what ohioans think about food, agriculture, and environmental issues
DESCRIPTION
What Ohioans Think About Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues. Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp and Mark Tucker Communications and Technology College of FAES Columbus and Wooster April 29, 2003. Jeff S. Sharp 311 Ag. Admin. Bldg. 2120 Fyffe Road Columbus, OH 43210 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
What Ohioans Think What Ohioans Think About Food, About Food, Agriculture, and Agriculture, and Environmental IssuesEnvironmental IssuesPresentation by Jeff S. Sharp and Mark TuckerPresentation by Jeff S. Sharp and Mark TuckerCommunications and TechnologyCommunications and TechnologyCollege of FAESCollege of FAESColumbus and WoosterColumbus and WoosterApril 29, 2003April 29, 2003
Contact InformationContact Information
Jeff S. SharpJeff S. Sharp 311 Ag. Admin. Bldg.311 Ag. Admin. Bldg. 2120 Fyffe Road2120 Fyffe Road Columbus, OH 43210Columbus, OH 43210
E-mail: E-mail: [email protected]@osu.edu
Phone: 614-292-9410Phone: 614-292-9410
Mark TuckerMark Tucker 203 Ag. Admin. Bldg.203 Ag. Admin. Bldg. 2120 Fyffe Road2120 Fyffe Road Columbus, OH 43210Columbus, OH 43210
E-mail: E-mail: [email protected]@osu.edu
Phone:614-292-4624Phone:614-292-4624
Project BackgroundProject Background
Funded by OSU Extension, OARDC Funded by OSU Extension, OARDC and the College of FAESand the College of FAES
Leadership from Rural Sociology Leadership from Rural Sociology Program, Department of Human and Program, Department of Human and Community Resource DevelopmentCommunity Resource Development
Project TeamProject Team
Department of HCRD/Rural Sociology Department of HCRD/Rural Sociology ProgramProgram Jeff Sharp, Molly Bean Smith, Bill Flinn, Jeff Sharp, Molly Bean Smith, Bill Flinn,
Mark Tucker, Sherrie WhaleyMark Tucker, Sherrie Whaley
OSU ExtensionOSU Extension Greg Davis, Jerry Thomas, Denny HallGreg Davis, Jerry Thomas, Denny Hall
MethodologyMethodology
A stratified sample of 7,976 Ohioans was A stratified sample of 7,976 Ohioans was selectedselected Stratified by 5 extension districts and metro Stratified by 5 extension districts and metro
core county statuscore county status
Dillman’s TDM utilized with 5 contactsDillman’s TDM utilized with 5 contacts Response rate = 56.4% (4,014 Response rate = 56.4% (4,014
respondents)respondents)
Sample vs. State Sample vs. State Population (2000 Census)Population (2000 Census)
Close match: gender, age (over 24), Close match: gender, age (over 24), households w/ kids, employment status households w/ kids, employment status and household incomesand household incomes
LimitationsLimitations sample had lower proportion of renters, sample had lower proportion of renters,
lower # of 18-24 year olds, and lower lower # of 18-24 year olds, and lower proportion of African Americans than proportion of African Americans than expected compared to state population expected compared to state population statisticsstatistics
Outline of PresentationOutline of Presentation
Ohioans links to agricultureOhioans links to agriculture Views of Agriculture & the EnvironmentViews of Agriculture & the Environment Views of large scale livestock and poultry Views of large scale livestock and poultry Food topics (safety, local foods, organics, Food topics (safety, local foods, organics,
biotechnology)biotechnology) DiscussionDiscussion
General Rural General Rural Related FindingsRelated Findings
Parents ever owned or operated a Parents ever owned or operated a farm farm
0
10
20
30
40
50
Yes (%) 23 20 39
State Metro Nonmetro
Grandparents ever owned or Grandparents ever owned or operated a farmoperated a farm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Yes (%) 49 46 63
State Metro Nonmetro
Number of farmers knownNumber of farmers known
0
20
40
60
State 41 39 20
Metro 46 40 14
Nonmetro 15 36 49
None 1 to 5 6 or more
Farmers and the Farmers and the EnvironmentEnvironment
Q.Q. Overall, farming positively Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of contributes to the quality of life in Ohiolife in Ohio
1% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed1% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
7% Undecided7% Undecided
92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q.Q. Ohio’s economy will suffer if Ohio’s economy will suffer if it continues to lose farmersit continues to lose farmers
5% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed5% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
15% Undecided15% Undecided
80% Agreed or Strongly Agreed80% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q. Ohio’s most productive Q. Ohio’s most productive farmland should be preserved for farmland should be preserved for agriculture. agriculture.
2% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed2% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
6% Undecided6% Undecided
92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q. I trust Ohio farmers to protect Q. I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment. the environment.
12% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed12% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
29% Undecided29% Undecided
59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q. Ohio farmers are generally Q. Ohio farmers are generally sensitive to the concerns of sensitive to the concerns of nonfarm neighbors. nonfarm neighbors.
11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
45% Undecided45% Undecided
44% Agreed or Strongly Agreed44% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q. Environmental protection laws Q. Environmental protection laws regulating farming practices are regulating farming practices are too strict. too strict.
19% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed19% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
59% Undecided59% Undecided
22% Agreed or Strongly Agreed22% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Perceived Risks to Environmental Perceived Risks to Environmental Quality (1=none; 7=Serious)Quality (1=none; 7=Serious)
Reason (rank ordered)Reason (rank ordered) MeanMean
1. Disposal of waste in landfills1. Disposal of waste in landfills 5.95.9
2. Industrial activities2. Industrial activities 5.55.5
3. Urban sprawl3. Urban sprawl 5.25.2
4. Res. chemical use on lawns4. Res. chemical use on lawns 5.25.2
5. Logging or mining5. Logging or mining 5.05.0
6. Agricultural activities6. Agricultural activities 3.43.4
Large-scale livestock Large-scale livestock and poultryand poultry
Familiarity with IssuesFamiliarity with Issues
Respondents were asked: Are you Respondents were asked: Are you familiar with the issues associated with familiar with the issues associated with large-scale poultry and livestock large-scale poultry and livestock facilities?facilities?
33 percent of respondents indicated “yes”33 percent of respondents indicated “yes” 67 percent indicated “no”67 percent indicated “no”
Familiarity by region of the stateFamiliarity by region of the state
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes (%) 43 27 55 34 25
North
west
South
westCentral
South
east
North
east
Concern about livestockConcern about livestock
Respondents were asked: How Respondents were asked: How concerned are you about the concerned are you about the development of large-scale poultry and development of large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in Ohio?livestock production facilities in Ohio?
21 percent very concerned21 percent very concerned 51 percent somewhat concerned51 percent somewhat concerned 28 percent not at all concerned28 percent not at all concerned
Concern among those Concern among those familiar with the issuesfamiliar with the issues
Concern was higher among those Concern was higher among those indicating they were familiar with the indicating they were familiar with the issuesissues
34 percent very concerned34 percent very concerned 51 percent somewhat concerned51 percent somewhat concerned 15 percent not at all concerned15 percent not at all concerned
Level of Concern by region (among Level of Concern by region (among those familiar with the issues)those familiar with the issues)
0
10
20
30
40
50
% Very
Concerned
38 27 41 33 30
North
west
South
westCentral
South
east
North
east
Attitudes about Attitudes about livestock among livestock among those familiar w/ the those familiar w/ the issueissue
Q. Large-scale poultry and Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in livestock production facilities in rural areas are a threat to rural rural areas are a threat to rural quality of life. quality of life.
22% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed22% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
19% Undecided19% Undecided
59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q. There needs to be increased Q. There needs to be increased regulation of livestock production regulation of livestock production in Ohio to protect the environment. in Ohio to protect the environment.
17% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed17% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
26% Undecided26% Undecided
57% Agreed or Strongly Agreed57% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q. Large-scale poultry and Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock facilities pose a serious livestock facilities pose a serious threat to water and stream quality threat to water and stream quality in Ohio in Ohio
11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
18% Undecided18% Undecided
71% Agreed or Strongly Agreed71% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q. Large-scale livestock facilities Q. Large-scale livestock facilities positively contribute to the positively contribute to the economy of Ohio. economy of Ohio.
13% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed13% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
27% Undecided27% Undecided
60% Agreed or Strongly Agreed60% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q. Animal agriculture raises Q. Animal agriculture raises serious ethical questions about the serious ethical questions about the treatment of animals treatment of animals
37% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed37% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
29% Undecided29% Undecided
34% Agreed or Strongly Agreed34% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Ohioans and FoodOhioans and Food
Q. Food is not as safe as it was 10 Q. Food is not as safe as it was 10 years ago.years ago.
35% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed35% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed
26% Undecided26% Undecided
39% Agreed or Strongly Agreed39% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Perceived risks to food safety Perceived risks to food safety (scaling 1=no risk; 7=serious risk)(scaling 1=no risk; 7=serious risk)
Reason (rank ordered)Reason (rank ordered) MeanMean
1. Pesticide residues in food1. Pesticide residues in food 5.35.3
2. Contamination of drinking water2. Contamination of drinking water 5.35.3
3. Growth hormones in meat or milk3. Growth hormones in meat or milk 5.35.3
4. Bacterial contamination4. Bacterial contamination 5.25.2
5. Bio-terrorist attacks on food supply5. Bio-terrorist attacks on food supply 5.25.2
6. Mad Cow disease6. Mad Cow disease 4.74.7
7. Genetically modified foods7. Genetically modified foods 4.64.6
Q. Organic foods are safer than Q. Organic foods are safer than conventionally produced foods?conventionally produced foods?
22% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed22% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed
41% Undecided41% Undecided
37% Agreed or Strongly Agreed37% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q. Biotechnology is having a Q. Biotechnology is having a negative impact on the safety of negative impact on the safety of our food supplyour food supply
20% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed20% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed
59% Undecided59% Undecided
21% Agreed or Strongly Agreed21% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Q. When given a choice, prefer to Q. When given a choice, prefer to buy foods produced locally.buy foods produced locally.
7% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed7% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed
13% Undecided13% Undecided
80% Agreed or Strongly Agreed80% Agreed or Strongly Agreed
Considerations in communication Considerations in communication researchresearch
““Media use” is not measured in a Media use” is not measured in a consistent manner – difficult to define consistent manner – difficult to define and operationalizeand operationalize
Communication sources and channels Communication sources and channels often measured haphazardlyoften measured haphazardly
We need your input!We need your input!
Trust in Sources of Environmental Trust in Sources of Environmental and Food Safety Informationand Food Safety Information(Scaling: 1 = no trust; 5 = High trust)(Scaling: 1 = no trust; 5 = High trust)
Reason (rank ordered)Reason (rank ordered) State State (ranking)(ranking)
1. Physician or other health professionals1. Physician or other health professionals 3.93.9
2. University Scientist2. University Scientist 3.73.7
3. Farmer or Grower3. Farmer or Grower 3.73.7
4. U.S. Dept. of Ag.4. U.S. Dept. of Ag. 3.63.6
5. Extension educator/agent5. Extension educator/agent 3.63.6
6. U.S. FDA6. U.S. FDA 3.53.5
7. Friends of Family7. Friends of Family 3.53.5
8. U.S. EPA8. U.S. EPA 3.53.5
9. Consumer advocacy group9. Consumer advocacy group 3.33.3
Perceived helpfulness of mediaPerceived helpfulness of media
Not Level of helpfulness Very Not Level of helpfulness Very (1 = not helpful; 5 = very helpful)(1 = not helpful; 5 = very helpful)
Newspapers (3.3)
Television news (3.2)
Magazines (2.8)
Radio (2.8)
World wide web (2.6)
Television talk shows (2.3)
Wrap-upWrap-up
Future plansFuture plans
Additional analysis and associated Additional analysis and associated Extension and research manuscripts to Extension and research manuscripts to be generated through mid-2003be generated through mid-2003
Willingness to do customized analysis for Willingness to do customized analysis for interested partiesinterested parties
Explore possibility of repeating study in Explore possibility of repeating study in 2004 examining these and other 2004 examining these and other emerging FAE issuesemerging FAE issues