Download Innovations in Ag Communities: 4R Nutrient Stewardship Study and more Essays (high school) Voice in PDF only on Docsity!
Journal of Applied CommunicationsJournal of Applied Communications
Volume 103 Issue 2 Article 7
Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns:Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns:
An Examination of The 4R Nutrient Stewardship ProgramAn Examination of The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program
Henry Seeger Purdue University Robyn S. Wilson The Ohio State University Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/jac Part of the Public Relations and Advertising Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4. License. Recommended CitationRecommended Citation Seeger, Henry and Wilson, Robyn S. (2019) "Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns: An Examination of The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program," Journal of Applied Communications: Vol. 103: Iss. 2. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834. This Research is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Applied Communications by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns: An ExaminationDiffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns: An Examination
of The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Programof The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program
AbstractAbstract This project is an examination of how strategies for innovation in fertilizer application are communicated to agricultural communities. Specifically, this project examines the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program‒a public communication campaign seeking to encourage the use of specific strategies, tools, and best practices in fertilizer application. The campaign is advanced by the Fertilizer Institute, an industry trade association, and targets local agricultural communities within the United States. To understand how this campaign functions to encourage adoption of innovative fertilizer application behaviors, this project draws on the principles of diffusion of innovations theory as well as established concepts within public relations, including issues management. KeywordsKeywords Public Communication Campaigns, Diffusion of Innovations, Fertilizer Runoff, Water Contamination Cover Page Footnote/AcknowledgementsCover Page Footnote/Acknowledgements This article is based in a Master's thesis project conducted at the School of Communication at Illinois State University. The authors express their appreciation to the 4R Research Fund for their support. This research is available in Journal of Applied Communications: https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/
Dramatic cases of water contamination from fertilizer runoff have brought attention to the problem. One particularly important case was the Toledo, Ohio water crisis in 2014. During this event the city of Toledo water supply became contaminated by the toxin microcystin, which had been produced by cyanobacteria that had multiplied at a high level in Lake Erie due to fertilizer runoff. The Toledo water crisis raised public awareness about fertilizer runoff and increased political pressure for change. In addition, this case called attention to the Maumee River Watershed as a major source of runoff (Seeger & Seeger, 2017). The campaign’s primary purpose was to address the problem of runoff through voluntary measures and prevent the introduction of new policies regulating fertilizer application. To achieve this, the campaign is structured around two objectives. The first is to encourage adoption of innovations in fertilizer application strategies among farmers. The secondary objective of this campaign is to publicly demonstrate that both the fertilizer industry and the agricultural community are invested in reducing fertilizer runoff and are taking proactive measures. The 4R Nutrient Stewardship program was used to engage with individual partners, stakeholders, and state-level associations and promote changes in fertilizer practices. The Fertilizer Institute also places and promotes stories about reduction of nutrient runoff in various media outlets, sponsors conferences and workshops, and engages in direct lobbying. Diffusion of Innovations Diffusion of innovations theory prescribes a number of important elements that should be incorporated into campaigns seeking to facilitate diffusion. Most notably, diffusion of innovations theory emphasizes the importance of local community members and opinion leaders as nodes of influence in communication networks. diffusion of innovations theory also describes a number of characteristics of an innovation that campaigns may emphasize to maximize an innovation’s likelihood of being adopted. These include relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. The primary purpose of diffusion of innovations theory is to describe how an innovation diffuses throughout target populations. Diffusion of innovations theory’s utility at identifying factors influencing adoption, as well as its wide applicability to a variety of contexts, make this theory useful for understanding how communities and individuals respond to innovations and make adoption decisions (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion of innovations theory has been used widely in marketing, organizational theory, international development, and social change to understand how communities come to adopt innovative new strategies, technologies, and ideas (Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy, & Floress, 2012). The theory in its current form is a product of decades of research across a variety of fields. The four main elements of the diffusion process include the innovation itself, the channels the innovation is communicated through, the time period when the process takes place, and the social system the innovation is diffused through. Rogers (2003) defined innovation as “an idea, practice, or project that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (p. 12). The term innovation often carries connotations of newness, uniqueness, value, benefits, and change (Smudde & Courtright, 20 15 ). An innovation’s likelihood to be adopted is determined by five core characteristics of innovations: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Rogers, 2003). Relative advantage refers to a potential adopters’ perception of an innovation as better than the idea, process or technology it replaces. Some perceived benefit to the innovation over existing ideas or technologies is necessary for it to be adopted. Compatibility refers to the degree that a potential adopter perceives the innovation as compatible with his or her values, norms, and needs. 2 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/ DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.
