Jump to main content.

Reducing Pesticide Use and Risk in Urban Landscapes

Elizabeth Ann R. Bird, Ph.D.

University of Wisconsin-Madison
Environmental Resources Center

1545 Observatory Dr
Room 303 Hiram Smith Hall
Madison WI 53706

608-265-3727

eabird@wisc.edu

608-265-2775

Executive Summary

Data indicate that urban watersheds may be more contaminated with pesticides than agricultural watersheds (USGS 1999). Nationally, and in Wisconsin, large quantities of pesticides are used in maintaining lawns, woody landscape plants, and ornamental gardens, and contributing to nonpoint pollution of waters, ill health of humans and other organisms, and disruptions of ecological balances. The problem can be traced in part to landscape designs that neglect plant health; and groundskeeping practices that ignore integrated options for maintaining attractive landscapes and turf. The goal of this project is to develop social action strategies - for implementation by urban watershed and neighborhood organizations - that will reduce the human health and ecological hazards of pesticide uses for urban landscape development and maintenance. Activities for this one-year project will include social marketing telephone survey research to analyze landscape managers' and groundskeepers' perceived benefits and barriers to the use of IPM practices in the Lake Monona watershed in the City of Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin. In addition, we will engage a student of the Landscape Architecture program at UW-Madison to collect existing IPM materials and messages available to professional landscapers and urban residents, and evaluate them in light of survey results. Project partners will use these analyses to develop a social marketing strategy with principles and recommendations useful to urban watershed protectors nation-wide. It will include communications plans to use existing, revised or new landscaping IPM educational materials, and a social strategy for instituting new behavioral norms of urban landscape management. We will publish and widely distribute both the strategy and new or revised educational materials. Also by summer 2004, we will initiate implementation of the strategy with grassroots, university and public agency partners in the Lake Monona watershed. This project forms a critical piece in a long-term program of water quality improvement that engages all varieties of constituents in the watershed (e.g., businesses, government facilities, and urban residents).

Objectives

The goals of this project are to develop, disseminate, and begin to implement social action strategies that will reduce pesticide hazards to human health and watershed ecology from urban landscape development and maintenance. Project objectives to achieve these goals are to:

  1. Identify the barriers and benefits to the use of Integrated Pest Management perceived by paid landscape managers and student Landscape Architects in the Lake Monona watershed in the City of Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin.
  2. Develop social marketing strategies to reduce barriers and/or increase benefits of IPM for urban landscapes.
  3. Evaluate IPM landscape educational materials in light of the barriers and benefits analysis and social marketing strategies.
  4. Revise existing or develop new educational products consistent with the social marketing strategies.
  5. Initiate a pilot implementation to test the strategy in collaboration with grassroots organizations, watershed educators, and public agency partners in the Lake Monona watershed, and with UW-Madison Landscape Architecture students.
  6. Widely publish and share the social marketing analysis and strategies with water pollution prevention educators and Landscape Architecture students nationwide.

Justification

We propose to improve landscape pest management systems by identifying and addressing specific constraints in the adoption of IPM by urban landscape managers (including professional landscaping or lawn and garden-care companies, groundskeepers, landscape architects, and individual homeowners), and by establishing and meeting criteria for effective educational products. Currently, there is little evidence that existing IPM educational materials are having much effect on urban landscape management practices. We hypothesize that this current low impact is due to the character of educational products available, and the behavioral change strategies that have been undertaken. Most educational materials assume that urban landscape managers and designers would both want to, and be able to, use IPM if they had enough of the right kind of information. This project takes a step back to evaluate not only appropriate information and its effective presentation, but also how we can provoke the necessary demand and eagerness to use these materials.

