The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm
IJSHE
8,3 Institutional commitment
to sustainability
An evaluation of natural resource extension
272 programs inuniversities inAlabamaandOregon
Shorna R. Broussard
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, and
John C. Bliss
Department of Forest Resources, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to determine institutional commitment to sustainability by
examining Natural Resource Extension program inputs, activities, and participation.
Design/methodology/approach – A document analysis of Natural Resource Extension planning
and reporting documents was conducted to provide contextual and historical data for the study and 58
in-depth interviews were conducted with Natural Resource Extension personnel in the Alabama
Cooperative Extension System and the Oregon State University Extension Service.
Findings – This research moves beyond the familiar teaching and research functions of higher
education institutions and focuses on Cooperative Extension, which is the outreach arm of universities.
The paper discusses challenges and opportunities associated with implementing sustainability
through these outreach education programs. In both Alabama and Oregon, the Agriculture, Home
Economics, and 4-H programs dominate human and economic resource investment in Cooperative
Extension. Natural Resource Extension programs in Alabama and Oregon represents 6 and 14 percent,
respectively, of all program expenditures in Cooperative Extension. Both states have educational
programs that address sustainability of natural resources and those programs were interdisciplinary
in nature. Little evidence is found extensive participation in Natural Resource Extension programs by
environmental groups, minorities, and other non-traditional clientele. Lastly, Oregon’s political context
was more conducive to broadening Natural Resource Extension program work in sustainability.
Practical implications – Educational institutions such as Natural Resource Extension programs at
universities play a significant role in educating private landowners, the public, and professionals
about various aspects of forestry and natural resources. Based on this study of Natural Resource
Extension programs in Alabama and Oregon, the following are needed for extension to address
natural resource sustainability through its educational programs: sufficient intellectual and financial
commitment to sustainability, diverse and inclusive participation in programs, and collaborative
interdisciplinary programming. The analysis presented here can aid other educators as they explore
sustainability through educational programming.
Originality/value – Since, Natural Resource Extension programs address societal concerns through
problem solving, grassroots education, and research and technology dissemination, they are poised to
do work in the sustainability arena. No study to date has examined sustainability from the aspect of
Natural Resource Extension educators in Oregon and Alabama. An understanding of current
investment in sustainability through education is fundamental to building a strong Extension
International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education program in this area.
Vol. 8 No. 3, 2007
pp. 272-284 Keywords Education, Natural resources, Agriculture, Sustainable development,
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited United States of America
1467-6370
DOI 10.1108/14676370710817147 Paper type Case study
Introduction Institutional
Sustainable development, characterized by the union of economic growth, commitment to
environmental protection, and social equity, is at the forefront of national and
international policy and research agendas. Sustainable development can be defined as sustainability
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987, p. 8). In 1996, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 273
made a commitment to integrate the goals and concepts of sustainability throughout
its agencies, policies, and programs. One such program is Cooperative Extension,
which is an educational partnership between the 105 land grant colleges and
universities in the USA and USDA. Cooperative Extension is a unique system of public
outreach that exists in over 9,000 US counties, has close links to local communities, a
science-base at land-grant universities, and a tradition that spans more than 80 years.
The land-grant university three part mission of teaching, research, and extension
serves as the foundation for Cooperative Extension programs. Educational institutions
such as these are essential to implementing sustainability (Deason, 1996).
Some controversy surrounds sustainability, mainly related to arguments about whose
values should take precedence in defining it. Thus, using the term “sustainability”
conveys ideological, political, moral, and scientific views and can involve controversial
topics such as limits to growth, social inequality, and economic diversification. Achieving
and utilizing sustainability requires an examination of the political, economic, and social
underpinnings of society. For example, it has been argued that forms of economic, social,
and political subordination will continue to exclude marginalized groups (on the basis of
“skin color, religion, culture, ethnicity, or any alternative conception of otherness”) from
the sustainability debate. These conflicting definitions and interpretations have led to
some controversy over the notion of sustainability (Filho, 2000; Prugh et al., 2000).
