempted to focus on farm newspapers and general farm magazines. This decision would subsequently miss
Table 2. Nitrogen management behaviors by spatial location.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Overall
(N=25) (N=81) (N=52) (N=158)
Mean Nitrogen Application 227 lbs/A* 218 lbs/A* 282 lbs/A* 244 lbs/A
Those crediting 37% 35% 45% 38%
manure nitrogen.
Those crediting within 5% 4% 0% 2%
10 pounds of estimated value.
Most important General Farm Farm Independent Farm
channel for manure Magazines Newspapers Crop Consultants Newspapers
management information
percent selecting 20% 13% 11% 11%
Second most important Farm Supply General Farm Extension General Farm
channel for manure Dealers Magazines Agents Magazines
management information
percent selecting 13% 10% 11% 10%
LinkageA to Personal 5.8 6.9 6.8 6.7
contact sources of manure
management information.
*=significance at the .05 level, using a test of means.
A=linkage scores were calculated based on the number of personal or face-to-face contacts dealing with nutrient management in the past year, and multiplying that number by the quality of those contacts where: 1=no use, 2=limited use, 3=somewhat useful, and 4=very useful. the most important channel of information for farmers in Region 3, and only partially reach respondents in Region 1. Farmers in Region 2 would likely find informational messages from these delivery channels more compatible, but these farmers are closest to university recommendations and need these messages the least. Thus, basing information campaigns on overall response data while ignoring internal variation would make the campaign less effective.
Segmentation Based on Potential Contribution to The Water Quality Problem
The third method of segmentation of farmers in the study watershed is based on the potential of those nutrient management practices to contribute to surface and groundwater problems. Farmers were divided into three groupings based on nitrogen and phosphorus application rates. First, the distribution of total nitrogen application was used to divide respondents into three equal groups. Second, farmers were again assigned a score of one through three depending upon their level of phosphorus application. These two scores were added together, and the total range was again divided into thirds. This outcome represents a three-tier grouping of respondents based on the potential contribution to a water quality problem.
Each sub-group represents a different potential level of risk to water quality. Those farmers in the lower third represent the least threat to contributing to water quality problems, while farmers in the middle third are more of a threat, and those in the upper third are the greatest threat to contributing to a water quality problem.2 This model of segmentation can enable
_____________
2 This outcome is only a gross estimate of potential contribution to water quality problems. The actual contribution would deepend on the specific site characteristics where the nutrients were applied. The purpose of this process is not to replicate results that could be obtained from fate-transport or leaching models. Instead, as noted, it is to guide the design of information campaigns. planners of information campaigns to focus on the upper third category as those farmers needing informational assistance more than the other two groups. Total nitrogen application rates do reflect cause for concern as these farmers represent a greater threat to water quality with a mean nitrogen application rate of 395 pounds per acre (Table 3).
Table 3. Nitrogen management behaviors by potential contribution to water quality problems.
Lower Third Middle Third Upper Third Overall
(N=52) (N=53) (N=53) (N=158)
Mean Nitrogen Application 117 lbs/A* 218 lbs/A* 395 lbs/A* 244 lbs/A
Those crediting 33% 35% 44% 38%
manure nitrogen.
Those crediting within 6% 4% 0% 2%
10 pounds of estimated value.
Most important General Farm Farm Farm Farm
channel for manure Magazines Newspapers Newspapers Newspapers
management information.
percent selecting 13% 13% 13% 11%
Second most important Farm Supply General Farm Extension General Farm
channel for manure Dealers Magazines Agents Magazines
percent selecting 13% 13% 10% 10%
LinkageA to personal 6.8 6.3 7.3 6.7
Contact sources of manure
management information.
*=significance at the .05 level, using a test of means.
A=linkage scores were calculated based on the number of personal or face-to-face contacts dealing with nutrient management in the past year, and multiplying that number by the quality of those contacts where: 1=no use, 2=limited use, 3=somewhat useful, and 4=very useful.
Information preferences for these farmer again reflect great diversity. Those farmers in the upper third category indicated they preferred farm newspapers and extension agents as the most important delivery channel for manure management information. If both of these delivery channels were used exclusively by campaign planners, only 23 percent of the farmers needing manure management information would be reached with these two information delivery channels. These results again emphasize the importance of using multiple delivery methods.
Discussion:
This research has illustrated that those who need informational assistance are not a single homogenous group. All three methods of segmentation as examined show a number of different publics. While much past communication research has described methods of focusing or targeting audience groups, much of this research still treats farmers as homogenous group. This research suggests a meaningful method of segmenting publics based on first assessing informational needs, then targeting information to these specific sub-groups.