Complexity is a term referring to the perceived difficulty of the innovation to be understood, used, or implemented. Innovations that are simple and easy to apply are more likely to be adopted. Trialability is a factor describing how much the innovation can be experimented with without commitment. A trial application can help the adopter explore the innovation, identifying what value it may add before fully adopting it. Finally, observability refers to the degree the value added by adopting an innovation is visible to other potential adopters (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion occurs through both mass media and interpersonal channels. Innovations often move from mass media to interpersonal channels through opinion leaders. Opinion leaders are interpersonal sources who are trusted by others to evaluate innovations and provide guidance about whether or not to adopt (Lazarsfeld et at., 1948; Valente & Davis, 1999). Information flows from opinion leaders to potential adopters in one-to-one or group communication contexts (Sivayoganathan & Tedrick, 1986). Because what opinion leaders think about an innovation shapes the attitudes of others towards that innovation, opinion leaders provide an interpersonal channel for innovations to diffuse throughout a social system (Telg et al., 1996). Mass media channels are particularly important during the early stage of the diffusion process and are helpful as individuals are learning about innovations, however, these efforts are generally most effective when combined with interpersonal channels (Scherer, 1979). Interpersonal channels are more important during the middle and late stages of the diffusion process, when individuals are weighing the advantages and disadvantages of adoption. Mass media and interpersonal communication channels can be further described as either cosmopolite or localite. Cosmopolite channels link potential adopters with sources outside of their social system. Localite channels link potential adopters with sources within their social system. Information about innovations almost always enter a system through cosmopolite channels, however, as the innovation diffuses through the system, localite channels become more widely used. It is important to note that all mass media channels are cosmopolite, however, not all interpersonal channels are localite (Rogers 2003). A potential adopter may communicate interpersonally with an individual outside of their social system. The successful diffusion of an innovation is often facilitated by change agents, individuals or groups seeking to encourage the adoption of an innovation by another group (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). Change agents are often opinion leaders, internal interpersonal sources trusted by community members to evaluate innovations because of their expertise. According to Rogers (2003), the behavior of change agents is strategic, as it is a “process of customizing the design and delivery of a communication program based on the characteristics of an intended audience” (p. 367). Haider and Kreps (2010) recommended campaigns “leverage the influential capacities of change agents” to more successfully influence attitudes of community members (p. 4). Another main element of diffusion – time - refers both to the novelty of an innovation (as dependent upon the relative earliness/lateness of an adoption in the diffusion process) as well as to the rate of an innovation’s diffusion through a social system. The rate of diffusion follows a S - shaped adoption curve, corresponding to a process where a few individuals (early adopters) adopt an innovation and then over time more members adopt the innovation. This process continues until a point of saturation is reached or when about half of the population has adopted the innovation (Rogers, 1995). After this point adoption rates slow, as there are fewer potential adopters left in the population and those that remain are resilient towards adopting. The curve may be shorter for innovations that are valued highly and are therefore adopted quickly, or longer for innovations that take longer to catch on or fail to completely diffuse. 3 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019
farmers. The authors examined 31 social factors assessed over 25 years of adoption research exploring farm management practices. The variables that were consistently found to have the most significant impact on adoption included access to high quality of information; the financial capacity of the farmer; and connection to agencies, local communities, or groups of farmers. The impact of quality of information is consistent with Rogers’ overall theory, as those farmers who have information about innovations are likely to have a better understanding of the proposed innovation and consequently have higher rates of adoption. Quality of information is a function of the source farmers are using to gain information about an innovation. Financial capacity gives a farmer greater ability to experiment with new techniques and innovations, while being part of a network may enhance social influence and create opportunities for trialability and observability. Diffusion of innovations theory not only has utility as a frame for understanding what motivates changes in practices, but also as a frame for the design, analysis, and evaluation of campaigns. Such campaigns are an important activity in agricultural communications (Boone, Meisenbach, & Tucker, 2000; Tucker, 1996). Specifically, campaigns have been widely used to promote innovation in agricultural practices, including innovations in sustainable practices (Röling & Jiggins, 1994), pest control practices (Heong, Escalada, Huan, & Mai, 1998), and livestock vaccination (Heffernan, Thomson, & Nielsen, 2008), among many