Assessing Extension Educator Needs in New York to Address Natural Resource Issues for the New Millennium

Introduction

Since the early 1900's, Cooperative Extension has had a long and successful history of providing educational resources for agriculture as well as other disciplines. But in the past decade, in the Northeast and elsewhere, there is a growing need for Cooperative Extension to shift the focus towards a stronger emphasis on natural resource management. This need arises due to several factors in the landscape and society' s interactions with this landscape.

First, there is an expanded land base in natural land cover types (e.g., woodlands, abandoned fields, wetlands) and associated changes in economic opportunities as former agricultural lands have gone out of traditional production and into natural land cover types (Stanton & Bills, 1996). For example, recent studies indicate that the extent of forested land cover has increased from 37% to over 60% in the last four decades in New York (Alerich & Drake, 1993), with similar findings in other Northeastern states (Birch, 1996). These now maturing woodlands provide greater opportunities for commodity production such as sawtimber and amenity values such as recreational use and the need for conserving related natural resources such as water quality, as the woodlands become more frequently and intensively used.

A second factor is the changing needs of the audience(s) served by Cooperative Extension. This audience continues to include the traditional farmers who have used their woodlands for fuel and periodic income. However, with increased economic constraints and public scrutiny on farmers, many are looking for ways to more efficiently use all their resources, including woodlots. The Extension audiences also must expand to embrace the now abundant private forest landowners who number in the millions throughout the Northeast (Birch, 1996). Private forest landowners are now dominated by retirees and white and blue collar workers who are frequently urban-oriented and less knowledgeable about options for land management. These landowners have interests both in generating revenue and in recreational uses of lands they may have owned for decades but not fully utilized.

A final but equally important factor has been the dramatic increase in public awareness of environmental issues and the complementary vast array of state and federal regulations designed to ensure environmental protection. Farmers and nonfarming rural landowners, as well as youth, municipal planners, professionals, and urban residents are audiences with a tremendous need to understand environmental issues that impact their lives. In particular, the long-term protection of water quality and quantity has been identified as a universal issue of concern for the next several decades.

It is the mandate and mission of Cooperative Extension to address public educational needs, and Cooperative Extension is uniquely capable of developing research-based educational programs for private rural landowners in natural resource management. In New York, the Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) system provides a powerful network that links the university and county personnel to relevant audiences and issues statewide.

Extension educators within each county understand local perspectives and politics, provide site-specific expertise, and act as an interface between county residents and Cornell University. It is therefore important to assess the awareness and perspectives of these Extension educators regarding critical issues in natural resource management before relevant programs can be developed.

The overall goal of the research described here was to evaluate the Extension educators' view of important programming topics in natural resource management, specifically within the areas of water and forestry resources.

Methods

A mail survey was conducted in September and October, 1996, with surveys sent to 233 agents in New York's 57 counties and New York City boroughs. The 1996 Cornell telephone directory was used as the source for agent names and position descriptions.

The selection of agents for the survey focused primarily on agents with program responsibilities categorized as "environmental stewardship" or "natural resources management." Agents were also included with responsibilities in vegetable and fruit crops, dairy and livestock, horticulture, and 4-H youth programming, particularly in the 17 counties that did not have agents listed with these programming responsibilities, because these programming responsibilities often incorporate components of natural resource management. Additional surveys were sent to the executive directors of each county association to inform them of the survey and to include them if they had relevant programming responsibilities.

Surveys were individually addressed to the selected agents. The surveys were sent once for most of the state. However, a repeat request for survey responses was done in the 10 counties comprising the Catskills and Lower Hudson River region as part of our invitation and advertisement for agent participation at a subsequent inservice workshop.

The survey requested the following information from each agent: name, county, responsibilities by percent time in categories defined by the agent, and an indication of the importance of 12 water resource topics and 16 forest management topics (Table 1). These topic areas were initially selected by the authors as representing the most important and recognizable issues in New York and fundamental to any related programming.