Delivery channels for messages are important in determining how to send or package needed information. Assessment data determines message content, then delivery mechanisms are selected based on what the communicator needs to send to identified audience groups. We have compared three potential methods of segmentation, and then considered the outcome of each with respect to targeting informational campaigns.
Most farmers already know that manure does have some nutrient value. Consequently, promotion of manure crediting must go beyond general concepts and stress specific situations. Moreover, those who do attempt to practice manure crediting must be shown how to take advantage of available techniques that will allow them to overcome past problems, including determining correct nutrient values and uniform application techniques. This research and past studies continue to support that the best way to encourage action by an audience that is already aware of something is for campaign planners to facilitate a better two-way personal or face-to-face information flow between individuals. This personal communication involves people communicating directly with each other (Ernst and Durand, 1986). It is often more effective because it allows for personal questioning and feedback (Kotler and Armstrong, 1991).
Basing an information campaign on multiple information delivery channels is necessary because: 1) different sources of information become important at different stages of adoption (Fliegel, 1993; Rogers, 1995), and 2) the great diversity of information preferences shown by the results in this study. Regardless of the method of segmentation, the individual information channels were rarely selected as "most important" by more than 20 percent of a targeted group. It should be pointed out that just because 20% of a targeted audience is reached, a single exposure to a message will rarely result in behavioral action (Crosby and Taylor, 1981).
Conclusions:
This paper suggests that informational campaigns based on single medium delivery will not be effective at changing behavior in the studied watershed. Furthermore, campaigns based on collective information about the overall watershed would be ineffective because they fail to support message delivery preferences of those farmers who need the information most. That is, in two of the segmentation methods the overall preference of delivery channel was different from the preference of the sub-group needing the information the most.
Choosing how to segment an audience is perhaps the most critical decision those responsible for the information campaign can make. Incorrectly dividing the audience based on irrelevant factors could mislead communication planning into selecting the wrong message content or the wrong delivery mechanism for the selected message. Based on statistical significance tests on nitrogen application, those communication campaigns that are based on a method of segmentation based on the spatial location or potential contribution to a water quality problem would be more accurate at getting the message to those who need it most. Results of this study do not indicate which of these two and would be the better segmentation model. However, antidotal information from watershed planning staff would suggest that given the staff resources necessary to use segmentation processes, the spatial location method would be easier. Spatial location would allow the staff person to locate groups of individuals in geographic areas. For example, it would be easier to confine door-to-door farm visits or on-farm demonstrations in one area before moving on to other parts of the watershed. Personal communication would occur more systematically with more complete coverage by identifying specific spatial locations or areas where the threat to water quality is greatest.
A second methods of dividing the overall audience into groupings is based on potential contribution of a water quality problem. This method is a more direct assessment and identification of those who need informational assistance most. That is, it gives communication planners a good idea of the scope of the problems to be addressed. But because the location or identity of these farmers is not included in the output of this segmentation process, more intensive personal communication delivery would be difficult.
In summary, informational campaigns designed to encourage manure crediting should be based on multiple messages and multiple delivery channels in order to reflect the diversity among the target audiences. The more effective campaign would focus on multiple personal information channels, but not exclusively on personal information channels. Finally, the overall water quality program should include a strategy to rationally guide informational activities. This strategy requires assessing audience behaviors, segmenting the assessment data into meaningful groups based on common sets of behaviors or needs, and finally strategically targeting agency resources at these segmented groups.
References:
1. Bultena, Gordon L. and Eric O. Hoiberg. (1986) "Sources of Information and Technical Assistance for Farmers in Controlling Soil Erosion." In Conserving Soil Insights From Socioeconomic Research, ed. Stephen B. Lovejoy and Ted L. Napier, 71-82. Ankeny, Iowa: The Soil Conservation Society of America.
2. Bultena, Gordon L., Eric O. Hoiberg and Peter J. Nowak. (1984) Sources of Conservation Information and Participation in Conservation Programs: An Interregional Analysis. Ames, Iowa: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Iowa State University. Sociological Studies of Environmental Issues Sociology Report 156.
3. Bundy, L.G. (1989) "The New Wisconsin Nitrogen Recommendations." A briefing paper prepared for the Area Fertilizer and Aglime Dealer Meeting, November 28-December 14, 1989. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, Wisconsin. 9 p.
4. Crosby, Lawrence A. and James R. Taylor. (1981) "Effects of Consumer Information and Education on cognition and Choice." Journal of Consumer Research. 8:43-56.