A statewide survey conducted by the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service (WASS) indicated a turf acreage of 1.2 million acres, barely less than the soybean acreage in the state (1.35 million acres). Approximately two-thirds belongs to the 1.5 million home lawns and apartment complexes, with parks, commercial and municipal properties contributing 11%. Nationally and in Wisconsin, large quantities of pesticides are used in maintaining lawns, woody landscape plants, and ornamental gardens. Unnecessary or inappropriate uses of these pesticides contribute considerably to nonpoint pollution of state waters, ill health, and disruptions of ecological balances. Data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1999) indicate that urban watersheds may be more contaminated with pesticides than agricultural watersheds. Over three-quarters of the turf acreage in Wisconsin is accessible to the public, with children most at risk. Moreover, many of these areas abut surface waters or drain into stormwater systems that release pesticides into area lakes and streams. Lake Monona in the City of Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin, is surrounded by urban development.

Discounting golf course and sod farm employees, Wisconsin had nearly 47,000 persons employed in the turfgrass industry in 1999 (Stier, 2001). Professional lawn care companies, selling a service that largely relies on chemical application, perceive little incentive to invest in IPM education. Most employees don't know how to diagnose or identify problems or pests, and instead resort to indiscriminate periodic applications. In the Milwaukee area last summer some professional companies applied insecticide for sod webworm merely because they had heard it was a problem. It is not uncommon for an uneducated maintenance worker to apply a fungicide for control of a bacterial disease. Poor practices or ignorance of alternatives are only part of the problem. Landscape design often neglects options that will later foster integrated pest management.

IPM educational materials are inadequate as well. Many existing materials were developed for commodities produced for quantity; in turf and ornamental maintenance, however, the focus is on quality, making it more difficult to set an appropriate pest threshold. Major texts used in Landscape Architecture design courses include no mention of IPM whatsoever (Booth 1989; Reid and Lochner 1993). There is no single publication or self-help product on landscape IPM that is readily available or comprehensible to an average grounds employee. Though some very good and comprehensive materials exist (Leslie, 1994) they are unlikely to be used without training. In 1998, all 18 schools that received the Wisconsin School IPM Manual (Wisconsin DATCP 1996) failed to implement an IPM program because they were overwhelmed with the material.

"Social Marketing" is a relatively new arena for applying social science to fostering environmentally sustainable behaviors. It relies on social psychology to generate social change. Social marketing succeeds by focusing on exactly what behavior change is sought, identifying a specific audience's wants and needs, and tailoring strategies (messages, communication channels, timing and incentives (Rothschild 1999). Consistent with social marketing theory and practice, other researchers have found that the most successful education interventions combine information that motivates individuals to act with how-to knowledge to make changes (Maiman and Becker 1974; EPA Discussion Paper 1998). Griffin, Dunwoody, & Neuwirth (1999) found that in spite of ample information about many environmental topics, many people do not get the information, do not read it, or do not process it deeply enough to learn from it. Griffin et al. suggest that diverse factors - including personal relevance of the issue at hand, trust in institutions and information sources, and emotions and knowledge levels about the issue - can affect information use. Gaining a better understanding of the demographic, sociological, psychological, and other factors influencing pest management practice will help IPM advocates develop more effective behavioral change strategies.

Creating a demand for IPM in urban landscapes, developing educational materials and strategies effective in socially marketing IPM, must begin with understanding IPM's perceived benefits and barriers (Schueler 2000). One barrier may be that in Wisconsin, 92% of the 1.5 million homeowners rate their lawns as important to them (60% very important), and weed control was their top priority (Stier, 2001). Without the tacit or explicit consent of landscape service users, and without clear information about user expectations and preferences, even IPM-literate landscape managers may feel constrained to continue regular pesticide use to meet prior cultural norms of "perfect" lawns or blemish free ornamentals. While IPM can deliver on these norms some of the time, for IPM to become the norm itself may require a higher cultural tolerance of "imperfections" or natural variations, and possibly different landscape design expectations. We have found no survey in Region V of urban landscape managers' understandings and opinions of pesticide use and IPM. Several surveys in the 1990s explored the extent of urban pesticide use and lawn care practices (Schueler and Holland 2000), but none clarify urban landscape manager requirements.

