Participatory website development for soil quality education and assessment to improve agroecosystem management

Participatory website development for soil quality education and assessment to improve agroecosystem management

Summary

To help agricultural professionals develop a fuller understanding of soil quality and achieve their sustainable agriculture goals, we designed an educational website with input from our target audience. We asked farmers and farm advisors from IA and IL about their needs for and uses of information and assessment tools. As a result of this input, the website has four main parts (two more that originally planned): an educational section, a management practices and problems section, a resources section, and an assessment-tools section. A second user-based evaluation will be conducted via the Internet during the second year of development.

Objectives/Performance Targets

Our objective is to help farmers, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) field personnel, crop consultants, and extension staff develop a fuller understanding of soil quality to help achieve their sustainable agriculture goals. We will do this by developing an Internet website for soil-quality education and assessment.

Our specific objectives are to:
1. Ask land managers, NRCS field personnel, and extension agents to respond critically to soil-quality resources and express their informational needs in a one-and-a-half-day work session that would guide the development of the web site.
2. Provide on the website extensive educational materials on soil quality and its relationship to soil function and sustainable agriculture.
3.Provide on the website three interactive soil-quality assessment techniques after they have been adapted based on work-session input. The techniques to be adapted are:
a) a scoresheet interpreter to evaluate soil quality using in-field observations and measurements (supporting NRCS’ Soil Quality Test Kit);
b) an index of soil quality using laboratory analyses;
c) an agricultural sustainability index where users identify their own economic, social, and environmental indicators

Accomplishments/Milestones

Objective 1. Ask land managers, NRCS field personnel, and extension agents to respond critically to soil-quality resources and express their informational needs in a one-and-a-half-day work session that would guide the development of the web site.

This objective was fully met. On September 7-8, 2000, the project team conducted a 1 1/2-day work session held in Moline, IL with representatives of the target audience for the website. The work session participants, from IL and IA, included 30 NRCS state and field office staff, cooperative extension & conservation district personnel, independent and corporate crop advisors, and farmers.

The work session participants were:
Mr. Brett Roberts, Conservation Agronomist, USDA NRCS, Champaign, IL
Mr. Roger Windhorn, State Soil Scientist, USDA NRCS, Champaign, IL
Mr. Dale Baumgartner, Resource Analyst, Springfield MLRA Project Office, USDA NRCS, Springfield, IL
Mr. Mike Richolson, USDA NRCS, Sycamore, IL
Mr. Steve Elmer, USDA NRCS, Monmouth, IL
Mr. Shawn Dettman, Area Resource Conservationist, Fairfield, IA
Mr. Doug Johnson, District Conservationist, NRCS, Muscatine, IA
Mr. Curtis Donohue, District Conservationist, NRCS, Newton, IA
Mr. Wayne Peterson, Urban Conservationist, NRCS, Coralville, IA
Mr. Jason Anderson, Montgomery County SWCD, Hillsboro, IL
Mr. Rick Macho, Madison County SWCD, Edwardsville, IL
Ms. Vicki Woodford, Page Co. SWCD, Shenandoah, IA
Dr. Dido G. Kotile, Extension Educator, Macomb Extension Center, Macomb, IL
Mr. Michael Plumer, Natural Resources Extension Educator, Dunn-Richmond Economic Development Center, Carbondale, IL
Mr. Mike Roegge, Extension Educator, Quincy, IL
Mr. Duane Friend, Extension Educator, Jacksonville, IL
Mr. George Cummins, Extension Field Crop Specialist, Charles City, IA 50616
Dr. Ed Zaborski, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL 61820
Dr. Bill Becker, Independent Crop Consultant, Central Illinois Agricultural Research Farms, Inc., Springfield, IL 62704
Ms. Robin Pruisner, Executive Director, Iowa Independent Certified Crop Advisors, Carroll, IA
Mr. Shannon Gomes, Independent Crop Consultant, Cedar Basin Crop Consulting, Waverly, IA
Mr. Craig Struve, Independent Crop Consultant, C-S Agrow Service, Calumet, IA
Mr. Ken Washburn, Crop Consultant, Twin States Engineering, Davenport, IA
Dr. Paul Kresge, United Agri Products, Forest Lake, MN
Mr. Tod Glasgow, Farmer, Illinois Sustainability Alliance, W. Lafayette, IN
Mr. Allen Williams, Farmer, Cerro Gordo, IL
Mr. Ed Broders, Farmer, Practical Farmers of Iowa, Stockton, IA
Mr. Steve Jurgens, Farmer, Authur, IL
Mr. Terry Davis, Farmer, Warren County SWCD, Roseville, IL
Mr. Kaye Connelly, Farmer and Independent Crop Advisor, Cedar Falls, IA