5. Cuperus, Gerrit. (1987) Getting The Word to Oklahoma Producers. Extension Review USDA. 58 (Fall): 29.
6. Content, Cheryle K. (1990) Evaluating Change in Water Quality Protection Programs. A paper prepared for the graduate program in Urban and Regional Planning and The Public Policy Center. University of Iowa. Iowa City, Iowa.
7. Dittrich, Mark. (1993) Corn Fertility and Manure Management: Agricultural Extension and Bulletin Information, 1938-1991. M.S. thesis. University of Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin.
8. Ernst, A.J. and M.R.E. Durand. (1986) Communication Between Scientists and The Animal Industries. In Proceedings of The Australian Society of Animal Production. 16: 13-15.
9. Geller, E.S., R.A. Winett and E.B. Everett. (1982) Preserving the Environment: New Strategies for Behavior Change. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press.
10. Grunig, J. E. (1977) Review of research on environmental public relations. Public Relations Review, 3, 36-58.
11. Grunig, James E. (1989) "Publics, Audiences and Market Segments: Segmentation Principles for Campaigns. " In Charles T. Salmon, Information Campaigns: Balancing Social Values and Social Change. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. pp. 199-228.
12. Grunig, J. E. & F. C. Repper (1992) Strategic management, publics, and issues. In Grunig, J.E. (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management. (Pp. 117-158) Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
13. Grunig, J.E., & K. R. Stamm (1979) Cognitive strategies and the resolution of environmental issues: a second study. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 715-726.
14. Hornik, Robert. (1989) The Knowledge-Behavior Gap in Public Information Campaigns: A Development Communication View. In Information Campaigns: Balancing Social Values and Social Change, ed. Charles T. Salmon, 116-117. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications.
15. Kotler, Philip and Gary Armstrong. (1991) Principles of Marketing. Fifth Edition..Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
16. Kotler, P. and Roberto, E.L. (1989) Social Marketing: Strategies for Changing Public Behavior. New York: The Free Press.
17. Levy, M.R. and S. Windahl. (1984) Audience activity and gratifications: a conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research. 11:51-78.
18. Nowak, Peter J. (1983) Obstacles to adoption of conservation tillage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. (May-June): 162-165.
19. Nowak, Peter, Garret O'Keefe, Claude Bennett, Susan Anderson and Craig Trumbo. (1997) Communication and Adoption Evaluation of USDA Water Quality Demonstration Projects.
20. Nowak, Peter J. and Peter F. Korsching. (1983) "Social and Institutional Factors Affecting the Adoption and Maintenance of Agricultural BMPs." In Frank W. Schaller and George W. Bailey (eds) Agricultural Management and Water Quality. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. pp. 349-373.
21. O'Keefe, G.J., & R. L. Shepard (in press). Overcoming the challenges of environmental information and action programs. In Dillard, J. & Pfau, M. P. (Eds.) The persuasion handbook: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
22. Pfau, Michael and Roxanne Parrott. (1993) Persuasive Communication Campaigns. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon
23. Phillips, G. Howard, Joseph F. Donnermeyer and Todd N. Wurschmidt. (1982) "Crime and Its Prevention." In The Social Impacts of Information Technologies in Rural North America, ed. Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs, 359-372. Rural Society in the U.S. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
24. Rogers, Everett M. (1985) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Rosengren, K.E., Wenner, L.A. and Palmgreen, P. (1985) Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
25. Ryan, Bryce and Neal C. Gross. (1943) The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn In Two Iowa Communities. Rural Sociology. 8: 15-24.
26. Sexton, K., F.A. Marcus, K.W. Easter and T.D. Burkhardt. (1999) Better environmental decisions. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
27. Shepard, Robin and Garrett O'Keefe. (1999) Water Resource Program - How Target Audiences Differ. Proceedings of the Sixth National Watershed Conference. Austin, Texas (May 16-19, 1999).
28. Stamm, K. R., and J. E. Grunig (1977) Communication situations and cognitive strategies for the resolution of environmental issues. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 713-720.
29. Toon, B., P. Francis, B. Chadwick and K. Castle. (1986) The Use of Mass Media in Scientific Communication. In Proceedings of The Australian Society of Animal Production. 16: 15-20.
30 Wilcox, D.L., P.H. Ault, and W.K. Agee. (1998) Public relations: strategies and tactics. New York: Longman.
31. Winett, Richard A, Ingrid N. Leckliter, Donna E. Chinn, Brian Stahl and Susie Q. Lover. (1984) "The Effects of Videotape Modeling in Home and Group Settings and Through Cable T.V. on Residential Electricity Conservation, Home Temperature and Humidity, Perceived Comfort and Clothing Worn Winter and Summer." Department of Psychology paper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA 24061.