others. Research Questions We sought to examine the effectiveness of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship campaign at promoting the diffusion of 4R practices among communities in the region of the Maumee River Watershed. This involved identifying the reach of campaign messaging, the breadth of diffusion of the innovation, and the sources that are most effective in promoting the 4R principles. Therefore, we propose the following specific research questions for this study: RQ1: Do agriculturalists within the Maumee River Watershed perceive that they have knowledge of the 4R principles? RQ2: How do specific information sources relate to individual’s adoption of 4R practices within the Maumee River Watershed? RQ3: What is the extent of the diffusion of the 4R frameworks’ prescribed runoff reduction strategies through agricultural communities within the Maumee River Watershed? The answer to the first question will provide an indication of the success of the campaign in introducing the principles to the key target audience. Knowledge of an innovation and its potential benefits is a key first step in the diffusion process. The answer to the second question will identify the sources of information that are associated with that knowledge, and whether these sources make use of cosmopolite or localite channels of communication. Finally, the answer to the third question will provide some indication of the success of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program as a strategy to facilitate the diffusion of runoff reduction strategies. Contextualized within the bigger picture of campaigns generally, the answer to these three questions will also provide insight into the larger process of innovation as promoted by public communication campaigns. Methods The data used in this study were collected from farmers in the Maumee River Watershed from the end of December of 2015 until early March 2016 by The Ohio State University’s College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences using a survey questionnaire. Funding for this project was made available through the 4R Research Fund, a research initiative established by the 5 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019
fertilizer industry to support the documentation and measurement of the 4R nutrient stewardship program. Several procedures were used to facilitate an adequate return rate of surveys. A postcard indicating that a survey would be sent to the respondents was mailed to increase awareness of the study. This postcard included a web address for the online version of the survey. One week later a paper copy was mailed out to those who had not participated online. A second reminder postcard was sent out two weeks later, followed by second copy of the survey (Prokup et al. 2017 ). Respondents The population of interest was corn and soybean farmers with over 50 acres in the Maumee River Watershed. Once the initial sampling frame was identified, the sample was further stratified according to farm size: farms 50 to 249 acres (15%), 250 to 499 acres (13%), 500 to 999 acres (22%), 1000 to 1999 acres (31%), and 2000 plus acres (19%). This sample closely matches the census data for Ohio farms operating with over 50 acres of land (Prokup et al. 2017). The final sample included 3,273 farmers. Names and mailing addresses were obtained from the company Farm Market ID. Of the 3,273 initial contacts, some surveys were unopened, some farmers asked to be removed, and others indicted they were no longer farming. This left a total sample of 2,574 respondents, of which 748 were returned usable, for a response rate of 29.1% and a total sample for analysis of 748 (Prokup et al. 2017). Variables and Measurements Respondents completed questions ranging from perceived issues of nutrient runoff, to current nutrient application practices, to attitudes toward hiring Nutrient Service Providers. Demographic information was also collected about the farmer and the farm operation. While results of the survey were used in a variety of research projects (see Prokup et al. 2017 for a full descriptive summary of findings), the present study examined selected survey items that directly assessed the variables of knowledge, sources of information, and extent of diffusion. Knowledge Two items were used to evaluate perceived knowledge of innovations. The first was a single Likert-type item designed to assess respondents’ perceived understanding the 4R principles. Respondents were asked to rank their agreement with the statement, “I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the four nutrient management principles.” This item made use of a five- point Likert-type measurement with anchors of - 2 (strongly disagree) and 2 (strongly agree). The second perceived knowledge item evaluated relative understanding and asked respondents to rank their agreement with the statement, “I feel that I am better informed about nutrient stewardship than most farmers.” This scale also made use of a 5-point Likert-type measurement with anchors of - 2 (strongly disagree) and 2 (strongly agree). This was an important measurement for perceived knowledge as it relates to diffusion because it contextualized understanding relative to the larger agricultural community. The mean of these two items was used to operationalize each respondent’s knowledge of the 4R principles. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated and the items demonstrated adequate reliability, α = .74. The mean value of these two items was thus used as a single metric for knowledge, M = .71, SD = .7 2. Sources of Information Respondents were also asked to report how often they receive information about nutrient 6 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/ DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.
Results The survey data were analyzed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v.24). Knowledge A one-sample t - test was used to answer research question one, which asked if agriculturalists within the Maumee River Watershed perceive that they have knowledge of the 4R principles. The perceived knowledge score was compared to a hypothesized population mean of 0, which was chosen as a neutral midpoint denoting neither high nor low levels of knowledge. The perceived knowledge score (M=.71, SD=.72) was statistically significantly higher by 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.76) than the knowledge comparison score of 0, t (739) = 26.63, p = .0005, d = .98. Respondents had a level of perceived knowledge regarding the 4R principles statistically significantly above 0 according to this test. Sources of Information A binomial logistic regression was performed to answer research question two, which asked if specific information sources relate to individual’s adoption of 4R practices within the Maumee River Watershed. Specifically, this regression was used to ascertain the effects of eleven information sources about nutrient stewardship on the likelihood that farmers have changed their 4R-related practices on their farm in the past three years. The logistic regression model was statistically significant, χ^2 (11) = 108.89, p < .0005. The model explained 19.7% (Nagelkerke R^2 ) of the variance in 4R related farming practices and correctly classified 67.8% of cases. Sensitivity was 80.8%, specificity was 49.7%, positive predictive value was 69.1%, and negative predictive value was 65.0%. Of the eleven predictor variables, only crop adviser/consultant ( p < .001 ), professional/industry magazines ( p =.037), and the Farm Bureau ( p =.05) were statistically significant and had a positive relationship to changing farm practices. For every one unit increase in reported frequency of information from their crop adviser/consultant, professional/industry magazines, or the Farm Bureau, the odds of a farmer changing their practices on the farm increased by 1.4 3 (crop adviser/consultant), 1.2 4 (professional/industry magazines), and 1.21 (Farm Bureau). A comparison of the eleven predictor values is provided in Table 2. Table 2_. Comparison of Sources of Information_ B SE Wald Df P Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio Lower Upper Your County Extension Agent
University Extension 0.1 7 0.13 1.61 1 0.20 1.18 0.91 1.5 4 Farm Bureau 0.1 9 0. 10 3.7 9 1 0.05 1.2 1 1. 0 1. Your County Soil and Water Conservation District
Your Crop Advisor/ Consultant
Your Fertilizer Applicator or retailer
USDA NRCS - 0.03 0.1 8 0.10 1 0.7 5 0.9 7 0.78 1.
8 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/ DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.
