Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Pathways for effective information embertson

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Upcoming SlideShare
Presentation 1
Presentation 1
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 24 Ad

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Pathways for effective information embertson (20)

Advertisement

More from Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Pathways for effective information embertson

  1. 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. 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. 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. 4. Main Objective Project Team Survey Development Pilot Test (2014) National Survey (2015) Linking Pathways PROJECT OVERVIEW
  5. 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. 6. SURVEY RESULTS: RESPONSES, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND SCOPE
  7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. SURVEY RESULTS: INFORMATION USE BY ORGANIZATION TYPE
  13. 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. 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. 15. SURVEY RESULTS: INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BY ORGANIZATION TYPE
  16. 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. 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. 18. SURVEY RESULTS: COLLABORATION BY ORGANIZATION TYPE
  19. 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. 20. SURVEY OBSERVATIONS
  21. 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. 22. HOW CAN WE USE THIS INFORMATION?
  23. 23. EXAMPLE OF DATA USE Is this an important link?What is a key product?
  24. 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

×