Importance was indicated by the respondents independently ranking each of the 28 categories. Ranking was on a scale where 5 was of most interest and 1 was of least interest for receiving educational programming information. Additional space in the survey was provided to allow other comments or suggested topics.

Table 1.

List of Water Resource and Forestry Topics Evaluated by Extension Educators

Completed surveys were separated into four groups based on the primary programming responsibility identified by the agent and included: 1) Environment (including natural resources, water quality, environmental stewardship, forestry), 2) Agriculture (including row crops, dairy, and livestock), 3) Horticulture, and 4) Other (e.g., administration, economic vitality, etc.). This division is useful although somewhat artificial because many agents had multiple responsibility areas encompassing more than one of the four groups.

To determine the general interest in topics, a weighted rank score for each of the 28 topics was calculated by summing the rank score responses overall and in each category and dividing by the number of respondents. To determine topics of major interest area for programming, we identified those that 50% or more of the Extension educators ranked as 4 or 5. In several instances, respondents did not provide rankings for topics "not relevant to their programming," and by default, these were ranked as 1. The percentages of Extension educators that ranked each topic as a major interest were tabulated separately for water and forest resources.

Results

Overall, 112 surveys from 52 separate counties were completed and returned. This response represents input from 91% of the 57 county Extension associations statewide and 65% of the agents surveyed whose position descriptions included responsibilities in environmental stewardship or natural resource management. However, only 21% of the participants had this topic as their primary job responsibility; other educators were primarily focused on Agriculture ( 29.5%), Horticulture (20%), and Other topics (29.5%). The overall return rate was 49%, and this rate was higher (62%) in the Catskill region, where counties were sent repeat surveys, and in selected other counties. These higher rates of return from selected counties are not controlled for in the following summary.

There was greater interest in water resource topics than in forest management topics by agents overall. The overall average weighted ranked score for water resource topics was 2.8, compared to 2.5 for forest management topics. In water resource issues, 5 of the 12 topics were ranked a 4 or 5 by at least 50% of the Extension educators in one or more areas of programming responsibility.

The four topics rated overall as most useful for receiving water resource programming were:

1) "Protection of local and regional groundwater",
2) 2"Farm practices and water quality,"
3) "Watershed management for water quality", and
4) "Aquatic weed management for ponds and lakes."

In contrast, only two of the 16 forestry topics were ranked as 4 or 5 by a majority of the educators. The four topics ranked highest for future forest-management programming needs were:

1) "Farm woodlot management",
2) "Forest management for wildlife habitat and biodiversity",
3) "Tree identification," and
4) "Best management practices for forestry."

Extension educators with different programming responsibilities predictably tended to rank topics differently. In water resources, highest rankings were assigned by Agriculture educators. The highest forest management ranks were consistently given by educators having Horticulture responsibilities. "Protection of local and regional groundwater" was the first or second issue of major interest by Extension educators from all four groups (Table 2). And among forest management topics, "Forest management for wildlife habitat and biodiversity" was ranked as the topic of greatest interest by Extension educators programming in the categories of Environment, Horticulture, and Other (Table 3).

Compared to the water resource topics, there was less consistency for the ranking of forest management topics among the four areas of Extension educator programming responsibility. The lowest rankings for water resource topics generally were assigned by the Other category of educators, but in forest management the low rankings varied with the topic.

Table 2.

Ranking of Water Resource Topics Among Extension Educators Having Different Primary Areas of Programming Responsibility

* Percentages represent the number of Extension educators within a programming category who ranked the topic 4 or 5.

Table 3.

Ranking of Forest Management Topics Among Extension Educators Having Different Primary Areas of Programming Responsibility

* Percentages represent the number of Extension educators within a programming category who ranked the topic 4 or 5.

Discussion

The results of this survey have provided a valuable tool for understanding both the interests of Extension educators and their awareness of current critical issues in the management of New York's natural resources. Surprisingly, the greatest insights were provided not just by the list of highest ranked topics but also by the types of topics that were considered less important.

