PB83-111013
RECOGNIZING FARMERS' ATTITUDES AND IMPLEMENTING
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL POLICIES
W. D. Seitz, et al
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
NTS

-------
U.S. liir.ironme'ital Prc!?cion Agency
•	^ on ]! l Information Resource
•	-i-f (.-PM52)
i - C-^uut Street
PA 19107 .
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO 2.
EPA-600/5-82-004 ORD Report
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
OQS 7 1110 13
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Recognizing Farmers' Attitudes and Implementing
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Policies
5. REPORT D/TTE
June 1982
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
W.D. Seitz, D.M. Gardner and J.C. van Es
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana IL 61801
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
CARB1A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2597
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory—Athens GA
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Athens GA 30613
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, 9/77-8/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/01
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report examines the role of farmer attitudes and corresponding communi-
cation activities in the implementation of nonpoint source water pollution control
programs. The report begins with an examination of the basis for and function of
attitudes in influencing behavior. The role of the process of communication in
changing attitudes and influencing behavior is examined in considerable detail. The
appropriate uses of interpersonal and mass communications in the implementation of
public programs aimed at farmers is indicated.
The report also includes a discussion of several means of improving implemen-
tation procedures. These include incentive programs, modified ditizen participation
procedures, and a comprehensive communication program. The report is based on a
review of the available literture on attitudes, communication processes, citizen
participation, and participation in other federal programs.
17.	KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group



13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
40
20. $RC®BAS€CLASS (This page)
ITNfT. A^ST'FT'Rn
22. PRICE

-------
£3^0, _	PB83-111013
EPA-600/5-82-004
boo-	• June 1982
t5-
1	RECOGNIZING FARMERS ATTITUDES AND IMPLEMENTING
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL POLICIES
by
W. D. Seitz
D. M. Gardner
J. C. van Es
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois 61801
£
cV
^	Contract Number 68-03-2597
Project Officer
Thomas E. Waddell
Technology Development and Applications Branch
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia 30613
REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIELD. VA 22161
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30613
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemicai Libraries
EPA West Bidg Room 3340	r ~ ' . • fV""Y'! s!
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW	v ; r v
Washington DC 20004	.i
202^566-0553

-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
ii

-------
FOREWORD
As environmental controls become more costly to implement and the
penalties of judgment errors become more severe, environmental quality
management requires more efficient management tools based on greater know-
ledge of the environmental phenomena to be managed. As part of this
Laboratory's research on the occurrence, movement, transformation, impact
and control of environmental contaminants, the Technology Development and
Applications Branch develops management and engineering tools to help
pollution control officials achieve water quality goals through watershed
management.
Agricultural sources contribute significantly to water pollution
problems in many areas of the United States. This report describes part
of a 2-year study in which the social, economic, legal and institutional
issues involved in the management and control of pollutants from agricultural
nonpoint sources were examined.
David W. Duttweiler
Director
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia
iii

-------
ABSTRACT
This report examines the role of farmer attitudes and corresponding
communication activities in the implementation of nonpoint source water
pollution control programs. The report begins with an examination of the
basis for and function of attitudes in influencing bahavior. The role of
the process of communication in changing attitudes and influencing behavior
is examined in considerable detail. The appropriate uses of interpersonal
and mass communications in the implementation of public programs aimed at
farmers is indicated.
The report also includes a discussion of several means of improving
implementation procedures. These include incentive programs, modified citi-
zen participation procedures, and a comprehensive communication program.
The report is based on a review of the available literature on attitudes,
communication processes, citizen participation, and participation in other
federal programs.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-
2597 by the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign. The work was conducted with the cooperation of the
Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station and College of Commerce. This
report covers the period September 1977 to August 1979.
iv

-------
CONTENTS
1.	Introduction 		1
2.	Attitudes		2
Structural Foundation of Attitude 		3
Functions of Attitude 		3
Importance of Attitude 		3
Involvement 		4
3.	Communication 		4
Interpersonal Communication 		5
Mass Communication 		5
The Communicator 		7
The Message		7
The Channel		8
The Audience		9
Summary 		9
Barriers to Communication 		10
Selective Exposure 		10
Selective Attention 		10
Selective Comprehension 		10
Selective Retention 		11
Other Problems	11
Summary	11
4.	Implications for Policy Implementation 	
The Information System 		12
The Role of Communication	14
Misunderstanding ..... 		14
Increased Administrative Costs 		14
Press and Public Negative Reaction 		14
Failure to Include the Commercial Sector in Plans 		14
Contribution of Involvement to Attitude Change 		15
Financial Incentives 		16
Regulatory Activity 		17
Citizen Participation			19
5.	Bureaucratic Communication 		23
v

-------
CONTENTS (cont.)
6. Some Suggestions for Implementation		25
Educational Program 		25
Restructuring Agency-Citizen Interaction 		26
Farmer Incentives 		27
Target Dates 		27
References		28
FIGURES
1.	Interpersonal communication 	 6
2.	Mass communication	6
3.	The information system	13
4.	The dynamics of official-client communication ....	24A
vi

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to express our appreciation to Mr. Donald Buesching, Mr. John
Wong, and Mr. James Cox for their assistance in conducting this research.
We also wish to recognize the support of the Agriculture Experiment Station
at the University of Illinois.
vii

-------
Section 1. INTRODUCTION
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution can derive from a number of human acti-
vities such as mining, construction, and cropping. Our concern in this re-
port will be that portion of NPS pollution attributable to agriculture.
Furthermore, while we recognize that agriculture contributes a number of
pollutants such as pesticides and plant nutrients, our frame of reference
will be sheet and rill erosion from cropland, and its implication for in-
stream water quality.
Recent estimates point to sedimentation, and particularly sedimentation
from agriculture, as an important contributor to NPS pollution. By volume,
sediment ranks as the greatest water pollutant and 50 percent of the sedi-
ment deposited in streams and lakes comes from cropland (GAO, 1977). In
Illinois, sheet and rill erosion from cropland accounts for 120.3 million
of the State's annual erosion total of 181.4 million tons (Illinois Agricul-
ture Task Force, 1978). Finally, since other major agricultural pollutants
such as pesticides and plant nutrients may move with soil particles, the
adoption of erosion control would generally alleviate other water quality
problems.
Introducing remedial policies into agriculture has proved to be quite
complex. Because farmers are the principal decision makers regarding on-
the-farm activities, the success of most programs, whether voluntary or man-
datory, depends upon their participation. Voluntary participation is pre-
ferable in many respects because it maintains a farmer's control over his
affairs, allows for local decisions, and encourages adaptations to local
conditions.
Certain information is known about the nature of a voluntary compliance
system. The Cooperative Extension Service has an excellent record of
achieving change in agriculture through voluntary programs. Much of Exten-
sion's work, however, has focused on educational activities compatible with
the profit maximization efforts of most farmers. While much of the techno-
logy introduced to farmers in the past has helped them to increase their
productivity, pollution-control policies may require activities that are to
improve public welfare and yet may not be profitable to the farmer (Pampel
and van Es, 1977).
Policies that are based on mandatory participation can involve signifi-
cant interference with farm operations. However, the gravity of the NPS
problem and/or the necessity to bring critical acreage in an area under a
pollution-control program may lead policy makers to decide that mandatory
participation is called for. The drawbacks of mandatory programs, however,
are well known. They tend to be accompanied by cumbersome administrative
machinery that may be both costly and annoying to those
1

