Technology

The impact of gender on agricultural conservation knowledge and attitudes in an Iowa watershed

Description
The impact of gender on agricultural conservation knowledge and attitudes in an Iowa watershed
Categories
Published
of 12
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Transcript
  95 MARCH/APRIL 2014—VOL. 69, NO. 2JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION Caroline Gottschalk Druschke  is an assistant professor in the Department of Writing and Rhetoric at the University of Rhode Island in Kingston, Rhode Island. Silvia Secchi  is an as-sistant professor in the Department of Agribusi-ness Economics at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Illinois. The impact of gender on agricultural conservation knowledge and attitudes in an Iowa watershed C.G. Druschke and S. Secchi  Abstract:  Female agricultural land ownership and operatorship are on the rise in Iowa and across the nation, but little research exists that explores agricultural conservation outreach to women and gendered differences in conservation knowledge and attitudes. The authors surveyed all agricultural landowners and operators in the Clear Creek Watershed in eastern Iowa about conservation knowledge and attitudes, as well as preferred sources of information about conservation. Clear Creek is a high-visibility watershed for conservation outreach for several reasons, including its long-standing watershed stakeholder council and its connec-tion to the impaired Iowa River. Analysis of the survey results demonstrated that female respondents had significantly lower levels of knowledge about best management practices and significantly more positive attitudes towards conservation and collaboration than men. Meanwhile, women looked to the same sources for conservation information as male respon-dents, including neighbors, friends, and conservation agencies like the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cooperative Extension, and the Farm Service Agency. These gendered results have significant consequences for the future of agricultural conservation practice and policy and for the subsequent health of the nation’s soils and waterways. While lacking in knowledge about specific conservation practices, female respondents valued conservation practices, looked to government agencies for information about conservation, and expressed interest in collaborating with government entities for conservation on their land. Agricultural conservation practitioners can use these findings to tailor outreach efforts that will more effectively reach the nation’s female landowners and operators. Key words:  conservation—farmer attitudes—female landowners—female operators— gender—watershed management The times they are a-changin’: female agricultural land ownership and opera-torship are on the rise in Iowa, and female agricultural landowners and operators may have different conservation outreach needs than their male counterparts.  Shifts in land ownership mean that Iowa women now own a majority of the rented farm-land in Iowa and own or co-own just under half of Iowa’s overall farmland (Duffy and Smith 2008), while single women own a full fifth of Iowa’s farmland (Clayton 2009). Female operatorship is on the rise across the state and nationwide (USDA NASS 2009). Meanwhile, throughout the agricultural Midwest, conservation staff and policymakers are under increasing pressure to understand who conserves soil and water and how best to reach them. However, relatively little research exists that works to understand how female agricultural landowners and operators might differ from their male counterparts when it comes to conservation. This is an issue likely to become more and more important as agricultural production in the United States intensifies to meet increasing global demand for food, feed, fiber, and fuel. To help fill this research gap, in 2010 we distributed a survey about conservation knowledge and attitudes and the potential for biofuel production to all agricultural landowners and operators in the Clear Creek Watershed in eastern Iowa. Here we focus on the subset of questions about conservation to consider whether and how female agricultural landowners and operators differ from their male counterparts when it comes to knowledge of and attitudes about best management practices.We examined the following specific research questions: • Are there gendered differences between agricultural landowners’ and operators’ atti-tudes towards soil and water conservation? • Are there gendered differences between ag -ricultural landowners’ and operators’ percep-tions of who should be responsible for soil and water conservation in the watershed? • Are there gendered differences between agricultural landowners’ and operators’ knowledge of various best management practices and their usefulness in the Clear Creek Watershed? • Are there gendered differences between agricultural landowners’ and operators’ weighting of issues that matter to the future of agriculture in Iowa? • Are there gendered differences between agricultural landowners’ and operators’ pre-ferred sources of conservation information?Our research questions build upon a thread of  Journal of Soil and Water Conservation  A Section articles related to the subject of conservation outreach to women (Everett 1983; Carolan et al. 2004; Wells and Eells 2011). A generation ago, Everett (1983) famously claimed that, “Farm girls care about the soil. So do their