Regardless of the differing definitions, the US public is increasingly concerned with
sustainability as it relates to the natural resources and the environment (Schneider and
Smallidge, 2000) and sustainability is an important concept for institutions of higher
education (Filho, 2000; Wright, 2002; Deason, 1996).
While sustainability is a term that has been gradually incorporated into many
program areas in extension, the longest tradition of sustainability is in the Natural
Resource Extension program area (Guy and Rogers, 1999). This is intuitive, as
sustainability’s roots are in renewable resources such as forests and fisheries (Lele,
1991). Researchers have examined attitudes and perspectives toward sustainability in
Cooperative Extension. Agricultural scientists at land-grant universities perceive
agricultural sustainability as most closely tied to environmental quality and less tied to
economic and social aspects of sustainability (Lyson, 1998). Similarly, extension
professionals in North Carolina possessed favorable attitudes toward sustainable
agriculture in general but the social aspects of sustainability (equity, participation, etc.)
were not endorsed as strongly as were the economic and ecological aspects of
sustainability (Minarovic and Mueller, 2000). In addition, Lyson (1998) found
discipline-related diversity in attitudes toward sustainability. In fact, 84 percent of
academics in forestry reported that environment was an important goal above all other
dimensions of sustainability, while the social dimension of sustainability was the
most important goal above all others for social scientists and economists.
IJSHE Thus, sustainability calls for inter-disciplinary, collaborative work in order to achieve a
8,3 balance of all aspects of sustainability (Lyson, 1998; Filho, 2000).
With regard to the focus of land grant universities and Cooperative Extension,
Meyer (1997) suggested a wider definition of agriculture, moving beyond agricultural
production to encompass environmental management of all lands (Meyer, 1997).
As Brown (1999, p. 13) once declared, “it is time to shift the basic mission of the Land
274 Grant Colleges of Agriculture from agricultural production to that of land stewardship
in all of its aspects”. While budgets for extension have been disproportionately
committed to the agriculture community and to the benefit of farmers and ranchers (Mc
Dowell, 1991), land-grant university personnel believe that environmental issues will
be the driving force for land grant Colleges of Agriculture and that environmental
interests should also be included as clientele of extension (Meyer, 1995).
Researchers have examined attitudes and perspectives toward sustainability in
Extension (Francis et al., 1988; Korsching and Malia, 1991; Minarovic and Mueller,
2000; Lyson, 1998), however, no study has examined sustainability from the aspect of
Natural Resources Extension educators and programs. Natural Resource Extension
programs play a significant role in educating private landowners, the public, and
professionals about various aspects of forestry and natural resources. Two state
extension systems, the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES) and the
Oregon State University Extension Service (OSUES), served as cases in this research.
The two states were selected because they provided different political, environmental,
and organizational contexts as Oregon and Alabama (Figure 1) vary in the size, scope,
and organization of their respective extension programs. Oregon has the largest
Extension Forestry program in the nation and this was part of the rationale for
selecting this case. Alabama’s Forestry Extension program is more typical of other
OR
AL
Figure 1.
US map with study sites
indicated, Alabama (AL)
0 500 1,000 Km
and Oregon (OR)
states: only a handful of campus-based extension specialists and no county extension Institutional
foresters (Table I). The Oregon State University Extension Service employs commitment to
approximately 313 people and the Alabama Cooperative Extension System about
337. Alabama has approximately 250 county extension staff and 80 campus-based sustainability
extension specialists, while Oregon has about 190 county extension staff and
120 campus-based specialists. Secondly, the states also have different natural resource
contexts. For example, while Alabama’s forests are mostly privately owned, Oregon’s 275
forests are predominantly publicly owned (Table II). Forests occupy 45 percent of
Oregon’s total land area contrasting with the 68 percent in Alabama. The forest
products payroll in Oregon stands slightly higher at $1.72 billion compared to
Alabama’s $1.54 billion. Forests are a tremendous natural resource in both states and a
critical component of each state’s ecological, social, and economic landscape.
