Agriculture and Natural Resources Communications

Environmental Interpretation: How to Communicate Persuasively

Kara N. Youngentob and Mark E. Hostetler

An Extensionist’s Guide to Farm and Site Visits

Marcelo Wallau, Bob Hochmuth, Tatiana Sanchez-Jones, Mark Warren, Carissa Wickens, Prissy Fletcher, and Cheryl Mackowiak

Farm and site visits are a major component of Extension work, whether as a county faculty or state specialist. They serve various purposes, such as informal check-ins, relationship building, problem solving, sharing technology, and information collection. While time-consuming, farm visits are often the most effective method for addressing problems and developing deeper connections with stakeholders (Petrzelka, Padgitt, and Windestenn, 1999). These visits provide firsthand knowledge of the issues clients face and are effective in establishing collaborations, assessing needs, understanding agricultural production systems, and validating research applications (Oakley and Garforth, 1985; Seevers and Graham, 2012). This publication explores different facets of farm and site visits, including preparation before the visit, the investigative (problem-solving) process during the visit, and post-visit procedures. Additional resources are included to support client visits and troubleshooting.

Communicating About Water in the Floridan Aquifer Region: Part 6—Stakeholders’ Mental Models of Regional Water Challenges

Sadie Hundemer and Shenara Ramadan

If we could look into the minds of agricultural producers and environmentalists to see how they think about regional water challenges, we may be better able to help stakeholders understand each other’s perspectives and resolve perceived conflicts. A 2017–2018 study provides visual maps of producers’ and environmentalists’ conceptions of the relationship between water and the regional economy. The maps reveal that the groups think about the topic in fundamentally different ways. While surveyed producers possess an agricultural, operational-level view of the water-economic system that includes the protective actions taken by individual farmers and ranchers, environmentalists possess a watershed-level view of the water-economic system that highlights the detrimental collective impacts of the agricultural industry as a whole. The findings suggest steps that water communicators can take to reduce perceived conflict between the groups.

Communicating About Water in the Floridan Aquifer Region: Part 5—Increasing Collaboration Between Producers and Environmentalists on Water Challenges

Sadie Hundemer and Shenara Ramadan

In the Floridan Aquifer region, agricultural producers (farmers and ranchers) and environmentalists are essential water stakeholders, yet they are often perceived to be in conflict over water management. This perceived conflict could be a major impediment to future water policy action. Recent research examined whether there are areas of agreement that could unite producers and environmentalists in support of mutually beneficial water management strategies. A 2017–2018 study found substantial similarities of water priorities between producers and environmentalists despite some areas of disagreement. Capitalizing on shared interests could provide water communicators with a strong basis for developing partnerships and addressing areas of dispute. 

Using the Four-Frame Leadership Approach to Mobilize Strategic Science Communication Efforts

Christine Krebs, Matthew Sowcik, and Jamie Loizzo

This publication outlines some organizational strategies to consider when participating in science communication through the lens of Bolman and Deal’s four-frame leadership approach. Written by Christine Krebs, Matthew Sowcik, and Jamie Loizzo, and published by the UF/IFAS Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, March 2024.

Communicating About Water in the Floridan Aquifer Region: Part 3—How the Right Messages and Messengers Can Increase Bipartisan Support for Water Policy

Sadie Hundemer and Shenara Ramadan

When water policies are introduced, they may not be universally supported. One stakeholder group or political party may be “for” the policy and contend that the public should vote “yes.” They may argue that the policy is fair to the parties involved or that it shows loyalty to affected communities. These are moral arguments used to sway public support. An opposing stakeholder group or political party may also issue moral arguments “against” the policy. They may argue that the public should vote “no” because the policy is not fair or is disloyal to impacted communities. In competitive policy scenarios like these, at least two factors affect public support for the policy – moral arguments and the identities of the communicators. Understanding how each of these factors influences policy preferences is key to creating a communication that is conducive to broad public support.