-------
affected by the regulations. Also, poor communications and misunderstandings
between the regulatory agency and those regulated are a familiar,part of
most scenarios. Mandatory regulations are usually created by a central
authority, frequently causing inequities and inefficiencies. Agriculture may
be particularly vulnerable to such inequities because its needs are more sen-
sitive to local conditions than in almost any other sphere in which activity
is regulated.
Farmers place a high value on exercising their autonomy in farm decision
making and on unrestricted property rights. Farmers have, however, accepted
regulatory activity interfering with their decision-making autonomy in such
areas as grading standards for farm products, milk-marketing orders, and many
public-health regulations. While they have not necessarily cherished these
regulations, there is little evidence that noncompliance has been widespread
once the regulations have been introduced, probably because the farmers were
persuaded that the regulations were justified. Their attitude toward the
regulations, then, was important in securing their cooperation.
We will therefore begin this report with a discussion of attitudes—how
they are formulated and changed and how they influence behavior. We will
then examine the process of communication as it influences individuals' be-
havior by modifying what they know or how they feel. This section will be
developed in considerable detail because we believe that the proper use of
communication and educational programs will be crucial to the successful im-
plementation of NPS pollution-control programs. We will then examine
methods of achieving better implementation, such as the development of better
communication, incentive programs, and citizen participation.
Section 2
ATTITUDES
An attitude is a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently
favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object (Fishbein and
Ajzen, 1975). The formation of attitudes within an individual is a compli-
cated process. Krech, Crutchfield and Ballachey (1962) noted that as indi-
viduals develop, their knowledge, feelings, and action tendencies with re-
spect to the various subjects in their world become organized into enduring
systems called attitudes. For example, an individual will have an atti-
tude toward a local government that may be different from his attitude to-
ward the federal government. These attitudes can generate different sets of
behavior toward the two governing bodies. If we want to change that beha-
vior, often we should start by changing his attitudes. In addition, there
is a growing volume of data supporting the viewpoint that a knowledge of
attitudes can also be used to predict behavior. Therefore, to better under-
stand the nature of attitudes and how they may be changed, it is important
to consider the structural foundation of attitudes, the functions they serve,
and their importance to the individual. In this report we will also use the
term value, which reflects, in general, a cluster of attitudes that may, for
example, be expressed by placing a high value on the feeedom to make farming
decisions.
2

-------
Structural Foundation of Attitude
Attitudes are generally specified in terms of their three parts: know-
ledge (cognitive), feeling (affective), and action tendency, which are seen
as interdependent. The cognitive component refers to the beliefs the indi-
vidual holds about a subject such as a physical object, an institution, or a
governmental policy, e.g., chisel plows, the Soil Conservation Service, and
the Rural Environmental Assistance Program. It includes the knowledge and
evaluative beliefs that attribute qualities to the subject such as good or
bad, favorable or unfavorable. The affective component refers to the indi-
vidual's feelings concerning the subject, such as like or dislike, pleasure
or displeasure. Action tendency refers to the individual's readiness to
behave overtly toward the subject.
One attitude generally does not exist in isolation from other attitudes.
Attitude components tend to cluster and form the person's total attitude/
value system. For example, a farmer may have a favorable attitude about
soil conservation as well as an unfavorable attitude toward the government.
When the government tries to establish rules to regulate soil erosion, the
farmer may not react favorably because of various components within his
attitudinal structure as well as his combination of attitudes.
Functions of Attitude
An attitude also serves an individual's needs. That is to say, an
attitude can help an individual reach his desired goal, protect his ego,
give positive expression to his self-concept, and provide structure and stan-
dards through which he acquires knowledge. Through these functions and by
holding certain attitudes, a farmer can maintain self-esteem, express views,
or organize additional knowledge concerning farm practice in the community.
Importance of Attitude
Although the individual may hold attitudes on several topics, not all
of these attitudes are important (have general salience). The importance
(specific salience) of an attitude will vary with circumstances. The sali-
ence of an attitude is an important variable in Rokeach's (1968) model of
attitude change. He defines attitudes as an organization of beliefs. He
hypothesizes the structure of an individual belief system as follows:
1.	Not all beliefs are equally important to the individual. They vary
along a central-peripheral dimension and are functionally distinct.
2.	The more central a belief, the more it will resist change.
3.	Change in central beliefs will produce greater changes in the
less-central beliefs.
He also distinguishes between attitude toward subjects and attitude
toward situations. To say that an individual has an attitude toward a parti-
cular subject does not mean that this attitude will be activated across all
situations. Thus, having a generally liberal attitude toward civil rights,
3

-------
for example, does not necessarily activate liberal behavior concerning inte-
grated housing or integrated schools. Having a negative attitude toward the
federal government does not necessarily preclude participation in all govern-
ment programs.
The knowledge aspect of attitude formation is discussed elsewhere in
this report. Stated somewhat differently, attitude change can best be
desdribed as an information processing model; information about an object or
issue or about one's self leads to the formation of beliefs or attitudes.
Attitude change is thus concerned with new information about an object or
about one's own belief, attitudes, intentions, or behaviors with respect to
that object. Both types of information may be gained through direct obser-
vation or through some communication process. This input of information
will shape the individual's attitude, belief, intention, and behavior.
Involvement
The way in which communication achieves change in behavior and/or atti-
tudes depends upon the level of the individual's involvement. When an indi-
vidual is highly attentive to or involved with a subject, usually because of its
importance to him, it is believed that behavioral change occurs through
learning-attitude modification. Krugman (1965), however, developed an alter-
native hierarchy for low-involvement situations. He discussed the effect of
television advertising and noted that because the audience was not involved
with the advertising and had low perceptual defense to it, most of what was
learned was soon forgotten. Upon being exposed to the advertisement again,
however, the small amount of material retained from the first exposure was
reinforced and a higher level of retention resulted, even after forgetting.
Each increment is small in absolute terms, but after repeated exposure, the
communicator may induce changes in the cognitive structure. These changes,
in turn, increase the probability of the desired behavioral response, with
the possibility that attitude change will follow behavioral change. Thus,
the point of his work is that attitude change can follow behavior change.
For example, while farm efficiency ranks very high in the hierarchy of
farmer values, there is ample evidence to suggest that many other values are
also significant to them. Some of those values, such as being a good "stew-
ard of the soil" or a "responsible farmer" may be strengthened through re-
peated reinforcement. This could make farmer acceptance of nonprofitable
practices easier. Using nonprofitable farm practices may in turn further
reinforce the strength of those attitudes most compatible with NPS abate-
ment .
Section 3
COMMUNICATION
The body of knowledge generally referred to as communication theory,
which originated with the work of Shannon and Weaver (1949), has been trans-
formed from its narrow mathematical definition to a highly interdisciplinary
behaviorally-oriented field of research dealing with the processes of human
communication. Hovland (1948) states that communication is "the process by
4

-------
which an individual [the communicator] transmits the stimuli [usually verbal
symbols] to modify the behavior of other individuals [communicatees]." This
definition implies that communication occurs only when the message actually
gains the farmer's attention. If the farmer ignores it, there has been no
communication. In terms of human communication theory, the term communica-
tion can be defined as "a process by which senders and receivers of messages
interact in a given context" (Gerbner, 1967). This definition implies a
system of behavior, decoding and encoding activity, and linkage between the
communicator and communicatees.
Interpersonal Communication
The general model of interpersonal (face-to-face) communication shown
in Figure 1 is a composite of many models and theories that have appeared in
the communication literature (see Engel, Wales, and Warshaw, 1975, p. 21).
The nature of interpersonal communication can be illustrated by an analysis
of an exchange between two farmers. Assume that farmers A and B are con-
versing. Farmer A has something in mind that he wants to present to B. He
selects certain words that he arranges in a pattern or sequence to be ready
for transmitting. This process is referred to as the communicator's encod-
ing activities. The encoded message is then transmitted through some form
of channel, such as the spoken word. Farmer B receives the message and
searches for meaning—the communicatee's encoding activity. The actual ef-
fect of the communication is determined by the manner in which the communi-
catee perceives the message. If the perceived content differs from the in-
tended content, the intended communication does not take place. This dis-
crepancy is the result of "noise" (e.g., such things as bias or misunder-
standing) in the message and channel. It can also result from a difference
in the attitudes of these two persons with regard to whatever is being com-
municated.
Mass Communication
Mass communication is somewhat similar to interpersonal communication.
A major difference between these two processes, however, is that with mass
communication (such as pesticide advertising) the message is transmitted to
a large group of individuals at roughly the same point in time (see Figure
2). Also, the communicator is an organization, and the audience consists of
an interconnected group of communicatees, each of whom may interact with
others about the content of the communication. Except in very limited ways,
however, the communicatees do not respond to the communicator (weak feedback).
An example of mass communication is the interaction between government agen-
cies and the public in the announcement of the provisions of a new farm
program.
Most mass-communication systems have a rather strict pattern of message
flow in which the messages are packaged in regularly published vehicles such
as newspapers, magazines, television, and/or radio. A member of the audi-
ence either receives or does not receive the vehicle. If he does not re-
ceive it, the message will not be seen or heard. Moreover, even if he does
receive it, there is only a conditional probability that he will be exposed
to that particular message. For example, only a certain percentage of the
5

-------
Figure 1. Interpersonal communication.*
Noise
Communicator
(organi zation)

Message
\
Channel
/
Receiver A

X
Receiver B
9
X
Receiver C
->
Receiver
D
X
Receiver
E
X
Recei ver
F
">


I
I
Feedback
Figure 2. Mass communication.**
*Engel, J. F.; Wales, H. G.; and Warshaw, M. R. 1975. Promotional Strategy, 3d ed. Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., p. 21.
**Ibid, p. 27.

-------
farm audience owning radios will hear a radio announcement of a new farm
program. This conditional probability is also related to the audience's
selective perception, attention, and retention. These characteristics will
be discussed in detail later in this section.
Like the interpersonal model, the mass communication model is also a
composite of many models and theories in the communication literature, but
the essence of the process has been generally agreed upon (see Engel, Wales,
and Warshaw, 1975, p. 27). The model has four components: the communicator,
the message, the channel, and the audience.
The Communicator
The communicator is usually an organization such as a commercial firm
or a government agency. The goal of the communicator is to educate or in-
form the audience about a particular topic or to persuade them to accept a
particular point of view. For example, a company has developed a new pro-
duct, such as a new herbicide. In announcing this new product, the company
will be the communicator.
To communicate effectively, the communicator must have source credi-
bility, which is defined by Hovland, Janis, and Kelly (1953) as consisting
of two components: 1) expertness, or the extent to which the source is con-
sidered capable of making valid assertions, and 2) trustworthiness, or the
extent of the communicatee's confidence that the source is actually making
valid assertions. Variations in source credibility will lead to differences
in communications impact. If the source is seen as being inept, or not
trustworthy, the impact of the message will be reduced. If the source is
seen as being expert and "having no axe to grind," then the message is more
likely to influence the communicatee. For example, if a farmer perceives
the Cooperative Extension Service as "knowing what they are talking about,"
he will be more likely to attend to and accept a communication from them,
all other things being equal. On the other hand, if he mistrusts a parti-
cular agency, a message from them may be seriously hindered in its desired
effect.
The Message
The message is the content or text of the communication. It can appear
in verbal or symbolic form through visual or print media. It is generally
more impersonal than the message transmitted through face-to-face channels
because it is directed to a group rather than to an identified individual.
Therefore, it is difficult to orient its content to achieve maximum impact
on a given person, and the content of the message itself must prove suit-
able for a target group.
The message is generally only part of a larger campaign theme that at-
tempts to communicate the most desirable meaning for its subject and to
arouse the individual's desire for it as well as to tell him how to satisfy
that desire. The communicator should focus on the communicatee's perception
of the message's meaning and design his subsequent messages accordingly. In
the case of a conservation program, the message would very likely attempt to
7

-------
generate in the communicatee a favorable reaction to the program being an-
nounced—a desire to participate in the program—and to indicate, how the
individual could take part. The message must be consistent with the desired
image of the subject and must attempt to build, refine, and extend it.
While there are several basic methods of designing a message, it is outside
the purpose of this report to examine them.
Tke Channel
The Channel is the vehicle or medium by which the communicator distri-
butes his message. It includes such media as radio, television, magazines,
newspapers, posters, films, books, and pamphlets. The disadvantage of mass
communication is that the contact between the communicator and the communi-
catee is not personal, and the feedback from the communication is therefore
weak, delayed, and sometimes unrepresentative. The main advantage is the
low cost of reaching a large number of receivers, and it is often the most
expedient way of reaching an audience.
Communication channels can be classified according to whether or not
the communicator can exercise direct control. Communicator-controlled chan-
nels include various types of advertising media and personal contact. Non-
communicator-controlled channels are the interpersonal (personal-influence)
communications between two or more people linked together in some informal
group. For example, information on pesticide performance is passed among
farmers without control by the communicator (manufacturer). The effective-
ness of communication channels will depend upon the following:
1.	How much attitude or behavior must change before the policy
can be adopted
2.	How new the policy concept is
3.	How much risk is perceived in adopting the policy
4.	The extent to which strongly held attitudes are affected
5.	Strength of group sanctions toward behavior concerning
this policy
Generally, interpersonal communication is more effective than any other
communication channel because of its personal nature. In addition, exposing
an individual to more than one channel may increase the likelihood of re-
sponse because of the cumulative effect achieved, so such channels should be
viewed as complementary rather than competing. Nevertheless, the fact is
that interpersonal communication is seldom effective alone. While powerful,
it is not under the communicator's control, and his efforts to influence it
will often be unpredictable and more costly than mass-communication channels
Rogers (1962) has concluded that the mass media are the most successful
in changing levels and types of knowledge, but if used alone, are unlikely
to result in substantial changes in strongly held attitudes or overt be-
havior. They are more likely to result in changes for less important
8

-------
products or issues (Krugman, 1965).. On the other hand, Rogers observes that
interpersonal communications are the most successful in achieving attitude
change. Thus, for the more strongly held attitudes it is often most appro-
priate to use a combination of various mass media and interpersonal channels.
Therefore, in the highly complex area of soil conservation, involving strong-
ly held attitudes, it will likely be necessary to use several channels.
As will be discussed later in this report, the mass-media user has to
contend with selective exposure, attention, and retention. While some of
these selective mechanisms are operative for interpersonal channels as well,
the message's adaptive ability in face-to-face channels makes it easier to
overcome them.
The Audience
The audience is the object of the communication even though its members
may not be known to the communicator. Members of the audience have no obli-
gation to pay attention to the communication, but each member is a unique
person who will selectively perceive the incoming message. Each has the
power to screen out unwanted communication through selective exposure, dis-
tortion, and retention processes. Unfortunately, the communicator may not
be aware of low levels of audience attention because of the inherent weak-
ness of feedback in mass communication.*
Communication with an audience is a social process, and this social
function can be significant. Individuals often interact with others within
or outside their group regarding the message content. Ideas and experiences
will be exchanged. If an individual perceives the group as reacting favor-
ably to the topic of communication, he is more likely to accept it. If the
group, however, is perceived as reacting unfavorably to the communication,
the power of the social group may dominate and influence the decision process
for an individual within the group. Thus, a farmer may favor a mandatory
soil-erosion-control policy but speak in opposition to it in order to con-
form to the attitudes of his group. It is also quite possible for farmers
who are using good conservation practices to oppose government programs,
especially if they are mandatory.
In this context, the individual farmer must be viewed as an information
processor. In this role, the farmer compares all the information he receives
with his existing beliefs and attitudes. The outcome of this judging pro-
cess determines whether a particular communication will be rejected, accept-
ed, distorted, or modified.
Summary
While the communicator, the message, the channel, and the audience are
the major components of the communication model generally used in communica-
tion literature, this model is only a framework of human communication
theory. The dynamics of communication and attitude change have been
*A recurrent theme in this report is that proper communication planning can
help offset this weakness.
9

-------
extensively explored by many researchers. Although it is not the purpose of
this report to examine their findings in detail, several of the general pro-
blems that would be encountered in developing an effective communication
strategy relative to NPS control programs will be discussed next.
Barriers to Communication
Selective Exposure
People cannot attend to all of the messages appearing on all of the
media. Since they cannot read all the magazines, watch all the television
programs, or listen to all the radio broadcasts, selective exposure to media
and to messages results. For example, while a farmer may read the Prairie
Farmer, it is likely that few urban dwellers do so. Also, if a person does
not read the New York Times, he will not be exposed to the stories, adver-
tisements, and features that are unique to that newspaper. It is even im-
possible for farmers to read all of the farm media, attend all extension
service programs, listen to all radio, and view all the television messages
aimed at them. Selective exposure can be partially overcome by being care-
ful to place messages in the media that are attended to by the desired
audience.
Selective Attention
Placing a message in the appropriate media used by the communicatees,
however, does not guarantee attention to the message. Even though exposed
to a communication, communicatees often ignore it because it appears to be
of low value to them or inconsistent with their existing attitudes. Engel,
Wales, and Warshaw (1975, pp. 62-65) list five factors that influence selec-
tive attention. The first is the influence of "need states"; e.g., if a
farmer observes several gullies on his farm he will be more attentive to
conservation messages. Second is the influence of "perceptual defense."
People avoid, if possible, communications that are threatening or are of low
value. Third, people pay more attention to words or communications that
represent values or needs important to them. Fourth, people also behave in
a way consistent with their perception of "who they are." They therefore
avoid communications that are not consistent with their currently existing
set of attitudes. Young farmers, for example, may show little concern for
retirement and estate planning. Finally, some communications are ignored
out of "boredom." People think that they already know what the communica-
tion is about and therefore do not attend to it, even though it may contain
new information. The long history of attention to soil conservation may
make this a relevant problem.
Successful communicators are constantly looking for ways to overcome
selective attention. They use a wide variety of attention-getting devices
in addition to novelty and surprise.
Selective Comprehension
Attention does not guarantee that the meaning desired by the communica-
tor will be the meaning assigned by the communicatee or that the message will
10

-------
result in the desired action. The, assigned meaning or action resulting from
a received communication is often distorted by the communicatee to make it
consistent with his existing attitudes. This distortion is reflected in the
popular phrase "you hear what you want to hear." The communicatee, in es-
sence, makes the communication fit his or her attitude structure rather than
changing the attitude structure to fit the communication. The person who
does not believe reduced tillage is appropriate for his farming operation
may believe that the possibility of weed problems on some occasions is an
adequate indication that the technique is not acceptable even if the thrust
of the message indicates that it will work well.
Selective Retention
People do not remember all they hear. Certain stimuli of a message
will be remembered if they are essential to the individual's need-value
system. Most communication messages, however, will be forgotten unless re-
inforced by follow-up communication. The laboratory experiment by Hovland,
Janis, and Kelly (1953) shows that following exposure to messages some 50
percent of the material may be remembered in the very short run (a day or
two), but retention tends to stabilize at about 30 percent after a period
of up to another 100 days.
Other Problems
Even assuming that the message gains exposure, perception, and reten-
tion, a person's response is by no means automatic. People are active
agents in information seeking and decision making, and respond to communica-
tions in line with their particular needs, interests, motivations, and
overall attributes.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the communication process seldom
is limited to a single communication event. The communicator must be con-
cerned with a campaign's overall effect over time. Thus, the communication
system should be seen as an ongoing process with information being intro-
duced continually from the environment. Any one event taking place within
the communication system has a low probability of resulting in an antici-
pated outcome, but the communication event may take the audience member fur-
ther along the compliance decision process if it is properly directed at the
intended audience segment. This suggests that a single extension meeting,
flyer, or television "spot," should not be expected to result in a change in
behavior.
Summary
Within the context of the communication models just presented, we must
recognize that each farmer brings not a blank mind, but a set of attitudes,
values, and beliefs that represent who he is: a product of his background
and experiences. These antecedents interact with the communication channels,
and the result of this interaction is behavior on the part of the farmer who
has been exposed to a communication. Some of these antecedents, channels,
and behaviors are listed in Figure 3.
11

-------
Specific attention must be given to the characteristics of the farmers
with whom we hope to communicate. ' In particular, attention should be given
1)	to their attitudes as they may affect their response to a communication,
2)	the role of farmer involvement with the issue that is the focus of a com-
munication, and 3) hindrances to effective communication. Without a modest
level of understanding of these topics, efficient communication will be much
more difficult to achieve. The implications of the information system (Fig.
3)	for policy implementation will be discussed in the next section.
Section 4
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Based on the background understanding of attitudes, values, and commun-
ication presented above, we now turn to their implications for policy imple-
mentation. In this discussion we concentrate on the social-psychological
aspects of policies rather than the technical, economic, or the detailed
institutional aspects of policy development and implementation. We believe
that the questions discussed here will be important regardless of the spe-
cific nature of the policy. Because of the complex interactions among the
variables involved, there will be considerable overlap among the topics dis-
cussed in this section.
The Information System
Success in the implementation of an NPS pollution-control policy re-
quires the recognition of two important facts. First, farmers' attitudes
surrounding the issue are probably strongly held because they are directly
related to their pictures of themselves as independent and successful farm-
ers. Second, no single communication channel, whether it be mass or inter-
personal, can be expected to effect change by itself. Thus an integrated
communication strategy, using a variety of messages and channels, is going
to be needed to achieve the desired results.
A simple listing of the channels through which a farmer receives infor-
mation and is influenced gives an indication of the scope of the task. Such
a list has been shown in Figure 3. Listed in the left column are those ante-
cedents that determine the selective processes resulting in exposure, atten-
tion, and retention of the information conveyed in these channels. The be-
haviors resulting from the communication are listed in the right column.
From Figure 3 it can be seen that, for any given farmer, a communica-
tion's information and influence are determined by its interaction with ante-
cedent conditions. Since such a wide variety of communication channels is
available, it is appropriate that the relative advantage of each be used
when communicating about a particular policy. Each channel has its own set
of advantages and disadvantages, and a knowledge of channel effectiveness
becomes particularly important when one channel contains negative informa-
tion and another positive information. Even then, resulting behaviors are
not known and predictable with certainty, but good planning can sharply in-
crease the probability of success. The exact determination of the influence
12

-------
Antecedents
Communication Channels
Behaviors or Attitudes
Family customs and
attitudes
Former and current
social norms
Attitudes toward:
Farming
Soil
Water
Conservation
Risk
Societal needs
Other farmers
Control over farm
decisions
Tenancy status
Debt burden
Market conditions
Education
General
Agricultural
Level of prosperity
Attitudes toward
institutions:
Government
Extension Service
SCS
EPA
Vendors
Media
Achievement motiva-
tion
Change Agents
Government
SCS
ASCS
EPA
Cooperative Extension
Crop insurance companies
Range and soil conser-
vation districts
Irrigation districts
Commercial salespeople
Professional services
Financial advisors
Farm management services
Crop and other insurance
Crop and Livestock Assn.
Media
Television
Advertisements
News programs
Radio
Advertisements
News programs
Newspapers
Editorials
News
Advertisements
Farm journals
Editorials
News
Advertisements
Nonfarm magazines
Editorials
News
Billboards
Interpersonal
Other farmers
Opinion leaders
Nonopinion leaders
Family
Change behavior in advo-
cated direction and
degree
Change behavior in op-
posite direction
No change in behavior
Change attitude in advo-
cated manner
Saliency
Beliefs
Rules
Purchase product or
adopt policy
Minor or no change in
knowledge
No attitude change
Figure 3. The Information System
13

-------
of each of these channels will have to be specific to the policy under con-
sideration and its interaction with the attitudes and beliefs of the indi-
vidual farmer.
The Role of Communication
The legal and technical backgrounds of many people involved in public
policy do not provide them with an understanding of the contribution of ef-
fective communication to the implementation of public policy. It is there-
fore possible to find examples of programs in which the technical and legal
aspects are sound, but the total impact of the program has been impaired be-
cause effective communication has been overlooked. As a result, incorrect
assumptions have been made about the behavior of the affected group, how its
members receive their information, and what factors determine their reac-
tions to the communication.
While communication's role is somewhat different for voluntary versus
mandated programs, in either case communication must be properly integrated
into the total implementation plan so that its goals can be reached more
efficiently. Failure to incorporate an understanding of farmer attitudes
and communication approaches into policy implementation increases the poten-
tial for the following effects, any of which will reduce implementation
efficiency.
Misunderstanding
If the communication is not perceived in the same way it is intended,
the reaction will quite likely not be as desired. While governmental agen-
cies may perceive Best Management Practices (BMPs) as the best way to serve
the public's interest, farmers may see them as an outside attempt to dictate
to them how to run their enterprise.
Increased Administrative Costs
Failure to plan in advance for effective communication will probably
result in increased administrative costs because of unforeseen compliance or
acceptance problems which may subsequently require more expensive means of
communication with the intended groups of farmers.
Press and Public negative Reaction
If farmers misunderstand the logic behind a policy affecting them or do
not perceive the policy positively—as consistent with their attitudes—
their subsequent behavior may receive news media attention that further re-
duces the efficiency of implementation by focusing on negative aspects. A
negative letter to an editor could be quite damaging to program acceptance
regardless of the accuracy or relevance of the letter.
Failure to Include the Commercial Sector in Plans
For many decisions, farmers seek advice and services from the commercial
sector, which therefore plays an important role in communication. By
14

-------
understanding the particular strengths and weaknesses of the commercial-sec-
tor information system, communication efficiency will be higher.. While
several favorable articles in leading farm journals may be helpful, the com-
ments of dealers and the way in which they present their products and ser-
vices in relation to policies is often critical to successful policy imple-
mentation. Farm implement dealers may have the dominant influence in the
choice between a chisel and a moldboard plow. Dealers will influence the type
of fertilizer used and its rate of application and the types of pest control
utilized.
Contribution of Involvement to Attitude Change
A major determinant of an individual's response to a communication is
the degree of the issue's importance to him or his involvement with it. For
example, if a farmer has a low level of involvement with a particular topic,
he is not strongly committed to any particular point of view regarding it.
Issues with which the farmer's involvement will probably be low are nonfarm-
ing ones such as urban and societal problems and consumer products. In these
cases, attempts aimed directly at changing behavior will be largely ineffec-
tive. It has also been found that communication using logical arguments will
likely not be received by the farmer with low involvement. For low involve-
ment issues, the proper approach to communication is repetition directed at
changes in the fanner's awareness, attention, or interest. Through repeated
learning and forgetting cycles, an awareness can be built. It is almost
certain, however, that this awareness will not induce behavior, but will on-
ly make the person receptive or favorably disposed toward the topic.
For high-involvement topics, Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall (1965) have
indicated the absolute necessity of using communications that are designed
to correspond closely to the existing beliefs of the farmer. Otherwise,
selective attention and comprehension will defeat the intended effect. In
addition, changes in attitude must be made slowly because attitudes and
values related to high-involvement issues are strongly held and closely
tied to the farmer's picture of himself. They are therefore difficult to
change.
Soil erosion and the policies directed at its control are important,
high-involvement issues for most farmers. The expected changes in behavior
will impinge on strongly held attitudes cr values—a fact that must be recog-
nized if an effective educational communication strategy is to be developed.
Communication should not threaten the existing beliefs of farmers, and at
the same time the communication should aim to gradually strengthen the atti-
tudes supportive of NPS-control programs. Past government-sponsored educa-
tional programs have been unabashed in promoting the value of agricultural
efficiency. This precedent can be used to argue that governmental educa-
tional messages should now contain the promotion of additional values, such
as giving higher priority to environmental concerns. Such value messages,
however, would no doubt stir controversy, unless wide support has been
achieved in society.
15

-------
Modernization theorists (Polanyi, 1944) report that until recently
economic activity was embedded in and controlled by a web of institutional
arrangements and social relations. Certainly, the complete rationalization
of agriculture, as reflected in the usage of the term agribusiness, is a
relatively recent phenomenon. Previous authors (Hadwiger, 1962; Fite, 1962)
attribute a traditional set of beliefs and attitudes to farmers that they
have labeled"farm fundamentalism." The thrust of this concept is that rural
living represents an experience intrinsically valuable above and beyond the
profits that can be derived from agriculture. It also posits the existence
of a special "man-land" relationship that entails the responsibility of
good husbandry on the part of the land users. If a link could be made be-
tween the current conservation thrust and this tradition, acceptance of NPS
pollution-control programs may increase.
One would expect such an appeal to be most effective in persuading
those fanners who share the belief in the value of farm living, and least
effective on farmers for whom agriculture is primarily a business. However,
if conservation efforts are to avoid the repeated crash-program syndrome,
then the need for an enduring conservation ethic is paramount. C. G. McNable
(1976), an Extension economist commenting on the current NPS pollution con-
trol effort, has expressed the problem in this way:
I believe that unless there is a deep commitment to good land
husbandry on the part of the owner and operator, the road to
accomplishment will be a rough one indeed. This commitment has
to be developed as a part of our culture. It can be done through
education and training, motivated by an understanding of the con-
sequences of inaction.
Financial Incentives
For almost all farmers, the attitude that farming should be profitable
must be taken as a given assumption. While not every decision made by a
farmer is consistent with the profit maximization goal, it is clear that
acceptance or compliance will be harder to achieve if an NPS pollution-con-
trol program involves nonproductive expenditures. The results of a survey
by Seitz et al (1978) indicate that many farmers are aware of erosion pro-
blems and would take action if they could do so without reducing the profit-
ability of their operation.
Even if NPS pollution-control programs benefit the farmer in the long
run, in the short run he needs to deal with farm budget considerations
(Sharp and Bromley, 1978). The individual farmer has no control over market
forces and no ability to pass on additional costs to the product purchaser.
He must therefore absorb additional costs either financially or in terms of
his lowered return on labor, including inconvenience.
Market forces could be manipulated so that farmers would be in a better
position to adopt NPS pollution-control practices. Current government food
and agricultural policies, however, do not encourage the farmer to adopt
conservation practices. Government agricultural policies have frequently
placed a premium on economic farm efficiency with the result that the impor-
tance of pollution control has become incidental. While government agencies
16

-------
charged with NPS pollution control cannot affect agricultural policies, it
should be understood that governmental polici.es that manipulate market
prices (such as various subsidy and agricultural income-maintenance programs)
could be made more sensitive to NPS pollution-control requirements. Local
government zoning and taxation programs, too, could be more sensitive to the
need for maintaining water quality (Seitz et al., 1978). The USEPA recently
has given an example of the possibilities for such interaction in announcing
its new policy to protect farmlands.
At present, however, NPS pollution-control policies focus on inducing
individual farmers to combat NPS pollution voluntarily with cost-share incen-
tives. The policies aid the farmer, not by changing market forces, but by
mitigating the economic impact on the farmer (Rural Clean Water Program [PL
95-217]).
Some of the incentives that have been suggested to date include expand-
ing the current programs of cost sharing, technical assistance, and income-
tax credit as well as instituting new incentives such as abolishing cost-
sharing ceilings and eliminating income taxes on cost-sharing payments.
Usually, incentive programs are defined in terms of short-term inducements
to help farmers make certain changes or physical improvements, but after such
a project is complete it may do little to enhance the short-term productivity
of the land. In addition, the farmer's financial problem is compounded if
the program calls for a land use that interferes with production.*
The most appropriate incentive programs may be those dealing with one-
time investments in capital improvements or management changes which bring
about conditions which are neutral or positive in terms of future profita-
bility. When used under different circumstances, incentive programs might
create a farm population continuously dependent on government subsidies, or,
in the absence of such subsidies, NPS pollution-control objectives might not
be met because farmers were economically forced to return to earlier prac-
tices .
A special concern with incentive programs is the need to establish
carefully defined criteria for participation. In the past, participation
has generally been limited to those farmers who perceived financial benefit
from their participation. More carefully designed programs should attempt
to reach those situations where the greatest NPS pollution can be controlled.
This attempt may require some type of local priority designations, making
incentives available only to those of high priority.
Regulatory Activity
Regulatory programs for NPS pollution control would be faced with a
number of enforcement difficulties because of farmer resistance. Before dis-
cussing these problems in any detail, however, we should examine what is
presently known about the efficacy of programs to control NPS pollution.
*In other words, the farmer may face a situation in which the incentive will
help defray one-time costs, but he may find himself then in a situation
where his income in succeeding years is not helped by the incentive program.
17

-------
The control of NPS pollution in agriculture is difficult because there
is no good measurement of the origin and degree of the pollution. Emission
standards, which underlie many of the incentives and tax policies modeled by
economists, in effect do not exist in agriculture (Sharp and Bromley, 1978).
As a result, policy is oriented toward activities (best management practices
—BMPs) that are deemed beneficial in a general sense, but whose efficacy in
providing cleaner water cannot actually be demonstrated to farmers in their
individual case (GAO, 1978). This limited information about program effi-
cacy creates problems for NPS pollution-control programs of any kind, but it
makes mandatory programs especially vulnerable to charges of regulatory cap-
riciousness and rigidity. This limited information also tends to exacerbate
enforcement and other problems created by farmer attitudes.
Since the prohibition era we have been more aware of the difficulty of
implementing policy for which strong public support does not exist. In ad-
dition, farmers and their leaders have displayed strong value opposition to
government regulation of their activities, particularly to programs that af-
fect their autonomy in farm decision making. This opposition is strongly
ideological, based on widely held beliefs of individualism and independence.
These values are further enforced by the perceived economic threat posed by
regulations, as discussed previously. However, we also note some of the con-
ditions necessary for successful implementation. Furthermore, a strong be-
lief on the part of farmers about the general incompetence of the governmen-
tal bureaucracy, especially when dealing with agriculture, also serves to
further strengthen opposition to regulatory programs.
The success of most regulatory programs is due in part to the fact that
they can be reasonably enforced at some cost. NPS pollution-control pro-
grams face special enforcement problems. We have already alluded to the
limited information about program efficacy and the resulting difficulty in
determining performance criteria. A second problem is the diffuse nature of
the pollution sources, combined with the particular sensitivity of agricul-
ture to local conditions such as topography, climate, and land-use patterns.
This diversity makes it difficult to implement and enforce centralized and
uniform policies. Consequently, many NPS pollution-control policies will
rely heavily on local implementation strategies.
Enforcement therefore poses real problems for mandatory NPS pollution-
abatement programs. Premature rigidity in enforcement standards may result
in costly and ineffectual programs. If so, a mandatory program may not be
able to capitalize on the technological and managerial innovations that may
come out of a system in which each cooperator has the autonomy to select the
best possible solutions.
Harder et aL (1978) have emphasized that local agencies frequently lack
the authority to enact guidelines as well as the money for adequate compli-
ance and monitoring activities. In addition, while formally maintaining
high degrees of citizen input, many of these agencies have in the past acted
largely only as coordinating and grant-giving agencies. Thus, the local
organizational structure is often not geared to a more active role of priori-
ty decision making, resource allocation, and program implementation. These
problems can certainly be overcome, but they should be given considerable
attention.
18

-------
While farmers place a high value on their autonomy in farm decision
making and on unrestricted property rights, they have accepted regulatory
activity interfering with their decision-making autonomy in such areas as
grading standards for farm products, milk-marketing orders, and many public-
health regulations, even though some of these do not generate economic bene-
fits. While fanners have not necessarily cherished these regulations, there
is little evidence that compliance problems have been widespread once the
regulations have been introduced. It may be illustrative to review the in-
troduction of health standards in the dairy industry.
The acceptance of health standards by dairy producers has been gener-
ally successful because of a number of forces operating simultaneously. Pro-
ducing disease-free milk is a value widely supported in society. Through
educational and incentive programs, an increasing number of farmers were in-
duced to participate in programs. At the same time, in order for the pro-
gram to succeed all farmers in a certain pool needed to participate; the
milk from any one dairy herd might affect the quality of all the milk pro-
cessed at a collection station. Thus, once farmers participated in a pro-
gram, they developed a strong interest in having all other farmers partici-
pate as well. Regulations in the dairy industry were enforced at least in
part at a central collection point where milk could be tested quickly and
effectively and violators immediately identified. Because of price differ-
entials, a continuing economic incentive for participation in the program
reinforced the decisions dairy farmers had made earlier. Finally, many
dairy farmers faced with considerable capital outlays in order to partici-
pate in the program found a favorable alternative to dairying in changing to
other industries such as grain or beef production. In this case, therefore,
the introduction of regulations was supported by a variety of circumstances
that contributed to their wide acceptance.
After our previous discussion it must be clear that in the case of NPS
pollution controls, many of the reinforcing supports operating in the exam-
ple of the dairy industry are not present. It therefore seems safe to say
that without 1) an extensive educational campaign aimed at creating a posi-
tive attitude, 2) participation of farmer representatives in the decision-
making process, and 3) incentive programs it will be difficult to overcome
the expected negative reactions by farmers to any infringement on their
freedom of decision-making. If the program thrust moves beyond erosion con-
trol where a long run benefit can be argued, to control of nutrients and
pesticides where almost all of the benefit accrues to others, the situation
is even more difficult.
Citizen Participation
Harder et al. (1978) report that early local involvement in policy
development can be the basis for an effective education and information pro-
gram. It can also serve as an effective tool for increasing program parti-
cipation in either a voluntary or a mandatory program. Although citizen
participation is the historical base of our form of government, its scope
has changed recently under the impact of both ideological and organizational
changes in society. Not too long ago the right to participate in decisions
was predominantly the right of those who provided the resources needed to
"19

-------
implement those decisions. But recent examples of citizens attempting to
gain some control over public decisions affecting their lives show that the
demand to be involved in decision making has become much more widespread.
Increased bureaucratic complexity has made citizen participation a permanent
feature of our society (Weeks, 1970; Carroll, 1971).
The term bureccuoratio decision making refers to the process by which
members of the bureaucracy and others outside it determine the major objec-
tives of a program and the ways in which these objectives will be accomplish-
ed. Citizen participation in bureaucratic decision making can be defined as:
. . . the acts of those who are not formally part of the legisla-
tive or public administrative hierarchy, but who nonetheless intend
to influence the efficacy of the program and the behavior of those
public officials responsible for ultimate policy and operational
decisions. (Spiegel, 1971)
The representatives of bureaucracy always form one group of partici-
pants in the decision-making process; the citizens make up another component.
Citizen participants in this context are generally considered to be lay peo-
ple rather than professionals with formally recognized expertise. Citizens
participate in the decision-making process as representatives of the public,
although water-quality planning, for example, has shown that in practice
both the delineation of who is being represented and the form of selecting
citizen participants in the decision-making process often remain obscure.
Citizen participation is usually sponsored by the bureaucratic organi-
zation, which tends to initiate the process, define its purpose, and set its
boundaries (Seaver, 1971). The share of the citizen participants in the
decision making can be measured along a continuum ranging from total power-
lessness to full decision-making control. In cases of total lack of power,
citizen participation is a form of manipulation by the bureaucracy. At the
other extreme, few bureaucracies will surrender to citizen participants all
their power to make decisions, probably because of 1) their claims to special
expertise and 2) their accountability to other constituencies.
Most forms of citizen participation are perceived by the bureaucracy as
a form of cooptation—as a means to further their established objectives
(Bachrach et al., 1970, pp. 206). But failure to understand the different
functions citizen participation may play in decision making has frequently
created hostilities and frustrations for both the bureaucracy and the citizen
participants. For example, in certain programs citizen participation is de-
fined as an educational activity to be undertaken for its own merits (Zur-
cher, 1970). It is expected to lead to increased understanding, changes in
values, and improved organizational or technical skills for population seg-
ments that have not had prior opportunities to acquire these skills. Al-
though the citizen participant may perform certain functions within the
bureaucracy, their relationship is essentially tutorial.
Citizen participation is also frequently encouraged when those partici-
pants are judged to possess useful information (Kramer, 1969, pp. 11-12).
Such informants are especially useful to the bureaucracy in cases where large
20

-------
cultural gaps exist between bureaucrats and target populations and in cases
where the bureaucracy deals with widely differing local settings.. For this
reason, many government agricultural programs have relied heavily on the
participation of local farmers on advisory boards, etc., usually to improve
operating procedures, to suggest how resources may be put to most effective
use, and to avoid conflicts with established interests.
Another frequent objective of citizen participation programs is to jus-
tify the bureaucracy's activities and bolster its power. Boards of "prom-
inent citizens," representatives of special-interest groups, and "local
leaders" may find themselves having to protect resources or ward off dis-
gruntled citizens (Piven, 1966). In some cases, the sheer existence of citi-
zen participants may be enough to legitimize and strenthen bureaucratic pro-
grams, but in most cases the citizen participants are a more active liaison
with the community.
Citizens can affect the bureaucracy in many ways to make it better serve
their interests. One way is to provide information, but there is no guaran-
tee that citizen input will be used. Citizens affect bureaucratic operation
more strongly when they formally share power in the decision-making process.
Involving farmers in program decision making can be very beneficial to the
bureaucracy and its programs, but unless both bureaucrats and farmer parti-
cipants arrive early at an understanding of what their roles are and how
their power is distributed, the participation process may become very frus-
trating. The bureaucracy may find that the farmer participants are direct-
ing the program into unanticipated areas, and the farmers may find their ef-
forts at participation frustrated by a bureaucracy unwilling or unable to
respond to their interests.
While more attempts are being made to broaden the base of citizen par-
ticipation, studies point to the difficulties of reaching certain sectors of
the population (Long, 1971; McCluskey, 1970; Oberle, 1970). It should be ex-
pected that smaller, part-time, and less-educated farmers and those who are
less active in their communities will frequently not be represented. The
more usual citizen participants are local political or economic "elites" or
their representatives. Frequently, agricultural programs have deliberately
aimed at the participation of local leaders in program decision making, fre-
quently as a form of cooptation of local interests.
Some researchers of citizen participation (Van Til and Van Til, 1970;
Wilson, 1963) have pointed out that leaders and nonleaders tend to act dif-
ferently in decision-making positions; local leaders tending to function as
consultants, advisors and legitimizers of the bureaucracy's programs. Ex-
perience indicates that program objectives frequently reflect positions sub-
scribed to by local leaders, who rarely find themselves directly threatened
by planned outcomes. However, the assumption that local leaders represent
what is best for all sectors of the population has often proved erroneous.
Although it is sometimes argued that nonleader participants are parochial
and self-centered in their interests (Wilson*, 1963), several factors may
account for this viewpoint. In the first place, nonleaders frequently be-
come citizen participants precisely because they want to serve as spokesmen
for certain interests not normally represented; thus, they define themselves
21

-------
and are defined by others as "special-interest" representatives. In addi-
tion, nonleaders' concerns are sometimes defined as parochial because these
concerns are not identical with, and may even run counter to, local leader
concerns.*
While status differences between potential groups of participating farm-
ers are important, in many situations other criteria may also distinguish
among potential citizen participants. NPS pollution-control planning, for
example, may find citizen-participation groups consisting of statewide and
even specifically urban groups, while the target population of the program
may be the farmers of a particular area. The selection of appropriate cit-
izen participants is thus of great importance. The citizens selected for
involvement must be appropriate to deal with the issues in question.
The ideal criterion for the success of citizen participation is the im-
pact it has on the outcome of the process, although the impact cannot easily
be quantified. In an informal analysis of the reaction of participants in
the Illinois 208 planning process, Seitz (1978) found a generally favorable
response by the participants, although this work was done too early for the
participants to know the final outcome.
Citizen participation in planning proceeds on the assumption that the
bureaucracy and the various population sectors can arrive at a consensus of
goals and means. Various participants may have irreconcilable differences,
however, that lead to conflict rather than compromise and consensus, and
this conflict may do much to demonstrate the power relationship among the
participants. It may induce either the bureaucracy or the citizen partici-
pants to withdraw, or it may lead the opposition to mobilize strongly
against certain bureaucratic actions.
Most of the examples of citizen participation examined recently have
covered a very limited time span. A group of citizens was assembled and
hastily began "participating" in bureaucratic decision making. Participa-
tion, however, is a form of interaction that needs to be institutionalized
over time. Judgments on successes and failures are often made prematurely,
both by participants and outside evaluators. Citizen participation may be
an effective source of information for policy makers when they construct
communication programs. They can learn where attitudes are in conflict with
(or are consistent with) a proposed policy, and they may be able to deter-
mine whether certain messages are received as intended. During program plan-
ning and implementation, farmer participants can, of course, play a role
*It may be worthwhile to point out here that those farmers traditionally as-
sociated with citizen participation on various government program boards,
commissions, etc., are typically of the "local leader" group. While such
farmers may exert considerable influence locally, it should not be assumed,
for example, that they will always represent the interests of those farmers
whose farms may be in the category of "greatest need" for NPS control!
Agencies appear to have a strong tendency to select their citizen partici-
pants from their program participants or cooperators. Frequently the most
cooperative and innovative farmers are perceived as nonrepresentative of
their interests by many local farmers (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).
22

-------
well beyond that of a resource in the communication system.
Section 5
BUREAUCRATIC COMMUNICATION
In this section we deal with another communication problem. As, and
after, a program is put into effect farmers and bureaucracies will communi-
cate with each other. While some mass communication techniques may be used,
there is usually a heavy reliance on interpersonal communication. Unfor-
tunately, most bureaucratic organizations rely on a depersonalized form of
communication. Also, there is a concentration of power in such organizations
which the individual does not like but feels helpless to oppose. This deper-
sonalization and the feeling of helplessness create changes in the individ-
ual's attitude. He may avoid the agency, oppose it, or even violate a regu-
lation simply because of his frustration with the organization style of
interaction.
Katz and Danet (1973) suggest a working model for the dynamics of offi-
cial client communication. Farmers easily form impressions through close
contact with county agents, SCS representatives, and other state and federal
officials. These impressions may, or may not, be those desired by the agen-
cies. The implication from the Katz and Danet model is that an understand-
ing of the official-client relationships and their specific roles can improve
the communication system between the bureaucratic organization and the pub-
lic. Their model can be analyzed in terms of four clusters of variables:
1.	Predisposing factors that may impinge on the interaction
2.	Situational variables characterizing the immediate context
of interaction
3.	Variables that characterize behavior during a bureaucratic
interaction
4.	Variables dealing with the consequences of any given
interaction
That is, the model considers the relevant past experience of the official
and the client, the situation in which they came together, how they interact,
and what happens after their interaction as important in structuring a com-
munication system.
In their model, communication may broadly include the complex interac-
tion between the attitudes and expectations of officials and clients, their
behavior during the interaction, and any changes in the attitudes and expec-
tations of the parties as a result of the contact (see Figure 4).
As illustrated in the model, intervening between the actual outcome of
the bureaucratic contact and the predisposing factors is a series of varia-
bles characterizing the immediate context in which the contact takes place.
23

-------
"Mandatory/voluntary" is one variable. We may hypothesize that, other things
being equal, the more compulsory the contact, the more potential, there is for
hostility and lack of cooperation on the part of the client.
Even the structure of the bureaucratic organization can affect the dy-
namics of this form of communication. In addition to the question of whe-
ther the client's participation is mandatory or voluntary, Thompson (1962)
also classifies the typologies of organization according to whether the
treatment of the client is preprogramed or tailored to individual needs.
These typologies represent the organization's goal, which will shape
its officials' roles. In time this goal will also determine the reaction or
feedback from the clients.
24

-------
I. Predisposing	II. Situational	III. The	IV. Consequences
Factors	Context Factors	Encounter	for
ho
Ln
Figure 4. The dynamics of official-client communication.*
*Katz, E., and B. Danet. 1973. Communication between a Bureaucracy and the Public:
A Review of Literature, p. 694.

-------
Section 6
SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
As indicated in the previous pages, a program of NPS pollution abate-
ment will have to operate under certain restrictions. In the near future it
does not seem likely that a widespread centrally-organized program of manda-
tory participation will be initiated. At the same time, complete reliance on
voluntary programs will probably not get the job done; all indications from
previous research are that certain farmers will not participate in voluntary
programs and that many farmers, including those more economically innovative,
will not participate in programs that will be costly to them. While incen-
tive programs induce farmers to participate, such programs will need to be
restructured if they are to meet the needs of a NPS pollution-control pro-
gram. The following program steps should strengthen a NPS pollution-control
program in agriculture.
Educational Program
A strong educational program providing technical information as well as
stressing the conservation and environmental values involved should create an
awareness of and receptivity to the need for NPS pollution control. If pre-
venting NPS pollution carries a high national priority, farmers should be so
informed and given the reasons and rationale for the program. They should be
shown the importance of other values, in addition to economic ones, in their
farm decision making. A strong educational campaign will be necessary for
any type of implementation program and may, of course, on its own merits
increase participation in NPS pollution control.
In developing such an educational program, one must understand the
basics of human communication: attitudes, principles of communication, and
communication systems. It is assumed that the details of the policy itself
will be final at this stage and that the policy itself will have been formu-
lated with implementation in mind.
While the basics of human communication apply to all policy-implementa-
tion situations, specific details must be unique to each situation. There-
fore, it is imperative that steps be taken to gather specific information
which, in turn, will be the basis of a uniquely tailored implementation plan
for each policy. The following four-step procedure is designed to generate
that uniquely tailored plan. The procedure may seem unnecessary or too sim-
plified, but experience has consistently demonstrated that each step of this
procedure should be conscientiously followed. Otherwise, omissions or erro-
neous assumptions may seriously hinder the effectiveness of the implementa-
tion plan.
26

-------
1.	Determine the exact characteristics of those to be communicated
with. Different segments of the farm community have different
habits, attitudes, social-cultural backgrounds, and economic con-
straints. To many farmers NPS control programs will touch upon
attitudes which are very close to their self concept. This high
involvement among certain farmers will require special approaches.
Landowners, renters, and owner-operators may all react quite differ-
ently.
2.	Determine the political barriers. Some policies may need unique
implementation strategies to overcome certain political reactions.
Without careful planning, a policy may receive general acceptance
but be resisted in some farming areas with powerful political clout.
3.	Determine the presently used system of communication and influence.
It is inefficient to launch a television-based communication pro-
gram if most farmers receive their information about this topic
from pesticide salespeople. It is therefore important to determine
which media to use and what the balance should be between mass and
personal communication.
4.	Design the messages to accomplish the desired behavior. This last
step is relatively easy if the above steps have been carried out.
Here we need the exact words in the specific format. If we are
using mass communication, we need to ask questions such as: Will
the message be delivered by a well-known personality or by some
other format such as a cartoon? Will the message be "persuasive"
or "educational"? Will it present two sides of the issue or only
one?
Restructuring Agency-Citizen Interaction
While general standards and norms may be set at the state or federal
level, local units such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts will be
charged with local implementation and will thus make decisions on priorities
and resource allocations. In the past, local governing committees have typi-
cally responded to citizens expressing interest in a project. In the future,
because local governing agencies may have to allocate resources according to
the greatest need or impact, the local citizens they select for decision-
making groups will have to be representative of the persons affected by the
decision making, rather than just those expressing an interest in program
participation.
In addition, local decision makers will need to have the technical infor-
mation necessary to make priority and resource-distribution decisions, and
technical agencies will need to have the authority and capability to provide
this information. This practice would also be a departure from the past,
when information was typically provided on the basis of individual farmer
interest.
27

-------
Farmer Incentives
Incentives should be structured in such a way that the money spent would
yield results. We know little about those levels at which farmers will re-
spond well to specific incentives, but it is clear that the cost of providing
financial incentives to individual farmers will be substantial. State and
federal governments, however, already have a large number of specialized
financial transactions with farmers. Policies that would make the reception
of other government benefits contingent upon participation in NPS pollution-
control programs would increase the magnitude of the incentives systems with-
out requiring large new outlays of money. Relating NPS pollution control to
other agricultural policies will have many other advantages as well. It will
take away the stigma of NPS pollution-control programs—that they are organ-
ized by and administered through a specialized agency intruding into agricul-
ture. Some of these steps have, of course, already been taken at the federal
level, but further integration of NPS pollution-control programs into agri-
cultural policy would be helpful.
Target Dates
Local implementation groups should be given definite targets on what is
to be accomplished by what date. While local implementation authority ap-
pears to be the most efficient and equitable, clearly defined objectives
would do more than just provide benchmarks against which progress can be
measured.
If they acquire the proper authority, local decision-making units will
be in a better position to introduce mandatory participation by pointing to
outside requirements. In addition, the optimal time for mandatory participa-
tion will frequently be when, through educational and incentive programs,
local support has been obtained. Local support, however, will be gained at
different times in various localities. Therefore, a program that provides a
local option for mandatory participation may be able to make headway in many
places without having to deal with a massive resistance focused on central-
ized regulatory power.
28

-------
REFERENCES
Bachrach, P.; Baratz, M. S.; and Levi, M. 1970. The political significance
of citizen participation. In Fewer and Poverty (eds., P. Bachrach and
M. S. Baratz). New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Carroll, J. D. 1971. Participatory Technology. Soienae 171:647-53.
Engel, J. F.; Wales, H. G.; and Warshaw, M. R. 1975. Promotional Strategy,
3d ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior.
Reading, Mass.: Addison - Wesley.
Fite, G. C. 1962. The historical development of agrarian fundamentalism in
the nineteenth century. J. Farm Eoon. 44:1203-11.
Gerbner, G. 1967. Mass media and human communication theory. In Human Com-
munication Theory, ed. F. E. X. Dance, p. 43. New York, N.Y.
General Accounting Office (GAO). 1977. To Protect Tomorrow's Food Supply,
Soil Conservation Needs Priority Attention. CED-77-30. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hadwiger, D. V. 1962 Farm fundamentalism—its future. J. Farm Econ. 44:
1218-30.
Harder, S. M. ; Daniel, T. C.; and Madison, F. W. 1978. Guidelines for manda-
tory erosion control programs. J. Soil Water Conserv. March/April: 80-84.
Hovland, C. I. 1948. Social Communication, In Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society SCII, 12.
Hovland, C. I; Janis, J. L.; and Kelley, H. H. 1953. Communication and
Persuasion. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Illinois Agriculture Task Force. 1978. Summary of the Agriculture Task
Force Water Quality Plan Recommendations. (March).
Katz, E., and Danet, B. Communication between bureaucracy and the public.
In Handbook of Communication, (eds., T. D. Pool and W. L. Schramm).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Kramer, R. M. 1969. Participation of the Poor: Comparative Community Case
Studies in the War on Poverty. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Krech, D.; Crutchfield, R.; and Ballachey, E. L. 1962. Individual in
Society. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.
29

-------
Krugman, H. E. 1965. The impact of television advertising: learning with-
out involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (3):349-56.
Krugman, H. E. 1966. The measurement of advertising involvement. Public
Opinion Quarterly 30(4):583-96.
Long, H. B. 1971. A comparison of participants and nonparticipants in a
community development program. J. Community Devel. Society 2:59-66.
McNable, C. B. 1976. Controlling non-point pollution under the 208 plan.
Economic and Marketing Information for Missouri Agriculture 19(9). Colum-
bia, MO: University of Missouri Cooperative Extension Service.
McCluskey, H. Y. 1970. A dynamic approach to participation in community
development. J. Community Bevel. Society 1:25-32.
Oberle, W. H. 1970. Who are extension council members? J. Extension 8:25-31.
Pampel, F. C., and van Es, J. C. 1977. Environmental quality and issues of
adoption research. Rural Sociology 42(1):57—71.
Piven, F. F. 1966. Participation of residents in neighborhood community
action programs. Social Work 11:73-80.
Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar and Rhine-
hart .
Rogers, E. M., and Shoemaker, F. F. Communication of Innovations. New York:
Free Press.
Rogers, E. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Rokeach, M. 1968. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Seaver, R. C. 1971 The dilemma of citizen participation. In Leadership and
Social Change_, (ed., W. R. Lassey), pp. 233-40. Iowa City: University
Associated Press.
Seitz, W. D.; Gardner, D. M.; Gove, S. K.; Guntermann, K. L.; Karr, J. R.;
Spitze, R. G. F.; Swanson, E. R.; Taylor, C. R.; Uchtmann, D. L.; and van
Es, J. C. 1978. Alternative Policies for Controlling Nonpoint Agricul-
tural Sources of Water Pollution. EPA-600/5-78-005. Athens, GA: Environ-
mental Research Laboratory.
Seitz, W. D. 1978. "Ag Task Force Plans Water Cleanup," Illinois Issues IV
(6), p. 22.
Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, W. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communica-
tion. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
30

-------
Sharp, B. M. H., and Bromley, D. W.. 1978. Agricultural Pollution, Methodo-
logical Issues and Policy Needs. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin,
Department of Agricultural Economics.
Sherif, C. W.; Sherif, M.; and Nebergall, R. E. 1965. Attitude and Atti-
tude Change: The Social Judgment Involvement Approach. Philadelphia, PA:
Saunders.
Spiegel, H. B. C. 1971. Citizen participation in federal programs: a
review. J. Voluntary Action Research 1:4-31.
Van Til, J., and Van Til, S. B. Citizen participation in social policy: end
of cycle? Social Problems 17:313-23.
Weeks, S. B. 1970. Involving citizens in making public policy. J. Extension
8:40-45.
Wilson, J. Q. 1963. Planning and politics: citizen participation in urban
renewal. J. Am. Instit. Planners 29:242-49.
Zurcher, L. A., Jr. 1970. The poverty board: some consequences of "maximum
feasible participation." J. Social Issues 26:85-107.
31

-------