Methodology
For the purposes of this study, the following methods were used: document analysis
and semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews were utilized because this
approach allowed for some flexibility for discussion during the interviews while
ensuring that a standard set of questions was asked of every interviewee. A document
analysis of Natural Resource Extension planning and reporting documents was
conducted to provide contextual and historical data for the study. Overall, 29 Natural
Resource Extension personnel in the Alabama Cooperative Extension System and
29 Natural Resource Extension personnel in the Oregon State University Extension
Oregon extension Alabama extension
Number of county extension agents 189.03 254
Number of campus extension
specialists/administrators 123.88 82.5
College of Agriculture/Agricultural Sciences 77.23a 50
College/School of Forestry 9.13 5.5b Table I.
College of Home Economics/Human Sciences 5.65 7 Budgeted full-time
Other specialists (liberal arts, business, etc.) 14.15 20 equivalents (FTE) for the
Total extension agents, specialists, administrators 312.91 336.5 Oregon State University
Extension Service and the
Notes: aIncludes Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (3.24 FTE); bSchool of Forestry and Wildlife Alabama Cooperative
Sciences Extension System
Table II.
Acres forestland Public ownership Private ownership
Acres of forestland,
(million) Percent of total land (percent) (percent)
percent of forestland,
Oregon 28 46 60 40 percent in private
Alabama 22 68 95 5 ownership, and percent in
public ownership for
Sources: Oregon Department of Forestry (1999); Alabama Forestry Commission (2000) Oregon and Alabama
IJSHE Service were interviewed (Table III) (Figure 1). The interviews were tape recorded and
8,3 subsequently transcribed and coded.
In this study, sustainability in Natural Resource Extension programs was assessed in
terms of three components: inputs, activities, and participation. Inputs, activities, and
participation are necessary conditions that must be met before any primary changes can
occur in program participants. For example, personnel must be in place and program
276 dollars allocated in order to develop a particular curriculum or educational program in
which clientele could then participate. Inputs are the resources – staff, and dollars – that
go into educational programming. Activities include the educational programs that are
conducted through Natural Resource Extension. Participation describes the interaction
between Natural Resource Extension staff and their clientele in programs and program
planning. The program inputs, activities, and participation model is one that is
commonly used in Cooperative Extension and educational evaluation research (Bennett,
1975, 1979; Summers, 1977; Christenson and Warner, 1982; Warner and Christenson,
1984; Mayeske, 1994; Bennett and Rockwell, 1995; Swanson et al., 1997).
Grounded theory procedures were used to analyze the interview transcriptions.
Grounded theory was an ideal social research approach to examining sustainability in
two Natural Resource Extension programs because it is best-suited for examining
explanations about phenomena about which little information is known. Grounded
theory uses a methodical set of procedures to inductively derive explanations about a
social phenomenon. The analytical procedure involved open coding, axial coding, and
selective coding. Open coding was the initial step used to analyze the data. Researchers
began by reading the transcripts and describing concepts, properties, and dimensions.
The next step was axial coding. This is where connections were made between
categories and contextual conditions were examined. In the final analytical procedure,
selective coding, the axial coding statements were integrated into core thematic
categories. The outcomes of the selective coding resulted in a set of core categories,
which are presented in the results.
Results
Results are presented from the two data sources utilized in this study (document
analysis and in-depth interviews) using the program inputs, activities, and
participation methodological framework previously outlined. Results are organized
thematically by the program inputs and related factors of:
. staffing and expertise;
. budgets and funding levels;
Table III. Oregon State University Alabama Cooperative
Number of specialists, Extension Service Extension System Total
agents, and
administrators Extension specialists 9 7 16
interviewed as part of the County agents 17 19 36
Alabama and Oregon Administrators 3 3 6
case studies Total 29 29 58
. program activities; Institutional
. program participation; and commitment to
. political context. sustainability
Because this research was qualitative in part, textual data such as quotes and themes
from interviews will be presented in addition to the quantitative data from the
document analysis. All names used in this paper are pseudonyms, but the state 277
locations and position descriptions reflect those of actual interviewees.
Staffing and expertise
To investigate the human resources dedicated to natural resources programming,
the distribution of Cooperative Extension personnel across all program areas in each
state was determined. This provided a baseline from which to begin examining the
commitment to natural resources education generally, with the understanding that not
all personnel in natural resources are working on sustainability issues.