Water resource topics were consistently ranked as important and worthy of additional programming effort by most of the educators. This interest reflects the nationwide focus on water quality improvement for the past three decades. Under this topic, issues such as "protection of groundwater" and "handling of residential hazardous wastes" are currently well covered by campus-based staff at Cornell University and do not warrant additional effort from Department of Natural Resource faculty.

However, several new areas were highlighted for which there is no current Extension programming. For example, aquatic plant management in New York's more than 1,500 lakes is an area of growing concern, with lakeshore owners and municipal planners as key audiences, but educators have limited resources to provide community support. Additionally, streamside management and restoration are major tools being used by USDA and resource managers to improve water quality in watersheds statewide and are the focus of considerable federal and state funding. Although there are important outreach activities and audiences associated with streamside management, Cornell extension educators currently have little involvement in this issue. Both these topics have been targeted as areas of program development as a result of this survey.

In contrast to the water resource topics, most forest management topics were not rated as highly, even by educators with major Environment responsibilities. Only in one area of Extension educator programming responsibility, Horticulture, was there consistently strong interest in forest management topics. This lack of interest from Extension educators was surprising given the general conversion of New York from an agriculture- to forest-dominated landscape, the growing audience who need outreach on forestry-related topics, and the economic incentives associated with increasing timber prices over the last decade. This conversion indicates the need for a greater focus on private farm and small woodlot management. However, the overall educator rankings for conducting a timber sale and estimating the value of standing timber were the lowest of all the topical areas.

The unexpected lack of interest in critical forestry topics by the network of county educators is an important finding. One interpretation of this pattern results from the long tradition of agriculture-based extension in New York. Many educators have a human ecology or agricultural background and are not trained with a background of natural resources. The national focus on water has resulted in a greater awareness by extension staff of water quality issues, but not of forestry. The conversion of the landscape from agriculture to forestry has occurred over many decades, with a majority of the forest land recently become mature enough for harvesting. There is thus a lag period during which Extension programming and services are not in synchrony with the new needs of the New York communities.

The results of this survey highlight an important role of campus-based faculty in the Extension system. These faculty should have an awareness of future programming needs based on trends in the issues and use of natural resources. Using this awareness and the county educator knowledge of client needs, the longer-term identification, definition, and direction can be developed for statewide programming. The faculty have the expertise to identify and define the longer-term directions for statewide programming that are needed to meet changes across New York.

Surveys such as this one are a powerful tool for identifying these needs. Once identified, the faculty can then develop educational materials and also provide the training to build the natural resource capacity of the county educators.

Application and Impacts

The results of this survey have been a valuable resource both for short-term and long-term program development. Since the completion of this survey, we have developed statewide programs for forestry for non-industrial private landowners, aquatic plant management, and streamside protection (Stand By Your Stream(reg)). Resources for these programs include fact sheets, slide shows, satellite videoconferences, and other outreach resources.

These programs have formed the basis for multi-county, natural resource inservice training workshops conducted statewide annually. Each workshop has been attended by 25 or more educators. While building capacity among the educators to do natural resource outreach, we have also used these programs to directly increase awareness among rural landowners, farmers, and other target audiences. We have conducted approximately 15 multi-county workshops, with most workshops focusing on absentee landowners in major urban areas. These workshops cover a broad topic base to include forestry, wildlife, and wetlands, and typically have attracted several hundred participants, each of whom owns over 50 acres.

We conclude that the Extension educator survey provided a powerful tool for directing the development of programs in Cooperative Extension for natural resource management in New York and that it can be used as a model for similar efforts in other states.

References

Alerich, C. L., & Drake, D. A. (1993). Forest statistics for New York: 1980 and 1993. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Resource Bulletin NE 132. 249 pp.

Birch, T. W. (1996). Private forest-land owners of the northern United States, 1994. USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin Res. Bull. NE 136. 293 pp.

Stanton, B. F., & Bills, N. L. (1996). The return of agricultural land to forest--Changing land use in the twentieth century. Cornell University, Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics, Ithaca, NY. Report No. E.B. 96-03. 132 pp.