2018 SWCS International Annual Conference July 29-August 1, 2018 Albuquerque Convention Center

1. Education and
Training Needs of
Conservation Agency
Staff for Using
Decision Support
Tools
Pranay Ranjan, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Purdue University
Email: ranjanp@purdue.edu
Linda S. Prokopy, Ph.D.
Professor, Natural Resources Social Sciences
Purdue University
Email: lprokopy@purdue.edu

2. Study Overview
 Establishing the connection between field scale conservation
efforts and resulting watershed scale environmental outcomes is
a challenge
 Decision-Support Tools (DSTs) can help establish this connection
 CEAP stimulated evaluation and development of both existing
and new DSTs
 Knowledge gap: What are the education and training needs of
conservation agency staff for using DSTs?
 Study objectives:
 To inform future development and design of DSTs
 To provide recommendations for DST training sessions
2

3. Methods
 Web-survey of conservation agency staff
 Sampling criteria: Conservation agency located in a
county that includes or included a CEAP Watershed
Assessment Study
 Survey administered in SWCD and USDA-NRCS offices
across 232 counties nationwide
 Survey invite, followed by 3 reminders*
 Number of survey invites sent: N=1,002
 Preliminary response rate: 24.25% (n=243)
3
* Survey currently open with a 4th reminder only to USDA-NRCS employees

4. RESULTS
4

5. Demographics
5
65.0%
33.7%
0.6% 0.6%
What is your gender? [n=163]
Male Female
Non-binary Choose not to answer
1.2%
7.6% 6.4%
67.8%
17.0%
What is the highest level of school you
have completed? [n=171]
High school diploma/GED Some college
2-year college degree 4-year college degree
Graduate degree

6. Demographics
6
28.4%
71.6%
Do you have a Bachelor’s degree in
natural sciences or other fields closely
related to watershed management
(e.g., regional planning)?[n=116]
Yes No
31.0%
69.0%
Do you have a Master's degree in
natural sciences or other fields closely
related to watershed management
(e.g., regional planning)?[n=29]
Yes No

7. Demographics
7
M SD
How long have you been working for the
organization/agency you are currently affiliated with?
(n=171)
15.36 11.56
How long have you been working in the field of
conservation/conservation planning? (n= 171)
16.53 12.09
Age (n= 165) 46.8 12.53

8. Demographics
8
46.6%
53.4%
Have you participated in training sessions
on watershed assessment and planning?
[n=176]
Yes No

9. Attitudes towards DSTs
9
M SD
I like the idea of learning about DSTs (n=180) 3.73 0.75
I believe DSTs can be helpful in increasing the effectiveness of
education and outreach programs with farmers (n= 180)
3.67 0.80
I believe DSTs can increase the effectiveness of current
conservation programs (n= 179)
3.53 0.84
Scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly agree
Overall, survey respondents had a positive attitude towards DSTs.

10. DSTs Usage
10
55.5%
44.5%
Do you use any DSTs? [n=236]
Yes No
21.7%
78.3%
Have you heard of any DSTs? [n=106]
Yes No

11. DSTs Usage
11
91.8%
8.2%
Do you use DSTs as part of your
professional responsibilities?
[n=122]
Yes No
69.7%
30.3%
Have you used output maps/datasets
from DSTs for education and outreach
with farmers? [n=122]
Yes No

12. DSTs Usage
12
58.2%
3.3%
38.5%
Do you have permission to go to formal
training(s) on DSTs? [n=122]
Yes No Don't know

13. Commonly used DSTs
13
70.5%
18.9%
10.7%
Please indicate your usage of...Revised Universal
Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE2) [n=122]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
47.9%
18.2%
24.0%
9.9%
Please indicate your usage of..Pasture Condition
Score (PCS) Tool [n=121]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it

14. Commonly used DSTs
14
35.2%
22.1%
28.7%
13.9%
Please indicate your usage of..Phosphorus Index
[n=122]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it
33.9%
20.7%
35.5%
9.9%
Please indicate your usage of..Wind Erosion
Prediction System (WEPS) [n=121]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it

15. Not commonly used, but known DSTs
15
20.7%
11.6%
35.5%
32.2%
Please indicate your usage of..Rangeland Health
Assessment (RHA) Tool [n=121]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it
12.3%
13.1%
47.5%
27.0%
Please indicate your usage of..Nutrient Tracking
Tool [n=122]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it

16. Not commonly used, but known DSTs
16
11.6%
9.9%
32.2%
46.3%
Please indicate your usage of..Soil Vulnerability
Index [n=121]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it
2.5%
13.2%
58.7%
25.6%
Please indicate your usage of..Water Erosion
Prediction Project (WEPP) Model [n=121]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it

17. Not used, but somewhat known DSTs
17
6.6%
3.3%
30.6%
59.5%
Please indicate your usage of..Agricultural
Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF)
[n=121]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it
2.5% 3.3%
37.2%
57.0%
Please indicate your usage of..Stewardship Tool
for Environmental Performance (STEP) [n=121]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it

18. Neither used, nor somewhat known DSTs
18
1.7% 5.0%
24.2%
69.2%
Please indicate your usage of..Spreadsheet Tool
for Estimation of Pollutant Loads (STEPL)
[n=120]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it
0.8% 5.0%
22.5%
71.7%
Please indicate your usage of..Hydrologic
Characterization Tool [n=120]
Currently use it
Have used in the past, but do not use it currently
Have heard about it, but never used it
Never heard of it

19. Attributes of Commonly Used DSTs
 Pasture Condition Score (PCS) tool: scored high on 9/10 attributes*; top
3 scores for:
 Ease of navigation through the user interface (M: 3.82 ; SD: .48; n: 72)
 Methods (e.g., assumptions and key algorithms) of this DST are well
documented in user manuals (M: 3.69; SD: .62; n: 62)
 Output maps/datasets easy to share and discuss with farmers
(M: 3.68; SD: .67; n: 71)
 RUSLE2: scored least on ease of navigation through the user interface
(M: 2.56; SD: 1.02; n: 99); scored a mean of 3 for most attributes
 Phosphorus Index: scored high for running reliably and producing
replicable results (M: 3.50 ; SD: .76; n: 58)
 Wind Erosion Prediction System: scored high on ease of software access
(M: 3.59; SD: .75; n: 58)
19
*Attributes measured using 10 statements about a DST
Scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly agree

20. DSTs Technical Roles Evaluation
20
Technical roles DSTs… …should
fulfill*
M (SD)
How well do they
fulfill these
roles?# M (SD)
Mean
Difference
Quantify financial benefits associated
with adoption of conservation practices
3.03
(0.65)
2.10
(0.97)
0.93
Help create watershed management plan
3.22
(0.57)
2.46
(0.73)
0.76
Help in watershed planning
3.24
(0.62)
2.55
(0.77)
0.69
Identify areas of concern within the
watershed
3.12
(0.65)
2.45
(0.84)
0.67
Target conservation practices at a HUC12
watershed scale
2.92
(0.79)
2.25
(0.89)
0.67
Quantify environmental benefits
associated with adoption of conservation
practices
3.32
(0.59)
2.73
(0.73)
0.59
* Scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Agree, 4 Strongly agree; n range: 78-91
# Scale: 1 Not well at all, 2 Slightly well, 3 Moderately well, 4 Extremely well; n range: 64-80

21. DSTs Technical Roles Evaluation
21
Technical roles DSTs… …should
fulfill*
M (SD)
How well do they
fulfill these
roles?# M (SD)
Mean
Difference
Quantify financial benefits associated
with adoption of conservation practices
3.03
(0.65)
2.10
(0.97)
0.93
Help create watershed management plan
3.22
(0.57)
2.46
(0.73)
0.76
Help in watershed planning
3.24
(0.62)
2.55
(0.77)
0.69
Identify areas of concern within the
watershed
3.12
(0.65)
2.45
(0.84)
0.67
Target conservation practices at a HUC12
watershed scale
2.92
(0.79)
2.25
(0.89)
0.67
Quantify environmental benefits
associated with adoption of conservation
practices
3.32
(0.59)
2.73
(0.73)
0.59
* Scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Agree, 4 Strongly agree; n range: 78-91
# Scale: 1 Not well at all, 2 Slightly well, 3 Moderately well, 4 Extremely well; n range: 64-80

22. DSTs Stakeholder Engagement Roles Evaluation
22
Stakeholder engagement roles
DSTs…
…should
fulfill*
M (SD)
How well do they
fulfill these
roles?# M (SD)
Mean
Difference
Help balance a farmer’s production and
conservation goals
3.14
(o.70)
2.30
(0.84)
0.84
Facilitate educating farmers about
areas of concern in the watershed
3.16
(0.69)
2.40
(0.76)
0.76
Facilitate discussion of conservation
opportunities/options with farmers in
a group setting
3.11
(0.71)
2.37
(0.72)
0.74
Facilitate engagement with stakeholder
groups in the watershed
2.94
(0.67)
2.33
(0.76)
0.61
Facilitate discussion of conservation
opportunities/options one-on-one
with farmers
3.20
(0.64)
2.65
(0.72)
0.55
* Scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Agree, 4 Strongly agree; n range: 79-90
# Scale: 1 Not well at all, 2 Slightly well, 3 Moderately well, 4 Extremely well; n range: 69-83

23. DSTs Stakeholder Engagement Roles Evaluation
23
Stakeholder engagement roles
DSTs…
…should
fulfill*
M (SD)
How well do they
fulfill these
roles?# M (SD)
Mean
Difference
Help balance a farmer’s production and
conservation goals
3.14
(o.70)
2.30
(0.84)
0.84
Facilitate educating farmers about
areas of concern in the watershed
3.16
(0.69)
2.40
(0.76)
0.76
Facilitate discussion of conservation
opportunities/options with farmers in
a group setting
3.11
(0.71)
2.37
(0.72)
0.74
Facilitate engagement with stakeholder
groups in the watershed
2.94
(0.67)
2.33
(0.76)
0.61
Facilitate discussion of conservation
opportunities/options one-on-one
with farmers
3.20
(0.64)
2.65
(0.72)
0.55
* Scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Agree, 4 Strongly agree; n range: 79-90
# Scale: 1 Not well at all, 2 Slightly well, 3 Moderately well, 4 Extremely well; n range: 69-83

24. Potential Barriers
24
Factors that may affect your learning about and use of DSTs M* SD
I believe I have the technical skills to run the DSTs (n= 98) 3.92# 0.73
I believe I can effectively communicate DST results to farmers in the
watershed (n= 98)
3.83+ 0.67
My current workload makes it difficult for me to learn about new DSTs
(n= 98)
3.81 0.92
Conservation offices/agencies lack the staffing capacity to learn about
new DSTs (n= 97)
3.76 0.94
There is a lack of training opportunities in my county/watershed to
learn about new DSTs (n= 98)
3.58 0.88
There is a lack of organizational funding to participate in DSTs training
opportunities (n= 98)
3.56 0.89
Scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly agree
*Means reported only for DST users; DST non-users tended to report closer to neither agree
nor disagree in the measurement scale.
# Mean difference of 0.72 between DST users and non-users
+ Mean difference of 0.63 between DST users and non-users

25. Potential Barriers
25
Factors that may affect your learning about and use of DSTs M* SD
I believe I have the technical skills to run the DSTs (n= 98) 3.92# 0.73
I believe I can effectively communicate DST results to farmers in the
watershed (n= 98)
3.83+ 0.67
My current workload makes it difficult for me to learn about new DSTs
(n= 98)
3.81 0.92
Conservation offices/agencies lack the staffing capacity to learn about
new DSTs (n= 97)
3.76 0.94
There is a lack of training opportunities in my county/watershed to
learn about new DSTs (n= 98)
3.58 0.88
There is a lack of organizational funding to participate in DSTs training
opportunities (n= 98)
3.56 0.89
Scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly agree
*Means reported only for DST users; DST non-users tended to report closer to neither agree
nor disagree in the measurement scale.
# Mean difference of 0.72 between DST users and non-users
+ Mean difference of 0.63 between DST users and non-users

26. Potential Barriers
26
Factors that may affect your learning about and use of DSTs M* SD
I believe I have the technical skills to run the DSTs (n= 98) 3.92# 0.73
I believe I can effectively communicate DST results to farmers in the
watershed (n= 98)
3.83+ 0.67
My current workload makes it difficult for me to learn about new DSTs
(n= 98)
3.81 0.92
Conservation offices/agencies lack the staffing capacity to learn about
new DSTs (n= 97)
3.76 0.94
There is a lack of training opportunities in my county/watershed to
learn about new DSTs (n= 98)
3.58 0.88
There is a lack of organizational funding to participate in DSTs training
opportunities (n= 98)
3.56 0.89
Scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly agree
*Means reported only for DST users; DST non-users tended to report closer to neither agree
nor disagree in the measurement scale
# Mean difference of 0.72 between DST users and non-users
+ Mean difference of 0.63 between DST users and non-users

27. Take-home messages!
 Recommendations for future development and design of
DSTs
 Technical roles of interest:
 Quantifying financial benefits associated with adoption of
conservation practices
 Help in creating watershed management plan and watershed
planning
 Stakeholder engagement roles of interest:
 Helping balance a farmer’s production and conservation goals
 Facilitate educating farmers about areas of concern in the watershed
 Technical and stakeholder engagement roles evaluation of
DSTs indicated a gap between the roles DSTs should fulfill
and how well current DSTs fulfill those roles
27

28. Take-home messages!
 Recommendations for future development and design
of DSTs
 DST features of interest:
 Ease of navigation through the user interface
 Methods documented in user manuals
 Output maps/datasets easy to share with farmers
 Output maps/datasets are often used for education and
outreach with farmers; ~70% DST users
28

29. Take-home messages!
 Recommendations for DST training sessions
 Be mindful of the difference between DST users and
non-users w.r.t. technical skills and ability to effectively
communicate results to farmers
 Several organizational barriers to learning about and use
of DSTs, such as current workload, staffing capacity, lack
of training opportunities, lack of organizational funding
to participate in DSTs training opportunities
29

30. Acknowledgements
 Thanks to:
 Laura Esman and Jackie Getson, NRSS lab, Purdue
University
 Survey respondents
 Daniel Moriasi and Lisa Duriancik
30

31. Questions!
31