The first 1/2-day of the work session was devoted to providing information to the participants about the project. This included an overview of current ideas for the site and a discussion about the various definitions of SQ. That evening, participants had the option of visiting an IL extension computer lab where they could visit other SQ-related websites or attend a viewing of several SQ-related videos. On the second day, work session attendees participated in focus groups, where they provided feedback on the ideas presented the previous day and contributed their own ideas for the website.

During the morning focus groups, participants were divided by profession into the broad categories listed above. The participants in all groups were asked specific questions about how they would use the site and how they would like the site to be organized. The most common uses were to gather general information about SQ and it’s importance, to find educational support materials, and to assess SQ at benchmark sites or one’s own farm. Those looking for educational support materials were thinking about audiences ranging from K-12, homeowners, farmers, to policy makers. Downloadable slide sets, video clips, and teaching modules were mentioned frequently as desirable support materials. Many people suggested including a frequently asked questions (FAQs) section. The farmers group even discussed the possibility of a chat room on the site. All groups liked the idea of this site being a central link for SQ information, containing many links to other sites. Another type of link discussed was to provide names of support professionals. The groups discussed many good ideas about how to maximize the usefulness of the site.

There was consensus that educational materials should tie SQ to management practices and common problems. Along with this link to practices, some participants were interested in seeing cost/benefit comparisons of alternative practices. This comparison might include economic outcomes, social implications and time expectations. There was some interest in historical soil use, illustrating the difference between inherent and dynamic soil quality. Many people were interested in information about SQ indicators, both how to perform the tests and how to interpret them. It was often repeated by participants that information must be site- specific to be useful. There was discussion about access information by clicking on your region of a US map. Participants want practical information that relates to their situation. They want this information to be basic and easy to understand but also want to have the option to learn more about it.

There seemed to be some differences of opinion by profession about the usefulness of SQ assessment tools. Crop advisors and farmers seemed to be more interested in these options for the website than agency personnel, who thought farmers would have little interest in this use. All groups wanted access to reference or benchmark data that would allow them see the effect of specific practices on SQ according to major soil groups. This feature of the website, it was explained, would use research data and therefore would not be applicable in every situation. One potential use, mentioned by members from each group, was the “what if” scenario. This was described by users as the ability to either add hypothetical numbers or use research data to run the assessment tools. They felt this would give them ideas about how management practices might affect their SQ without actually performing their own tests. The members of the farmer group really like the proposed tools’ flexibility, which includes the ability for users to weight indicators according to individual preferences. Interest in using the assessment tools for site-specific assessment was limited primarily by the need for site-specific data. The general limitations voiced by the SWCD and extension group and echoed by the farmers were lack of education, cost (of analyses or test equipment), and time (of sampling and data entry). Some NRCS participants thought farmers would want to their own collect data using the SQ test kit but farmers said otherwise. They were more interested in paying consultants for these analyses. The farmer group was most enthusiastic about the sustainability tool, even though this was the only tool not yet scientifically tested. The other groups were much less interested in the sustainability tool. When asked about willingness to allow their SQ data to become part of the site’s database (using passwords and not names), the farmer group was particularly interested, for comparing their SQ over time and to see what others are doing. Only one person (from the NRCS group) mentioned privacy concerns that could lead to unwanted regulation. Conversely, members from all groups talked about the need to link SQ assessment to existing programs like CRP.

