Windbreaks and ecosystem-based assistance in the Natural Resources Conservation Service

Gail Dishongh

Reprinted electronically with the permission of the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Originally appeared in the May-June, 1995 issue of that Journal.

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is currently integrating a combination of social and physical factors in the design and implementation of its windbreak assistance activities. In an effort to describe, assess, and underscore the need for this integration, as called for in ecosystem based assistance, a preliminary field assessment was conducted during the spring of 1993.

The results of the preliminary assessment describe the perceptions and behaviors of farmers and program managers relative to the establishment and maintenance of windbreaks. Findings from the assessment will serve as a basis for recommendations to improve NRCS' current windbreak assistance activities.

The sample

During spring 1993, a preliminary field assessment was conducted by NRCS' Rural Sociologist, who provides technical assistance to states in the Midwest. Technical assistance includes, in part, the collection, evaluation and dissemination of social data as it pertains to the adoption of windbreaks. Twenty-nine farmers were contacted by phone in six Midwestern states: Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The number of respondents ranged from a high of 7 in Ohio to a low of 3 in Wisconsin and Michigan. The sample is not, and was not intended to be, a statistically valid sample. Rather, it is a preliminary field assessment of farmers' responses relative to a select set of social considerations. The names of the farmers contacted were supplied by NRCS District Conservationists and State Staff Foresters. These individuals work cooperatively with State Conservation District personnel to provide technical assistance to farmers. The criteria used to select the farmers were the farmers' willingness to discuss their windbreaks and a desire to "sample" farmers' responses in different areas where windbreak assistance activities have accelerated.

Farmers were asked to discuss their sources of information, what motivated them to plant windbreaks and the benefits and "hassles" of their windbreaks. These responses are summarized below.

Farmers were also asked to discuss their needs relative to future assistance. In addition to discussions with farmers, two NRCS field managers, one regional technical center staff head, and a consultant to NRCS were contacted and asked to address the issue of "increasing the acceptance and use of windbreaks." The respondents' comments are incorporated into the discussions contained within the Ecosystem Based Assistance and Policy and Policy makers categories. The criteria for the selection of these individuals were their current responsibilities for technical assistance, technical expertise, and/or management responsibilities in the area of windbreak technology.

The assessment

The first category, "The Manager/The Resource," is a numerical description of a select set of personal, farm structure, and physical resource factors. The second category, "The Technology," describes how farmers first learned about the technology, their reasons for establishing the windbreak, and their comments on the benefits and "hassles" associated with the technology. "Ecosystem Based Planning Assistance" is the third category. It contains a summary of what farmers, program managers, and technical experts recommend in the design and implementation of future assistance programs. "Ecosystem Based Planning Assistance" is also a function of partnership and training, two topic areas discussed in this same category. The last category is "Policy and Policy makers." It contains program manager comments as well as recommendations concerning future agency policies.

The manager/The resource

As noted in Table 1, the average age of the farmers was 50. There was an almost equal distribution of "young" and "old' farmers. Twenty-three of the 29 farmers contacted were owner-operators having additional rented land. The median size of farms was 1, I 00 acres.

Physical resource considerations. The majority of farmers (20 out of 29) raised crops. When discussing soil type, most farmers described their soils by using a general description such as "sandy soil" or "clay." Farmers gave multiple responses on the functions of their windbreaks (Table 2). The most frequently cited functions were field and farmstead protection as well as wildlife enhancement. The median age of windbreaks was 20 years. The years ranged from a low of I to a high of 50 or more.

Table 1. Personal characteristics

The median age was 49.

Table 2. Physical characteristics: Function of windbreak (Majority of farmer's responses)

Table 3. Social considerations: Information sources

The technology

Information sources. Farmers were asked to discuss how and where they first learned about windbreaks. Respondents cited multiple sources. Family tradition was the most often named information source, followed by a federal government agency representative. There was a minimal number of entries made for each of the other potential sources (Table 3).