One major difference between Forestry Extension staffing in Alabama and Oregon
is the scope of focus among county extension personnel. In Alabama, county agents are
typically generalists who do not have formal forestry training; of the more than 250
county agents in the state, only one had a degree in forestry at the time of this study.
Although there are nine campus-based extension specialists in forestry, there are no
county agents with dedicated assignments in forestry. Those charged with forestry
and natural resource extension efforts at the local level are Agriculture and Natural
Resource agents. One county agent stated it best:
I have responsibilities in areas of animal and dairy science, forestry, aquaculture, small
ruminants, water quality. Those are the basic ones, but I have nine different categories that
I work in.
Extensive downsizing in ACES has led to the consolidation of positions and broader
job responsibilities, and has increased time constraints on remaining agents. One
Alabama county extension coordinator explained, “I spend a lot of time on natural
resources, but most of that is spent after work because I don’t have time to do it during
work.” Buddy Timberlake, an administrator in the state, comments, “Ten years ago we
had over 400 agents; today we have 226.”
In contrast, there were 18 county extension agents in Oregon who had dedicated
assignments in forestry and were able to specialize in particular aspects of the
discipline, such as forest products or forest engineering. These agents generally had
degrees in forestry. In addition, OSUES has ten campus-based forestry extension
specialists. Oregon also has one agent dedicated to sustainable forestry issues as
Associate Director of the Sustainable Forestry Partnership. In addition, an Oregon
Extension Specialist heads the Sustainable Living program, which encourages
environmentally sound consumerism. Oregon’s population (3.3 million) is about
two-thirds of Alabama’s (4.4 million) and Alabama has more of its total land area in
forest acreage. Yet the county agents in Alabama, those closest to communities and
forests, are generalists with responsibilities in multiple program areas.
IJSHE Budgets and funding
8,3 In 1999, ACES spent $2.8 million for Forestry and Natural Resource programs
(Table IV). In 1998, OSUES had $3.6 million in expenditures for the Forestry and
Natural Resources program areas (Table IV). The Agriculture, Home Economics, and
4-H programs account for most of program area expenditures in both states (Table III).
Forestry and Natural Resource program areas command minor percentages of total
278 program expenditures in both Alabama and Oregon extension. Though the Oregon
State University Extension Service has the largest Forestry Extension program in the
nation, this program area garners only 14 percent of total program area expenditures,
ranking last of all the program areas. In Alabama, where there are even fewer Forestry
Extension staff – only seven compared with Oregon’s 28 – the lower ranking is even
more pronounced.
Extension in both Oregon and Alabama has undergone significant restructuring
and downsizing in the past. For example, in ACES (1998) faced a budget shortfall of
over $1 million due to a 7.5 percent across-the-board cut to higher education in
1995-1996. Between 1998 and 2000, ACES (1999a, b) eliminated or reconfigured over
80 positions. George Barish, a county agent in the state explained the consolidating
effects of downsizing:
When I came here 11 years ago . . . there were three of us working in the area of horticulture.
The other two gentlemen took early retirement due to our downsizing and I’ve picked up all of
the responsibilities.... Obviously it is impossible to do everything that three of us did 11 years
ago so I’ve just been spread out a lot more and obviously can’t focus quite as well as I could 11
years ago. The downsizing has forced county agents to be generalists covering multiple
program areas and making it difficult to specialize.
In both Alabama and Oregon, the Agriculture, Home Economics, and 4-H base
programs dominate expenditures (Table IV). This result is even more stark in light of
the fact that the Oregon State University Extension Service has the largest Forestry
Extension program in the nation, employing 28 Extension Foresters at the state and
county levels, yet Forestry and Natural Resource Extension personnel in Oregon
account for only 14 percent of total program area expenditures in the state – one of the
smallest program percentages (Table IV).