In general, the comments from the four professional groups had more similarities than differences. One important difference did come up when economics was mentioned, as it was in every group. Members from all groups indicated an interest in linking SQ to economic outcomes or yield. Interestingly, members of the farmer group felt both long- and short-term economics were important while the advisor, extension and agency representatives said that farmers only care about short-term economic gain. Differences were also highlighted when the groups talked about sharing information. The farmers said they willing shared with (neighborly) neighbors while the NRCS and advisor groups perceived farmers as more competitive and less willing to share information. Admittedly, the farmers who participated in the work session may not be representative of the majority of farmers. Many in this group were “early adopters” and/or organic growers. However, similar focus groups held with a greater number and variety of farmers in the Central Valley of California supported the Moline results. All of the Moline participants were interested in using the Internet for gathering work-related information. (This was a criterion for work session participation.) A recent NASS study showed that approximately 30% of farmers nationwide and in the Midwest use the internet for their work.

The afternoon focus group members were re-organized according to their main interest in the website components. Again, there were four groups: an educational tools group, a SQ assessment tools group, a sustainability assessment group, and a video and other support materials group. Some specific formatting options discuss included copious use of photographs and charts. However, others discussed including text only options for those with slow modem speeds. Connection speed was also a concern for video material. For video content (stand-alone and website based), the consensus was that it should be brief (20 min. max.), segmented, and provide general overview as well as more specific segments. Overall, most participants felt that video as a medium was too general but might be of use for illustrating specific practices of testing techniques. Other fine points mentioned by a minority of participants included an interest in CCA accreditation for the education materials and download options for the assessment tools. Some participants mentioned that guidelines for taking samples and designing experiments (to assess SQ) would enhance the website. The afternoon groups were very useful for summarizing the main points from the morning sessions and highlighting the similarities among the professional groups. This information was more detailed yet fully supported the morning’s feedback.

The project team used the information gained at the work session to focus and redirect the website design, format and content. Work session participants, and others interested in this project, will have an opportunity to see how well the project team listened to the focus group comments during a test phase for the website, tentatively planned for March 2002. During this time, website visitors will be asked to provide comments and suggestions about the website via an on-line survey.

A brief version of the focus group summary is posted on the website at: http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/FocusGroupResults.htm. The full version can also be accessed from that page. To view the page within the site’s frame structure go to: http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/home.htm , click on the next arrow, then on ‘results of these focused discussions.’ We plan to submit a peer-reviewed paper analyzing the focus groups results to the Journal of Natural Resources Education in 2002. We are also preparing a paper on farmer uses of soil quality information, using results from the group in Moline, IL, as well as the CA groups, to be submitted to Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

Objective 2. Provide on the website extensive educational materials on soil quality and its relationship to soil function and sustainable agriculture.

We have fully met this objective as originally proposed. In response to target user comments, we have added many additional features and topics that still require work. Following the formatting suggestions of the focus group participants, the website pages are arranged to make main points using easy-to-understand graphics or bulleted lists but allow the more advanced user to follow links to more in depth information. We are currently exploring text only or no frames versions for the site to accommodate those with slow modems speeds or disabilities. Because interest in video material was lukewarm at best, we opted not do produce a stand-alone video but may still provide some clips on the site. Currently, the site uses a moderate amount of graphics to illustrate concepts and have (or plan) many download options. To address concerns about site-specificity of information, clickable US maps allow users to access regionally specific information in the numerous sections of the website. We have tried to broaden the scope of our audience to include high school as well as professionals by following the advice of the focus group participants. However, we felt it was outside of the scope of our original proposal to also target home owners, foresters or policy makers at this point in the site’s development, as some suggested. When the educational portion of the site is complete, we plan to pursue CCA accreditation.

As initially proposed, we have created background material on soil quality and sustainability concepts on-line in the Soil Quality Basics section of the site (http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/EducationSection/mainpage_sq.htm ). We also have downloadable versions, aimed at agricultural educators, for much of this material (http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/ResourcesSection/EducationResources/mainpage_EDresource.htm ). We have also begun filling in a glossary with links from pages using those terms (http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/EducationSection/mainpage_glossary.htm ).
In addition, the scope of the material in this section was significantly broadened as a result of the focus group comments. New features added include:
a page on the social costs and benefits of soil quality (http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/EducationSection/mainpage_sq.htm );
a section of the history of management effects on soil quality, accessible by topic or region (http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/EducationSection/History/mainpage_historysq.htm );
and a frequently asked questions page including questions about relationships between soil quality and economics or yield (http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/EducationSection/mainpage_faqsq.htm ).
Some of these added items are still under development. For instance, we have solicited contributions from a variety of scientists for the history section.

During the focus groups, participants expressed interest in information about management practices that can improve soil quality. In response, an entire section on management options was added (http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/ManagementSection/mainpage_manage.htm ). It is currently divided into two subsections: practices and problems. We plan to place a clickable US regional map on the introductory page, so users can access appropriate practices and common problems for their area. While the NCR is our primary focus, we hope to eventually cover the entire US. We are using the focus group results to choose which practices to include. These pages are under development but will contain information on ‘how to’ and ‘predicted outcomes’ backed by research results. In addition to soil quality indicator results, outcomes will include economic comparisons, social implications, time expectations, and existing programs like CRP, when supporting research is available. Links to additional information will also be posted. The problems page lists indicators to test, possible causes and corrective actions. We plan to add links from and to the individual practice pages, the indicator pages, and the assessment tools.

Because there was great interest in this website being a “clearinghouse” for soil quality information, we decided to create an entire section of the site devoted to additional resources (http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/ResourcesSection/mainpage_resource.htm ). Although the majority of this information for this section has been collected, much of it has not yet been converted to HTML. The basic structure of this section is posted on the site and several (but not all) of the downloadable slide sets are currently available there. This is true of the web links to related sites page. The scientific references page is organized by topic and features links from other pages citing these works (http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/References.htm). The professional list, intended as a networking tool suggested by focus group participants, will allow users to upload their contact information, specialty area, and region covered. The programming, forms and database tables are needed for this utility are nearly complete. We would also like to add a discussion feature to allow farmer-to-farmer or farmer-to-advisor discussion of problems, as brought up by some participants. However, we do not expect to add this feature before the end of the funding period.

Objective 3. Provide on the website three interactive soil-quality assessment techniques after they have been adapted based on work-session input. The techniques to be adapted are:
a) a scoresheet interpreter to evaluate soil quality using in-field observations and measurements (supporting NRCS’ Soil Quality Test Kit);
b) an index of soil quality using laboratory analyses;
c) an agricultural sustainability index where users identify their own economic, social, and environmental indicators.

Work is near completion for two of the originally proposed assessment tools. The index of soil quality using laboratory analyses is fully functional (although some additional features still need to be added) and the Test Kit support tools are under construction. Links can be found to each of the tools (or their placeholders) and their descriptions on the assessment tools introduction page (http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/ToolsSection/mainpage_assessment.html ). In addition, this page also links to guidelines for taking samples and designing experiments, why you might evaluate soil quality, and general information on soil quality assessment tools. Pages about individual indicators, including how to perform in-field tests and what the tests mean, are also under construction. (The indicator page templates can be accessed from within the soil quality index tool and from the soil functions page in the Soil Quality Basics section.) Although there was interest in having the assessment tools available in a downloadable format, this is not possible during the current funding cycle because it entails programming in different programming language (double the work). Faced with choosing between download and on-line versions, we opted to go with on-line versions because of the ability to generate dynamic links to supporting information in response to user input.

The Soil Quality Test Kit support tools include tables, spreadsheets and an adaptive management tool. Many group participants were concerned that the test kit was too time consuming. To help alleviate this concern, we have posted two tables that suggest the appropriate subset of Kit tests to perform depending on your region and management goals. To further ease the time and effort needed to use the Kit, the website offers a series of spreadsheets that automatically perform the necessary calculations for each Kit test. These spreadsheets are posted on the website but still require some work. The Kit scoresheet tool will offer site-specific interpretations for the Kit test results, which can be entered directly or taken from the calculator. This tool is not yet uploaded to the server but the majority of the programming is completed.

The soil quality index is fully operational but some additional features remain to be programmed. Some items that we would like to add as time allows include more indicator options, more graphical output options, and the option for users to change indicator scoring or weighting.

The sustainability index received significant interest from farmers but little interest among the other groups. Nevertheless, we chose to make work on this tool a low priority for two reasons. First, this tool had the least validating research. Second, we felt the need to add other features to the site that received more emphasis from all groups, such as sections on management and resources, leaving us with severe time constraints. Consequently, this tool will not be completed by the end of the project period. However, due to the interest shown by the farmer group, we are seeking additional funding to work on this and other features for the site.

One unexpected outcome from the focus groups was the interest in either adding hypothetical numbers or using other’s data to run the assessment tools. This prompted two design changes to the tools. First, we added expected ranges for the indicators to facilitate entering sensible hypothetical data. Second (and much more work intensive), we have designed a soil quality research database. Within each tool, the user has the option to generate his (her) own data, which includes hypothetical data or actual measures, or view reference data. The latter option will allow the user to search the database by region, soil type, practice, and/or indicator. The search will return best matches for which the user can view data means, site-specific indicators scores (interpretations), or a calculated soil quality index, depending on the user’s preference. It will include a link to the full citation for the paper. Search results will also return links to the appropriate practice and indicator pages within the website. The database is under construction and should be fully functional but not likely to be fully populated by the end of the project period.

Tool users generating their own data are prompted to ‘sign in’ to save their soil test data for future use. This will allow return visitors to use the tool with a minimum of additional input. Also at sign-in, users are given the option of making their data available for others to view (with name and exact location omitted). Because farmers in the focus groups were comfortable with saving their non-identifiable data for others to access, the database search tool will also be used to share on-farm data with other tool users. If this feature is well used (and with additional funding), we can eventually construct maps where site visitors to see soil quality changes for land managed by tool users. This could also serve as an evaluation of the website’s long-term impact.

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

Several planning and feedback mechanisms will help assess outcomes and guide further development of the website. The Moline work session participants and others will be invited to participate in a second user-based evaluation, conducted via the Internet. We will also be asking for volunteers for a follow-up telephone survey. In addition, the website contains several open-ended surveys evaluating each section of the website that will be voluntary for all site visitors. The include space for a virtual suggestions and inquires into if and how information was incorporated into work plans. The assessment tools section survey (draft version) can be viewed at http://129.186.1.36:8080/SoilQualityWebsite/Feedback/assessToolFeedback.htm.

In support of the sustainable agriculture strategic plans of Illinois and Iowa, we anticipate that farmers, extension educators, and NRCS personnel using the website will:
– learn basic principles of soil quality and soil function at the field, farm, and landscape scales;
– learn how to evaluate and choose management practices for changes to soil quality and agricultural sustainability;
– provide access to soil quality and sustainability teaching materials and resource professionals,
– be equipped with tools to assess the effects of management practices on soil quality , and
– help make these assessments become a regular part of the decision-making process.

Participants at the Moline work session echoed the collaborators’ belief that an interactive website that seeks to both educate about and aid in the assessment of soil quality and agricultural integrity could be a major step toward promoting sustainable agroecosystem management.

Collaborators: