Innovations in Ag Communities: 4R Nutrient Stewardship Study, Essays (high school) of Voice

Download Innovations in Ag Communities: 4R Nutrient Stewardship Study and more Essays (high school) Voice in PDF only on Docsity! Journal of Applied Communications Volume 103 Issue 2 Article 7 Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns: An Examination of The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program Henry Seeger Purdue University Robyn S. Wilson The Ohio State University Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/jac Part of the Public Relations and Advertising Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Seeger, Henry and Wilson, Robyn S. (2019) "Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns: An Examination of The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program," Journal of Applied Communications: Vol. 103: Iss. 2. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2234 This Research is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Applied Communications by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact cads@k-state.edu. Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns: An Examination of The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program Abstract This project is an examination of how strategies for innovation in fertilizer application are communicated to agricultural communities. Specifically, this project examines the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program‒a public communication campaign seeking to encourage the use of specific strategies, tools, and best practices in fertilizer application. The campaign is advanced by the Fertilizer Institute, an industry trade association, and targets local agricultural communities within the United States. To understand how this campaign functions to encourage adoption of innovative fertilizer application behaviors, this project draws on the principles of diffusion of innovations theory as well as established concepts within public relations, including issues management. Keywords Public Communication Campaigns, Diffusion of Innovations, Fertilizer Runoff, Water Contamination Cover Page Footnote/Acknowledgements This article is based in a Master's thesis project conducted at the School of Communication at Illinois State University. The authors express their appreciation to the 4R Research Fund for their support. This research is available in Journal of Applied Communications: https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/7 Complexity is a term referring to the perceived difficulty of the innovation to be understood, used, or implemented. Innovations that are simple and easy to apply are more likely to be adopted. Trialability is a factor describing how much the innovation can be experimented with without commitment. A trial application can help the adopter explore the innovation, identifying what value it may add before fully adopting it. Finally, observability refers to the degree the value added by adopting an innovation is visible to other potential adopters (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion occurs through both mass media and interpersonal channels. Innovations often move from mass media to interpersonal channels through opinion leaders. Opinion leaders are interpersonal sources who are trusted by others to evaluate innovations and provide guidance about whether or not to adopt (Lazarsfeld et at., 1948; Valente & Davis, 1999). Information flows from opinion leaders to potential adopters in one-to-one or group communication contexts (Sivayoganathan & Tedrick, 1986). Because what opinion leaders think about an innovation shapes the attitudes of others towards that innovation, opinion leaders provide an interpersonal channel for innovations to diffuse throughout a social system (Telg et al., 1996). Mass media channels are particularly important during the early stage of the diffusion process and are helpful as individuals are learning about innovations, however, these efforts are generally most effective when combined with interpersonal channels (Scherer, 1979). Interpersonal channels are more important during the middle and late stages of the diffusion process, when individuals are weighing the advantages and disadvantages of adoption. Mass media and interpersonal communication channels can be further described as either cosmopolite or localite. Cosmopolite channels link potential adopters with sources outside of their social system. Localite channels link potential adopters with sources within their social system. Information about innovations almost always enter a system through cosmopolite channels, however, as the innovation diffuses through the system, localite channels become more widely used. It is important to note that all mass media channels are cosmopolite, however, not all interpersonal channels are localite (Rogers 2003). A potential adopter may communicate interpersonally with an individual outside of their social system. The successful diffusion of an innovation is often facilitated by change agents, individuals or groups seeking to encourage the adoption of an innovation by another group (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). Change agents are often opinion leaders, internal interpersonal sources trusted by community members to evaluate innovations because of their expertise. According to Rogers (2003), the behavior of change agents is strategic, as it is a “process of customizing the design and delivery of a communication program based on the characteristics of an intended audience” (p. 367). Haider and Kreps (2010) recommended campaigns “leverage the influential capacities of change agents” to more successfully influence attitudes of community members (p. 4). Another main element of diffusion – time - refers both to the novelty of an innovation (as dependent upon the relative earliness/lateness of an adoption in the diffusion process) as well as to the rate of an innovation’s diffusion through a social system. The rate of diffusion follows a S- shaped adoption curve, corresponding to a process where a few individuals (early adopters) adopt an innovation and then over time more members adopt the innovation. This process continues until a point of saturation is reached or when about half of the population has adopted the innovation (Rogers, 1995). After this point adoption rates slow, as there are fewer potential adopters left in the population and those that remain are resilient towards adopting. The curve may be shorter for innovations that are valued highly and are therefore adopted quickly, or longer for innovations that take longer to catch on or fail to completely diffuse. 3 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019 The final element of diffusion is the social system through which the innovation diffuses. An individual’s likelihood to adopt an innovation is dependent in part upon the innovation decisions of others within their social system. Wide social contact with other potential adopters within a social system is positively related to innovativeness (Unay Gailhard et al., 2015). As more individuals in a system adopt, the observability and compatibility of the innovation increases, as do positive interpersonal messages about the value added by the innovation. Within social systems individuals seek to influence others to adopt similar behaviors and worldviews as themselves (Smudde & Courtright, 2015). Early adopters can serve as opinion leaders driving adoption through trial and error, and subsequent communication about an innovation (Valente & Davis, 1999). Innovations are adopted in a pattern that follows a normal distribution. Rogers (2004) identified five adopter groups according to their readiness to adopt new innovations. These are: (1) innovators, (2) early adopters, (3) early majority, (4) late majority, and (5) laggards. He recognized innovators as the first 2.5% to adopt an innovation. Early adopters are the next 13.5%. The early majority are the next 34%. Following are the late majority, for another 34%. Last are laggards, the remaining 16%. Some literature identifies a final category, skeptics, that adopt an innovation only at the very end of the diffusion process because few alternatives remain (Smudde & Courtright, 2015). The distribution of adoption of an innovation over time is consistent with seeing diffusion of innovation as a process. It also allows for the breadth of an innovation’s diffusion to be tracked based on how many people in a social system report adopting the innovation. Rogers (2004) notes that diffusion takes time. Eventually diffusion reaches critical mass, the point in the diffusion process where the increase in new adopters is perpetuated by communication within the social system (Valente, 1993). This may be achieved when there is a perception that most everyone else in the system is adopting the innovation, because the value added by the innovation is significant (Mahler & Rogers, 1999). Rogers (2004) suggested critical mass is the point where enough individuals have adopted an innovation that “further diffusion becomes self-sustaining” (p. 13). Prior to achieving critical mass, external organizations and policymakers must invest resources and energy toward driving adoption. This may include developing and disseminating messages through campaigns. Once a point of critical mass is reached, internal interpersonal pressures drive further adoption, and external attempts to encourage adoption become less effective. Diffusion Research in Agricultural Communities An extensive body of research has examined diffusion of innovations theory in the context of agricultural communities (See Hamilton, 1973, Riesenberg & Gor 1989, Veil, 2010, Baumgart- Getz, Prokopy & Floress, 2012). In one of the earliest studies, Ryan and Gross (1943) sought to understand the diffusion and adoption of hybrid seed corn in Iowa farming communities. Because hybrid seed corn increased production yields by close to 20%, Ryan hypothesized the innovation would be adopted quickly. Surprisingly, the researchers discovered farmers took an average of seven years to transition from first planting hybrid seed to 100% adoption. Because farmers were less familiar with the innovative hybrid corn seed, they were reticent to adopt. Adoption was driven by media visibility of an innovation, as well as by local farm operators communicating information about the innovation to their communities. Social knowledge, as well as sources of information about an adoption, were found to be drivers of adoption. Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy and Floress (2012) conducted an extensive meta analysis of studies examining the adoption of innovations related to conservation and management by U.S. 4 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/7 DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.2234 farmers. The authors examined 31 social factors assessed over 25 years of adoption research exploring farm management practices. The variables that were consistently found to have the most significant impact on adoption included access to high quality of information; the financial capacity of the farmer; and connection to agencies, local communities, or groups of farmers. The impact of quality of information is consistent with Rogers’ overall theory, as those farmers who have information about innovations are likely to have a better understanding of the proposed innovation and consequently have higher rates of adoption. Quality of information is a function of the source farmers are using to gain information about an innovation. Financial capacity gives a farmer greater ability to experiment with new techniques and innovations, while being part of a network may enhance social influence and create opportunities for trialability and observability. Diffusion of innovations theory not only has utility as a frame for understanding what motivates changes in practices, but also as a frame for the design, analysis, and evaluation of campaigns. Such campaigns are an important activity in agricultural communications (Boone, Meisenbach, & Tucker, 2000; Tucker, 1996). Specifically, campaigns have been widely used to promote innovation in agricultural practices, including innovations in sustainable practices (Röling & Jiggins, 1994), pest control practices (Heong, Escalada, Huan, & Mai, 1998), and livestock vaccination (Heffernan, Thomson, & Nielsen, 2008), among many others. Research Questions We sought to examine the effectiveness of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship campaign at promoting the diffusion of 4R practices among communities in the region of the Maumee River Watershed. This involved identifying the reach of campaign messaging, the breadth of diffusion of the innovation, and the sources that are most effective in promoting the 4R principles. Therefore, we propose the following specific research questions for this study: RQ1: Do agriculturalists within the Maumee River Watershed perceive that they have knowledge of the 4R principles? RQ2: How do specific information sources relate to individual’s adoption of 4R practices within the Maumee River Watershed? RQ3: What is the extent of the diffusion of the 4R frameworks’ prescribed runoff reduction strategies through agricultural communities within the Maumee River Watershed? The answer to the first question will provide an indication of the success of the campaign in introducing the principles to the key target audience. Knowledge of an innovation and its potential benefits is a key first step in the diffusion process. The answer to the second question will identify the sources of information that are associated with that knowledge, and whether these sources make use of cosmopolite or localite channels of communication. Finally, the answer to the third question will provide some indication of the success of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program as a strategy to facilitate the diffusion of runoff reduction strategies. Contextualized within the bigger picture of campaigns generally, the answer to these three questions will also provide insight into the larger process of innovation as promoted by public communication campaigns. Methods The data used in this study were collected from farmers in the Maumee River Watershed from the end of December of 2015 until early March 2016 by The Ohio State University’s College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences using a survey questionnaire. Funding for this project was made available through the 4R Research Fund, a research initiative established by the 5 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019 Results The survey data were analyzed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v.24). Knowledge A one-sample t-test was used to answer research question one, which asked if agriculturalists within the Maumee River Watershed perceive that they have knowledge of the 4R principles. The perceived knowledge score was compared to a hypothesized population mean of 0, which was chosen as a neutral midpoint denoting neither high nor low levels of knowledge. The perceived knowledge score (M=.71, SD=.72) was statistically significantly higher by 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.76) than the knowledge comparison score of 0, t(739) = 26.63, p = .0005, d = .98. Respondents had a level of perceived knowledge regarding the 4R principles statistically significantly above 0 according to this test. Sources of Information A binomial logistic regression was performed to answer research question two, which asked if specific information sources relate to individual’s adoption of 4R practices within the Maumee River Watershed. Specifically, this regression was used to ascertain the effects of eleven information sources about nutrient stewardship on the likelihood that farmers have changed their 4R-related practices on their farm in the past three years. The logistic regression model was statistically significant, χ2(11) = 108.89, p< .0005. The model explained 19.7% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in 4R related farming practices and correctly classified 67.8% of cases. Sensitivity was 80.8%, specificity was 49.7%, positive predictive value was 69.1%, and negative predictive value was 65.0%. Of the eleven predictor variables, only crop adviser/consultant (p < .001), professional/industry magazines (p =.037), and the Farm Bureau (p =.05) were statistically significant and had a positive relationship to changing farm practices. For every one unit increase in reported frequency of information from their crop adviser/consultant, professional/industry magazines, or the Farm Bureau, the odds of a farmer changing their practices on the farm increased by 1.43 (crop adviser/consultant), 1.24 (professional/industry magazines), and 1.21 (Farm Bureau). A comparison of the eleven predictor values is provided in Table 2. Table 2. Comparison of Sources of Information B SE Wald Df P Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio Lower Upper Your County Extension Agent 0.12 0.11 1.07 1 0.30 1.12 0.90 1.39 University Extension 0.17 0.13 1.61 1 0.20 1.18 0.91 1.54 Farm Bureau 0.19 0.10 3.79 1 0.05 1.21 1.0 1.46 Your County Soil and Water Conservation District 0.07 0.11 0.41 1 0.52 1.07 0.87 1.33 Your Crop Advisor/ Consultant 0.36 0.10 13.4 1 0.00 1.43 1.18 1.73 Your Fertilizer Applicator or retailer 0.10 0.10 1.0 1 0.33 1.11 0.90 1.36 USDA NRCS -0.03 0.18 0.10 1 0.75 0.97 0.78 1.19 8 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/7 DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.2234 Professional/Industry Magazines 0.21 0.10 4.36 1 0.04 1.24 1.01 1.51 Commodity Groups -0.11 0.10 1.18 1 0.28 0.89 0.73 1.10 A family member or farm partner 0.15 0.10 2.42 1 0.12 1.16 0.96 1.40 Other farmers in your community 0.07 0.11 0.37 1 0.55 1.07 0.86 1.34 Extent of Diffusion This study looked at the overall percent of respondents that have changed 4R-related practices in order to answer research question 3, which asked to what extent the 4R frameworks’ prescribed runoff reduction strategies have diffused through agricultural communities within the Maumee River Watershed. A change in behaviors is thought to be an indication of adoption. The majority of respondents, 56.4% (N = 748), indicated they changed their 4R-related practices on their farm in the past three years. Changes since the inception of the campaign are understood as adoption. Diffusion of innovations prescribes the following distribution of innovators: 2.5% early adopters, 13.5% early majority, 34% late majority, and 16% laggards (Valente, 1993). Taken together, innovators, early adopters, and early majority constitute 50% of the population distribution. This positions the diffusion of the 4R framework’s prescribed runoff reduction strategies firmly in the late majority stage of the diffusion process. Discussion The goal of this project was to explore a public communication campaign seeking to encourage behavioral change within an agricultural community using diffusion of innovations. Specifically, this project assessed the effectiveness of the campaign in facilitating the diffusion of 4R related practices through the target agricultural communities. Research question 1 asked: Do agriculturalists within the Maumee River Watershed perceive that they have knowledge of the 4R principles? Knowledge of an innovation is identified by Rogers (2003) as the first stage of the innovation-decision process, and is an important prerequisite to adoption (Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy, & Floress, 2012). The results of the survey indicate respondents feel they do understand the 4R principles of nutrient stewardship. Perceived understanding, when compared with the instrument midpoint of relative understanding, was statistically significantly higher than the selected knowledge comparison score. Responses to the question, “I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the four nutrient management principles,” as a self-reported, perceived knowledge score were measured to be .71 on a scale ranging from -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree), indicating solid agreement. Because the four nutrient management principles are the basis of the 4R campaign, it is likely that the campaign has improved perceived understanding of the innovation, at least to some degree. While perceived understanding is not a measure of actual understanding, the results for RQ1 show that individuals are familiar with the 4R program and believe that they have some knowledge of the 4R principles. Research question 2 asked: How do specific information sources relate to individual’s adoption of 4R practices within the Maumee River Watershed? The results for RQ2 indicated three specific sources of information were significantly associated with adoption of the 4R principles. The logistic regression analysis of information sources about nutrient stewardship accounted for roughly 20% of the likelihood of farmers reporting they had adopted 4R-related practices on their farms. The three sources of information associated with change, listed in order of significance, 9 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019 were the crop advisor/consultant, the professional/industry magazines, and finally, the Farm Bureau. Crop advisor/consultant and the professional/industry magazines were sources explicitly used by the 4R campaign, while the Farm Bureau is an organization that communicates information about agricultural innovations to agricultural communities, including information about the 4R principles (Snyder, 2018). These conclusions are broadly consistent with research by Licht, and Martin (2006) who found that Iowa corn farmers used a variety of channels including mass media or general information and interpersonal communication for specific information (p. 19). Consultants were identified as primary sources of information while extension agents were used in evaluating information provided by other sources. The crop advisors/consultants are change agents that fit the conventional profile of an opinion leader, a critical source of information identified by diffusion of innovations as using localite channels of communication. Crop advisors are individuals who are “knowledgeable about plants and soil. They maintain a close relationship with their client and scout their fields for problems that may arise during the growing season” (AgCareers.com, 2018, NP). Crop advisors advise farmers about a range of issues, such as seed selection, pest and disease management, and fertilizer use. They typically have advanced education and may be certified in their state. Opinion leaders can be key sources of information in a program seeking to encourage the diffusion of an innovation (Valente & Davis, 1999; Gregory, 2010). Crop advisors interact regularly with farmers and serve as key opinion leaders about issues of fertilizer use, and can therefore be considered localite interpersonal channels of communication (Schwartz, 1994). Professional/industry magazines could refer to a number of materials, including standard farm magazines like Ohio Farmer. Many professional documents were made available to farmers in the form of brochures about the 4R principles distributed by fertilizer retailers, as well as a short guidebook entitled A Pocket Guide to 4R Nutrient Stewardship. The brochure and Pocket Guide were key materials in the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program and focus explicitly on the 4R principles. These materials were designed by the Fertilizer Institute and given to representatives within the community for local distribution. Although the Pocket Guide and brochure were cosmopolite, mass media channels of communication, they were designed to be distributed by retailers and may have functioned as collateral materials to support peer-to-peer communication within the farmers’ social system. These materials primarily communicated the innovation characteristics of compatibility and relative advantage. Using local change agents, such as fertilizer retailers, for distribution and emphasizing compatibility may increase farmers’ feelings of connectedness with their local community, which has been shown to influence the adoption of agricultural innovations (Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy & Floress 2012). These results are consistent with previous research that has identified the Farm Bureau as an important part of agricultural diffusion networks (Meyer, 1985, Lubell & Fulton, 2007). The Farm Bureau is an independent, voluntary organization that serves to organize and educate farmers about new agricultural methods. The Farm Bureau describes itself as, “The unified voice of agriculture” (Farm Bureau, 2018, NP). While the Bureau primarily makes use of mass media channels of communication, it is organized down to the local county level with representatives working directly with farmers. In many cases, the Bureau may function as a localite source with both mass media and interpersonal channels, as it often organizes locally and interacts with local opinion leaders. However, most of its communications would be categorized as cosmopolite. Fertilizer retailers and nutrient service providers were not associated with adoption, despite the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program prioritizing these groups as key change agents. Although fertilizer retailers and nutrient service providers utilize interpersonal communication to facilitate 10 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/7 DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.2234 runoff or improved water quality. However, this study suggests that the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program is a factor in the adoption of nutrient stewardship principles within the target public. This study adds to a very large and diverse body of research concerning communication and the diffusion of innovations. This study demonstrated diffusion is supported by information sources, including opinion leaders and change agents such as crop advisors. It is well known that opinion leaders such as crop advisors and consultants play an important role in influencing adoption and diffusion (Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy & Floress 2012; Riesenberg & Gor 1989; Rogers 2003; Ryan & Gross, 1943). The fact that the group promoting the innovation was an industry trade organization is a unique factor in this campaign. Much diffusion research has focused on diffusion efforts led by not-for-profit organizations or governmental agencies (Hanan, 2009; Mulgan et. al., 2007; Okaka, 2010; Valente & Saba, 1998). Industry trade associations, such as the Fertilizer Institute, can leverage significant resources and can create opportunities for member organizations to speak with one voice. Trade associations’ may be more effective in promoting innovations within an industry than other organizations, due to their unique access to critical information and resources. In addition, the Fertilizer Institute, through its member organizations, had representatives near the communities targeted for innovation. The use of local change agents is an established tactic for facilitating diffusion, however, change agents may be most effective when they are opinion leaders. Opinion leaders such as crop advisors can access localite, peer-to- peer networks and make effective use of word-of-mouth communication. Rogers (2003) suggested activating peer networks can be effective as a method for accelerating diffusion. Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy, and Floress (2012) also emphasize that innovation in agricultural communities can be enhanced through the use of local networks to disseminate information, including information for extension services. The results also provide interesting insights into the distinction between localite and cosmopolite channels as conceptualized in diffusion. This study suggests external organizations, in this case a trade association, are able to activate and use localite channels in ways that blur the line between cosmopolite and localite communication. Such strategies may involve providing resources to opinion leaders, such as brochures or talking points, that can be used to support word- of-mouth communication Carl (2006) noted that the power of word of mouth communication has been understood in campaign scholarship for some time. Efforts by organizations to create “buzz,” which he defined as “contagious talk about a brand, service, product, or idea” is a more recent development (p. 601). Buzz involves the use of local change agents to drive peer-to-peer communication around a product, innovation, or idea. The ways that cosmopolite and localite channels interact and affect each other is an area where more research is needed, especially as new technologies of digital communication develop and as the channels blur and become harder to identify. Some diffusion scholarship challenged traditionally dichotomous perspectives of mass media and interpersonal channels (Valente & Saba, 1998; Rogers, 1999). Contemporary scholarship has shown that emergent digital tools can function at the intersection of interpersonal communication and mass communication, creating a new conceptual space termed masspersonal communication (O’Sullivan & Carr, 2017). There may be need for a revised diffusion frame that understands cosmopolite and localite channels as interactive and interwoven with each other in the contemporary media landscape that intertwines with interpersonal communication. Limitations and Future Research The conclusions of this study should be interpreted cautiously within the context of several important limitations. These limitations also suggest future areas of research. First, the data from 13 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019 the study were limited. Data were collected by researchers at The Ohio State University, focusing within a limited geographic area and on one specific innovation campaign. Scholars should be careful not to generalize from this study nor to expect these results to be consistent in all other campaign contexts. The survey used to collect data on the 4R program in the Maumee River Watershed focused on a broad set of factors and did not collect detailed information about the communication practices of specific sources of information or the larger social structure of the community. Subsequent work could explore these questions in greater detail with a more targeted survey instrument and more comprehensive measures. The survey only examined perceptions of farmers about their knowledge of fertilizer innovations, and employed only two items, which is a limitation in the measure of knowledge used in this study. Logistical challenges like this are common in the development of scales, and this sometimes results in less than optimum measures (Eisinga et al., 2013). That notwithstanding, the two items did constitute a direct and appropriate measure within the context of the larger questionnaire. Future survey work could more rigorously investigate respondents’ perceptions of the campaign, as well as sources and channels, to explore how these relate to respondents’ perceptions of the value added by innovations. As with other investigations of public communication campaigns, the goals of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program must be inferred to a large degree. Organizations are usually unwilling to open their internal decision-making and strategy deliberations to researchers. In an August 2017 blog post, Lara Moody, the Fertilizer Institute’s vice president of stewardship and sustainability programs, wrote: All sectors of the fertilizer industry are on board with increasing 4R adoption. Fertilizer application practices are at the center of our industry. Say it’s a nice slogan if you want, but applying the right source, at the right rate, the right time and in the right place provides a unifying and actionable message. It has brought significant resources and voices to addressing water quality challenges and preventing nutrient loss (Moody, 2017). This post indicates the Fertilizer Institute has positioned the 4R campaign as a unifying and comprehensive solution to the fertilizer runoff problem in the Maumee River Watershed. The 4R campaign is the Fertilizer Institute’s primary way of addressing the fertilizer runoff issue. An area for future investigation concerns the role of new media as a source of information. New media, with its very immediate reach and ability to disseminate user-produced content, can blur the lines among localite and cosmopolite channels, mass media and interpersonal channels, and organizational and peer-to-peer communication. Digital spaces may create new opportunities for change agents to be leveraged to enhance a campaign (Nisbet & Kotcher, 2009). The sources of information identified as important for innovation should be further explored. Specifically, the ways existing community members can function as information sources requires more study. Understanding how opinion leaders functioned as change agents for the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program may clarify the underlying influence of these individuals in peer- to-peer interactions using word-of-mouth communication. Further exploring how these change agents communicate using cosmopolite and localite channels may reveal new aspects about the process of diffusion. The specific appeals and arguments used by change agents is also important in the success of an innovation (Veil, 2010). Finally, it may be helpful to explore how these agents use resources and specific channels to promote innovation. Water systems are threatened by a number of factors, including population growth, commercialization of water resources, competition, climate change, and contamination from 14 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/7 DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.2234 agricultural practices. Educating people about innovative practices and technologies, encouraging support for these practices, and facilitating adoption and diffusion of these innovations, are necessary to protect water resources. Behavioral change is also necessary to manage many other public issues that impact both society and organizations. One effective way behavior is changed is through persuasive campaigns. Developing new frames for campaign research is important to both enhance the effectiveness of campaigns and to understand how organizations, including powerful trade associations, influence issues, public policy, and behavior. These new frames can also inform communication practice by enhancing campaign design. Scholars should thus continue to test and evaluate theories, especially diffusion of innovations, in specific case contexts, such as the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program, to continue to expand and refine this area of scholarship. 15 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019 Schwartz, L. A. (1994). The role of the private sector in agricultural extension: Economic analysis and case studies (pp. 54-54). London, England: The Overseas Development Administration. Seeger, M. & Seeger, H. (2017). “Don’t Drink the water: Warning Communication in a Northern Ohio Water Emergency.” In Casing Risk and Crisis Communication, C. Leiberman, T. Avtgis & D. Rodriguez (Eds). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Sivayoganathan, C. Tedrick, W. (1986). Interpersonal Communications in the Adoption Process. Journal of Applied Communications, 69(4), 1-7. doi: 10.4148/1051-0834.1623 Smudde, P. & Courtright, J.L. (2015). In C.E. Caroll (Ed.). Form Following Function: Message Design for Managing Corporate Reputations. The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Reputation, 404-417. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. Snyder. (2018). 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program celebrates four year anniversary. Ohio Farm Bureau. Retrieved from https://ofbf.org/2018/03/29/4r-nutrient-stewardship-certification- program-celebrates-four-year-anniversary/ Telg, R. Irani, T. Monaghan, P. Chiarelli, C. Scicchitano, M. and Johns, T. (2012). Preferred Information Channels and Source Trustworthiness: Assessing Communication Methods Used in Florida's Battle Against Citrus Greening. Journal of Applied Communications, 96(1), 1-12. doi: 10.4148/1051-0834.1147 TFI (2016). The Fertilizer Institute. Retrieved from www.tfi.org Tucker, M. (1996). Ferment in our field: Viewing agricultural communication research from a social science perspective. Journal of Applied Communications, 80(4), 4. doi: 10.4148/1051-0834.1332 Unay Gailhard, İ., Bavorová, M., & Pirscher, F. (2015). Adoption of agri-environmental measures by organic farmers: the role of interpersonal communication. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(2), 127-148. doi: 10.1080/1389224x.2014.913985 Valente, T. (1993). Diffusion of innovations and policy decision-making. Journal of Communication, 43, 30-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01247.x Valente, T., & Davis, R. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 55-67. doi: 10.1177/000271629956600105 Valente, T. W., & Saba, W. P. (1998). Mass media and interpersonal influence in a reproductive health communication campaign in Bolivia. Communication Research, 25, 96-124. doi: 10.1177/009365098025001004 Veil, S. R. (2010). Identifying Adoption Barriers in Organizational Rhetoric: A Response to the Strategic Plan for the National Animal Identification System. Journal of Applied Communications (94) 1, 33-48. doi: 10.4148/1051-0834.1185 18 Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 103, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 7 https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol103/iss2/7 DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.2234 This article is based in a Master’s thesis project conducted at the School of Communication at Illinois State University. The authors express their appreciation to the 4R Research Fund for their support. Henry Seeger is a doctoral student in the Brian Lamb School of Communication at Purdue University. His research has primarily focused on the communicative dimensions of water and food contamination events, particularly the role of public communication in predicting, responding to and managing these events. Dr. Robyn Wilson is an Associate Professor of Risk Analysis & Decision Science in the School of Environment & Natural Resources at The Ohio State University. She studies the individual decision making process under risk and uncertainty, more specifically the factors that influence individual perceptions of risk and related behaviors. She is also interested in the development of communication efforts and decision support tools that assist individuals in making more informed choices. 19 Seeger and Wilson: Diffusion of Innovations and Public Communication Campaigns Published by New Prairie Press, 2019