The dominance of agriculture in extension staffing and budgets has several
implications. Agriculture has long been criticized in Extension for focusing exclusively
Oregon Alabama
Dollars Percent Dollars Percent
Agriculture 12,341,831 49 15,816,432 34
Home economics/family 3,856,822 15 16,016,640 34
Table IV. 4-H/Youth development 5,656,672 22 6,653,424 14
Expenditures by program Urban programs n/a n/a 3,650,304 8
area, Oregon State Forestry and natural resources 3,599,699 14 2,779,632 6
University Extension Community resource dev. n/a n/a 1,643,568 4
System and Alabama Total 25,712,148 100 46,560,000 100
Cooperative Extension
System Sources: Oregon State University Extension System (1999) and ACES (1999b)
on production. Part of natural resources sustainability is broadening the focus beyond Institutional
production and recognizing social and environmental values. Yet analysis of budget commitment to
and staffing documents does not reveal that this change has taken place. This provides
evidence that a balance is needed between dollar and staffing allocations among sustainability
program areas in Extension.
Program activities 279
Sustainability is inter-disciplinary in nature, thus extension programs that incorporate
multiple disciplines are more likely to provide a holistic view of education. In Oregon, the
Watershed Stewardship Enhancement Program (WSEP) involves faculty from program
areas and academic units such as Sociology, Forestry, Wildlife, Political Science,
Sea-Grant, Community Development, and Watershed Management. The WSEP is a
multidisciplinary educational curriculum aimed at educating watershed restoration
groups and citizens about watershed ecosystems and how to work effectively in groups to
achieve goals of watershed stewardship. WSEP faculty received a $10,000 innovative
project grant from OSU Extension in 1997. WSEP covers topics of: watershed processes,
stream ecology, evaluation and reduction of upland erosion, riparian area functions and
management, evaluating and improving fish habitat, wetland/estuary evaluation and
enhancement, working together to create successful groups, water quality monitoring.
The audience for WSEP is watershed groups, farmers, foresters, and urban residents.
An example of an Alabama natural resource extension program that incorporates
the concepts of sustainability is the C. Beaty Hanna Urban Horticulture and
Environmental Center in Birmingham, which serves the educational needs of urban
residents. The Urban Horticulture and Environmental Center is a collaborative effort
between ACES, the Birmingham Botanical Gardens, Jefferson County Commission,
Birmingham Botanical Society, and the City of Birmingham. The Jefferson County
Commissioners committed a quarter million dollars to the Center. Programs delivered
at the Center cover topics such as environmental issues, erosion, air quality, water
quality, urban forestry, and stewardship of natural resources. More importantly the
Center targets the following clientele: urban residents, commercial and horticultural
professionals, and home gardeners. ACES Director Steve Jones and the School of
Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Dean led the charge for hiring an urban forestry
extension specialist to complement this program.
Program participation: engaging non-traditional extension clientele
The Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)
describes participation as improving the degree and quality of participation of
previously disempowered groups. As applied to Extension, this involves examining
clientele participation in Extension programming and planning. We examined the
extent to which nontraditional clientele – clientele that have not traditionally been
engaged such as minorities, small landowners, environmental groups, displaced
farmers, migrant laborers, displaced workers, and low-income farmers – are involved
in Extension (GAO, 1981; Wright and Priester, 1986; Enarson, 1989).
We found little evidence of participation in Natural Resource Extension programs
by environmental groups, minorities, and other non-traditional clientele. Results
showed that non-traditional clientele groups have educational needs that are not being
served. For example, environmental groups, a non-traditional clientele, seldom
IJSHE participated in Extension programs and were rarely present on any of the county
8,3 advisory boards that guide Extension programming at the local level. Many times,
issues of credibility and trust surfaced during discussions of engaging environmental
groups as clientele in Extension. Non-traditional clienteles’ goals and ideologies may be
different from those of more traditional clientele groups and Extension faculty
expressed some discomfort with this unfamiliarity. In addition, Extension faculty
280 perceived that working with groups with controversial agendas could lead to a loss of
credibility for Extension. An Oregon State Extension Specialist talked about the
potential loss of credibility that he perceived might accompany working with
non-traditional clientele like environmental groups:
We have different values and different goals and for those of us in extension we feel it
extremely important to maintain our credibility with various clientele groups. So we are very
reluctant to form alliances and coalitions with non-profits because when we do that, we get oft
times used. They want to use us as credibility for their cause. Even though we may agree
with them, we’re reluctant to tag our name on it because then all of a sudden we are on one
side of an issue and we try to stay in the middle-ground.