Educational materials available to urban landscapers by and large are not targeted to them, nor are they designed specifically for decision-making and integrated implementation of IPM alternatives. Most UW-Extension information about IPM in landscape management and design either offers general guidelines, focuses narrowly on particular pests, or focuses on safe pesticide use. Various educational products available from other states (Bio-Integral Resource Center; Community Environmental Council 1995; Community IPM Program 2000; Malinowski et al. 1996; UConn CES 1998; Owen and Tiskus 1999; UMASS Extension2002) have similar limitations.

Education strategies that use personalized self-evaluation tools, combined with feedback yielding appropriate recommendations, have been found to enhance motivation of individuals to take action (Bowen et al. 1992). The "self-audit" approach to eliciting improved farm safety recently was found more effective than youth educational programs and activities, and a community coalition promotional campaign, especially for initially more hazardous farms (Landsittel 2001). To be effective, a self-audit should be combined with information on preventive measures, goal-setting, and incentives and reinforcement (Coates et al. 1981). Pollution risk assessment "self-audit" tools, such as the Farm Assessment System and the Home Assessment System (Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst), create a personal awareness of immediate consequences of land management activities (e.g. health risks) and can be effective in motivating individuals to take action (Ribaudo, 1998). Few materials in this pedagogical style are geared to the landscape manager. Most address pesticide safety only (Kammel 1991), or are too broad to serve as a practical guide for IPM decision-making (Chapter 7 in Eagan 1997, Solomon 1998). However, several evaluations of Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst programs have shown a good rate of behavioral and practice changes when there's a specific focus, and particularly when Extension educators are present in person to help participants work through the process (Farm*A*Syst/ Home*A*Syst 2002).

The "Eco-Team" model of neighborhood environmental accountability provides another example of an educational strategy that meets some of the social marketing criteria for extending environmental behaviors (like recycling) to a broader population (Gershon 1997). This model uses self-directed study and mutual commitments by neighbors to promote better environmental habits. The EcoTeam program in Dane County is now being superceded by the local EnAct program (managed by the Madison Environmental Group), offering a good model for urban residential education already adapted for local use (http://www.enactwi.org/).

Social marketing messages and incentives may need to address pocketbook issues, or children's health benefits. Commitments that are made publicly are more likely to be carried through (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith; and see Fostering Sustainable Behavior at www.cbsm.com). Similarly, if users invest even a little money, they are more likely to change behaviors (Brooks and Despande 2002). For example, making "greener landscaping" a special service could garner market share. "Green Landscaper" certification would imply a public commitment and attract customers concerned about health and the environment, or schools concerned to protect children's health, particularly if a home or classroom checklist provides an "audit" mechanism.

The Wisconsin Environmental Initiative has paired with the Builder's Association to establish the Green Built Home program. Several states and localities have similar "green" certification or accreditation programs in place for landscaping. Georgia's Green*A*Syst program for Ornamental and Turf Professionals (Guillebeau 2000) provides credit hours for pesticide applicator certification; and Santa Barbara has a "Green Gardener" Certification Program (Boise 2002). However, the American Landscape Contractors Association has certification programs pertaining only to safety issues and proper installation of irrigation systems, lighting etc. The State of Wisconsin does not offer any type of certification relevant to landscapers and groundskeepers, other than pesticide applicator training, which does not systematically encompass IPM education.

Pilot testing and evaluation are essential steps in developing a program that ultimately will make a difference. The National Cancer Institute's Making Health Communications Programs Work manual <http://oc.nci.nih.gov/services/HCPW/HOME.HTM>, and the social marketing literature emphasize the importance of such preparation in order to reach, inform, motivate and persuade potential users. Because many groundskeeping laborers may not have extensive education, behavioral change strategies will need to attend to their capabilities and interests.