Professional/Industry Magazines
Commodity Groups - 0.11 0.10 1.1 8 1 0.2 8 0.89 0.7 3 1. 10 A family member or farm partner
Other farmers in your community
Extent of Diffusion This study looked at the overall percent of respondents that have changed 4R-related practices in order to answer research question 3, which asked to what extent the 4R frameworks’ prescribed runoff reduction strategies have diffused through agricultural communities within the Maumee River Watershed. A change in behaviors is thought to be an indication of adoption. The majority of respondents, 56.4% ( N = 748), indicated they changed their 4R-related practices on their farm in the past three years. Changes since the inception of the campaign are understood as adoption. Diffusion of innovations prescribes the following distribution of innovators: 2.5% early adopters, 13.5% early majority, 34% late majority, and 16% laggards (Valente, 1993). Taken together, innovators, early adopters, and early majority constitute 50% of the population distribution. This positions the diffusion of the 4R framework’s prescribed runoff reduction strategies firmly in the late majority stage of the diffusion process. Discussion The goal of this project was to explore a public communication campaign seeking to encourage behavioral change within an agricultural community using diffusion of innovations. Specifically, this project assessed the effectiveness of the campaign in facilitating the diffusion of 4R related practices through the target agricultural communities. Research question 1 asked: Do agriculturalists within the Maumee River Watershed perceive that they have knowledge of the 4R principles? Knowledge of an innovation is identified by Rogers (2003) as the first stage of the innovation-decision process, and is an important prerequisite to adoption (Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy, & Floress, 2012). The results of the survey indicate respondents feel they do understand the 4R principles of nutrient stewardship. Perceived understanding, when compared with the instrument midpoint of relative understanding, was statistically significantly higher than the selected knowledge comparison score. Responses to the question, “I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the four nutrient management principles,” as a self-reported, perceived knowledge score were measured to be .71 on a scale ranging from - 2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree), indicating solid agreement. Because the four nutrient management principles are the basis of the 4R campaign, it is likely that the campaign has improved perceived understanding of the innovation, at least to some degree. While perceived understanding is not a measure of actual understanding, the results for RQ1 show that individuals are familiar with the 4R program and believe that they have some knowledge of the 4R principles. Research question 2 asked: How do specific information sources relate to individual’s adoption of 4R practices within the Maumee River Watershed? The results for RQ2 indicated three specific sources of information were significantly associated with adoption of the 4R principles. The logistic regression analysis of information sources about nutrient stewardship accounted for roughly 20% of the likelihood of farmers reporting they had adopted 4R-related practices on their farms. The three sources of information associated with change, listed in order of significance, 9 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019
adoption, their connections to external organizations make retailers and providers cosmopolite channels of communication. As a result of the close professional relationships that exists between retailers and providers and the Fertilizer Institute’s member organizations, potential adopters may believe that retailers and providers have more loyalty to the Fertilizer Institute than to farmers within the social system. The Ohio 4R certification program provided incentives to retailers and providers to encourage their customers to adopt the 4R principles, and this may have created pressures that limited the influence of retailers and providers within the social system. Some sources are more likely to reach the target audiences, and some sources will be more persuasive than others at different stages of the diffusion process (Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy, & Floress, 2012). The results for RQ2 indicate that some of the channels emphasized by the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program are associated with adoption. Localite channels, specifically the crop advisers, were associated with adoption. However, cosmopolite and mass media channels still appear to be the primary sources of information concerning the 4R principles. This conclusion is broadly consistent with the diffusion of innovations theory. Research question 3 asked: What is the extent of the diffusion of the 4R frameworks’ prescribed runoff reduction strategies through agricultural communities within the Maumee River Watershed? The results indicate a 56% adoption rate for the 4R principles. At the late-majority stage of adoption, localite interpersonal channels should be more influential, but the influence of cosmopolite channels should still be felt. Opinion leaders seem to be particularly important in facilitating the adoption of innovative 4R practices. Other sources that used interpersonal channels, such as “other farmers in your community” and “a family member or farm partner,” were not significant sources of information regarding 4R practices, indicating that diffusion of the 4R principles may not yet have reached the point where further diffusion is driven by peer-to-peer communication. Because cosmopolite channels were found to be associated with adoption more so than localite interpersonal channels, the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program appears to have not yet achieved the critical mass stage of diffusion. Rogers (2004) noted that innovators are the first 2.5% to adopt an innovation, followed by early adopters at 13.5%, the early majority at 34%, the late majority for another 34%, and laggards as the remaining 16%. These results indicate the 4R innovations have entered the late majority stage of adoption. This suggests the diffusion may be moving towards a state where the majority of information about an innovation comes from inside the social system and “further diffusion becomes self-sustaining” (Rogers, 2004, p. 13). Results for RQ2 indicated the diffusion of the 4R innovations may not yet be self-sustaining, as cosmopolite channels were associated with adoption more so than localite interpersonal channels. Peer-to-peer communication between community members is broadly consistent with diffusion entering a self-sustaining stage in the diffusion framework. The primacy of sources of information that make use of localite interpersonal channels would be seen as one indication that the diffusion may have been successful and may be moving towards becoming self-sustaining (Rogers, 2003; Valente & Davis, 1999). Finally, the overall goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the 4R campaign at promoting changes in nutrient management in the region of the Maumee River Watershed. The results suggest that about half of farmers report perceived knowledge about the principles, they have adopted some or all of the principles, and there has been an increase in adoption throughout their network. The conclusion that 56% of respondents indicate some change in 4R practices suggests the campaign has been at least partially successful in achieving the strategic goal of promoting innovation in fertilizer practices. These results indicate the 4R campaign may be achieving some success in promoting changes in nutrient management. However, it does not 11 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019
appear that campaign communication has yet achieved sufficient saturation of adoption for further diffusion to become self-sustaining. The impact of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program on water quality is not clear. However, some sources do indicate modest improvement (Felton, 2017). While harmful algal blooms have continued to occur in Lake Erie, none have been at a level to impact domestic water supplies since the Toledo water crisis. Chris Winslow, director of the Ohio Sea Grant program, noted that the 2017 harmful algal bloom was not as serious as it had been in years past (Johnston, 2017). However, these variations are also driven by weather and climate conditions and may not be connected to changes initiated through the 4R Program. The Maumee River remained on the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2018 list of rivers with impaired water quality. The Agency noted, “most of the 31 waters placed on the nitrate watch list are in northwestern Ohio” (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2018b, NP). Another important point is that the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program, and any related changes in 4R practices, did not prevent new fertilizer regulation from being put into place. In July 2015, the Ohio General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1, limiting the application of fertilizer and manure on frozen, snow-covered, or saturated fields (Ohio Legislature, 2018). This legislation was in direct response to the Toledo water crisis and was part of a larger plan for agricultural practices and water quality in Ohio, Michigan, and Ontario. In 2018, Michigan finalized details of a plan to cut phosphorus inputs to Lake Erie, identifying three main goals: 1) “minimize the extent of oxygen depleted zones in the waters of the central basin of Lake Erie; 2) maintain healthy animal and plant life in the western and central basins; and 3) maintain cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) levels that do not produce concentrations of toxins” (MDARD, 2018, para 2). Michigan’s plan does not include regulation of fertilizer use, but instead calls for the implementation of agricultural best practices. Some environmental and advocacy groups seem to regard the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program favorably, indicating that some of the Fertilizer Institute’s public image goals may have been achieved. The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program was cited by the National Wildlife Federation as a positive step taken by the agricultural community because “nutrient management on participating farm fields minimize the potential for runoff and maximizes crop use of nutrients” (Hesse, 2018, para 3). In addition, the Fertilizer Institute has begun working with The Nature Conservancy to promote the 4R principles (Martin, 2016). Endorsements by environmental groups and the inclusion of 4R principles in the Ohio EPA plans for water quality improvement suggest that the campaign is visibly demonstrating efforts were being made to reduce runoff. This was one of the goals of the campaign. The 4R campaign appears to have reduced friction and increased harmony between fertilizer organizations and at least some of their key publics, even if the long- term effect on water quality is unknown. Conclusions Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, public communication campaign efforts may have some utility in facilitating the diffusion of innovations to address environmental problems. The primary goals of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program were to facilitate the diffusion of the 4R principles to the local agricultural community and to improve water quality. These goals supported the larger vision of The Fertilizer Institute to represent the policy and public communication needs of the fertilizer industry (TFI, 201 6 ). The adoption of the 4R principles by farmers will limit fertilizer runoff and may reduce the severity of harmful algal blooms. It is not possible to conclude at this point that the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program has reduced fertilizer 12 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/ DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.
the study were limited. Data were collected by researchers at The Ohio State University, focusing within a limited geographic area and on one specific innovation campaign. Scholars should be careful not to generalize from this study nor to expect these results to be consistent in all other campaign contexts. The survey used to collect data on the 4R program in the Maumee River Watershed focused on a broad set of factors and did not collect detailed information about the communication practices of specific sources of information or the larger social structure of the community. Subsequent work could explore these questions in greater detail with a more targeted survey instrument and more comprehensive measures. The survey only examined perceptions of farmers about their knowledge of fertilizer innovations, and employed only two items, which is a limitation in the measure of knowledge used in this study. Logistical challenges like this are common in the development of scales, and this sometimes results in less than optimum measures (Eisinga et al., 2013). That notwithstanding, the two items did constitute a direct and appropriate measure within the context of the larger questionnaire. Future survey work could more rigorously investigate respondents’ perceptions of the campaign, as well as sources and channels, to explore how these relate to respondents’ perceptions of the value added by innovations. As with other investigations of public communication campaigns, the goals of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program must be inferred to a large degree. Organizations are usually unwilling to open their internal decision-making and strategy deliberations to researchers. In an August 2017 blog post, Lara Moody, the Fertilizer Institute’s vice president of stewardship and sustainability programs, wrote: All sectors of the fertilizer industry are on board with increasing 4R adoption. Fertilizer application practices are at the center of our industry. Say it’s a nice slogan if you want, but applying the right source, at the right rate, the right time and in the right place provides a unifying and actionable message. It has brought significant resources and voices to addressing water quality challenges and preventing nutrient loss (Moody, 2017). This post indicates the Fertilizer Institute has positioned the 4R campaign as a unifying and comprehensive solution to the fertilizer runoff problem in the Maumee River Watershed. The 4R campaign is the Fertilizer Institute’s primary way of addressing the fertilizer runoff issue. An area for future investigation concerns the role of new media as a source of information. New media, with its very immediate reach and ability to disseminate user-produced content, can blur the lines among localite and cosmopolite channels, mass media and interpersonal channels, and organizational and peer-to-peer communication. Digital spaces may create new opportunities for change agents to be leveraged to enhance a campaign (Nisbet & Kotcher, 2009). The sources of information identified as important for innovation should be further explored. Specifically, the ways existing community members can function as information sources requires more study. Understanding how opinion leaders functioned as change agents for the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program may clarify the underlying influence of these individuals in peer- to-peer interactions using word-of-mouth communication. Further exploring how these change agents communicate using cosmopolite and localite channels may reveal new aspects about the process of diffusion. The specific appeals and arguments used by change agents is also important in the success of an innovation (Veil, 2010). Finally, it may be helpful to explore how these agents use resources and specific channels to promote innovation. Water systems are threatened by a number of factors, including population growth, commercialization of water resources, competition, climate change, and contamination from 14 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/ DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.
agricultural practices. Educating people about innovative practices and technologies, encouraging support for these practices, and facilitating adoption and diffusion of these innovations, are necessary to protect water resources. Behavioral change is also necessary to manage many other public issues that impact both society and organizations. One effective way behavior is changed is through persuasive campaigns. Developing new frames for campaign research is important to both enhance the effectiveness of campaigns and to understand how organizations, including powerful trade associations, influence issues, public policy, and behavior. These new frames can also inform communication practice by enhancing campaign design. Scholars should thus continue to test and evaluate theories, especially diffusion of innovations, in specific case contexts, such as the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program, to continue to expand and refine this area of scholarship. 15 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019
MDARD. (2018, March 7). Michigan releases final plan to improve Lake Erie water quality. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7- 125 - 1660 - 462931 --,00.html Meyer, A. J. (1985). Communication for Extension: Developing Country Experience, Journal of Applied Communications, 68 (1). 13-24. doi: 10.4148/1051-0834. Moody, L. (2017, August 10). It Begins with the 4Rs. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.tfi.org/the-feed/it-begins-with-the-4Rs Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Oxford. Nisbet, M. C., & Kotcher, J. E. (2009). A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication , 30 , 328-354. doi: 10.1177/ Ohio Legislature (2018). Senate Bill 1. Retrieved from https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-SB- 1 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2018a). Maumee River Watershed. Retrieved from http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/tmdl/maumeeriver.aspx Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2018b). Ohio Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report 2018. Retrieved from http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport.aspx#1798510166-summary- of- 2018 - report) Okaka, W. (2010). Developing regional communications campaigns strategy for environment and natural resources management policy awareness for the East African community. Res Journal of Environmental Earth Sciences , 2 , 106-111. O'Sullivan, P. B., & Carr, C. T. (2018). Masspersonal communication: A model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. New Media & Society , 20 , 1161 - 1180. doi: 10.1177/ Prokup, A., Wilson, R., Zubko, C., Heeren, A, and Roe, B. 2017. 4R Nutrient Stewardship in the Western Lake Erie Basin. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, School of Environment & Natural Resources. Riesenberg, L. E., & Gor, C. O. (1989). Farmers’ preferences for methods of receiving information on new or innovative farming practices. Journal of Agricultural Education , 30 (3), 7-13. doi: 10.5032/jae.1989. Rogers, E. M. (1999). Anatomy of the two subdisciplines of communication study. Human Communication Research, 25 , 618-631. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1999.tb00465.x Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Rogers, E. M. (2004). A prospective and retrospective look at the diffusion model Journal of Health Communication , 9 , 13-19. doi: 10.1080/ Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovation: A Cross-Cultural Approach. 2nd Edition. New York, NY: The Free Press. Röling, N. G., & Jiggins, J. L. S. (1994). Policy paradigm for sustainable farming. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension , 1 , 23-43. doi: 10.1080/ Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology , 8 , 15-24. doi: 10.3386/w Scherer, C. (1979). A field experiment in equalizing the distribution of information. Journal of Applied Communications, 62(1), 3-14. doi: 10.4148/1051-0834. 17 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019
Schwartz, L. A. (1994). The role of the private sector in agricultural extension: Economic analysis and case studies (pp. 54-54). London, England: The Overseas Development Administration. Seeger, M. & Seeger, H. (2017). “Don’t Drink the water: Warning Communication in a Northern Ohio Water Emergency.” In Casing Risk and Crisis Communication , C. Leiberman, T. Avtgis & D. Rodriguez (Eds). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Sivayoganathan, C. Tedrick, W. (1986). Interpersonal Communications in the Adoption Process. Journal of Applied Communications , 69(4), 1 - 7. doi: 10.4148/1051-0834. Smudde, P. & Courtright, J.L. (2015). In C.E. Caroll (Ed.). Form Following Function: Message Design for Managing Corporate Reputations. The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Reputation , 404-417. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. Snyder. (2018). 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program celebrates four year anniversary. Ohio Farm Bureau. Retrieved from https://ofbf.org/2018/03/29/4r-nutrient-stewardship-certification- program-celebrates-four-year-anniversary/ Telg, R. Irani, T. Monaghan, P. Chiarelli, C. Scicchitano, M. and Johns, T. (2012). Preferred Information Channels and Source Trustworthiness: Assessing Communication Methods Used in Florida's Battle Against Citrus Greening. Journal of Applied Communications , 96(1), 1-12. doi: 10.4148/1051-0834. TFI (20 16 ). The Fertilizer Institute. Retrieved from www.tfi.org Tucker, M. (1996). Ferment in our field: Viewing agricultural communication research from a social science perspective. Journal of Applied Communications , 80 (4), 4. doi: 10.4148/1051-0834. Unay Gailhard, İ., Bavorová, M., & Pirscher, F. (2015). Adoption of agri-environmental measures by organic farmers: the role of interpersonal communication. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension , 21 (2), 127-148. doi: 10.1080/1389224x.2014. Valente, T. (1993). Diffusion of innovations and policy decision-making. Journal of Communication, 43, 30-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01247.x Valente, T., & Davis, R. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 566 , 55-67. doi: 10.1177/ Valente, T. W., & Saba, W. P. (1998). Mass media and interpersonal influence in a reproductive health communication campaign in Bolivia. Communication Research , 25 , 96-124. doi: 10.1177/ Veil, S. R. (2010). Identifying Adoption Barriers in Organizational Rhetoric: A Response to the Strategic Plan for the National Animal Identification System. Journal of Applied Communications (94) 1, 33-48. doi: 10.4148/1051-0834. 18 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/ DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.