An Extension Administrator explained the difficulties involved with meeting the
educational needs of non-traditional clientele:
We can offer local groups and organizations a great deal of assistance I think, [but] we have a
hard time, we are a conservative organization – and keep in mind our county agents.
Unfortunately, that’s somewhere where we have some vested interest. Some of these groups
and organizations are not highly thought of, their objectives may be different than some of
our more traditional clientele. A lot of times I’ll have groups tell me ‘I went to your county
agent and asked for their help and they told me they couldn’t do that.’ What happened was,
one of the things the group wanted to do was different than what the local ALFA group
thought was important. So that’s not good but that happens.
Also, it was not as if Extension faculty had poor working relationships with
environmental groups, it was that the relationships had yet to be established. However,
where relationships existed between Extension and environmental groups, it was
based on communication and building trust.
From an ethnic or cultural standpoint, diversifying the composition of Extension
educators would be a first step toward improving diversity in program participation.
Of the 58 Natural Resource Extension agents, specialists, and administrators interviewed
in Alabama and Oregon, only seven were female and only one was non-white. In both
states, we observed a lack of non-traditional clientele participation. These two facts are not
unrelated: a 1995 national survey of the general public found that wealthy, educated,
whites who live on farms are more likely than their less educated, poorer, urban
counterparts to have used extension services or have participated in its programs, neatly
delineating the rural tradition of Extension (Christenson et al., 1995).
Political context for sustainability
The political context is especially favorable in Oregon for addressing natural resources
sustainability due to the leadership of Oregon’s former Governor (Kitzhaber), as he
was a leader in the state with regard to restoring endangered salmon populations.
Additionally, in Oregon, interest groups are in a dominant, yet complementary
(Hrebenar, 1997) position in state politics. Also, in Oregon environmental groups such
as the Sierra Club and Oregon Natural Resources Council rank higher than the Farm Institutional
Bureau in terms of interest group influence (Hrebenar, 1997). In 1997, the Governor’s commitment to
Office released the “Oregon Plan for Coastal Salmon Restoration,” promoting a
non-regulatory cooperative approach to watershed management. Extension’s role in sustainability
watershed management was outlined:
The University Extension Service has a key role to play in both training and outreach for the
Oregon Plan. There are two major training needs: interagency cross-training on implementation 281
of the Oregon Plan, and training for Watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts and
other local groups. University Extension is currently in the process of developing a Watershed
Steward Educational Program (WSEP). WSEP is a comprehensive watershed enhancement
educational program (consisting of curriculum, training materials and learning aids) that will
enable target audiences to learn to form effective partnerships, to assess conditions and develop
strategies for mitigating or enhancing watershed resources, and to implement effective
enhancement projects. WSEP is a joint program of the agriculture, forestry and Sea Grant
Extension program areas. The goal is that this program will be accepted by state and federal
agencies directing salmon restoration and management programs.
Kitzhaber’s policy directives to state agencies in Oregon are intended to sharpen their
focus on water quality and watershed restoration as well as encourage greater
coordination among the agencies involved. In addition to Governor Kitzhaber’s
watershed restoration initiatives, he issued an Executive Order on sustainability in
2000 to develop a state strategy promoting sustainability in internal state government
operations (Executive Order-00-07). The executive order promotes collaboration
between state agencies and places a premium on working together. Thus, Oregon
Extension’s pioneering efforts in the area of watershed management are supported by
one of the state’s leading political figures.
The political context for sustainability in Alabama is driven, in large part, by the power
of special interests. Few states rival Alabama in terms of interest group dominance in state
politics (Hrebenar and Thomas, 1992; Thomas and Hrebenar, 1996, 1999). Hrebenar and
Thomas (1996) identified Alabama as one of seven states in the USA where the dominance
of interest groups in the political system is greatest. In fact, the Alabama Farmers
Federation ranked among the most effective interest groups in the state of Alabama
(Hrebenar and Thomas, 1992). This is related to sustainability programming in that
attempts to move Extension beyond agriculture production have been met with resistance
by some interest groups in Alabama. The fact that some farmers and cattlemen say that
Extension is straying too far from its mission and traditional role as “teacher to the
countryside” (GAO, 1981, p. 15) has significant meaning coming from such an politically
influential segment of society that provides the constituency support that lies at the heart
of a bureaucracies survival. Constituency support is one of the major ways in which
bureaucracies garner power. Oregon faced similar challenges with traditional agriculture
lobbies, but interest groups’ influence on state politics is less pronounced than it is in
Alabama. The political context of a state is a significant factor that can influence the
Extension organization and its commitment to sustainability.
Recommendations
Based on this study of Natural Resource Extension programs in Alabama and Oregon,
the following are necessary for Extension to address natural resource sustainability
through its educational programs:
IJSHE . Intellectual commitment. Recognition that sustainability encompasses
8,3 environmental, economic, and social aspects that must all be addressed in
natural resources extension education; this involves approaching education from
a systems viewpoint and integrating the three components of sustainability.
. Financial commitment. Commitment to natural resources education in extension
should be reflected in budgets and staffing; this may involve a redirection of
282 extension resources away from production agriculture and toward natural
resources and sustainable agriculture programming and staffing.
. Collaboration. Addressing sustainability requires working across program areas,
across disciplines, and within programs.
. Inclusive and diverse participation. Engagement of non-traditional clientele in
extension programs and program; this includes broadening the diversity of
viewpoints and backgrounds of personnel in Extension.
Conclusions
Extension is well poised to foster sustainability through its educational programs.
Natural Resource Extension programs at our nation’s land grant universities inform
and influence the knowledge and decisions of thousands of citizens across the USA.
Extension educators working in over 9,000 counties in the USA can utilize their
grassroots network to meet the educational needs of citizens related to sustainability.
Extension educators also have much to contribute to the dialogue around
sustainability and in doing so can help the public better understand issues
surrounding resource sustainability. Sustainability education has the potential to play
a great role in moving society towards embracing sustainability, however, there are
certain practices that will help promote sustainable development within the Extension
organization. The recommendations stated above should be taken into account if
Extension is going to aid in educating citizens on why sustainability is important and
how to go about achieving it.
Philosophical support for sustainability is but one of a constellation of factors
needed to demonstrate commitment to sustainability in Extension education. Budgets,
staffing, and leadership must accompany that philosophical vision. In addition,
Extension must engage non-traditional clientele in Extension programs, program
planning, and staffing in order to achieve equitable program participation. Improved
diversity in program participation, in turn, will broaden the discourse around
sustainability and better address the educational needs of non-traditional clientele.
Lastly, the influence of state politics in Extension education should not be
underestimated.
References
ACES (1998), Report of the Agricultural Task Force, Alabama Cooperative Extension System,
Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
ACES (1999a), Facts and Figures About the Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Alabama
Cooperative Extension System, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
ACES (1999b), ACES Prioritization and Redirection Plan, Alabama Cooperative Extension
System, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, available at: www.aces.edu/prp/
Bennett, C. (1975), “Up the hierarchy”, Journal of Extension, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 7-12.
Bennett, C. (1979), Analyzing Impacts of Extension Programs, ESC-57, US Department of Institutional
Agriculture, Science & Education Administration, Washington, DC. commitment to
Bennett, C. and Rockwell, K. (1995), Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP): An Integrated
Approach to Planning and Evaluation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. sustainability
Brown, R.D. (1999), “Natural resource challenges for the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture in
the 21st century”, Renewable Resources Journal, Spring, pp. 12-17.
Christenson, J.A. and Warner, P.D. (1982), “An assessment model for the cooperative extension 283
service”, Rural Sociology, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 369-90.
Christenson, J.A., Dillman, D.A., Warner, P.D. and Salant, P. (1995), “The public view of Land
Grant Universities: results from a national survey”, Choices, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 37-9.