Motivational factors. In addition to commenting on information sources, farmers were asked to address on what motivated them to adopt a windbreak practice system. The reasons cited included maintaining a field border, wildlife enhancement, inheriting the family farm with a system in place and cost share incentives. No one reason predominated; however, it seemed that farmers plant "out of" their own experience and observations (Table 4).

Benefits. Farmers were also asked to discuss the benefits of their windbreaks. Soil loss reduction was cited by 17 of the 29 farmers. Other benefits that were noted during the discussions included wildlife enhancement, farmstead protection, protection of field crops and moisture control (Table 5).

Problems with technology "hassles." As with the adoption of any technology, there are always hassles. Farmers were asked to talk about the hassles associated with the establishment and/or maintenance of their windbreaks; weed control was named most often (Table 6).

Recommendations. If the goal is to increase acceptance and use of windbreaks, NRCS must expand its present efforts to identify, describe and assess those social factors that influence a farmer's decision to establish and maintain a wind erosion control system. NRCS could enter into a cooperative agreement with a land grant university. An interdisciplinary study team could be funded to design an application model that incorporates both social and physical resource factors. The model could then be tested for statistical reliability and applicability in each of the four regional NRCS Technical Centers.

Ecosystem-based planning assistance

At the conclusion of the phone discussions, farmers were asked to select three items that NRCS should consider as it develops its windbreak assistance program (Table 7). It is important to note that farmers remarked that cost share helped "to get them started" and also helped "to offset the cost incurred due to the loss of young trees." In discussing assistance for the planting of windbreaks, farmers noted that demonstrations in their given geographic area are needed.

Through demonstrations, farmers can see for themselves how benefits can accrue as well as how "hassles" can be minimized and/or overcome. Demonstration sites can also serve as the meeting place for farmers. In evaluating the usefulness of a particular technology, it is a given fact that farmers evaluate by listening to other farmers. (Nowak)

Partnering. In the delivery of its assistance on windbreaks, NRCS works in partnerships. Partnerships have been established with farmers, districts and other USDA agencies. These

Table 4. Social considerations: Motivational factors

Table 5. Social considerations: benefits

Table 6. Social considerations: Problems with technology "hassles"

Table 7. Social considerations: Suggested improvements for assistance

partnerships are long standing, having their beginning with the inception of the Agency during the Dust Bowl era. To illustrate, in Ohio, NRCS has established a partnership with the State Conservation District, the State Forestry Division, and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) to provide weed control services to area farmers. State agency equipment is used to provide low-cost spraying services to farmers. In another area in Ohio, a Stewardship Incentive Program was established between farmers and federal and state agencies, namely, NRCS, ASCS, the Soil Conservation District, and the State Division of Forestry. Through this incentive program, farmers can receive cost share for up to four years on maintenance and replanting of windbreaks. These same partners have worked together for cost share on an innovative practice, tree shelters.

Recommendations. NRCS should continue to strengthen and form partnerships to meet the expressed needs of the farmer. Because many farmers noted that weed control was a problem, there is an opportunity to illustrate how one partnership was formed to address the issue of weed control. The weed control program already in existence in Ohio should be studied for its merits and applicability throughout the Midwest. If such a program is to be adopted, it must include a demonstration component.

Training

Students and subject matter. A unique training course was designed to train field staff, program managers and representatives from NRCS' District partners. This course titled "Windbreak Technology' is available, upon request, to all NRCS State offices. The unique features of this 5-day course are its "students" and its "subject matter." In any given state, enrollment is open to NRCS field staff and program managers, as well as to the State Conservation District staff. The intent of this "open enrollment is to offer duplicate training to NRCS' long standing partner, namely the District. Federal and state staffs having responsibilities for the implementation of conservation activities can in partnership be given the opportunity to increase their knowledge, skill and abilities in the area of windbreaks as a conservation technology.

The subject matter is a second unique feature of the "Windbreak Technology" course. Students are given training using a classroom lecture/field exercise combination. While it is apparent that students are trained to select the appropriate tree/shrub species and design the layout and to calculate the benefits; what is not so apparent is that students also receive training on social considerations. This training includes a classroom lecture on the "sociology' of the adoption and diffusion of windbreaks as a conservation technology. Emphasis is placed on such factors as a farmer's history relative to windbreaks, the role of information sources as well as community and institutional considerations. Each of these social considerations has been identified as a key element in ecosystem based assistance. In the field, students are coached to listen to what farmers are saying about what is important to them, about hassles they are experiencing in their daily operations, and about future farm goals. Training students to "listen" to farmers' comments is key in the delivery of ecosystem based assistance.

Recommendations. NRCS should continue its current training arrangements, particularly with district staff. The simultaneous training of NRCS and its partners can only help to ensure that farmers will receive consistent information. Too often, farmers receive "mixed messages" from different agency representatives. Mixed messages are oftentimes cited as a barrier to the adoption of a technology (Rogers). In addition, emphasis should be given to the training of program managers at all levels, both within NRCS and the Districts. Few current managers have received formal training on the application of windbreaks as a conservation practice/system.

As for the subject matter, NRCS should consider a more cohesive linking of the social and physical resource considerations, both in its classroom and field activities. A "check list" is currently used to insure that students consider the necessary physical resources. Pertinent social resource considerations must be added to that check list and be incorporated into the small group student projects. Linking benefits to what a farmer wants, needs and values is a key step in gaining the acceptance and use of windbreak systems within an ecosystem.

Policy and policy makers

According to a consultant and former national windbreak forester, NRCS has a leadership responsibility in regard to windbreaks and wind erosion control systems. These systems are designed to reduce soil loss to acceptable levels. However, the use of windbreaks, either as a stand alone practice or as a practice in combination with traditional tillage practices has taken a "back seat" through the years. This back seat attention can be evidenced by a statement made by a former Midwestern state conservationist: "Wind erosion does not exist in this state." Similarly, a staff head at one of the national technical centers commented that "during his nearly 20 years in the field, windbreaks were unheard of as conservation practices." At minimum, it would appear that policy makers do not fully understand windbreaks and wind erosion control systems as a conservation technology within an ecosystem.

Recommendations. If, indeed, NRCS has a leadership role in regards to windbreaks and wind erosion control systems, policies directed at the use of windbreaks as a conservation practice/system, right along with other agronomic and engineering practices, must be given "front burner" attention. Field application of policy will only occur if top management leads and directs the field application. Currently, states are developing case studies for inclusion in their revised Field Office Technical Guides (FOTG). These case studies are to reflect "typical" farming operations around the state. The impacts and effects of various conservation activities on a particular farm are to be profiled. The revised FOTG could serve as the vehicle that policy makers use to link windbreak, engineering, and agronomic practices into a total resource management system. Such integration is the foundation for the delivery of effective and efficient ecosystem based assistance.

The conclusion - An assertion

It is the assertion of the author that agency personnel must "listen" to farmers' needs. Issues raised by farmers about the benefits and "hassles" of their windbreaks should be the basis for the design of future ecosystem based assistance activities. Farmers' suggestions, NRCS' long standing partnerships, a training structure that includes social factors as well as modifications to current policy are vital social. considerations. Such social resource considerations are as critical to the acceptance and use of windbreaks as a conservation technology within an ecosystem as are tree species, row alignment and other physical resource considerations.

REFERENCES CITED

Interim Agency Guidance. 1993. Watershed Approach: Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention & Control: 2.

Interim Agency Guidance. 1993. Watershed Approach: Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention & Control: 3.

Nowak, P. 1992. Why Farmers Adopt Production Technology. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47(l):14-16.

Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovation. The Free Press, New York.