Communicating with Diverse Audiences about Sustainable Farming: Does Rurality Matter?

Abstract

There has been a dramatic shift in how people engage with agriculture over the past 50 years in the United States, leading to little interaction between consumers and the farm. Despite extension initiatives to communicate with urban consumers about agriculture, the disconnect between consumers and agricultural producers continues to grow. Research has shown consumers rely primarily on the media for information about agriculture resulting in misconceptions about its impact on the environment. Consumers’ negative views about agriculture’s impact on the environment may lead to support for and implementation of environmental policies that create issues for agricultural producers rather than policies that support both production agriculture and the environment. This study, guided by audience segmentation and framing theory, sought to explore differences in public perspectives regarding agriculture’s impact on the natural environment, specifically with rural, urban, and suburban residents. Data were collected from 797 Georgia residents living in rural, urban and suburban areas using an online survey instrument. The results found perspectives on agriculture’s impact on the environment were moderately high and bimodal; both positive and negative. Statistically significant differences were found between urban and suburban residents’ positive perspectives on agriculture’s impact on the environment and between urban, suburban, and rural residents’ negative perspectives on agriculture’s impact on the environment. The findings imply extension educators need to tailor outreach programs based on the rurality of residents in order to effectively communicate with audiences, particularly when combatting negative framing with urban audiences.

Finding the Right Channel: An Analysis of Communication Channel Preferences Amongst Potential Extension Clientele

“…Using an audience segmentation approach Warner et al (2017) also found that visiting a website was the most preferred communication channel for learning about water conservation, but when looking at the subgroups of the water considerate majority, the water savvy conservationists and the unconcerned water users, watching television and reading print materials were also highly preferred methods. Gibson et al (2020) found that rurality (work environment level of the Ecological Model of Leadership Contexts) is a factor when communicating with audiences. The results indicated urban audiences may benefit from in-person or virtual experiences at a farm while suburban residents may need more introductory agricultural education.…”

Examining the Relationship between Geographic Groupings and Perspective of Critical Community Issues: An Audience Segmentation Analysis

“…Moreover, audience segmentation tailors communication strategies toward specific groups based on their needs or interests, which may increase efficiency of resource use and information delivery [13,16,17]. Successful use of audience segmentation in extension applications has been well-documented (see [16,[18][19][20]).…”

Rural Sustainable Prosperity: Social Enterprise Ecosystems as a Framework for Sustainable Rural Development

“…Most recently, in Ohio, following state legislation that more strictly limits renewable energy development than it does fossil fuel energy, ten rural localities banned wind and solar "farms" in their counties, actions that to urban voters seem backward, myopic, or irresponsible [27,28]. In addition, rural industries such as agriculture are perceived more negatively by urban and suburban residents, a perception that results in laying undue blame and responsibility at the feet of rural people for environmental degradation [29]. In turn, rural voters perceive urban priorities toward environmental protection and preservation as a threat to rural livelihoods and ways of life [26].…”

“…Moreover, when considering changes to more sustainable practices, those practices might be impractical, or the costs incurred by rural residents can be much higher than mitigating practices for individuals in high-density areas [25]. Where rural industries like agriculture are targeted as driving climate change, the people working in those industries might be less able to afford or have the capacity to switch to more sustainable alternatives [25,29]. Where the disproportionate impact of climate change and environmental degradation falls on rural people after centuries of fueling progress in urban centers, mandates for sustainability in these rural places may be ill-received [26].…”

“…Moreover, research on sustainable development practices that lead to rural prosperity is needed. Where industries located in rural geographies have been targeted or villainized for unsustainable practices, less documented in the academic literature and mainstream media are asset-based approaches to sustainable development that lead to holistic rural economic, social, and ecological prosperity [26,29,63]. Urban approaches to sustainability, which focus on density, city planning for walkability, mixed-use space, and social inclusion, are not suitable for a rural context and must be adjusted or reimagined for geographic isolation and dispersed, smaller populations and the resultant unique set of assets and barriers [9,64].…”