mothers,” and went on to assert that conservation outreach has largely failed to involve women. Twenty years later, Carolan et al. (2004) were still able to describe the “alienation of female landlords” who lacked the technical expertise to deal with their male tenants. Most recently, Wells and Eells (2011) reminded us of Everett’s (1983) arguments, suggesting that government con-servation programs and staff members are still not working to connect with women landowners, and that this disconnect has a negative impact on conservation throughout Iowa. As they argue, “It is in the best interest of the land to cater more to women farm-land owners, as their numbers have grown. We need to step back and rethink programs from their standpoints; evaluate the adequacy doi:10.2489/jswc.69.2.95  C o p yr  i   g h  t   ©2  0 1 4  S  o i   l   a n d  W a t   er  C o n s  er  v a t   i   o n S  o c i   e t   y .A  l   l  r  i   g h  t   s r  e s  er  v e d  .   w w w . s  w c  s  . or  g  6  9  (  2  )   :  9  5 -1  0  6   J  o ur  n a l   o f   S  o i   l   a n d  W a t   er  C o n s  er  v a t   i   o n  96 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONMARCH/APRIL 2014—VOL. 69, NO. 2 of the one-size, land-as-commodity model; and take an institutional accounting to iden-tify endemic barriers to greater participation” (Wells and Eells 2011). Wells and Eells (2011) argue that conservation agencies have not worked to connect with women landowners, and, as a result, women landowners are not fully participating in decision-making about production practices, commodity programs, and conservation programs on their farmland.For the reasons that Wells and Eells (2011) describe, women are not participating as often as men in government-sponsored conserva-tion programs. Our research suggests that they are also not as likely to adopt conserva-tion practices more generally. The Census of Agriculture does not provide information on the adoption of conservation by gender, but our study asked about the presence of four conservation practices on the land owned or farmed by respondents, all of which are likely to be supported by cost-share or incentive funding: contour buffer strips, riparian buf-fers or filter strips, grassed waterways, and terraces or basins. Among female respon-dents, 18% reported that at least one of those conservation practices was present for which there had been conservation payments in 2009, and the same percentage reported the presence of at least one practice for which no payments had been received. Among male respondents, the corresponding percentages were higher at 22% and 24%. Women’s lower levels of adoption of both cost-shared and noncost-shared conservation practices exist despite the wider research that demonstrates that women tend to be particularly conser-vation-minded (Chiappe and Flora 1998; Feldman and Welsh 1995; Hassanein 1999; Meares 1997; Peter et al. 2000; and Salamon 1992). While it would seem that women’s views on conservation would make them want to adopt (or want their renters to adopt) conservation practices on their land, Wells and Eells (2011) tell us that women have not had enough contact with government conservation staff to learn about and, thus, adopt both cost-shared and noncost-shared practices. Because many women do not pos-sess technical expertise (Carolan et al. 2004) and feel they cannot access this expertise as “outsiders” (Carolan et al. 2004), they remain conservation-minded nonadopters.As a largely underserved population, female agricultural landowners and opera-tors remain largely outside of the scope of conservation adoption literature. This may be due to widely held assumptions about the gendered division of agricultural labor that imagine men in charge of farm fields and women in charge of farm families, even though the reality of farm labor may be much more complicated (Trauger et al. 2010; Brandth 1994; Brandth 2002). In the search for consistent and reliable indicators of adoption, researchers have pointed to factors other than gender, such as education (Rahm and Huffman 1984; Saltiel et al. 1994; Okoye 1998), age (Warriner and Moul 1992; Marra and Ssali 1990; Neill and Lee 2001), farm size (Shortle and Miranowski 1986; Clay et al. 1998; Agbamu 1995), erodible soils (Uri 1997; Soule et al. 2000; Pautsch et al. 2001), land tenure (Neill and Lee 1999; Fuglie 1999; Nowak 1987), and wealth (Somda et al. 2002; Swinton 2000; Smit and Smithers 1992), though these authors came to differing conclusions about the positive, negative, or absent correlation between these factors and adoption. Knowler and Bradshaw (2007), in their widely cited review of global conser-vation adoption literature, determined that few or none of these variables consistently accounted for adoption across the litera-ture and noted gender as significant in only one study with no further comment. While Prokopy et al. (2008) pointed to a number of factors that positively correlated to conserva-tion adoption in their United States-specific review of conservation adoption literature, they suggested only that these factors serve as good starting points for outreach in the absence of locally specific knowledge and emphasized the importance of local social networks and locally tailored conservation outreach. (Indeed, Eells and Adcock [2012] suggest that local social networks or “peer-to-peer learning models” may be especially relevant for female landowners. See also Trauger et al. [2010]) However, Prokopy et al. (2008) cited only one study that showed gender as a significant variable, with male gender positively correlating with adoption. Prokopy et al.’s (2008) conclusion echoed that of Knowler and Bradshaw (2007): both articles insisted on the difficulty of settling on consistent variables and suggested that agricultural conservation efforts should be attentive to local conditions and concerns.Though solutions need to be place specific, women are going to be central to them, due to increasing rates of female operatorship and landownership as women outlive their male spouses and male siblings to inherit increas-ingly larger farms (Duffy 2011; Eastwood et al. 2010). Women operators are a largely understudied population. The last year that the Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll (known as the Farm Poll) reported the gender break-down of respondents was 2008, at which point only 8% of the survey participants were women (Arbuckle et al. 2008). The second understudied axis of our research is that of landowners. In a recent topical report of the Farm Poll, Arbuckle (2010) noted, “Given the prevalence of rented land in Iowa agri-culture, surprisingly little is known about the people who own that land and what impacts nonoperator landownership might have on farmers, rural communities, and the environ-ment.” Landowners are an important group to understand because they are involved in one-time decision making about the instal-lation of structural practices and multiyear decisions such as the planting of perennial crops or land set aside. This involvement is likely not on the wane since increases in crop prices in recent years have increased cash rents and decreased the attractiveness of long-term leases (Kauffman 2012), so landowners have more incentives to actively manage their land. Further, there is evidence from the Farm Poll that landowners’ connec-tions to farming decisions on their land are still strong—at least in Iowa (Arbuckle 2010). As our study attends to male and female landowners and operators in a watershed in the heart of the Corn Belt, the most produc-tive commodity region in the United States, our results illustrate some of the issues that outreach and extension will have to address in this critical region (figure 1). Materials and Methods Study Site.  Our research is based in the Clear Creek Watershed, the 26,300 ha (65,000 ac) watershed in eastern Iowa’s Johnson and Iowa counties fed by the 40 km (25 mi) long Clear Creek (figure 1). Land use in the Clear Creek Watershed in 2009 (fig-ure 2) reflected a more diverse landscape than Iowa as a whole. Twenty-nine percent of the area was planted in corn ( Zea mays  L.), and 22% in soybeans ( Glycine max  L.), while pasture, grasslands, and alfalfa ( Medicago sativa ) took up about 27% of the watershed (over one-sixth of which was enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program). Urban areas and other impervious surfaces, such as roads, took up about 14% of the land. By contrast, almost 35% of land statewide was  C o p yr  i   g h  t   ©2  0 1 4  S  o i   l   a n d  W a t   er  C o n s  er  v a t   i   o n S  o c i   e t   y .A  l   l  r  i   g h  t   s r  e s  er  v e d  .   w w w . s  w c  s  . or  g  6  9  (  2  )   :  9  5 -1  0  6   J  o ur  n a l   o f   S  o i   l   a n d  W a t   er  C o n s  er  v a t   i   o n  97 MARCH/APRIL 2014—VOL. 69, NO. 2JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION used for growing corn and 22% for soybeans, while less than 21% was in pasture, alfalfa, or grasses, and less than 9% was urban areas and impervious surfaces (USDA NASS 2010). The watershed’s more mixed land use reflects its proximity to Iowa City and the fact that the land in the watershed is not as fertile as the land in North-Central Iowa. The higher average slope in the watershed is the rea-son why, according to Iowa Department of Natural Resources’s estimates, most of the watershed does not need to be tiled (Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2008), though anecdotal evidence from J. Schnoor (personal communication, 2010) suggests tiling is present throughout the study area. The main rotations in the watershed are corn–soybean and corn–corn–soybean with a combination of no-till and mulch-tillage. For cow-calf operations in the watershed, the predominant rotation is corn/corn/oats followed by two or three years of meadow. According to J. Martin, (personal commu-nication, February 15, 2012) most of the farmers plow the meadow the year it goes into corn, with some minimum till following row-crop years. According to the most recent data available (Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2012), in 2012 there were four active animal feeding operations, one inactive one, and an open feedlot in the watershed (figure 2). None of the operations was big enough to require a permit. The 2007 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) document reported that the watershed housed 5,945 beef cattle and 8,350 hogs. These numbers were estimated using 2002 county-level cen-sus data and are likely not very precise (Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2007). Since the watershed has such a mixed land use and likely has substantial areas that are not tiled, there is a wide range of potentially effective conservation practices including conservation tillage, manure management, riparian buffers, and land set aside.In the late 1990s, concerns about pollu-tion in Clear Creek prompted the Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District to name the creek a priority water-shed; the formation of a citizen-based watershed group, the Clear Creek Watershed Enhancement Project (CCWEP), followed in 2000. Clear Creek Watershed Enhancement Project, a group that includes private, busi-ness, and governmental stakeholders, as well as conservation staff from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Figure 1 Map of the Clear Creek Watershed and its position in the Corn Belt. Figure 2 Map of land use in Clear Creek Watershed in 2009. Legend CornSoybeansPasture grass/alfalfaForestUrban/roadsWater WetlandsClear CreekIncorporated citiesConfinementOpen feedlot LivestockLand use in 2009 10 0 10 20 km Iowa CountyJohnson County North LibertyCoralvilleIowa City Legend 100 to 25,90025,901 to 66,50066,501 to 121,600121,601 to 196,000196,001 to 365,500Clear Creek Watershed 0 500 1,000 1,500 km0 50 100 km200 0 200 400 km Harvested corn acres for 2011  C o p yr  i   g h  t   ©2  0 1 4  S  o i   l   a n d  W a t   er  C o n s  er  v a t   i   o n S  o c i   e t   y .A  l   l  r  i   g h  t   s r  e s  er  v e d  .   w w w . s  w c  s  . or  g  6  9  (  2  )   :  9  5 -1  0  6   J  o ur  n a l   o f   S  o i   l   a n d  W a t   er  C o n s  er  v a t   i   o n  98 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONMARCH/APRIL 2014—VOL. 69, NO. 2 the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, and the Johnson and Iowa County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, formed to address high bacteria levels, sedimentation, and elevated nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) levels in Clear Creek. Since 2000, CCWEP has worked to spread awareness about conservation practices to remedy pollution and secure additional funding for conservation, while a statewide volunteer water monitoring group called IOWATER conducted water quality snapshots along the creek.In 2004, an IOWATER volunteer tracked the headwaters of Clear Creek and discovered that the small, unsewered, and unincorpo-rated town of Conroy, Iowa was leaching human waste into the drain tiles that fed the headwaters of the creek. This was the starting point for the inclusion of Clear Creek on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 303(d) Impaired Waters list, which made Clear Creek eligible for US$1.5 million in federal grants for reme-diation efforts (Soenen 2008). The TMDL document produced because of the listing process identified the main sources of pol-lution as failing septic systems and livestock from direct effects such as cattle in the streams and indirect effects such as inappropriate manure applications (Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2007). As a result, the community of Conroy inaugurated its sew-age treatment lagoon in summer 2009, and some farmers in the watershed obtained Clean Water Act 319 funds to install conser-vation practices such as water and sediment control basins, grade stabilization structures, grassed waterways, filter strips, contour buf-fers, conservation cover, no-till planting, and fencing for livestock (USEPA 2012). Due to these actions, Clear Creek was removed from the Impaired Waters list in 2010.Despite the Creek’s delisting, pollution remains a problem (Bannow 2013), along with the important reality that the creek flows directly into the Iowa River, a USEPA Impaired Waterway. Despite the early and intense focus on elevated bacteria levels from septics in Clear Creek, the more persistent threat comes from the cumulative impacts of several sources: livestock damage to the creek banks, fecal contamination from manure, run-off from fertilizers and pesticides, and high rates of sheet and rill erosion in the watershed (Bannow 2013; USDA NRCS 2012). Survey Design and Distribution.  Our survey was conducted in 2010 with a dual purpose. The first was to assess the current state of conservation knowledge and attitudes in the watershed to help map out future pro-grams, and the second was to assess potential production scenarios in the watershed, with a particular focus on biofuel production. The first eight questions of the survey were demographic questions about factors like gender, age, income, and education. Question nine (Q.9) asked about knowledge of water quality issues in the watershed. Questions 10 through 13 asked about attitudes towards and knowledge of watershed conservation more generally, while Q.14 asked about preferred sources of information on conservation issues. The remaining survey questions (not analyzed for this study) related to willingness to adopt on-farm conservation practices and knowledge of biofuel production processes. The research presented here is drawn from the subset of questions about conservation knowledge and attitudes.The survey was conducted by mail. The watershed coordinator compiled the data for the mailing list from the watershed’s two counties and from multiple government offices. For Johnson County, landowners from the cities of Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, and Oxford were removed from the full county geographic information sys-tem (GIS) parcel data in order to exclude urban landowners from the survey. Names on a hard copy list of agricultural landown-ers and renters from the Johnson County Farm Service Administration (FSA) office were then cross-referenced with the FSA common land unit GIS layer for the water-shed. For Iowa County, a list of tract/farm numbers in the watershed was provided to the Iowa County FSA using the common land unit GIS layer. Based on that list of tract/farm numbers, the Iowa County FSA office provided a hard copy list of the asso-ciated owners and operators for each tract/farm. Hard copies were then typed into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which was used to create mailing labels.In April of 2010, the survey was mailed to all 998 nonurban landowners and agricul-tural operators in the Clear Creek Watershed. Two reminder mailings were sent out over the coming weeks, and, finally, a second sur-vey was mailed to nonresponders. Budgetary restrictions limited any additional mail-ings. Respondents received a US$30 check as compensation for their time and were entered into a raffle drawing for two US$20 value trees and one US$50 plant sale gift certificate. Thirty-one of the surveys were returned as undeliverable. Of the 967 sur-veys that were delivered, 397 were at least partially completed for a response rate of 41.1%. Three hundred ninety-two (repre-senting 225 males and 167 females) of those 397 surveys (40.5% of the delivered surveys) contained enough demographic information to analyze. The project was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the investiga-tors’ universities. Characteristics of the entire population being sampled were not available; therefore testing for nonresponse bias was not possible. However, the characteristics of our respondents are consistent with those of the statewide population included in the statewide Farmland Ownership and Tenure (FOT) survey that Iowa State University conducts every five years. Forty-two percent of survey respondents were women, and the average age was 62 years for the men and 59 years for the women. In the last available FOT report, women owned 47% of land statewide. Age-wise, direct comparisons are not possible, since the FOT does not report averages, but in 2007, 61% of the land owned by women was owned by those over 65 years, and 51% of the land owned by men was owned by men over 65 years. Overall, 55% of Iowa farmland was owned by people over the age of 65 (Duffy and Smith 2008). Survey Analysis.  We analyzed questions related to respondents’ views about conser-vation, knowledge about best management practices, collaboration for watershed-based conservation, issues that matter most to the future of agriculture in Iowa, and sources of information about conservation (table 1). Using SPSS software, we calculated Independent Samples t  -tests and Spearman rank correlation coefficients for the Likert-based questions (Clason and Dormody 1994). Preliminary F-tests for the equality of variances were conducted to determine whether to perform t  -tests assuming equal or different variances.The survey opened with 8 demographic questions. Question 9 asked respondents how knowledgeable they were about the water quality issues facing the Clear Creek Watershed. Broad knowledge and attitudes about conservation and responsibilities for its implementation were the focus of 10 subquestions in Q.10, set up as a five-point  C o p yr  i   g h  t   ©2  0 1 4  S  o i   l   a n d  W a t   er  C o n s  er  v a t   i   o n S  o c i   e t   y .A  l   l  r  i   g h  t   s r  e s  er  v e d  .   w w w . s  w c  s  . or  g  6  9  (  2  )   :  9  5 -1  0  6   J  o ur  n a l   o f   S  o i   l   a n d  W a t   er  C o n s  er  v a t   i   o n  99 MARCH/APRIL 2014—VOL. 69, NO. 2JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION Likert scale where respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or dis-agreement with a series of statements. The issues of collaboration and responsibility for the implementation of conservation prac-tices were also at the core of Q.11, which asked respondents to indicate who should be responsible for soil and water conservation in the watershed. Knowledge about specific conservation practices and activities was the focus of Q.12, which asked respondents to indicate how effective the respondents felt specific practices would be in improving water quality in the watershed. Outlook towards the future was the focus of 8 sub-questions in Q.13, which asked respondents how important they thought a variety of issues were for the future of Iowa’s agricul-ture using a five-point Likert scale. Sources of conservation information were the focus of Q.14. Results and Discussion Female and male respondents had statistically significant differing responses for a variety of questions related to broad conservation knowledge and attitudes, collaboration for conservation, knowledge of specific conserva-tion practices, and outlook towards the future of agriculture. They had similar responses to questions about local water quality issues and sources of conservation information. Women and Men Both Reported a Similar Lack of Knowledge about Water Quality Issues in the Clear Creek Watershed (Table 2).  Question 9 asked respondents, “On a scale of 1 to 5 how knowledgeable are you about the water quality issues facing the Clear Creek Watershed?” where one indi-cated “not at all knowledgeable” and five indicated “very knowledgeable.” We hypoth-esized that male respondents would have more knowledge about local water quality issues than female respondents, but this was not the case. Both men and women indicated that they were closer to “not at all knowl-edgeable” than “very knowledgeable” on a five-point scale (men = 2.30, women = 2.24,  p  = 0.429), with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Women Reported Knowing Less about Conservation Than Their Male Counterparts and Were Less Likely to Think of Themselves as Agricultural Stewards (Table 2).  Question 10 used a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree) to ask respondents to indi-cate their level of agreement or disagreement with several statements. The first was (Q.10a) “I know what steps to take to conserve soil and water on my land.” Because we thought that men would have more concrete knowl-edge about conservation practices than women and would be more confident about their conservation knowledge, we hypothe-sized that women would report a statistically significant lower mean than men, and this was the case (women = 3.68, men = 3.93,  p  = 0.002). Question 10i asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagree-ment with the statement, “I consider myself a steward of the land.” Because we thought that women would be less confident about their conservation knowledge and see them-selves as less empowered, we hypothesized that women would report a statistically sig-nificant lower mean than men, and this was the case at 10% significance (women = 4.01, men = 4.14,  p  = 0.076). Women Reported Being More Concerned about Soil and Water Conservation Than Their Male Counterparts (Table 2).  Question 10c asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the state-ment, “I think soil and water conservation are important,” while Q.10e asked respondents to consider the statement, “I think water contam-ination (from fertilizers, sediments, and septics) is an important environmental problem in our watershed.” Because we thought that women would be more conservation-minded than their male counterparts, we hypothesized that women would report statistically significant higher means than men, and this was the case at 10% significance for both subquestions (Q.10c women = 4.49, men = 4.38,  p  = 0.097; Q.10e women = 3.80, men = 3.63,  p  = 0.069). Women Were More Likely to Value Collaboration for Conservation (Table 2). While there was not a statistically signifi-cant difference between female and male respondents for the statement in Q.10g, “I think farmers and other watershed res-idents should work together to protect our watershed,” both respondent groups more than agreed with this statement (women = 4.19, men = 4.09,  p  = 0.132). Question 10h asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the state-ment, “I think farmers and conservation agency staff should work together to pro-tect our watershed.” We hypothesized that women would report a statistically signifi-cant higher mean than men, and this was the case at 10% significance (women = 4.17, men = 4.00,  p  = 0.053). Women Were More Likely Than Men to Encourage Public-Private Collaboration  for Conservation (Table 2).  Question 11 asked, “Who should be responsible for soil and water conservation? (Check all that apply.)” Possible answers were landowners, government conservation staff, farm man-agers, Clear Creek Watershed Board, renters, and specified others. In Q.11, many respon-dents indicated that private actors including landowners, farm managers, and renters (or a subset of these) should be responsible for conservation, while other respondents indi-cated that a subset of or all private actors should be responsible along with a subset of or all public actors (government conser-vation staff and the Clear Creek Watershed Board). Based on these themes, we created a “private only” variable and a “public-private” variable, groupings that successfully captured 96% of female respondents and 96% of male respondents. We hypothesized that women would be more likely than men to encour-age public-private collaboration, and this was the case. When we analyzed the responses for the “private only” variable, we found a statistically significant difference (  p  = 0.003) between women and men. Twenty-seven percent of women and 41% of men indicated that private parties (without the assistance of public entities) should be solely responsible for soil and water conservation in the water-shed. When we analyzed the responses for the “public-private” variable, we again found a statistically significant difference (  p  = 0.006) between women and men. Sixty-nine per-cent of women and 56% of men responded that private and public parties should both be responsible for soil and water conservation in the watershed. Women Thought Specific Conservation Practices Were Less Effective Than Men Did (Table 2).  Question 12 asked respondents about the effectiveness of specific practices in improving water quality in the watershed. The question was set up as a three-point Likert scale (1 = not at all effective, 2 = somewhat effective, and 3 = very effective). Respondents were given the additional option 0 = unsure. Because we anticipated that respondents might offer a low rating of a specific conservation practice based on the needs of their particular land holdings or farming operations, we asked respon-dents about each practice’s effectiveness for  C o p yr  i   g h  t   ©2  0 1 4  S  o i   l   a n d  W a t   er  C o n s  er  v a t   i   o n S  o c i   e t   y .A  l   l  r  i   g h  t   s r  e s  er  v e d  .   w w w . s  w c  s  . or  g  6  9  (  2  )   :  9  5 -1  0  6   J  o ur  n a l   o f   S  o i   l   a n d  W a t   er  C o n s  er  v a t   i   o n
Search
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x