Approach and Outcomes

  1. Identify barriers and benefits to the use of Integrated Pest Management perceived by paid landscape managers and student Landscape Architects in the Lake Monona watershed in the City of Madison and Dane County.
    To set the bar for educational effectiveness, social marketing experts recommend a telephone survey (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999). A telephone survey will be conducted with a sample of 100 grounds managers in the Lake Monona watershed. The sample will be randomly drawn from combined lists of advertising landscapers, and school district, municipal and state agency lists of groundskeeping staff. The telephone survey will be designed, conducted and recorded to document respondents' perceptions of the benefits and barriers to IPM use in their landscaping practices. Barriers might be information, practicality, profitability, market demand, etc. Benefits might include personal health, "green" image with customers, reduced costs, etc. The telephone survey will yield messages this population group may respond to, prejudices or conditions that present barriers to IPM adoption, desirable communication channels, and incentive options. Project team members also will conduct a "focus group" type discussion of IPM barriers and benefits in September 2003 with a class of senior Landscape Architecture students embarking on capstone design projects, and recruit one or more L.A. students as (unpaid) project interns. The telephone survey of landscape service providers will be complemented by a mail survey of urban watershed residents (service users) we expect to conduct under another grant (USDA/ CSREES/Water Quality, application posted April 2003). The telephone survey can stand on its own, but could leverage from the mail survey what customers want out of a landscaping company.
  2. Develop social marketing strategies to reduce barriers and/or increase benefits of IPM for urban landscapes.
    FHEM staff will document the Landscape Architecture "focus group," and code, enter and analyze survey responses in light of social marketing principles. Social marketing specialist Richard Brooks will assist with interpreting results regarding audience requirements, and with considering social marketing options. Project leaders and staff will work with community collaborators (see Appendix C) to identify criteria for effective educational strategies for IPM practice by urban landscape managers, and design the pilot test procedures. Criteria, strategic principles, will be described in such terms as differential audience requirements, preferred social marketing options, preferred presentation options, language (term) preferences, scope and division of information, etc.
  3. Evaluate IPM landscape educational materials in light of the barriers and benefits analysis and social marketing strategies.
    The Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst publications database and partners directory (www.uwex.edu/farmasyst) have yielded a review of support materials for landscape pest management. A survey of water pollution prevention educational programming, to be conducted in the summer and fall of 2003 under a separate grant-funded project (awarded 09/01), will contribute to the results for an updated on-line "library" (http://www.uwex.edu/farmandhome/ wqpaap/). IPM specialist John Stier has developed publications for Wisconsin landscapes, and through his professional networks will bring forth programs and products from other universities. FHEM staff also will identify and collect an array of turf and landscape pest management materials developed by non-profit organizations and by businesses (such as those listed as collaborators). Staff will document all items in an on-line database, and write a review for both internal project use, and FHEM quarterly newsletter publication. A formative evaluation of these materials will use the Educational Materials Effectiveness Measure tool (21 dimensions of evaluation, developed by Richard Brooks), and the strategic principles developed under Objective 2.
  4. Revise existing or develop new prototype educational materials consistent with social marketing strategies.
    In consultation with Dr. Stier and his staff, FHEM staff will collect and integrate pesticide use and risk reduction elements relevant to landscaping and groundskeeping, including: landscape plant diversity and siting, structural design for effective stormwater management, healthy turf management, pest scouting and identification, and pesticide selection, use, storage and disposal. With community collaborators, and according to the strategic principles identified under Objective 2, project staff will develop preliminary sketches of social marketing and participatory education tools and products for review and improvement. We hypothesize that a one-stop guide for landscape managers, utilizing an active learning and practice-oriented pedagogy, would be the most useful type of educational product for the social marketing of IPM to urban landscape managers.
  5. Initiate a pilot to test the strategy in collaboration with grassroots organizations, watershed educators, and public agency partners in the Lake Monona watershed, and with UW-Madison Landscape Architecture students.
    To engage watershed constituents and our primary audience of landscape workers in evaluating IPM educational products and social marketing approaches, we will conduct a September 2004 discussion with L.A. students, and in the winter at least three other focus groups, and a Lake Monona watershed public forum. Focus groups and related formative evaluation strategies are well documented and widely used techniques in social and commercial marketing. A focus group is an effective "test" environment. As a secondary benefit, focus group participants may become more active in the dissemination of products or messages for which they had a stake in the development process. The forum will be organized with community collaborators (see Appendix C) under the auspices of a complementary grant-funded project. The landscaping business sector and groundskeepers will be actively invited and assisted to attend the focus groups and forum. Through both the formal focus groups and the public forum we will test our hypotheses by evaluating reactions to prototype educational products and social action strategies, gauging the potential for impact on participants' practice. In focus groups, presenters will convey the educational approach to participants, and solicit reactions (e.g., regarding practicality and attraction) to products and to strategies such as a "Green Landscapers" certification program. Through the forum, the project team will conduct "opportunity assessment" conversations with relevant businesses, business associations, and the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative, which sponsors the Green Built Home program for Wisconsin. These discussions and focus group results will yield recommendations and a draft plan for the creation of a "Green Landscaper" certification program in Wisconsin. Recommendations will be shared with relevant Dane County and Wisconsin stakeholders for strategic development. In addition, the project team will make an educational presentation to the Landscape Architecture students early in 2004 and 2005 as they begin design projects, and consult as needed to help them incorporate IPM principles into their designs.
  6. Widely publish and share the social marketing analysis and strategies with water pollution prevention educators and Landscape Architecture students nationwide.
    Focus groups will assist revision of products and strategies prior to extensive "beta-testing" through a larger project of water quality protection engaging all varieties of constituents in the Lake Monona watershed (including surrounding farms, businesses, and urban residents). Staff will document, publish and publicize "stories" from the findings regarding expectations that shape IPM use in urban landscapes, knowledge, levels of interest, and incentives needed by different types of urban landscape managers, guidance for educational products, and strategic opportunities for shifting urban landscape manager behaviors. Principles and recommendations will be published and shared with urban watershed educators nation-wide through the regional and national IPM network and professional publications, through the national WP2-4As network and quarterly newsletter, through the national PESP network, and through publications serving public agencies. In Spring, 2005 interested students will be assisted to take a presentation about IPM landscape design to their national spring conference ("LA Bash"). The final product of the grant will be the revision and release of prototype educational strategies and products for "beta-testing