Deason, J.P. (1996), “Changing world attitudes on environmental values and sustainability:
implications for education institutions”, Renewable Resources Journal, Winter, pp. 6-11.
Enarson, H.L. (1989), “Revitalizing the land-grant mission”, paper presented at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute in August, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA.
Filho, W.L. (2000), “Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability”, International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-19.
Francis, C.A., King, J.W., Nelson, D.W. and Lucas, L.E. (1988), “Research and extension agenda
for sustainable agriculture”, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 3 Nos 2/3,
pp. 123-6.
GAO (1981), “Cooperative extension service’s mission and federal role need congressional
clarification”, Report GAO/CED-81-119, General Accounting Office, Community and
Economic Development Division, Washington, DC.
Guy, S.M. and Rogers, D.L. (1999), “Community surveys: measuring citizens’ attitudes toward
sustainability”, Journal of Extension, Vol. 37 No. 3, available at: http://joe.org/joe/1999june/
a2.html
Hrebenar, R.J. (1997), Interest Group Politics in America, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.
Hrebenar, R.J. and Thomas, C. (1992), Interest Group Politics in the Southern States, University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Korsching, P.F. and Malia, J.E. (1991), “Institutional support for practicing sustainable
agriculture”, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 17-22.
Lele, S.M. (1991), “Sustainable development: a critical review”, World Development, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 607-21.
Lyson, T.A. (1998), “Environmental, economic, and social aspects of sustainable agriculture in
American Land-Grant Universities”, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 12 Nos 2/3,
pp. 119-30.
Mc Dowell, G.R. (1991), The USDA and the Extension System Revisited, or, If You haven’t Visited
Extension Recently, You’d Better do it Soon, ‘Cause It isn’t Going to be there Long, Virginia
Tech Agricultural Economics Extension, Blacksburg, VA.
Mayeske, G.W. (1994), Life Cycle Program Management & Evaluation: A Heuristic Approach,
Extension Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Meyer, J.H. (1995), Transforming the Land Grant College of Agriculture for the Twenty-First
Century, University of California, Davis, CA.
Meyer, J.H. (1997), Re-engineering the Land Grant College of Agriculture, University of California,
Davis, CA.
IJSHE Minarovic, R.E. and Mueller, J.P. (2000), “North Carolina cooperative extension service
professionals’ attitudes toward sustainable agriculture”, Journal of Extension, Vol. 38
8,3 No. 1, available at: http://joe.org/joe/2000february/a1.html
Oregon State University Extension System (1999), A Statewide Public Service Unit of Oregon
State University: Background Information, Oregon State University Extension System,
Corvallis, OR.
284 Prugh, T., Costanza, R. and Daly, H. (2000), The Local Politics of Global Sustainability, Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Schneider, R.L. and Smallidge, P. (2000), “Assessing extension educator needs in New York to
address natural resource issues for the new millennium”, Journal of Extension, Vol. 38
No. 3, available at: http://joe.org/joe/2000june/a4.html
Summers, J.C. (1977), Dimensions of Program Effectiveness and Accountability, West Virginia
University, Office of Research and Development, Morgantown, WV.
Swanson, B.E., Bentz, R.P. and Sofranko, A.J. (1997), Improving Agricultural Extension:
A Reference Manual, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Thomas, C.S. and Hrebenar, R.J. (1996), “Interest groups in the states”, in Gray, V. and Jacob, H. (Eds),
Politics in the American States, CQ Press, Washington, DC.
Thomas, C.S. and Hrebenar, R.J. (1999), “Who’s got clout?”, State Legislatures, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 30-4.
Warner, P.D. and Christenson, J.A. (1984), The Cooperative Extension Service: A National
Assessment, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, 1st ed.,
Oxford University Press, Geneva.
Wright, T.S.A. (2002), “Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher
education”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 203-20.
Wright, J. and Priester, K. (1986), Steaks and Stakes: Extension’s Linkages on the Hardwood
Range, Report, Cooperative Extension, University of California, Davis, CA.
Corresponding author
Shorna R. Broussard can be contacted at: brousar@purdue.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints