1. Findings of MGSP 2008 Survey Center for Economic Analysis Michigan State University 12 November 2008

2. Two New Objectives for the 2008 MGSP Survey 1.Assess barriers to adoption stewardship practices 2.Evaluate the factors that contribute to participating in the MGSP

3. Sampling Frame 2400 surveys were mailed out –1200 farm residents –800 rural residents –400 urban residents Response Rates –36.6% farm residents –40.4% non-farm residents

4. Groundwater Knowledge Scores (2000-2008)

5. Perceptions of Land-Use Risks on Groundwater 2008

6. Trends in Land-Use Risk Perceptions (1996-2008)

7. Policy Implications Residents do not perceive the risk to their property –Not in my neighborhood mentality –Individuals are much more likely to act if the risk is real and if they will likely be impacted Is this an education issue? Should the MGSP message be directed at real and local risks?

8. Farm Participation in USDA Programs NOTE: NCRS is National Resources Conservation Service 2008

9. Farmers’ Participation in Assessment Systems 2008

10. Positive Stewardship Behaviors by Program Participation (Overall Percent Responding “Yes”: 2008)

11. Farm Management Practices NOTE: FAS is Farm Assessment System 2008

12. Policy Implications It is easier to sell program participation to larger farms Larger farms are more likely to adopt stewardship practices –Should efforts be directed at the opportunities with the least resistance? –Will concentration of efforts on large farms yield more impact?

14. Policy Implications Farm community is realizing that their actions have potential consequences Realization is the first step toward changing behaviors –The MGSP educational efforts may have taken hold –Now that farm managers recognize the issue, they will be more open to addressing it

15. Sources of Groundwater Stewardship Information 2008

16. Policy Implications Respondents consistently listed three primary sources of information about the MGSP. –Are these three venues the dominate venues used by MGSP? –Are efforts being put into a venue that is disproportionate with the venues respondents selected?

17. Motivating Factors for Participating in a Risk Assessment Systems 2008 NOTE: Includes Farm*A*Syst, Crop*A*Syst and Greenhouse*A*Syst programs

18. Policy Implications Responses tend to indicate that those that participate in risk assessment programs are participating for a known reason Cost-share incentives do not generally produce long-term impacts on behavior –Addressing known issues is a way to get into the door –Look toward educating farm managers on the long-term economic benefits of stewardship practices

19. Barriers to participation in Assessment Systems 2008

20. Barriers to MAEAP by Non- Participating Farmers 2008

21. Policy Implications Lack of awareness was the largest contributing factor to not participating in a risk assessment program Lack of time and interest is the flip-side of lack of benefits for MAEAP participation The general consensus is that most farms have been exposed to MGSP programs –While most farms may have heard about the MGSP, do they know what these programs provide, how to participate, and what to expect from participating?

22. Groundwater Stewardship Participation Decision Participation in MGSP is positively influenced by –Familiarity with MAEAP –Farm Acreage –Groundwater knowledge Participation in MGSP is negatively influenced –Age –Having a livestock operation

23. Policy Implications Increasing groundwater knowledge and awareness of risk in immediate locality will boost participation in groundwater stewardship programs Directing MGSP messages to younger farmers will be more productive –Will farm viability messages have similar influence on older farmers?

24. Parting Thoughts Is the question of what can be done to protect groundwater too daunting for farmers? Should efforts be directed to a broader audience addressing what actions can be taken? (those not in assessment) What message is being delivered to Michigan farmers? Is it too complex to understand? Now that farmers recognize the threat of their operations, MGSP may want to emphasis methods to mitigate threats. Look toward building community awareness to further leverage awareness.

25. Parting Thoughts, Cont’d Known issues resulting in participation in programs are the conduit to building antecedent awareness that is consistent with long-term behavior change. Experiential learning makes a greater impression on students. Create education kits. Consider adopting the MGSP message to the life-stage of the farm manager. –Succession issues are much different than long-term viability issues

26. Discussions