Impact Assessment

Project impacts will be gauged by level of interest and participation. Measures will include expressed changes in landscaper perceptions, understandings, and intended practices, increase in website links, interest expressed by other Extension programs, progress toward a "Green Landscaper" certification program in Wisconsin, incorporation of IPM in Landscape Architecture students' capstone design projects, and level of community involvement and publicity. The Lake Monona watershed protection program will solicit commitments by neighborhood and watershed organizations to share and promote project findings and products.

Literature Cited

Bio-Integral Resource Center: <www.birc.org>

Boise, Phil. 2002. Green Gardener Certification Program, Community Environmental Council. Santa Barbara, CA: <www.greengardener.org>

Booth, Norman K. Oct. 1989. Basic Elements of Landscape Architectural Design. Waveland Press

Bowen D., Tomoyasu, N. and Anderson, M. et al. 1992. Effects of expectancies and personalized feedback on fat consumption, taste and preference. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22: 1061-79.

Brooks, R and Despande, S. 2002. Social Marketing and Public Health: Lessons from the Field, Turning Point Social Marketing Collaborative, Albany, NY

Coates T, Jeffrey R, Slinkard L. 1981. Heart healthy eating and exercise: introducing and maintaining changes in health behaviors. American Journal Public Health, 71: 15-23.

Community Environmental Council's Beneficial Urban Garden Strategies Program. 1995. What to do when your garden has BUGS. A guide for controlling Santa Barbara's most common garden pests and diseases using the least toxic methods. Gildea Resource Center, Santa Barbara, CA.

Community IPM Program. 2000. IPM for Homes: How to Use Integrated Pest Management to Uninvite Residential Pests. Brochure, 8 p. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY.

Eagan, David, editor. April 1997. Home*A*Syst: An Environmental Risk-Assessment Guide for the Home. Produced by the National Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst Program (at University of Wisconsin Extension) in cooperation with the Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service (NRAES). NRAES-87. Ithaca, NY.

EPA Discussion Paper, 1998. An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education, EPA 910-R-98-008 (Discussion Paper).

Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst National Program Office. February 2002. Program Impacts Update; Focus: 1999-2000. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension and Madison Campus.

Gershon, David with Andrea Barrist Stern. 1997. ECOTEAM: A Program Empowering Americans to Create Earth-Friendly Lifestyles. A Program of Global Action Plan for the Earth, Woodstock, NY.

Griffin, R.J., Dunwoody, S. & Neuwirth, K. 1999. Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research. 80: S230-S245.

Guillebeau, Paul. July 2000. Managing Pesticides for Ornamental/Turf Professionals. Georgia Green*A*Syst. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Bulletin 1152-24. Athens, GA.

Kammel, David W. 1991. Assessing the Risk of Groundwater Contamination from Pesticide Storage and Handling (Farm*A*Syst Worksheet #2) and Reducing the Risk of Groundwater Contamination by Improving Pesticide Storage and Handling (Farm*A*Syst Fact Sheet #2). G3536-2W and G3536-2F. University of Wisconsin - Extension, Cooperative Extension, and the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Wisconsin - Madison.

Landsittel, D. P. et al. 2001. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Educational Interventions in the Pennsylvania Central Region Farm Safety Pilot Project, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 40: 145-152.

Leslie, A.R. (ed.). 1994. Handbook of Integrated Pest Management for Turf and Ornamentals. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Malinoski, M.K., J.H. Traunfeld, and D.L. Clement. 1996. IPM: A Common Sense Approach to Managing Problems in Your Landscape. Home and Garden Mimeo #HG 62 (8/96), 8 p., University of Maryland Cooperative Extension, College Park, MD.

McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, W 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island, British Colombia. Also available at http://www.cbsm.com

Maiman, L. and Becker, M. 1974. The Health Belief Model: origins and correlates in psychological theory. In: Becker B, ed. The Health Belief Model and personal health behavior. Thorofare, NJ.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. Backyard Conservation: Bringing conservation from the countryside to your backyard. February 1998. Program Aid 1621. Available at: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/backyard/pdf/BkYdWeb6.pdf>

Owen, M. and M. Tiskus, (ed.). 1999. Professional Guide for IPM in Turf for Massachusetts, UMASS Extension, Amherst, MA, 50 p.

Reid, Grant and R.K. Lochner, editors. May 1993. From Concept to Form in Landscape Design. John Wiley & Sons Publishers.

Ribaudo, M. 1998. Lessons learned about the performance of USDA agricultural nonpoint source programs. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 53(1), 4-10.

Rothschild, M. Carrots, sticks and promises: a conceptual framework for the management of public health and social issue behaviors, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, (October 1999).

Schueler, T. R. 2000. "Homeowner Survey Reveals Lawn Management Practices in Virginia," in The Practice of Watershed Protection, Center for Watershed Protection, T. R. Schueler and H. K. Holland (eds.), Ellicott City, MD. [article in anthology]

Schueler, T. R. and H. K. Holland (eds.). 2000. Urban Pesticides: From the Lawn to the Stream, in The Practice of Watershed Protection, Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD

Solomon, Dean. April 1998. Managing Shoreline Property to Protect Water Quality; and Lawn*A*Syst: An environmental risk assessment guide for lawn care practices. Michigan State University Extension Bulletins WQ-52 and WQ-53. Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program, East Lansing, MI. <ttp://www.kalcounty.com/msue/gwhomeassist.htm>

Stier, John C. 2001. 1999 Wisconsin Turfgrass: Industry Survey. University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Wisconsin-Extension. Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service, WA-0150.QXD.

UMASS Extension. 2002. IPM Facts, 202 p.

University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System. 1998. Pest Management. Hort Impact/August 1998 volume 98-8: 5-7. Available at www.hort.uconn.edu/ipm/general/htms/pstmgmt.htm.

U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1999. The Quality of Our Nation's Waters-- Nutrients and Pesticides: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225, 82 p. <http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1225/index.html>

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. 1996. Integrated Pest Management for Wisconsin's Schools. Madison, WI. 252 p.

Timetable

August, 2003

September through December, 2003

January, 2004 through April, 2004

May through June, 2004

September, 2003 and 2004

July through December, 2004

January through April, 2005

May through July, 2005

Major Participants

Elizabeth Ann R. Bird, Ph.D. - Programs Coordinator, Farm and Home Environmental Management Programs, Environmental Resources Center, UW-Madison

Dr. Bird will coordinate the project, and lead the social marketing research design, analysis, strategy development and pilot testing with team members and community partners. Dr. Bird will serve as a public liaison for the project, including fostering potential for a Green Certification program in the state of Wisconsin for landscape managers; and ensure the results of the project are utilized in subsequent UW Extension and regional projects for IPM education of urban landscape managers.

John Stier -- Assistant Professor of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin Madison and University of Wisconsin Extension.
Dr. Stier will advise all aspects of the project and project staff; including the IPM social marketing survey, results analysis and interpretation; educational products analysis and development; and outreach about project results to Extension and other environmental educators. Dr. Stier will serve as a public liaison for the project, including fostering potential for a Green Certification program in the state of Wisconsin for landscape managers; and ensure the results of the project are utilized in subsequent UW Extension and regional projects for IPM education of urban landscape managers. Dr. Stier also will sponsor course credit for a Horticulture student intern to participate with the research aspects of the project.

Mrill Ingram - Outreach Specialist, Farm and Home Environmental Management Programs, Environmental Resources Center, UW-Madison

With student interns (Landscape Architecture and Horticulture), Ms. Ingram will carry out the telephone survey research, identify and help evaluate landscape IPM materials, assist focus groups, and revise existing or develop new prototype materials.

Richard Brooks - Outreach Program Manager, Health Promotion Project, Department of Professional Development & Applied Studies, UW-Madison

Richard Brooks will advise on the development of social marketing strategies, including "Green Landscaper" certification planning, and conduct the focus groups.

Collaborators:
Maria Powell - Prospective Post-Doctoral researcher for a proposed USDA/CSREES/Water Quality project to survey and involve watershed residents in Lake Monona watershed improvement.

Sue Jones - Staff person for the Dane County Lakes and Watersheds Commission. Ms. Jones will participate in discussion with the project team regarding criteria for effective educational strategies for IPM practice by urban landscape managers, pilot test procedures, and sketches of social marketing and participatory education tools and products. Through her collaboration on the proposed USDA/CSREES/Water Quality Lake Monona watershed improvement project, she also will participate with development of the watershed forum.

Suzanne Wade - UW-Extension Educator for the Rock River Basin. Ms. Wade will participate in discussion with the project team regarding criteria for effective educational strategies for IPM practice by urban landscape managers, pilot test procedures, and sketches of social marketing and participatory education tools and products. Through her collaboration on the proposed USDA/CSREES/Water Quality Lake Monona watershed improvement project, she also will participate with development of the watershed forum.

Dr. Sonya Newenhouse - President of the Madison Environmental Group. Dr. Newenhouse will participate in discussion with the project team regarding criteria for effective educational strategies for IPM practice by urban landscape managers, pilot test procedures, and sketches of social marketing and participatory education tools and products. She also will participate with development of the watershed forum.

Project Budget

Funding Request
Funding Requested Other Funding Total Funding
$40,000
0
$40,000

Project Period: 8/1/03 - 7/31/05


Local Navigation

Jump to main content.