71st SWCS International Annual Conference July 24-27, 2016 Louisville, KY

1. SWCS
Conference
Louisville, KY
July 27, 2016
PATHWAYS FOR
EFFECTIVE INFORMATION
TRANSFER BETWEEN
MANURE MANAGEMENT
PROFESSIONALS
Nichole Embertson, Ph.D.
Whatcom Conservation District
Erin Cortus, Ph.D.
South Dakota State University

2. BARRIER TO INFORMATION TRANSFER
University
Research
Service
Agents
 Education and outreach
portion of projects is
often mistargeted
 Needs of service agents
are not well understood
 End users don’t know
how to adapt research
results to their needs
 End products (models,
tools, etc.) are in wrong
format or often too
complicated to adopt

3. 1. Document effective information
transmission methods, pathways,
and formats for different audience
types
2. Demonstrate a hierarchal “decision
tree” approach of information
dissemination between various
audience types
PROJECT OBJECTIVES

4. Main
Objective
Project Team
Survey
Development
Pilot Test
(2014)
National
Survey
(2015)
Linking
Pathways
PROJECT OVERVIEW

5. Demographics
Level of knowledge and importance of issue
Organization type and years of experience
Tasks related to manure nutrient
management
Ranking of natural resource concerns
Information sources used and barriers
Informational products created and barriers
Collaborations and barriers to relationships
PATHWAYS SURVEY CONTENT

6. SURVEY RESULTS:
RESPONSES,
DEMOGRAPHICS, AND
SCOPE

7. Completeness Geographical Distribution
 49 states (98%)
 4 Canadian provinces
(1%)
 Unspecified (1%)
 Over 50% of the
responses were from
six states: PA (13.2%),
SD (9.4%), NE (7.7%),
ND (7.2%), OH (7.0%),
OK (6.4%)
SURVEY RESPONSES

8. Organization
Total
Responses, #
Proportion of
Responses, %
Completed
Surveys, #
Completed
Surveys, %
University or Extension 189 24.3 158 83.5
Government Non-Regulatory
Agency
155 19.9 130 83.9
Government Regulatory Agency 106 13.6 94 88.7
Producer 97 12.5 52 53.6
Special Government 88 11.3 72 81.8
For-Profit Private Service Group
or Sales
85 10.9 53 62.3
Commodity or Advocacy Group 16 2.1 10 62.5
Non-Profit Private Service Group 15 1.9 9 60.0
News and Media 9 1.2 7 77.8
Tribal Government or Agency 3 0.4 2 66.7
Other 14 1.8 7 50.0
No Response 187 14 7.5
Total 964 608
RESPONSE RATE BY CATEGORY

9. SURVEY RESPONDENT AGE AND GENDER
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older Prefer not to
answer
NumberofRespondents
Age Range (years)
Female
Male

10. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Nothing/Low Very
Little/Somewhat
Some/Important Good Deal/Very
Important
Expert/Most
Important
NumberofResponses
Level of Knowledge
Issue Importance
SELF REPORTED LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT

11. RESOURCE(S) OF CONCERN
AS IDENTIFIED BY ALL GROUPS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Surface
Water
Ground
Water
Soil Crop Air
Quality
Societal
Impact
Climate
Change
Other
PercentofTotalRespondents

12. SURVEY RESULTS:
INFORMATION USE BY
ORGANIZATION TYPE

13. INFORMATION USE AVERAGE RELEVANCE
1: NOT RELEVANT - 4: VERY RELEVANT
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
University/Extension Gov't Regulatory Gov't Non-Regulatory Producer

14. BARRIERS TO USE OF INFORMATION
SOURCES
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PercentageofResponses
Lacks Applicable Content High Cost High Time Commitment
Lack Access Low Source Credibility Challenging Logistics
No Barriers to Use

15. SURVEY RESULTS:
INFORMATION
DISSEMINATION BY
ORGANIZATION TYPE

16. INFO OUTPUT AVERAGE RELEVANCE
1: NOT RELEVANT - 4: VERY RELEVANT
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
University/Extension Govt Reg Agency Gov Non-Reg Agency Producer

17. BARRIERS TO USE AS DISSEMINATION
METHODS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PercentageofResponses
Not Relevant to My Audience High Cost
High Time Commitment Lack Technical Capacity to Produce
Lack Access to Audience No Barriers

18. SURVEY RESULTS:
COLLABORATION BY
ORGANIZATION TYPE

19. COLLABORATION RELEVANCE
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
University/Extension Govt Reg Agency Gov Non-Reg Agency Producer

20. SURVEY OBSERVATIONS

21. Decision Tools
Lack of Relevance or Poorly Worded Survey
Question?
Difference in focus on activities by
organizations
Information producers and users not always
aligned
State and Regional Differences
Further Analyses/Opportunities Available
By Region, Level of Knowledge, Resource of Concern
SOME OF OUR OBSERVATIONS

22. HOW CAN WE USE THIS
INFORMATION?

23. EXAMPLE OF DATA USE
Is this an important link?What is a key product?

24. Erin Cortus, PE, Ph.D.
• Associate Professor ad
Environmental Quality
Engineer
• South Dakota State
University
• P: (605) 688-5144
• E: erin.cortus@sdsu.edu
Nichole Embertson, Ph.D.
• Nutrient Management and
Air Quality Specialist
• Whatcom Conservation
District | Washington State
University
• P: (360) 526-2381
• E: nembertson@whatcomcd.org
PATHWAYS PROJECT CONTACT
INFORMATION
Additional Project Collaborators: Jill Heemstra, Amy Schmidt, Teng Lim,
Jeffrey Jacquet, Bishal Kasu
Funding: North Central Region Water Network | South Dakota SARE