<%BANNER%>

Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behaviors of Florida Extension Agents Regarding Community Food Security

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110209_AAAACU INGEST_TIME 2011-02-09T17:21:42Z PACKAGE UFE0015641_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 9145 DFID F20110209_AABPJD ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH lutz_a_Page_126.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
3945c11746c62eddf0ffa0806773391f
SHA-1
1644a396ec16a6dae86f43440dbba6a5be2145e1
65187 F20110209_AABPIO lutz_a_Page_107.jpg
b03e7f8c3838dfdfcaa490db409284ab
8887f94d275f3453406c747801b320b423176fb3
29722 F20110209_AABPJE lutz_a_Page_127.jpg
2c32cbe52a18aeee59414555ffbd7e04
a42843449ddb66ea6481227df9758d2c7ef92b1a
51819 F20110209_AABPIP lutz_a_Page_108.jpg
e5d6fb7016e8302e5679daf13b401ae9
25c9435d9752bd88920f79f5fa19abe86e744a4a
1051978 F20110209_AABOGD lutz_a_Page_012.jp2
f306b6d961f052ab2eb6221bcc7c526a
453f4abbc6831d80407e4672576b3d2ec9dbe605
78324 F20110209_AABPJF lutz_a_Page_128.jpg
fab7e3db2da4c86fdd2211542f7f1425
05e37416360655e54fc82c857d7c4761fa244ebe
100541 F20110209_AABPIQ lutz_a_Page_109.jpg
fb426cebc1bf9a464c48dd3394c23ed6
9c0ecb366a5125f06b86b625482a93d62c253f5f
71795 F20110209_AABOGE lutz_a_Page_155.pro
1b93f5deb8cdc81552d46f0cb54a1d4c
768ff50d56e553cad8014bf779cac7bfabf1123b
104105 F20110209_AABPJG lutz_a_Page_129.jpg
8288708561d6eca282ca480133d9a6b6
427e9ce621ad4cedc82112960a36a4595ded633f
101863 F20110209_AABPIR lutz_a_Page_110.jpg
2321c5b6f815faac519c55c5da1fe1b7
00676dd11241950aaa937298deee08c7a7702667
8423998 F20110209_AABOGF lutz_a_Page_138.tif
704c954cbf3a64162c553f4cea6d7f73
e2b1df11d3100c11cc77cd050cea6b6a28efb06b
98812 F20110209_AABPJH lutz_a_Page_130.jpg
5656814c5aa012ca015cc33f13c5ff3c
0d49ced32c128825c4611e1f435e8c24a609ccbc
99930 F20110209_AABPIS lutz_a_Page_111.jpg
e30cb148b308258220f9cdfbe667c21c
d07527f49867bc40bc1f6b6b8791a759e611eebb
978228 F20110209_AABOGG lutz_a_Page_188.jp2
694c6dde71f9e5120a90473ea7fa7666
16ea28f21a572db7398030e58bdbc265f50b8686
104382 F20110209_AABPJI lutz_a_Page_131.jpg
8bba51fa88b9f7683e459b7be7643d5b
c9c34552a7583ec6ef1629641136e9ded85a273b
101122 F20110209_AABPIT lutz_a_Page_112.jpg
41ec456ccdd6adb6503303e51a644cb7
fbe768ad825233643817670eaa43ddaa0fe71da4
F20110209_AABOGH lutz_a_Page_065.tif
53a454ab95ac5cad052dd936c68217f5
4d083612a161bbf2433034a12d8dbbb944d5bfe3
105787 F20110209_AABPJJ lutz_a_Page_132.jpg
124707bd9145da727c27fec83a3de52d
09e5cf2ccc91886261851a5de6037315c667bd86
108467 F20110209_AABPIU lutz_a_Page_113.jpg
6072c031ae1dae4a1a3048c5f89d5efa
000bb6f30049e37f9740df981c3dfaab99ee9ad1
111555 F20110209_AABOGI lutz_a_Page_181.jpg
2d2a313d904d6e25e6ead8e728c1314b
18c8f6d44231255d4461b64e1f46f9b33abf0a8e
104388 F20110209_AABPJK lutz_a_Page_133.jpg
bdefba592be7029ae2c2d4396e3396de
ca49e4a131a67b7c0e0b858d583662f75dcd045c
100048 F20110209_AABPIV lutz_a_Page_115.jpg
3c407ab238d55ee43042ec2ea73385b3
8217774431d28f8a1d4096b12a95ef5ad13ffded
103759 F20110209_AABPIW lutz_a_Page_117.jpg
c144cf37939fcdae05f94439c4f89966
be8f128031cd87b8c7227d67f4db70a1211e3ee9
100699 F20110209_AABPKA lutz_a_Page_151.jpg
478fe9b5c340586b0cedb699fb946739
93854ae0fc2421526f12f33e58ba4fc9f6c86a58
468 F20110209_AABOGJ lutz_a_Page_001.txt
e3304dce5c68af4192fe6f9c99eea997
7ff069ad0d7c39b271f1261bf39f4ea6b2991a42
84874 F20110209_AABPJL lutz_a_Page_136.jpg
64bf3c43be9eb819c0a6eb48f02523a2
c25dd7904a414e327087782cda2afa4a85e5de03
102248 F20110209_AABPIX lutz_a_Page_118.jpg
30091e3253cdf80ee0a2e21d4687e3a2
9ca88a714788b1916cc3fef1dbd0eb0349c80107
97470 F20110209_AABPKB lutz_a_Page_152.jpg
5cce93fbed162211d0928e76476be6e1
76b5905fa7d4097b4ad5d3bc646ee10a81c0bf94
28668 F20110209_AABOGK lutz_a_Page_127.pro
60319b32c6b350082cf89bc9816cea4c
915ad126d766badc3a276301e4b02fcb6fc0c141
104364 F20110209_AABPJM lutz_a_Page_137.jpg
21b60f934943ed9d5938ae9fe833e80b
5252b690917f6d0024e164ba6e5446973a136cb9
92323 F20110209_AABPIY lutz_a_Page_120.jpg
a37c36eba06b1e1dc165911e2d84a277
d960f7944cf7d66e49bcb62c6f8b174435d9be45
118707 F20110209_AABPKC lutz_a_Page_153.jpg
25026415cb6cdacfc3a3cbfecb6e295c
fd11d4d820fe4ec5cb9684166419698c38c2184c
34480 F20110209_AABOGL lutz_a_Page_182.QC.jpg
bba4609881c81399b2ad56aec52c3949
0d16df5c4c0b382a24e0dfa28152ffa057003f67
107400 F20110209_AABPJN lutz_a_Page_138.jpg
d8635436b46aac42c0d923697befa1cc
480c35b3f1a12adaf3a2accf973861e2226cc8ec
48556 F20110209_AABPIZ lutz_a_Page_122.jpg
2c21b6668404742f7d14d87c995d38e5
e5fc6c2174aac4db207418bf246675649183a1d8
47529 F20110209_AABOHA lutz_a_Page_121.jpg
cd72114ff001b575e5cfbd7c65f829b2
fe9582b4c21e1c14b77813b402344fce186affa8
151708 F20110209_AABPKD lutz_a_Page_154.jpg
0d5cfe6873a7e195cae1e02c35aadbd0
8f03f335c603ef9e9392b99ba87a8e1a13fed2d3
52621 F20110209_AABOGM lutz_a_Page_066.pro
a08a912378f7b48eb109a863ae656768
a15407dcaca905a15823f41bd216e94911abe97d
99617 F20110209_AABPJO lutz_a_Page_139.jpg
2de82cb371a2779d23d2a8900a4ae2a8
6d30d5304aff936bf7d7382eb2b111a9e0c70ec2
F20110209_AABOHB lutz_a_Page_104.tif
8bb0803c9ffe861f6144e8168223ec50
4401195a9eb0c871a9e03cda2c3d88785cc83908
135923 F20110209_AABPKE lutz_a_Page_155.jpg
43a094095f0a9c40546adb5565a75747
9cff85d3d720da75a84fbf90dce5074e73688825
53699 F20110209_AABOGN lutz_a_Page_124.pro
41847756a6b37d2393c04bb99aa8d41c
0e11206c9a307ebddf3749ac249229c315f68401
101194 F20110209_AABPJP lutz_a_Page_140.jpg
e522d88ad4e01f42b39c538f17d03498
024384addb2f855c772f2e189fbc9ae844447c65
F20110209_AABOHC lutz_a_Page_094.tif
c445af851e49dc5557bbbb4f9e9dbbcf
b8cb5d26cf03bc7f7ac193c853128b78a26129d8
22874 F20110209_AABPKF lutz_a_Page_156.jpg
68f8c5e4fc53d7f1c6662b8dbe18ff6d
19ba0bc5a87945c6733eaee17eea54bf6fc34b7d
101886 F20110209_AABOGO lutz_a_Page_042.jpg
555d29b5a8ba87bc4cb43f0ab53a0c74
005ea5a3e97216328922b167219eee82e7d922ac
102844 F20110209_AABPJQ lutz_a_Page_141.jpg
abe70eecc47e9caf3ef088abc6a2e92a
4b79f1485189e3c57c834c6775300c814a7a387a
22664 F20110209_AABOHD lutz_a_Page_027.QC.jpg
9ab3d8673be188dcb29c95333a145363
158b6b2de35b244f20dc320268ccbc909b3c98dd
79299 F20110209_AABPKG lutz_a_Page_157.jpg
94822d22a37e6fa88496fde4c6462e1b
6e16024ad9fcb4607fd4d9a6f56bf9af28896fd9
136593 F20110209_AABOGP lutz_a_Page_026.jpg
07603d7de9592ef105438d62ae109f67
ccff65b7befb09d7d986facb1d0806d9fc40fe86
102719 F20110209_AABPJR lutz_a_Page_142.jpg
4321014ff03d61c7ee15426999c5b3a6
7f91acfc55ec6e4e745bb4eb2bffa74b6fe19172
1051963 F20110209_AABOHE lutz_a_Page_089.jp2
5b5b4625ef9b5921fc6ade54a2bc44a2
89ce8bc2c2d8395cc8d322ea5464fde7668a2eed
50355 F20110209_AABPKH lutz_a_Page_158.jpg
ec3baf1131ef5f8a6da5e097ae795d05
10716af574ae13b5db785e598a5b54987826b205
81703 F20110209_AABOGQ lutz_a_Page_006.jpg
75439d52fb74318a23790dc7568e7df2
e842e40953c274a0ac691f96172030d48bf34313
102811 F20110209_AABPJS lutz_a_Page_143.jpg
03135dc6be1f8ed5ca9b22e3e30c3966
f90a44b9907e10c45c85dced04adde189339175f
427202 F20110209_AABOHF lutz_a_Page_010.jp2
8b727d28a3b917df0b9f528fc3ae6a4f
20ba5ae9594e9676980d56bbe1a759807c3cc856
1004452 F20110209_AABOGR lutz_a_Page_101.jp2
b1eb9e864b5b8d1bc031d99483dfb11c
e3e07be50d00e383d627fb278066902579dd4b43
101905 F20110209_AABPJT lutz_a_Page_144.jpg
ee2f2c34d88b875a7850727dd9f3047f
c3172451cad8b25df65e3c89f8531d75a48ad175
2091 F20110209_AABOHG lutz_a_Page_156thm.jpg
9b8e6eafca62c5f7eb4233faa037866d
09c3500ef75dfcd7c01c57064ba88c086307dd2d
34661 F20110209_AABPKI lutz_a_Page_159.jpg
8cc0dd0d31d8782d4c73e5b91375df95
f727395533b2a6d9d3d839c57f7417e4bcdead2f
19827 F20110209_AABPKJ lutz_a_Page_160.jpg
c535428c2ba4aab77490bbaf8ae33381
dac48edfe1d2aa70ad0b2074b047913ce706754e
2019 F20110209_AABOGS lutz_a_Page_065.txt
0c1c46fd30d860845e53ab5a6af16201
5bd28c380d24f4cd04097ae25faf7e13ba4bbc9b
100792 F20110209_AABPJU lutz_a_Page_145.jpg
d9d102b1e0433b2e722ab8eb8986dee8
306704cf6a7ad840fa0b6fbdab1f34eb0157c994
86087 F20110209_AABOHH lutz_a_Page_085.jpg
9b1e22a1b9c56c8202736ab9a012f188
6a65b01002aeac2164ec3e4374a9a9e654845720
26561 F20110209_AABPKK lutz_a_Page_161.jpg
ef2bad6eb9cd66b07ba2fd684e90ffa0
7297e0c4270271bee91942abc7f7c373891217e5
33799 F20110209_AABOGT lutz_a_Page_079.QC.jpg
d2e61341f05eeede7a1bd60bc26fed61
5d6a2e84919549804d221307dafd4b1dd2361cd7
102924 F20110209_AABPJV lutz_a_Page_146.jpg
ce8a995287ed1eeacbb927a0beca5725
037a5bbdd1b35beebb3ba51809d4d9f71ffae8d8
31578 F20110209_AABOHI lutz_a_Page_129.QC.jpg
f314b2a05a3293da6ce8a8369e3fbefa
e6c1e9982459bb17a4d03c52daf504304c330fe1
26392 F20110209_AABPKL lutz_a_Page_162.jpg
d2a045a0deb3966a196ddbc481891ab5
145602cb662fa3849071220a02203f836c27d988
98496 F20110209_AABOGU lutz_a_Page_134.jpg
235b3d49629c18322f2ef4479a579241
c6c6db18b2375a167740dbb7d7624e6707c3881e
91808 F20110209_AABPJW lutz_a_Page_147.jpg
740a236654bbfc48e01ac6cd56c9db09
baa15d45bc9976dc6444aae5d9e55a2dc3fadabf
32161 F20110209_AABOHJ lutz_a_Page_057.QC.jpg
79668efbd672c2f1d4b6584f9daa6ea3
5ed804b88c1b26a63b4ef79bdadea179062d5277
34099 F20110209_AABPLA lutz_a_Page_178.jpg
6acf29efac9d77f3c54473ba0e434448
95a2f1302643b964f9b7e77c414af724c2a6959a
F20110209_AABOGV lutz_a_Page_185.tif
059f524479bde604fc777b7789247c88
332d91931e63b835fc7aa6057ef6324295434446
101087 F20110209_AABPJX lutz_a_Page_148.jpg
24a04f5a108023291992c12e5875ac10
13ec8a9d3ffffbdb40a944c1477a2b51cbec988f
56394 F20110209_AABPLB lutz_a_Page_179.jpg
d6e7b50cd1077068061b984904ef2fb8
a28ed5467c2a0d0269f9e472a94020defa46cb2f
46559 F20110209_AABPKM lutz_a_Page_163.jpg
fe218e2ba5bd1581b1f816993240a134
20b19f88cecbf04fca568700b3aa1096168df86a
28407 F20110209_AABOGW lutz_a_Page_076.QC.jpg
6a1707f049774b91b34a9e3694565585
523c32239fecad39956592b040289588deef0a3f
104845 F20110209_AABPJY lutz_a_Page_149.jpg
cce44c60cfb4f46ee0360136daf311a6
7e0d95954466cd810c3f83858d98b3804b20b452
75979 F20110209_AABOHK lutz_a_Page_100.jpg
afc745fc2870edc07c4ba670d3a1afa6
0233909f00a9599574e430d839a4b26393fb0ef6
48413 F20110209_AABPLC lutz_a_Page_180.jpg
b194c480a097ccc270a93dbf61c80f7f
18008d021b637b4fbbc197a745f57115cd7874b0
12809 F20110209_AABPKN lutz_a_Page_164.jpg
8b13c57c76acc8227bb0a5dab4971825
26eb5e1f83fa312f77ff370724a4121c0bc8f206
1051950 F20110209_AABOGX lutz_a_Page_082.jp2
fe6ed930a0d2b77f8bf16086cba6c47b
27f4e9bcdbf2bc75b1b181a621acfbdeca1e7ac5
101370 F20110209_AABPJZ lutz_a_Page_150.jpg
f632610f7bd251a7f3d556b11c23393a
5b4bbdeb0d1bfeb62d9710c896a02f2584510f33
30324 F20110209_AABOIA lutz_a_Page_167.pro
f9a73f1f2d4d3e49892ac64bbb0b8c29
530075865e0b598d99da7c9cba96ccb794c73acb
33039 F20110209_AABOHL lutz_a_Page_110.QC.jpg
c793563e5d6cc2818a141e25ae43f9ff
9c2bd28c1fb890a11353d5dce24bfcd0e9fa0988
124072 F20110209_AABPLD lutz_a_Page_182.jpg
570366b2c6d318e939127beaad87dad0
0887e62302e0226bd5ed31c9c0b0130f05a6c247
35788 F20110209_AABPKO lutz_a_Page_165.jpg
9faae6561360c22c1dc4b579c5e45d7f
d8753e7691af8ef5eaaf432be31d774c24c92466
1025730 F20110209_AABOGY lutz_a_Page_034.jp2
b852e6f0bbde06d5429a77dfeae77284
23b2209b62f4435ce9282e9dca51db50c989b61e
2011 F20110209_AABOIB lutz_a_Page_133.txt
5f02faa34ad1d396956ed2a3a60b0edb
6eef019b1480ca98c7a010dab0eca6f0fa08bb8a
7988 F20110209_AABOHM lutz_a_Page_051thm.jpg
bc50f363dd86fbfe5dbb09cad36400c8
804eb352796e39af4dedadd19280ec40a21cc10d
110930 F20110209_AABPLE lutz_a_Page_183.jpg
c0a8a0a9e93cfcc2cafa368dab72b004
095e70b32728dd1db0d31de8a6eeeb7a090217da
34734 F20110209_AABPKP lutz_a_Page_166.jpg
fc9dba8b76dedb3d317c0a28d8f525bd
ebd6f734468b3fac9989183756da08f4df9aa218
1051986 F20110209_AABOGZ lutz_a_Page_067.jp2
cd14167e52d29d646a93b66f8f5f35f9
577c3a0c0c63d515b9b67876e67a6d4e7b1abefd
F20110209_AABOIC lutz_a_Page_110.tif
771a3d85a8c88e51bb712fd473dc1182
7ca1dd6c5e039dc2b2b211fd6cb514a4db2005ea
10753 F20110209_AABOHN lutz_a_Page_167.QC.jpg
3e21fce70501e7ea36df8331ec49ebc5
d122d595a2c389543dc5629c839f120dd4e37424
117474 F20110209_AABPLF lutz_a_Page_184.jpg
0d4be1a9e90ab14fa1b43a94f5aa43b8
446124951543c7a73ddcc3c80137f7efd46f34f1
36458 F20110209_AABPKQ lutz_a_Page_167.jpg
416ae42c90ed6fe913e08bf78cf8477e
bbdaa55ccda8a0dcc3e689dff8ffc9704c5e8b3a
33810 F20110209_AABOID lutz_a_Page_124.QC.jpg
3f3086e780ad89811a6f7dc66708bb9c
e4f299e0a03d95933ddc94132d32f04ea0177716
F20110209_AABOHO lutz_a_Page_116.tif
760091ac1ee84e3934eaa64c11c259ba
578e04880524cf2e85a4446d96853bcec8718070
129789 F20110209_AABPLG lutz_a_Page_185.jpg
bf4c9346fe96869d2e202f437ce69fe9
7ca91fa67dd47c65a5aad8296884f52bd15079b9
36652 F20110209_AABPKR lutz_a_Page_168.jpg
8d91894e75434c14679cd01b7833ab0e
d36e400f6d0546015cd3f67f3ba8f51ec4267775
13269 F20110209_AABOIE lutz_a_Page_172.jpg
38100376b4dae13aa744f5633c2883eb
d57694564bb27d645df0f3ffe82a205cb6fa9111
1051981 F20110209_AABOHP lutz_a_Page_023.jp2
63d9abec9333f94a7580759519e50886
79124c05bd02fe5a1fba38897df357985efdbf86
115725 F20110209_AABPLH lutz_a_Page_186.jpg
ca76f9dc98d2fd9e042b614c128d971a
5efad036d81b387daf6215819255f3fddccce73e
34568 F20110209_AABPKS lutz_a_Page_169.jpg
a5872096771ea9584fa6ecaffd0384bf
340bccd9b51a96fba5abadd491fc6544f9300774
103108 F20110209_AABOIF lutz_a_Page_036.jpg
ff8524663fc2474d42f7ff679f1a6036
36188797db070b2bc3f618f53778ca1f0fface04
98249 F20110209_AABOHQ lutz_a_Page_135.jpg
923771856a7c8ced9cd427f596982ca7
a0deb3cf345f423ed7848584e292c564dfbd8280
124526 F20110209_AABPLI lutz_a_Page_187.jpg
222910b10c706018413e2a3efb6b69ab
0066233cec886085a722b402e0d29ba305f6fa15
15976 F20110209_AABPKT lutz_a_Page_170.jpg
8787b18024edfc1c6413e95d2d5699bb
c9d0d7e7485e2000ced373e20c079def9acd22ac
51421 F20110209_AABOIG lutz_a_Page_056.pro
f1888b74b09caefa2891a7abacbd7d91
237bdc97661dc1eb000a55e5fbd098c81fab6f12
34693 F20110209_AABOHR lutz_a_Page_113.QC.jpg
bdd6a9fea4b213adf313bae1ff68fdb7
071233099db69cee0af7957dbd7dd3e9c0e132e3
84542 F20110209_AABPLJ lutz_a_Page_188.jpg
7cc5f824140ebe481ad44bd539a615b2
f6ec0f77faf59ccb8e8d9060fabc9d52655fb663
12288 F20110209_AABPKU lutz_a_Page_171.jpg
301faf763efc4571d4b6fbc22217ff57
57291becd3772078c25871a36983cadaac1cfb00
F20110209_AABOIH lutz_a_Page_070.tif
354f6698d8326d84b7e2e562244e92ee
e7bb1e7517faf27c1b2dbb1847ea2e057b71f178
97178 F20110209_AABOHS lutz_a_Page_076.jpg
18a58c68f16aba9e3e3ca582156b04d8
1dca62534832cd215feb7dc5be37a79227cc7eb7
56285 F20110209_AABPLK lutz_a_Page_189.jpg
7d86033594a2513fb58aed4358bc4b0e
0c13865ef33f6c8685b9c9563b158d8f129753aa
17475 F20110209_AABPKV lutz_a_Page_173.jpg
0ba1ac526f639b3c6681994be379fcbc
2da8910f3c016ae5f6d12c6c2f507f00b7cfbbb2
69972 F20110209_AABOII lutz_a_Page_026.pro
c296ba97d499a5bdca03a1fda1f31944
595183a0f2269e6ae2b4f2f38ae2d9a30f2d5d11
51112 F20110209_AABOHT lutz_a_Page_089.pro
94380718e9a099a97557daea25de4ffa
61fea3d58885a2e9f5738ee5ef86ace8be838c1f
252230 F20110209_AABPLL lutz_a_Page_001.jp2
f88891419a48db4883d6689dabf99485
6da6d7890019c5722612231d9e1d78ba86eeb381
17322 F20110209_AABPKW lutz_a_Page_174.jpg
9c3cc385b4e4b38afa94db327e42c082
9afaf9a0278b078ebe1ce3347aef2e41a0f5c462
1051965 F20110209_AABOIJ lutz_a_Page_115.jp2
c979e41cc2110eeaf7370188d6c0925d
d24f1c22bcbe511507312ec2f1cf238ac6793510
8305 F20110209_AABOHU lutz_a_Page_001.QC.jpg
64e50b8e12b6fd61edadaafa82764f8c
ff5eb894e885d241d4764030449c02b86ac5ef92
1051943 F20110209_AABPMA lutz_a_Page_019.jp2
cc36ea64578c50672c00c6040c5681b8
1ac4480127bc8ed976e03f90cdc9a7b33c837b1d
26325 F20110209_AABPLM lutz_a_Page_002.jp2
5a6d8eb09db4d57cca9a2f6d656c4a2e
889a116aac35eca9148e448a40fb1f8234d4a3a4
29607 F20110209_AABPKX lutz_a_Page_175.jpg
0565c5e55db2754c99800e94eb419716
106b4f6912b70fbf5832c9bf706dc846f5e45e11
51563 F20110209_AABOIK lutz_a_Page_067.pro
17e28868e5f60e676729cfc9c751cb5a
45d4c43bb76bf57d34a816342c16f989abe53363
93339 F20110209_AABOHV lutz_a_Page_053.jpg
bba99509386f19fa4d3b646a82c4e90a
5f4dbc516fa191993da62963464e88380adc9aea
1051982 F20110209_AABPMB lutz_a_Page_020.jp2
4084717a7b7557e505e0b34b38f1b75c
1b80fc83d92f0e6ac7b25fb87e6279be07421845
57516 F20110209_AABPKY lutz_a_Page_176.jpg
dfc7671e623fccf0465a8f48cc356b31
a7e1c0833ae997be6e78bd8f9cc0b293bc721d82
F20110209_AABOHW lutz_a_Page_139.tif
4780200aa6513c38ad6e29622e158860
bec41216d5d4c7dfe9ab9683e2e9ba9e72b34792
1051967 F20110209_AABPMC lutz_a_Page_021.jp2
2390527ae6bf116480ebcd4b7b9d864f
8f6f71f76c07ba88fe7f35cd5bc7f04083760713
952461 F20110209_AABPLN lutz_a_Page_003.jp2
351109e72e86aa7ca7800c397ea1747b
fa13fdb73a9bef1846dc45f7de675d873c708abf
39052 F20110209_AABPKZ lutz_a_Page_177.jpg
fe4ceee897af1d3a1d1e1471612092aa
19c6c64ed23e88f9090b41bf31574d539ac8fcba
1051962 F20110209_AABOJA lutz_a_Page_039.jp2
b7b988faf1c67edce9f761f6f734f241
ab1681cac17f97e4effc110f2ad1b9139b2bc7e0
2099 F20110209_AABOIL lutz_a_Page_119.txt
caa6d0dea9d84ddb2a267177ad316ac8
c41e11d5a1f0294b0cc5f606ab4d5721588c84fc
46852 F20110209_AABOHX lutz_a_Page_096.pro
3ad65009c386378f7fb903c08366adc1
c34a1461190c1eb570d488c067c149b657abb642
1051973 F20110209_AABPMD lutz_a_Page_022.jp2
997c408a16b010145ee2535afdf4eadc
5b138934cc48b98837f15494dfcb7ee86c856272
999496 F20110209_AABPLO lutz_a_Page_004.jp2
805a245016eb5a1f062f522e1abc4bc5
de95eed0254becf9489e9a0e9dc1b976aae12045
8049 F20110209_AABOJB lutz_a_Page_077thm.jpg
77ba7fcfe17de601218f1ea81600c081
70de3f6e5e6b433cde880e2c2f33d5e7204adc0d
F20110209_AABOIM lutz_a_Page_013.jp2
cbdf4ab3ce1649a1b0a84d5487eff8df
b97c6cf06c210d7e36f08a2080f64773d2638358
1682 F20110209_AABOHY lutz_a_Page_188.txt
2dd344a94cc8e2f8c88fe737481c648c
d6f8c2e69f8b3f39ff2081df358dfa8a67542116
1045233 F20110209_AABPME lutz_a_Page_024.jp2
ba3e37250155467591b1c3b14be67d23
81ad51ecd656585d7d43e502be7b10545bcd191e
402605 F20110209_AABPLP lutz_a_Page_005.jp2
e3bef3255f6c7ea04f0fab522c55adf5
d9ea9ef6313f01ecacf9fb01d3bdd527097265fa
50503 F20110209_AABOJC lutz_a_Page_112.pro
9506408a03ccc10eb81cc2266248af1b
0d89bcb53291baf48fe1dab166b7d5a163bfda8a
F20110209_AABOIN lutz_a_Page_124.tif
61cac63cce7281def238401e10d35d82
77b254840e329c7b55423be73d9d42f9a16733de
101531 F20110209_AABOHZ lutz_a_Page_060.jpg
9f8554e37e76cb8d7caa75684032ad4e
e348ca5070cdadab82a205fbec5b5b8924249685
1051854 F20110209_AABPMF lutz_a_Page_025.jp2
1c55126fe034e6363d12bfac0f4761d9
64947c551e81d6d58b3467a72f574678ea2ee6f3
841141 F20110209_AABPLQ lutz_a_Page_006.jp2
a93c91261622ddf978cf33860a9707e3
362d57f33f67b9d926861f917b63963813aa62e1
F20110209_AABOJD lutz_a_Page_126.tif
2a2040e222c9a50bf32318f028255a19
ae9d9aa021f218af86284e8a18ad035f4933c6d0
50521 F20110209_AABOIO lutz_a_Page_140.pro
01d427f94aa198d246fdc211f0f0bea4
b3c58ce7ac22ec878abefa507a6af04927fb4b78
F20110209_AABPMG lutz_a_Page_026.jp2
c120b880670bd6649b01e9037dadbfa1
6110ca3bbbf0ef2fbb179d04797713a603678db1
1051972 F20110209_AABPLR lutz_a_Page_007.jp2
6cce925118506d1388322d2332631fbf
e8e837734ecffabfb1b413c133cee70376888fa9
F20110209_AABOJE lutz_a_Page_147.tif
eb4565dc3d2e96b0c5d098cf7d72cd55
51e4eca305b079aef18233dc78069327366af430
8138 F20110209_AABOIP lutz_a_Page_073thm.jpg
aa2182463b83a56a212f93db6c6f8c79
fb03246dac819c6f4833cfe2355ed8f7091a4462
810199 F20110209_AABPMH lutz_a_Page_027.jp2
88cc12fd9248aba730b0ac490b9badc4
8db3a75983e3063ae72c2f133a064f74fc53fcbe
1051970 F20110209_AABPLS lutz_a_Page_008.jp2
207bf062dd69805e39d49cb19b7c3cfc
04072dba79c68fb76d27b9883d527dbfd6b10a55
35164 F20110209_AABOJF lutz_a_Page_187.QC.jpg
53e0f70927aa74db4a006d4ee1836af0
068758484f700a35870bd5e7bbffb5a40ed4ccb5
2888 F20110209_AABOIQ lutz_a_Page_159thm.jpg
03ac6cca0f25f158a8d3f27921262bfc
9b14717a24fd20d8e622723799c3496246e51906
969964 F20110209_AABPMI lutz_a_Page_028.jp2
114ca41f7f7c0709d953de85333441b4
61fda0050fc41cb00f7da7b3d41baa86467f9762
1051974 F20110209_AABPLT lutz_a_Page_009.jp2
36a748baee409d997a584522c0267ef9
f40fceb435379d7985f6f68fb72f9d85af639a44
32744 F20110209_AABOJG lutz_a_Page_068.QC.jpg
3c557f2a8457ea5deddeaa44e231d15c
52770b9f48cbeb8d2bc5ec334cf5ec911b0064e1
F20110209_AABOIR lutz_a_Page_055.tif
e3f1bea7f733c7d9959142d3b38b5502
7e98ca02a5dfe8bcbd28ffe690bff0bc90906799
1051969 F20110209_AABPMJ lutz_a_Page_029.jp2
7d1f5eeaeaebdce498d6d9e3e9db6ce5
b973a625ab74139d07a025d46ef6126eed50ce83
1001583 F20110209_AABPLU lutz_a_Page_011.jp2
54764188925b90b265827da818c81e38
2192cf77d03d407b832b2ad5cff8c9cb7ced3bcf
38810 F20110209_AABOJH lutz_a_Page_157.pro
87dc755dbe3047fab9f3468d80c5e079
20052649f44e69acb0af8fe701641cfbf7f9eaca
2025 F20110209_AABOIS lutz_a_Page_043.txt
704be3f3a9cbb784699fab671492d8eb
558fae7f5ef3705e80807fc6194f8dd68434e7d5
F20110209_AABPMK lutz_a_Page_030.jp2
f1547c3c1e9bfd9dead1585fe5368a85
00f115f164925759611138761889f65f810d49df
91544 F20110209_AABPLV lutz_a_Page_014.jp2
d12d0e470231d59e41d4c30a80cca29a
11925759f0c0f47a9b450d2ca2ed65a3926ca12c
50097 F20110209_AABOJI lutz_a_Page_098.pro
a898b911c2abe7f1be397edd2acd5e36
7e43a83026bc31fbc048f8a336cd72056a9c52a3
8610 F20110209_AABOIT lutz_a_Page_037thm.jpg
ed9862c1a64740d7d566d2070ecd4b89
3e4540d55621b95b989fd9b8cc90875d740caaa4
1051920 F20110209_AABPML lutz_a_Page_031.jp2
b96640019a1dd53a52dba62a422acb90
cd3b4683bc3898c817153a8e45a3a9659d25760f
868653 F20110209_AABPLW lutz_a_Page_015.jp2
d715d4a2bc82ff2205aa55190030343e
3eb8deed82404818eb29377fd277fa5a308cf971
52121 F20110209_AABOJJ lutz_a_Page_047.pro
2da7fcb760c6c00b0bf6878e5dc3b34f
3b8ba8f49a9dd5fe61a7604762196f926698c4dc
6636 F20110209_AABOIU lutz_a_Page_075thm.jpg
a18c8fb647d82dbbec66f7a12b6420f9
da85d7e8d72f1eb992c67b8b4ebc2210a76b9e54
1051946 F20110209_AABPNA lutz_a_Page_049.jp2
c7018676fda55dfb4ae036c8fac9694e
3e4ce34612f03d0c6e15684a0e8994feb0067cee
F20110209_AABPMM lutz_a_Page_032.jp2
607454aac9606a7b1b4f3a2326ef3be0
ca7cbdc974a22cfcb645fc1e7eda6ffb98484d12
995992 F20110209_AABPLX lutz_a_Page_016.jp2
0dddc4d34a1a77d705b55ffe5983796b
044b8cf5a6bb8cbbb6c8963c105c32baceb1228c
F20110209_AABOJK lutz_a_Page_073.tif
5ba69dc7fc2a3d1b0e0d8894f48e70d9
bd7d738bd5b3b723ea9b2aa13bf6399891465076
54964 F20110209_AABOIV lutz_a_Page_105.pro
ae5e1bb81a0ae90f6fe33438d12e5462
817ef6194762cc50363b6bdd8e99b3a4cf0c9a29
1051984 F20110209_AABPNB lutz_a_Page_050.jp2
cfa159e90f6c06458fdd3548e45617ab
f4c404dbc23cd55a0f4a11bf8363bf4639094559
F20110209_AABPMN lutz_a_Page_033.jp2
5d9bcd8e8026724f357a21293184822a
f88e2ae03e63dccddeaa67ba171f3d654f0be650
999759 F20110209_AABPLY lutz_a_Page_017.jp2
e9f9560461741a4383ec89bde70a093d
62d84f4050fa5a2226c617c073ecfe5571928411
106871 F20110209_AABOJL lutz_a_Page_032.jpg
864aee2d8021a92184cccc66a2f2aacb
cc03a464bd04150ab2f71a3437675bf7b246ad58
33924 F20110209_AABOIW lutz_a_Page_184.QC.jpg
39093c4cffe1d6e837f0e3efad093c26
d05f9e3a2cb37086bc58539184c35ff2e49f7fc4
1051938 F20110209_AABPNC lutz_a_Page_051.jp2
b00b973efc7d5c6287b11e7d2ac62825
f79693c956b68bd9b5a4cb28e63f07233a4ed937
F20110209_AABPLZ lutz_a_Page_018.jp2
fff516cbb0c0767ffa2e660c7653e5b0
7d083b2136649c7e0ed8cfae570a63f5235fe28e
2016691 F20110209_AABOIX lutz_a.pdf
d1682a581673e61f575741d910f7f03c
0cb8ba853e06e593bd5b28f50f52365202edd119
F20110209_AABOKA lutz_a_Page_040.tif
21befbfb324ba1398a596151dfaa2ae1
20f63d63b51052a340fca71379f1ed20c25f1997
1051959 F20110209_AABPND lutz_a_Page_052.jp2
8c15c410abb18c3589309dee03aa8e10
c87cc00c28a6906f5b2dc7fb55f002dfaf4e6e55
F20110209_AABPMO lutz_a_Page_035.jp2
c00edc269eecbc39563d61319959bd80
dc6da48798850d20d3e1ba4d1782e4b07e3800c7
452332 F20110209_AABOJM lutz_a_Page_166.jp2
ee04a04000fbf455a587f93136603606
9e7b80f6fba472d4a4e334687ca32236a72e9d92
105936 F20110209_AABOIY lutz_a_Page_061.jpg
b447fd47cd0ed77abe252b732085ede7
57cd292d3a81971c25b68e5ba6af41db1149c8a6
8140 F20110209_AABOKB lutz_a_Page_162.QC.jpg
81b3c97d79c85d95bb16845cec67197c
e13c28e05545b4d297f2c72d7bf318058ed96059
1002407 F20110209_AABPNE lutz_a_Page_053.jp2
5f1309fed7f512011dc51c3de03db641
71a7d8f464b4582019573566ba4b0e79e7a881ba
F20110209_AABPMP lutz_a_Page_036.jp2
cdbb62deb2c0d343f6979859a781f34f
6a732b51307e0c9467b9bbe2572cf3e49514b873
7621 F20110209_AABOJN lutz_a_Page_053thm.jpg
4e20452585de5029781ceb801437d215
6d43f8c83aab1371524ea151d8bd9afee445f6fb
36190 F20110209_AABOIZ lutz_a_Page_026.QC.jpg
cb27387fae4b974fd41bf6f697296676
86403f978fed262c5d1ee92198f105812afe44b4
91775 F20110209_AABOKC lutz_a_Page_106.jpg
19d59ad33f4df41bb1d85a2b0e5393a3
2dcc0501b5e8a015fa721ce2b09eb439e4d2b5be
1051942 F20110209_AABPNF lutz_a_Page_054.jp2
271301d03b316c9e86d8e21a46c1ab10
833d5a1b4f6cb996ffe72ee1a23a196002d260b0
1051934 F20110209_AABPMQ lutz_a_Page_037.jp2
718df98f1ba43f1fa345e6f22b6ed0e1
02bb7032227a3705c0c214d41f905e79dc25bf32
89858 F20110209_AABOJO lutz_a_Page_028.jpg
3539e129d09b7a2a6388e1951f9344a8
49edceba0b7efb962f6d6ca6851626cfa39ea0f9
17891 F20110209_AABOKD lutz_a_Page_189.QC.jpg
e8076cfbeed95446f8f8272dcbf3cc7e
a7b968f5295bc49c92ca0ceb5094f28bfb4b26e9
F20110209_AABPNG lutz_a_Page_055.jp2
dd190adf841b064701f1b1848c2da3ae
291c3ec49bad9196628c3f3b7d662cb820fd748b
F20110209_AABPMR lutz_a_Page_038.jp2
3c581f299dce02952df75044efb4ad0a
6dbcae41b6deae51aa0b3c8dcfdcb94ab33a89b2
1051985 F20110209_AABOJP lutz_a_Page_072.jp2
240e410f7ea587f1c28d35bbf3e83687
3d2764bacd1e4fade8aece6bf9ba7b30a8c8927d
F20110209_AABOKE lutz_a_Page_002.tif
9ddb36551244fb6cd7f486fa9aaab458
7225385834885ece9d6f8a30a940be8cf7536d6b
1051925 F20110209_AABPNH lutz_a_Page_056.jp2
cbfb1a9b78ec82582ab171f79f7b5608
d8077ad489a18acb365ef862123c0420d5a26e4c
1051948 F20110209_AABPMS lutz_a_Page_040.jp2
25d2817add2b8927fd2c98a142a0ece5
48ee55455cc8f9dc8e98fb28c88b5df8def0e98c
32833 F20110209_AABOJQ lutz_a_Page_117.QC.jpg
367b586c836c9d4ed98eac054d812298
d3692d61451a437f699812f3d32d194d51e8c65a
99793 F20110209_AABOKF lutz_a_Page_114.jpg
ac692880e9b547bb66206b4da331a8b0
7c87d4ee0f76e575e74926206eb2930f260f54f6
1051964 F20110209_AABPNI lutz_a_Page_057.jp2
0fb1eb5f113c6ef391d2b60c1f5b42c9
a2b5d1143e4121882a2c767262f148a4eb3744e9
F20110209_AABPMT lutz_a_Page_041.jp2
fc2d7eb945a6e143aff729ff64c30235
c7b53b59c4bb77dcfbc4a894e7367e9fa2275cfb
680 F20110209_AABOJR lutz_a_Page_074.txt
1f4c9fbbac956276795e478e46724a91
62c4aabd45f8518afc04eae3bbce4b901594b325
8543 F20110209_AABOKG lutz_a_Page_070thm.jpg
7ef97ec10beef2330b5a9e6422ebd558
65b2dce66e8fc279aafd8babfab0be87513e8275
1051976 F20110209_AABPNJ lutz_a_Page_058.jp2
3190c8bf5d8aaedbb155d57de9451c65
1ab72746786afe18c58fede92a0bedf662204a62
1051926 F20110209_AABPMU lutz_a_Page_042.jp2
77e3091c67e41e67d885af6be8bc2757
f3df0335106672d6f6e49e95ca40251d8c12fb54
42310 F20110209_AABOJS lutz_a_Page_106.pro
0bc84282d24c4f36ef4316a644e28184
28c838e88591859e92991a73b4f514db510f8dd6
1930 F20110209_AABOKH lutz_a_Page_121.txt
1fd3311daa13538f8969caca71e671ac
96c6a15e818d91706762eba3eba65ce01d173e04
F20110209_AABPNK lutz_a_Page_059.jp2
087277080d0ad4ab38a9141e56e06aba
08af14a9c4c1eeb0ffb9e8f498771bf7f51e85e8
1051949 F20110209_AABPMV lutz_a_Page_044.jp2
ddbc4c560f01a47202359c17f8c96739
c189219467dd73e2062d136d9fdd4c8892c6d035
F20110209_AABOJT lutz_a_Page_144.tif
3e515335ec0ddb34e4df38616a388eeb
ba27ea241b7536df3b8aed30ab0d16002d5f85c3
2052 F20110209_AABOKI lutz_a_Page_053.txt
4b3db3564f84b20a1a2cf8a638300c9c
420dee857dec78074ac9ef9e3a40f454778e9864
F20110209_AABPNL lutz_a_Page_060.jp2
17c68b9593a47efd98bad921f31f1325
cf5a75981e9f363a94bfa682b4cd54f186725f18
F20110209_AABPMW lutz_a_Page_045.jp2
3f599a1345b3df052872b79f5a1724ce
5a9f7355ba9073eb106a3318437ab2d613d0c2aa
31456 F20110209_AABOJU lutz_a_Page_096.QC.jpg
10a95a17e58856c6bb316a501d44130b
0fa62c446635ae6b650db23922f80ac3c2fafb9b
7562 F20110209_AABOKJ lutz_a_Page_094thm.jpg
e36ae2e3281b0b63dd086d9daf1191c8
71f378bbb7489c436d9ad1c02defd632dd04ac80
1048725 F20110209_AABPOA lutz_a_Page_077.jp2
8d4b75388c53f24d40147ef3317f2bd6
f9517351b2da00d449f5d42726c21a2953b42fe8
F20110209_AABPNM lutz_a_Page_061.jp2
2ed7e9170d6c4afd7a4e3304902fa496
8c3c6d9000617021dca64cb93f3bdc256d8eb301
F20110209_AABPMX lutz_a_Page_046.jp2
54820f0b2b41f7386c9774f2cb8fbc49
4b90a3f3155b015ec4f4fbc0c235ecdb295d102d
F20110209_AABOKK lutz_a_Page_148.jp2
7a8968e568bfb6437706a790bc297b97
1376bdf7e4475d26424b39c506912a22698a492e
1051958 F20110209_AABOJV lutz_a_Page_138.jp2
b270e6a584b163c874bc9ea0dcadc10f
875878304567b1b3a8384cad01f56a849bede532
1014822 F20110209_AABPOB lutz_a_Page_078.jp2
a23906c5107e7f9db2ae8849ef2e5327
0fb8760899a4140fd60daf568847ba7139fcdae9
1051977 F20110209_AABPNN lutz_a_Page_062.jp2
4dd630b3e087d3e91784a52f557a4c97
83fa94184722b2e637b781d08e1c6b35407fe601
1051983 F20110209_AABPMY lutz_a_Page_047.jp2
a4583a4af9b4ee5cb80d5a122bd9d84f
defbd7809fd5d5f4281426894887d56c909c5f23
F20110209_AABOKL lutz_a_Page_057.tif
4b31a948a733b912f192f46538550386
fa743adc2bf15e4c26684fc4950eb9a5e0b86e53
1625 F20110209_AABOJW lutz_a_Page_177.txt
0139e5102ebae70f1b7e4adb31b8323d
e25293d063cda4ffc53d7f4b73e3abbf6e94df4a
1051961 F20110209_AABPOC lutz_a_Page_079.jp2
c5153edf2db351a362d5ce0aa2c280ed
bd2d8654c75a62c1ea7f203d31e515110a325f35
1048539 F20110209_AABPNO lutz_a_Page_063.jp2
ab7e2196fdcd71de4f7ae3acf1b057dc
81bd3263fbeb6748225d823769e12614e5d504c2
1051941 F20110209_AABPMZ lutz_a_Page_048.jp2
04da0dc7ef9976d1d7cc72dcbd7a9d59
5031686d81eb51504af43b29715034b3c088de62
7500 F20110209_AABOLA lutz_a_Page_147thm.jpg
ea17bf366ca3730e6e680bca9b280a91
d59bf68aebb9409d36a3d66f6df1ecfa96174adf
106982 F20110209_AABOKM lutz_a_Page_022.jpg
26af772832822e97881633746d95b2a9
05c8234053145594f70624e2653d21408f73cae6
424824 F20110209_AABOJX lutz_a_Page_169.jp2
e67c2ed1fd755a39b8427ea8d337af7d
3abf3759389123dae611b1f38b3c85755828f961
F20110209_AABPOD lutz_a_Page_080.jp2
4e0e17eda5693bf6834d392c1e6a45cb
04feebc28415d52a91b1ca5cf1a17809a192398e
107167 F20110209_AABOLB lutz_a_Page_062.jpg
8ea47c47b1b6cd4c0dd06df8a794837a
50cba2d80b7bf88db8747ffe2fe20b5bc73eeaca
101159 F20110209_AABOJY lutz_a_Page_116.jpg
6afbfc87f8e1ef1f11cd66c88a862adb
56f8ea05a4c07e3cee05a4d7f9c39e8c2e99881b
F20110209_AABPOE lutz_a_Page_081.jp2
6fd79f563056e7355afa65cbc93eeadb
33f57769cb132a59983ee6f3e3e940677bc6402c
F20110209_AABPNP lutz_a_Page_064.jp2
064661f05ad4841bb519b5ecaaef220a
1bcbfad68c566d21c83cc7ed1135d60d32871d6b
103202 F20110209_AABOLC lutz_a_Page_119.jpg
12e4b048be916311cef05b82b5ddb881
b95b9b97dbca7eb89c3be2f4c381decbaa8062a4
F20110209_AABOKN lutz_a_Page_069.tif
b2756145eb8fe30240f9f1369222d382
d460a1f514a3238c7654744eeecd6ae15bc71956
F20110209_AABOJZ lutz_a_Page_033.tif
5195ea652a04b2439aa6beaec6a2cb16
b6cdbf6f7698597c5d817b535b52e6812bf79446
966638 F20110209_AABPOF lutz_a_Page_083.jp2
91687eb43d56e2998a8c2df2a122493a
e4fc0247526141cc2a84d2276a2d7ea7586fd3e5
F20110209_AABPNQ lutz_a_Page_065.jp2
5553cb9f767cdbcbc29273e6b028e87e
553a8ec68e389796e9e914a1f3b7df1c85ef2ca9
52777 F20110209_AABOLD lutz_a_Page_059.pro
3e834dfe5c001a949dc62d54c9b51ba8
a1357a518aafa0345f2c61d73bfa2ac6680d7d90
1051957 F20110209_AABOKO lutz_a_Page_043.jp2
c92d0f2bfab4987dff3b8f023d5f11a6
76e04e88319932a8402a4cc6a4fd20288632b465
F20110209_AABPOG lutz_a_Page_084.jp2
895a6fb2211761afd160cd847560d81a
77a4813d318f598392101c23b0b528fcb7f569b7
F20110209_AABPNR lutz_a_Page_066.jp2
d730aac7032e992ae912408f387872fd
089f49b6711740b76bcc960f3631583c94050361
24192 F20110209_AABOLE lutz_a_Page_128.QC.jpg
f50be1ccdf2f7f46b4cba5c13d8cd94f
1f565b7b44fdc86f8447f7e33204d577b7cea9f7
8363 F20110209_AABOKP lutz_a_Page_125thm.jpg
7c24b09754b71afbb1e65f8cd0df60e3
c3a58d11711cd58fea09590428491fe98b795bfe
928478 F20110209_AABPOH lutz_a_Page_085.jp2
9311815c0ac9874d0a3b8025fbc13e92
a55d9b3ff91529b531d93a08090e8d625cd8c23a
1051939 F20110209_AABPNS lutz_a_Page_068.jp2
bb66f3cf0a6c79f1bba983427fe457ed
e973d1d9f85b845dbcfaef150fd04e82c59a7733
219818 F20110209_AABOLF UFE0015641_00001.mets FULL
a2fd7aacf99bb45587d86b13df02d7af
316a527dd1152a7542143792ae7eb01ec4fa7d66
81174 F20110209_AABOKQ lutz_a_Page_098.jpg
04ca080bc9356a9f04e7e58698d65c65
adcc34b814107bd7d73f1fb95824d5949c087560
1051940 F20110209_AABPOI lutz_a_Page_086.jp2
dc9fb34b2b29c0c2e0ab7c8843c5f4b6
8659ac0fb0764345f1742a836148d4bb6a75b8ba
F20110209_AABPNT lutz_a_Page_069.jp2
385c07b1edca6685b99ded84ae2aa47c
9bcad1b922e3d9f1e450641cc72e580632c6d276
F20110209_AABOKR lutz_a_Page_160.tif
5cca00706e5cb4100d3e234a8e851db2
b2fadd58a8b612cb1f96944761d7a16ae1199b5a
1051915 F20110209_AABPOJ lutz_a_Page_087.jp2
9ad7aaaa3011d23bb514d2c80fd320c8
0a734e291eae2cf1435363505db17f33f9fe9739
F20110209_AABPNU lutz_a_Page_070.jp2
c0dd58dc567a81c3b6231f5529714304
5ddf1589a0fc5989f8eb7fcbd4a9d1454a430833
2058 F20110209_AABOKS lutz_a_Page_031.txt
08d8a725caa96bb50e402ff4810c3888
e6588a2d39444ff5225ac0ffb3ebbdf391e9b33b
855715 F20110209_AABPOK lutz_a_Page_090.jp2
7ffe784e51bb03a6620d8be90c2093de
5f3c481dbb2d47dca9396cda25b4832c1112af89
F20110209_AABPNV lutz_a_Page_071.jp2
7236ec8c0c5bc09f3600a60824ac42a4
370bdd2078067e667dc6038657301a228afcfc1b
F20110209_AABOLI lutz_a_Page_001.tif
c3bbd1d9121f0a0c1e23a0199e56fb69
bd4e411cce315b019fd500183ddedc1438d7bd64
47269 F20110209_AABOKT lutz_a_Page_088.pro
5d4c60e3fc7b0b7ae849822c6e537b3b
76cb2c11519c16a0c791ad237dc413767e1f35bd
955692 F20110209_AABPOL lutz_a_Page_091.jp2
fd18b3bbf817204ae39bf939541b17df
160cd8ecc522aa5b380fd04a60c30ac5e5f4a919
F20110209_AABPNW lutz_a_Page_073.jp2
1f641374803821091c7151574adb5ab5
6f57099404c2082283365439448b658aacf51419
F20110209_AABOLJ lutz_a_Page_003.tif
8c1e73032adf109d1b432692dd8b97b2
88f3c45e88f3664541c761eda0b40c7ccc51402a
982 F20110209_AABOKU lutz_a_Page_126thm.jpg
96e4920f4d8d092dfb63617a46bd7cc6
f471dd1c75181ceb323f9089ec3459252fb1b679
1034557 F20110209_AABPPA lutz_a_Page_107.jp2
27a3388f263684935c48ee2f3cac8705
d154911abedd5473c2a6a41d69c2cc1dc27a9e29
1051932 F20110209_AABPOM lutz_a_Page_092.jp2
70515dcc310a748b4ff661a9a6d0c036
a008da670cbc65d945fe776d21ca3b5e0bbe1d62
363080 F20110209_AABPNX lutz_a_Page_074.jp2
8eb4c4517b23449be000b1a2e911e0a0
b19eb6c8a26d54825d79a00a7a6124b90fc3b481
F20110209_AABOLK lutz_a_Page_004.tif
2b7d68b6099278df330ac31efe6b4453
941266cf57c9b2e7d8639fb7e83929c51af97c7d
1047826 F20110209_AABOKV lutz_a_Page_088.jp2
7c1efffa29266dfcccb4162720cb7130
a24f6f3f39b0999a15b211fbd7551a80a150050e
826428 F20110209_AABPPB lutz_a_Page_108.jp2
b8d2f6c340ca3b6bc0669137aa8c6554
ffc27e84372ac83b718773023e47d496151bbaa1
422169 F20110209_AABPON lutz_a_Page_093.jp2
728fca401c5115bb3073e9961b3614fe
ff10812ce9172d83f4e044f8aa7b28c922e9356d
935419 F20110209_AABPNY lutz_a_Page_075.jp2
73fa09b1cee09d79766daf526f3fa126
7b4e75f3ddade32faac69251b069be3f55219ab4
F20110209_AABOLL lutz_a_Page_005.tif
7292bce84db7eb044fa92f8a4cbed88f
28d618aecb0087604ec375eb14cc84c727507bd0
1791 F20110209_AABOKW lutz_a_Page_091.txt
651ad2333ab2958d974506633d975ccf
0d9bfe9320630f0c6281d73a949745f9c216326c
F20110209_AABPPC lutz_a_Page_109.jp2
e86077623624d95b3042931d630785ca
243e558d29ec76c240e134c653dd33f1011199c1
886807 F20110209_AABPOO lutz_a_Page_094.jp2
f8b96d871ed05c5d5d49ce38e0dc348f
4c0a0ee0efd66e7db8a8a9229ba03146df0b2c49
1038548 F20110209_AABPNZ lutz_a_Page_076.jp2
f0a7deb228c53ec97ad0db4ed198f430
5f3132a120cfe98f41853144c386b916b7dd4826
F20110209_AABOLM lutz_a_Page_006.tif
c562d2c77d55e7f385e02deeb398c4aa
89cbf9a3fcbe52891c6d4e4a7455f80ae5439190
45820 F20110209_AABOKX lutz_a_Page_004.pro
0f81533ef296b51c689a8fcd4261296f
1231526462b30068d0e2baccac8c82578ac7b03d
F20110209_AABOMA lutz_a_Page_020.tif
9da2d804b6a478115613400cbe0c3f44
1e214408c17f6f07cbdf50ae428eceab22a0d6f4
F20110209_AABPPD lutz_a_Page_110.jp2
ddc5826f6ee6761070cf1fe2eda4be94
30c347c59faa7fb3f08c817e43d54de78a97cc7d
865520 F20110209_AABPOP lutz_a_Page_095.jp2
f38c4fbf7407765b1d6e98167f186f0e
0bc064df75bef182a41cd8d723c1ef56e73c0fbb
F20110209_AABOLN lutz_a_Page_007.tif
36aef96ed940ded65e7f5c73706d93f3
ada11300c66faba52f9f8072eca82246b2fd511f
5469 F20110209_AABOKY lutz_a_Page_174.QC.jpg
18ffb86d5dd9bb3f7f942ce3fdacca94
84ab042e5145080065294690e1824999ee31f57b
F20110209_AABOMB lutz_a_Page_021.tif
e383a7e94d6658d7c8c132fd7da2f20d
72fe5855ae14e2708352183fe0ab5fd01a03c793
F20110209_AABPPE lutz_a_Page_111.jp2
674e449a710d5401241916fc22832c3b
51cddd5722700f8690668aa6b6afc5214f8a20b8
13934 F20110209_AABOKZ lutz_a_Page_163.QC.jpg
4b82f9b9ee6cad2153f21ee546129bc6
d8a3947b1910b7ef8523ff5455391999e9bcc958
F20110209_AABOMC lutz_a_Page_022.tif
3190bc4d04d2f49f24211c6e6c089e94
7a9e888ee113225cf486071861fde522056bef39
F20110209_AABPPF lutz_a_Page_112.jp2
765a82c443fd01dc4e482d34855c4ee4
73428026c02c5eb2bcb91ab3853a6ee5d0d22ba9
1029526 F20110209_AABPOQ lutz_a_Page_096.jp2
24427fbfcc796e7f73530e30598713ac
7cefe7f4ef5199e1cbdf970487dafe70bcd5ec0e
F20110209_AABOLO lutz_a_Page_008.tif
c6848679dcdd25dbeefeb3e5160ff280
ae9824ed45c639d81f80adfa73c7c08dbe3ddfe1
F20110209_AABOMD lutz_a_Page_023.tif
d71da897de4be5c6178567576797435d
7b9169d4ba559651c9da81663fcf608243668cb2
F20110209_AABPPG lutz_a_Page_113.jp2
0ba9e6e98b4868e316607ad0f752c18c
bb213ee49fad5c2585b70d837c1bc1c2bd974be6
F20110209_AABPOR lutz_a_Page_097.jp2
0221fd5d947d91c2905ab65687ed3084
53e1dea67d0c86f353a3c2bd058ff2d0bd5e1b2b
F20110209_AABOLP lutz_a_Page_009.tif
8dc31231c64597bf0cc9da8a40cc3fee
37908d98298c3cb5b4d9c130673d55a3b160fcd5
F20110209_AABOME lutz_a_Page_024.tif
b50f1b1df2881398495312658aaa0bbe
bd3d20a7d821f89bf2d99d48833b6d2c4fe2a956
F20110209_AABPPH lutz_a_Page_114.jp2
610297dec7a690c214f6949d684bc9b9
49d755035edb90a5a93864cd1b02506a5467b7da
852483 F20110209_AABPOS lutz_a_Page_098.jp2
d922ccc8e7ff3e5eff3a0ebf68d1c43d
c8ca369f84a58561d3195db438ebf94c891f6f01
F20110209_AABOLQ lutz_a_Page_010.tif
f5c0a55e792ec1a024e3a387c353edf9
afe7105016627e86d826ebc3b92dca5ac4e6cfc7
F20110209_AABOMF lutz_a_Page_025.tif
082214f6d84f9f0e420b135cd807fbf7
b9c27924967db225bf3229ee334f97e72b1857fe
1051933 F20110209_AABPPI lutz_a_Page_116.jp2
2673383718143ad07c001ccb81e817ed
2d4f55b30703fbd2c2f1e0cc308e5990999775f9
840367 F20110209_AABPOT lutz_a_Page_099.jp2
20667a98079fc2579d45e973c9e3edf6
5e9c4ed8ff5a40dd0904b276f9cb1aac558e0d6b
F20110209_AABOLR lutz_a_Page_011.tif
4d1fa1c720b3be632a09e2e98e4a47d5
32fed35d52ae707f069be3c8d74787a49f91509c
F20110209_AABOMG lutz_a_Page_026.tif
269b024feea6f465cbf84dd39a2b436b
cfa37230d44dce93854c9d56919fc3176fb838bd
F20110209_AABPPJ lutz_a_Page_117.jp2
384a979d1e18973e16ede9bdb1f6a30e
6c5337822135c090730b21618522db3abbcc6a81
779137 F20110209_AABPOU lutz_a_Page_100.jp2
7b2f9c30dfc3b81c58d8f3834bb91c59
2df55f2784332408d05af985e53f7afdc531b93b
F20110209_AABOLS lutz_a_Page_012.tif
7ff8eea55ef3d8ce08e8864c57c6377e
c4b32a17e335bda3d2aa1426af59293edcfd5a4c
F20110209_AABOMH lutz_a_Page_027.tif
3d1318088ddc6996d53c64daa9d4fc21
94029ad3a1d21a152a239aa500d1b4498736ce8d
F20110209_AABPPK lutz_a_Page_118.jp2
6ed2f0cb7368d8e83e4b7e0b4ed570be
0f83209513cfd6b8094f09f10699d727462126dc
1048769 F20110209_AABPOV lutz_a_Page_102.jp2
c81606fedc6d73d0fcc060d4cb25dcfb
9104ac04e9ebbe1b5d16b120ebe414a2b841f06a
F20110209_AABOLT lutz_a_Page_013.tif
8b99ed7b7cb15b71251923b51154c0b9
c82b35f0dba76bc1a5fd02cac8f9d07aef61b889
F20110209_AABOMI lutz_a_Page_028.tif
a74890ce10743c7e99ec089977986f45
69542cf5fdb1a5a951b459ec64c2a2ecd53c9338
1051929 F20110209_AABPPL lutz_a_Page_119.jp2
a2c10711d2b052e27f4e9530a15458ef
73f6f1500d3d1606811f748328733bad9e03c38b
1032152 F20110209_AABPOW lutz_a_Page_103.jp2
133d49821bd7c4391747454e97559168
2a2ce6e3d8981e45540c394a686950ff47d137af
F20110209_AABOLU lutz_a_Page_014.tif
abe3fe5eb15787fd7a0a63f06de82c29
0f5997e69780cb8fe455cdbe7d921bc3cd895a72
F20110209_AABOMJ lutz_a_Page_029.tif
a2d11e74aec86172fbe6bcf969aa3027
f4f30a33a6f44741292188a93d9fd9176ff8c48d
F20110209_AABPQA lutz_a_Page_134.jp2
068369dafb476ab646fde83785be0179
2789d0027255768a4ef1fe4721de53544e52ec6c
1012074 F20110209_AABPPM lutz_a_Page_120.jp2
28179152fb33e5aabf31f26dd5020c44
3871be47b2ac691da5857e7d1077c60c1e184dec
782054 F20110209_AABPOX lutz_a_Page_104.jp2
f717cb12a7ef0d57aa65216afb0bbdec
258da243c4d8e00dcc8df6289b66656dac61caec
F20110209_AABOLV lutz_a_Page_015.tif
5899bea72d8c6a4c9f58b07ad4d14a4b
527deb2f81e53d770f6b97630e30ba099e14f89c
F20110209_AABOMK lutz_a_Page_030.tif
68c457638022aa1189e8ac5090a2eb29
1cd779fcb05b867ac6006ea0dfa590ed40b08b3a
F20110209_AABPQB lutz_a_Page_135.jp2
5311809ba20ccede840d0c2f1cd1b08a
e190c70414a828176f9a2f3bf9e1813c5b0100aa
704285 F20110209_AABPPN lutz_a_Page_121.jp2
98fae52074f2e0ddef9bfef20ea95432
a1c4459456eb7247a81b7fd8326af9f5da416b59
F20110209_AABPOY lutz_a_Page_105.jp2
07e93be4610091534174d2dbbb8f34fb
b954a60915f52d73f3b9805e571aceec9c5ce77c
F20110209_AABOLW lutz_a_Page_016.tif
7022858816b97b45a97e4f9b5bb2e246
bc8f0ea6f7322de528dd7866c95eb4b04737b5eb
F20110209_AABOML lutz_a_Page_031.tif
c6751c840f643d4e486239ebb72892af
411df96e19476d3122874d5a8e62e99ec6fb1c7b
857267 F20110209_AABPQC lutz_a_Page_136.jp2
e772e453c3723acde70264ec2ed8493a
35392a26f5d786b4cc745f658fd9957ef63dab3d
661975 F20110209_AABPPO lutz_a_Page_122.jp2
066084500c56788c90872c999d91ddd6
bb2706d262239832a0c9ffa54cd43b8955baaaaf
970260 F20110209_AABPOZ lutz_a_Page_106.jp2
1c57eb1ace2b0de0fed706014c7566bd
f102bc6026909f45089c08c6575fd33a8fe56224
F20110209_AABOLX lutz_a_Page_017.tif
57e8dfbac6290c8360859a0facf5d204
e8aeaabffd56c09b20fc4441de4a007a7c569e56
F20110209_AABONA lutz_a_Page_048.tif
d06f4f517077115b3ba49374f5329248
fee436c719552b5147f1671112fd63898e2fb748
F20110209_AABOMM lutz_a_Page_032.tif
b725371edd0bf1e0db2e8279c5648134
2e592f853f11e1b5ba2d3444efab3b1971fb1d8d
1051952 F20110209_AABPQD lutz_a_Page_137.jp2
bb3c8a0e8ef8cd2054fd952d0637a9d3
2f7564e9c020f886b7dde9ad0f36b1338f6177f9
817964 F20110209_AABPPP lutz_a_Page_123.jp2
10d262632a547bfa2e78081d070da955
2eae95b71157dddef248060aa0710c2ea8a36af0
F20110209_AABOLY lutz_a_Page_018.tif
eb7a4bf81ae49503624991f3c1659411
2cdc1e89fff963a04020432fe909a9a830668630
F20110209_AABONB lutz_a_Page_049.tif
89c3f3e9459d96d3c58ebb95c98410da
6c351702e470c8c095f90e0499f0c5e4b282d206
F20110209_AABOMN lutz_a_Page_034.tif
3c3530fb4bd7774fbe1bc04dc53eca76
8e69d08c8d0a4883916827c7e25c54a05d9c0a0a
F20110209_AABPQE lutz_a_Page_139.jp2
3d8fd9a4c56a0d259e4db5da53b32466
a6ef0b8ed345f3a25228d4671047b92bfb5cbd1d
1051928 F20110209_AABPPQ lutz_a_Page_124.jp2
9dda2b0793c44adf7871f7964ff124f1
1639897e2a0f38ed0a6c12508889538c03421c90
F20110209_AABOLZ lutz_a_Page_019.tif
3cb6ff6773f5a7e77a3caf8ae7f19f7c
a01517c03ae826c63f700a16eea650c8095d8050
F20110209_AABONC lutz_a_Page_050.tif
61527ff4743c05cf57c0efb6643412db
9c4421b47b656a85d2a2fd883d8cd5d3dd5d75e0
F20110209_AABOMO lutz_a_Page_035.tif
b2bb89a55e35b5590be9f4b3fdd4e469
71074f7a1b91fb04970a5b97bfc532cdaaf0d12a
F20110209_AABPQF lutz_a_Page_140.jp2
7cb26019f7adf328cff5a298907e9a91
2bcad450a24dfbffecc487a72d6cb7f0bac49575
F20110209_AABOND lutz_a_Page_051.tif
dafc781adf96aa7ce004b63279b16036
0da92a760df7c01899cdcae993d0a52e0717809a
F20110209_AABPQG lutz_a_Page_141.jp2
2ae1e9643b460a19e266e4c2cb3b2f73
5fe79a6a4df7b98ec9008fcd53b2bb1e2982c6b0
F20110209_AABPPR lutz_a_Page_125.jp2
77cd5cc67633475dbd58910ca29f1b0a
020b7fe224ea7c03928729f086d953e4cdc9e93c
F20110209_AABONE lutz_a_Page_052.tif
180212d1cf3aa1b02e3ddb558871f563
46eb6d5713beb66561206c58363638f8ddacb682
F20110209_AABOMP lutz_a_Page_036.tif
1772563f36b8f71962f19c748f825701
de659a19c698e3f464914afeb5132df70eab39c8
F20110209_AABPQH lutz_a_Page_142.jp2
add75db6b3758957f62cd39aeab69fe0
433a1fb05f5fcaca8671c33872020d1f5dbefe14
74663 F20110209_AABPPS lutz_a_Page_126.jp2
d5812fff10fc229b5f87511b267f23f6
64da67a11977a008e6aa14d1da8488c78af63073
F20110209_AABONF lutz_a_Page_053.tif
4a61e4cb48345a1cc38cb1f8e3d864ad
52dd609be4dd1df385245e0c2b8c311519e9d048
F20110209_AABOMQ lutz_a_Page_037.tif
ef199b4fe48baaaf397c91199800dc5f
c654df7e10baee183c563a67d6e491ff1e4d96f7
F20110209_AABPQI lutz_a_Page_143.jp2
423732806b90a47b474995619877f5aa
22bb9e26fadce6a771f184580b67cc6c0c04a88f
441193 F20110209_AABPPT lutz_a_Page_127.jp2
26da466071079a84cb627e34d3b2f80c
7c25652f08dc7806bbf7712e9e702a1badc8cb9f
F20110209_AABONG lutz_a_Page_054.tif
028109e3b4f23ca87f42def51ba98429
bf2ce4551f7635db3ed709d85c3ce0869d0e88b5
F20110209_AABOMR lutz_a_Page_038.tif
3323793469e0b0c0f553e589c2b04726
2c68ee87d5eae3f2c8f1bfb6792a5f970b817c2f
1051979 F20110209_AABPQJ lutz_a_Page_144.jp2
a1be41fa0936e5f8fddd048386ae2eb7
f176dbb5025ff89162d1a6acea758e95ef609d74
851418 F20110209_AABPPU lutz_a_Page_128.jp2
358998adf6ec8fb9143be613fc9ab282
0a3843136242c6ef139469669f39f026b7f3f1bc
F20110209_AABONH lutz_a_Page_056.tif
eee04561a8491431ad33fa192393e8b7
6c6eb032062cac69358af371fa34067079a9933d
F20110209_AABOMS lutz_a_Page_039.tif
bbb127f87b6217208ef349a0c3e5803b
e07a10274c8e0f0e4ca90e2c43a12250fdb2aafe
F20110209_AABPQK lutz_a_Page_145.jp2
63d84125d9d963eb220f5c58b9d0848f
0ef9c9fd59bd64bc44ce50e23e0c523d9fd77630
F20110209_AABPPV lutz_a_Page_129.jp2
7d4060148e6a38d27ecf9241ea764ee1
425aeb4673dee9266f5f04475365f3d915abfd99
F20110209_AABONI lutz_a_Page_058.tif
6a49c35c613cecd035b3dc4ddfd9e866
a0fa2ed08a86acce06d72e30cdcd38be94ef8774
F20110209_AABOMT lutz_a_Page_041.tif
4d0d2427d77faf0bab7af77543cb30f3
8515db9e1b584a4a714e362bb424b1b1ff065219
F20110209_AABPQL lutz_a_Page_146.jp2
244a5b728ce953507e39528e853ed68b
a046c7331b11c71ca59a39f9e9d70cc2076b4307
F20110209_AABPPW lutz_a_Page_130.jp2
581342c006c21c0a4733b8e9a17c515d
bff1ff5e75e445955bce32980886f7d409a27e99
F20110209_AABONJ lutz_a_Page_059.tif
e5f0d63ca2e290d152cdaea6ffacb8e9
eefd5faf85fa573b5b8dce8e02c756ec892b9473
F20110209_AABOMU lutz_a_Page_042.tif
9aabc8a8552589b885770bc94f7803d9
a392dae712008f5865b35d74b4dbbefe17c33617
300984 F20110209_AABPRA lutz_a_Page_162.jp2
c17f029c63ceb87931467f9dea52e4cf
4f3670372b901b90110cce7fc0a645eab684814e
999779 F20110209_AABPQM lutz_a_Page_147.jp2
bad7c382d906f85a2965b6bda2fb2fc5
d98057239ae50c51d45bccbe893438a571521ebb
1051945 F20110209_AABPPX lutz_a_Page_131.jp2
883c8a6c3e8801955d6f595e6d47604e
7bd077e148fca00cd372ea3181690496f6d85a63
F20110209_AABONK lutz_a_Page_060.tif
8b72a1080a3268ed3f9f7cf8d1399d7a
0c38d28dbac5954cc9d4b944a47ada3fe5866db4
F20110209_AABOMV lutz_a_Page_043.tif
408bd20ceee29185b4706df0c245cd39
e791e097f12dd219f7560a408b91c460fb20499e
567607 F20110209_AABPRB lutz_a_Page_163.jp2
46a19d0fcaaa6bd4468a0dd56b6b2617
1a0833f346dbad1d9256a7f63386c4749dfae9a1
F20110209_AABPQN lutz_a_Page_149.jp2
2b7f08c4cc4c8da435c51a61fcacab5e
35629b2fefd4ca46d4cc067eb8e087cb31300e62
1051917 F20110209_AABPPY lutz_a_Page_132.jp2
43e7bbbb7c2ee15faae9152c861c76e5
4007f8bfafc3349fd7122678f32de8d42d1a2438
F20110209_AABONL lutz_a_Page_061.tif
11df16e1be35975af164d858f7b4be60
3fe902263138cf17435a515c493a0cd558e4e644
F20110209_AABOMW lutz_a_Page_044.tif
2f415bf749f71bdb311e9f63ba56b228
7294aaf4ccc44dd2414074f013a9263568d36d0b
134581 F20110209_AABPRC lutz_a_Page_164.jp2
1d911652b0405f779dcbe87440216e07
6acb069f3908f202508dca36800264e397cc3201
F20110209_AABPQO lutz_a_Page_150.jp2
795387b8acf8cb2638ea99966840a8f0
668449f4e9bce274d7c8edc0a58f56a08b7e3b92
F20110209_AABPPZ lutz_a_Page_133.jp2
71cd2b58b5ed3cba0becd42d0132b53a
a8742f263e940a1b9846c268714323e9da147d28
F20110209_AABOOA lutz_a_Page_080.tif
1a5ceb5bd64f2008f47c99f36d6b9fe9
81d6064a4c708b1cbb58e5bb2d3f3463f0359e12
F20110209_AABONM lutz_a_Page_062.tif
03194d5b46164f79149d970d9e906db5
854e32068fc34759b6e9dfc092b130deb6689150
F20110209_AABOMX lutz_a_Page_045.tif
230cf41544a24e0c1159be340d1ed447
eac5e3c258ff0d2182486b0f17d1616c64e2ea55
446861 F20110209_AABPRD lutz_a_Page_165.jp2
b9b48d59bfff6b45ca8a51661a26ad8a
0a9c3760d6e26a0d8983b20e29319dab46ff6599
1051968 F20110209_AABPQP lutz_a_Page_151.jp2
8ee3379c1b2937d3e6dc22a246e6e297
2a5bee67b276b1f0549c77ff62bf095d773e1bb4
F20110209_AABOOB lutz_a_Page_081.tif
e8e151bdf1bad43526ccacd4037fb9c1
5e6297d8acd31694dcd344868a892e65ca0d3bca
F20110209_AABONN lutz_a_Page_063.tif
38a648cf6289aa669bf9f05e3b575149
11d76277ce08a3d8c9960cf1b85bee456764b1c9
F20110209_AABOMY lutz_a_Page_046.tif
f92316af0ad919db28278d4107d936a3
fd55104382c4c6640661311937e3c383d9be7355
451398 F20110209_AABPRE lutz_a_Page_167.jp2
d9ca905f54ac86207133362b08f35527
f99ee315589ca7febb237e63418ca446e81ad46f
F20110209_AABPQQ lutz_a_Page_152.jp2
96f68ce68ee976ab2631c570441f2a81
832ddeeaaf497d355233c625b4b2f2c5b66fb06f
F20110209_AABOOC lutz_a_Page_082.tif
24f6997a007bf6e1f5b86ef2aa160a8b
48b73e2fa01e2c7fe8831203f6f15fba38e117b2
F20110209_AABONO lutz_a_Page_064.tif
ac17869f540569d0483bdb00b7f0c639
fe2b1d97ddfe43ec2da9ebb0c4cabc7fddf4950c
F20110209_AABOMZ lutz_a_Page_047.tif
e138f6923bbacca01dd2906a476d8989
ee83a72ac1d50f14be459035cd101683fb90a8d4
461666 F20110209_AABPRF lutz_a_Page_168.jp2
304bfea9dd97d4b05c23ec3c59995031
592196cc728f352379bef8d48d3ed92e6c5b6c1d
1051955 F20110209_AABPQR lutz_a_Page_153.jp2
28154de0563deb365877ec74b3fc870a
db00ba31dd2fc4b031ec84ada05bb1473464f2ea
F20110209_AABOOD lutz_a_Page_083.tif
41f6379dd4a861b5d76c08285bf8d4b8
6b3af76cd17ff1a88737958bc7658fbb4dc9ea44
F20110209_AABONP lutz_a_Page_066.tif
71113f5afdeb5efd7fc3fd7bd5d697f5
45252188727661efe5af754c6bb1f6662a7d1363
166717 F20110209_AABPRG lutz_a_Page_170.jp2
65f4e1287ad1a6c7a418d3326b814281
74b241c75e9a50cbb6a361a531394730a938af7b
F20110209_AABOOE lutz_a_Page_084.tif
8801545a0b0a961291ce9b8ac7a68886
bd6bd4f9916042f23e9afc413b22a54368baed01
104311 F20110209_AABPRH lutz_a_Page_171.jp2
4751e1c99e5004e02f2400b454c2957e
7d85871875467a14d677a26f26f7ea6233adcf8f
F20110209_AABPQS lutz_a_Page_154.jp2
39a3918e6ead2ba3c9c6bf0db41cb99f
30eeddc6559edf11d80907deb7efbc13c6569e5a
F20110209_AABOOF lutz_a_Page_085.tif
3ba185bbde8dacfe2c5c85fb7b01a397
824f5bae1712c492d0023c73773d79c720f937b6
F20110209_AABONQ lutz_a_Page_067.tif
ec5e8cd23af084ed06f60f0ce557f7e7
33a3d7ae69f90fbb3f8d02238ee5b0d9779be4ce
118061 F20110209_AABPRI lutz_a_Page_172.jp2
25d5077e08c30e5776422a26b60c4653
c1d084af07e8719d7779a43701d24607d8e92e01
1051975 F20110209_AABPQT lutz_a_Page_155.jp2
34e8df982df69b86ad0041c2ed54e9fd
c1e209351d2903ee785c0a4eda21a3f682936418
F20110209_AABOOG lutz_a_Page_086.tif
36755a41ab5672e1594c9acdafed176e
85e515a2a4211c8f7fb481d32910a544131f57e6
F20110209_AABONR lutz_a_Page_068.tif
e17e81a2266739e4bffee99a141c79ee
e965ed619201d1fe57497fb68720eb377a631683
195794 F20110209_AABPRJ lutz_a_Page_173.jp2
2738492e77797fe46b726cf186dda3bc
fdb02e4d1091e05239a4b93f8336e321304ee4c4
226329 F20110209_AABPQU lutz_a_Page_156.jp2
89fa833579357171d94596deaf60a6d5
f24b1339fe09bebcb81fbb3dac19ea508a85245d
F20110209_AABOOH lutz_a_Page_087.tif
2dd7145d14ebfe2eeecf997d71fead92
271b56678da2982693e7b459264345edf02aee07
F20110209_AABONS lutz_a_Page_071.tif
6798677d5957b63cbae939bdaed500dc
c37d9f7534443e28a44d78c6aa80e72ae32f7b55
180536 F20110209_AABPRK lutz_a_Page_174.jp2
0605bff3818253a763751669d6c3d4a5
332c021fe539f5c907710ef4f1363baaef88f6d2
858630 F20110209_AABPQV lutz_a_Page_157.jp2
9a3425d50a4fcddf90c7eeddbeea1e52
6741ffcde81a72b81c2cce55ef72f204f6d340c7
F20110209_AABOOI lutz_a_Page_088.tif
4b52aa42e0b897c05fb5f350f473e0e3
0b0beec1ef82ca60a0469d33fc107a4a17909f87
F20110209_AABONT lutz_a_Page_072.tif
082da3e1ea96383dcf4116f25f7a9005
7cef321572b3f4879beab13dafe53e43a00f16ba
321048 F20110209_AABPRL lutz_a_Page_175.jp2
72bace9ef2dd5a81fcbc86da7c275481
28e627f03f768f81a8f5f3321b72895ec471520e
680566 F20110209_AABPQW lutz_a_Page_158.jp2
3fa808d0a37dab0f785582f59325abcf
d326df9922af95f1c88d2aedd164a0db5b7bd052
F20110209_AABOOJ lutz_a_Page_089.tif
4aea29b7beab98c5da9b58779f2a7366
9fa51cf8e1b047a0248d0f4fe7f9e681ddaea181
F20110209_AABONU lutz_a_Page_074.tif
4cb23fe57f0ca261b2106da7ad03dfe2
39f29ac3e94f35851de7d092a53d9c3497012711
32929 F20110209_AABPSA lutz_a_Page_042.QC.jpg
a297392e5f2035c0900dc1533e38f272
3b5877a3b5148c4a503f8bc71624f03b5bcf2e6f
663211 F20110209_AABPRM lutz_a_Page_176.jp2
4e1d05b5206ba37f44a9111fac7537fa
9d7f74b24572c6a73d450a93a66c38f68c7e179d
407591 F20110209_AABPQX lutz_a_Page_159.jp2
63348505bc6f3bb529e39ee35c7fb308
f5304231cd0d79c7a2f2837b4500117e24ef7c60
F20110209_AABOOK lutz_a_Page_090.tif
e4903fa503512399364927db87da9f01
3895c99bfdef566c2babea6a8d2c4c83f044bd02
F20110209_AABONV lutz_a_Page_075.tif
7a65d243205e45c932ebf6d208b8b775
f00a231829842ae094d1fd3a4c6de62802ee68bd
8063 F20110209_AABPSB lutz_a_Page_088thm.jpg
a82e02b28e86a748e75a13626de8f4e9
63e65c00a1d7018e2960dea17d5c482887fa05ae
594863 F20110209_AABPRN lutz_a_Page_177.jp2
1e4d8b286edecb598bba06a7c1f6b690
a36d1937d61107a42de32bf44e860c0dab22858d
202969 F20110209_AABPQY lutz_a_Page_160.jp2
96976a467506e6ebd0e07aa6c28c13db
76e776da8c9c7259bcfa947b657706d5ee6afaf5
F20110209_AABOOL lutz_a_Page_091.tif
bc1bc92b86d29f6a814dcfc50724ae76
abcc380c1e781c614a5f2f82634a0c610b49da60
F20110209_AABONW lutz_a_Page_076.tif
16767ce6e276b5be00ab8b4ee5169080
a1c552a99ee54d84a8c3cb243549470037b51e71
23808 F20110209_AABPSC lutz_a_Page_123.QC.jpg
ab938bab79e6e27a61b8cf0e33fc900c
a601156313eb43e19f806f2dcd9c8bab60a862aa
343506 F20110209_AABPRO lutz_a_Page_178.jp2
6c631ceda1b88167ecf4a294cdb19ebd
df15bcb76d8d648699edcace0caacf9f62172e32
313677 F20110209_AABPQZ lutz_a_Page_161.jp2
c154e08fd73a834f4df075692f48eac6
797144e046aa77b5c34dde7d35697abc913ba2fd
F20110209_AABOOM lutz_a_Page_092.tif
7d0c8fabbe5dc82b82f5f4eed484e64b
d98b15b4dd1dfe0ce179fcb4de7f8a19d7135ca6
F20110209_AABONX lutz_a_Page_077.tif
0813c8260e51daf9026d317fb9eaf8e4
e90128a89e09239dd86cb6f97c6c8a0a3a7e8952
8425398 F20110209_AABOPA lutz_a_Page_108.tif
0c4fe2074c1fe18e9cf0cf12bf452cba
0d6c1ce26723482c6ee489dbc5b4f3464abece69
31365 F20110209_AABPSD lutz_a_Page_109.QC.jpg
7578e3180dd1cff51c6e7c1fa1efc588
2f6fdb153ca9ba7d23c452a45f02e60130f3845d
611788 F20110209_AABPRP lutz_a_Page_179.jp2
58fee9b8789f5b14ca7bda5c60012237
5330bfb5b2199f44dee90adb43493a2a46a2bdb4
F20110209_AABOON lutz_a_Page_093.tif
738c1d67ed2ea1ef2ad51b8fa7d03332
0657f9afcad6298cca7f3b52c5319dda065a5ea6
F20110209_AABONY lutz_a_Page_078.tif
748617ff5f3127f20adf34902e54fc8a
07e05729a59a3b27dc94ef440025102ae494f1c5
F20110209_AABOPB lutz_a_Page_109.tif
23e672a19277b5ef5b7123be7a8133f0
9412f679409e3d80252170c6a2fc7f7836b0e635
25060 F20110209_AABPSE lutz_a_Page_188.QC.jpg
3aa10c1b50a099d516e9e938f3e755fd
884e9dec054b917b8db760b78abcb5ab113d5cea
509198 F20110209_AABPRQ lutz_a_Page_180.jp2
1d7216c95b71a3ce7ecc1f2627d44e2a
628660dfc0ede716a16e3dc915c38532200a78d7
F20110209_AABOOO lutz_a_Page_095.tif
3b1fbd57b113a31c56db393840172a32
b6fef0605abea631c2674d686d3330fd63d00acb
F20110209_AABONZ lutz_a_Page_079.tif
02234b7600aae8f45d1ccdcc0a5738bf
4ead5432782dfcc4d280dcbf2e3f0c6a367d5409
F20110209_AABOPC lutz_a_Page_111.tif
b4d24a2812456b99f2afe73b7936ecb4
6868b40da4553b9c336be4429bfa3bff51c940bc
31737 F20110209_AABPSF lutz_a_Page_135.QC.jpg
6ecfafd804452080416adec6de7d2674
ffda4c48722af1cf50d8e3ab3a0f546fbf1adc86
1051960 F20110209_AABPRR lutz_a_Page_181.jp2
2ee8659fa4deec7404effeafa5dbca13
0cc52604deda50ad7f25b96883669d06cf27af1e
F20110209_AABOOP lutz_a_Page_096.tif
b2e80b37237c3cda36ec0f89956b4cea
7899afef058f058b5a5f3fea44ad49b29ede6760
F20110209_AABOPD lutz_a_Page_112.tif
fa52ca3a6a5529b8b22a04b9e8c738b3
aee5a24f29b00ac9bba540efd2e59a68d1f6a23f
27822 F20110209_AABPSG lutz_a_Page_094.QC.jpg
94c13d8dc575a660b7836fee4b27dcb9
d3149cc40749560d76e3205ab436194676591d74
F20110209_AABPRS lutz_a_Page_182.jp2
1b322344b2938b5776a7db00780a15f6
74a7fd6b598bc76813d59a1ce92da5f0eff912a5
F20110209_AABOOQ lutz_a_Page_097.tif
d6b72ede5d4220a571c3cd0657a83607
473805bdbcb14506875f390f805b0d2d5cefbd7b
F20110209_AABOPE lutz_a_Page_113.tif
b2b0359509fb298e0c7cd5c88323a9b0
529e390108300d05cbb5ad07bda79c15073e3d61
28989 F20110209_AABPSH lutz_a_Page_083.QC.jpg
8edb40c411808d082dff28b130ff98ae
15549344ee143062e7b40f7f02e67e68316c99eb
F20110209_AABOPF lutz_a_Page_114.tif
670297df5c970c16074c14067f45c656
e1a34c4da6f38bb4a2c04659b6a471962a26fed2
8471 F20110209_AABPSI lutz_a_Page_047thm.jpg
d18aeb1ce386be8d0c926bfcd30736ef
593b881b7592663a168d4106fb72468fbe1ce133
1051956 F20110209_AABPRT lutz_a_Page_183.jp2
c2b41df2b60d08fe3ba5dec6200b94d8
c6215692270a78b5864f01fd957910bb92141454
F20110209_AABOOR lutz_a_Page_098.tif
12620263bd9f7a900da20e9211a6dc06
37730c1365ebaa70f5f794d9c01809f6b752a5aa
F20110209_AABOPG lutz_a_Page_115.tif
88f192b8c9ae0f8bd8451e49102ef12a
5b7be6f0ed27d81ddfbe5d85007c669aacb86391
7985 F20110209_AABPSJ lutz_a_Page_109thm.jpg
204c9342b028b7f91e35848f3ec073dc
47240bab046065e06dc8c66c852247a24dc25034
F20110209_AABPRU lutz_a_Page_184.jp2
9f4f2b1c72ac01dbe85445cdc35c9d89
f43a220caff04d69296185f27341192c1c3ce0de
F20110209_AABOPH lutz_a_Page_117.tif
35b1ab3ceccd931f5388fd4d7f40028e
98ae210cc5f88d3056b269b2ce8b8d92e06cb434
F20110209_AABOOS lutz_a_Page_099.tif
c0f9774cf547fafe6b79ea025961e300
77d43d9ad3af461b259580f09b75084a4ef8491b
3001 F20110209_AABPSK lutz_a_Page_169thm.jpg
2ac940b85968b8765df359167d537931
4e9027775f424e98f25dcf21fbe7c1703e644fa6
F20110209_AABPRV lutz_a_Page_185.jp2
aafbd3e1fe6d9610e235ad1f69194a28
e40ec2dc25993ad5527ee48c0c625c97aac3aef5
F20110209_AABOPI lutz_a_Page_118.tif
fea68d8856aea1d74ccbdbcb8ca3f560
d618fc5a73874498f1eadb96e3f8ba88f2d9674d
F20110209_AABOOT lutz_a_Page_100.tif
5e4d113381010e6ed0f3030253cbb812
c3ce6f1893d28fb7b5bf5e1308e91571d1d91d4b
5636 F20110209_AABPSL lutz_a_Page_170.QC.jpg
183ee86b85dd094ba35b611091f9b460
28a2489d57c6f36a6f8245a4d42f88b78b7cbc7d
F20110209_AABPRW lutz_a_Page_186.jp2
0e7ffe865596b07ac90a5297ff23c0d3
8509385b709b4ae79bab0626794f10ef0306a105
F20110209_AABOPJ lutz_a_Page_119.tif
8a961e2446f9e993a013f8fb7c1c9ed9
0fb90cd6e10b61d4f11b827579af7fb173537895
F20110209_AABOOU lutz_a_Page_101.tif
13e7073c0fa137d23008208d0b513bcb
1b186cd2b2b4ff46d73a4f978e89806a2fa15101
3402 F20110209_AABPTA lutz_a_Page_167thm.jpg
106e5c984a8355649f703839b5101e69
e1172388e8c882b67d8f9fc644cc80909cea7e7c
7311 F20110209_AABPSM lutz_a_Page_136thm.jpg
1b62e2ed9736943e5325ef3512126913
e8036b6c26666a6b417e2efae33c1e7dfb37d65a
1051966 F20110209_AABPRX lutz_a_Page_187.jp2
0eb2d362d89a636088d4bf7097831205
4c055020f9282945fb069fa300d7a53ab94033d1
F20110209_AABOPK lutz_a_Page_120.tif
5bed0be3e9a4327a8afb1a4ce3e52ff0
8315d36f248de29b4635cbd80ca7832055b34f72
F20110209_AABOOV lutz_a_Page_102.tif
d39a4cfbb5db4128855a6f376243904a
540e3a389eeb2830e7015678b514776e5222ec55
8261 F20110209_AABPTB lutz_a_Page_032thm.jpg
4aa177d36f33d4eb0bb4c4ab06d846e7
227374e4cf5989d6e27404fd1c86bfde950eb597
35018 F20110209_AABPSN lutz_a_Page_048.QC.jpg
7e9780e5e53a5cab767085fe65062bf5
a2c2ddcd1bbb426dc8b311ddf645b57fb29820bd
586372 F20110209_AABPRY lutz_a_Page_189.jp2
463310a8a94f2ca7081dfb8855313fdf
0ab65c55f0a210ff476e08383e212919596c5df0
F20110209_AABOPL lutz_a_Page_121.tif
f399d2dca17cc4f2eb6cc48cec99b907
f16115455c66854774eb1faae6a698dde5a0a5e9
F20110209_AABOOW lutz_a_Page_103.tif
8f89f247eb5ab993b6054c385b981d7f
cf08d79bad139b8e381c7fad1ccb944c4ccbfd7e
8343 F20110209_AABPTC lutz_a_Page_144thm.jpg
2e81812e359adf13fb5f1b7393dfa295
64f86a2ba4ad06635d199fb7383739c271759f1f
8110 F20110209_AABPSO lutz_a_Page_146thm.jpg
f6e3e1ef0778b70b54020d595dc396c7
56bed668c4e9ee8052cd6cea33141f0d3597cd73
31044 F20110209_AABPRZ lutz_a_Page_118.QC.jpg
44415bc523e58acd13e5552d6aa9c7ed
b61cf94d69557109952f1bca2a230da0943ec523
F20110209_AABOQA lutz_a_Page_140.tif
f7382e4d36f0f68a7f83c9aacd9922c4
2b074cf8fbeb142abf32272f87e9d94a25762879
F20110209_AABOPM lutz_a_Page_122.tif
79c89cd1fab1a3132e48fafeaf1715ac
21066df6d9356b3b6219fb476d78591fdbcf8ad5
F20110209_AABOOX lutz_a_Page_105.tif
4d924d39f32b329b66af7be5c5bbb2ea
99297d659a713d21f596603b83fe061386214e9a
6273 F20110209_AABPTD lutz_a_Page_104thm.jpg
f48a3c7314f4f3765e33750eec981378
c5c55d15816d4b9aed3fc88695adeb4b38044c72
31373 F20110209_AABPSP lutz_a_Page_020.QC.jpg
a3cdbb5d0934e32a9998687df7c51f1a
f32bcfcc79b6b806cdd61c60e41ec17e5fa1caf4
F20110209_AABOQB lutz_a_Page_141.tif
7b5e100d81e95f3934e2654ec31713da
85f62efbcbbcc68bf108db1cd25c5c1b23e1e42c
F20110209_AABOPN lutz_a_Page_123.tif
3ebd8875f4c3d505e6bffdf4787a6289
5ab43438c0ea675fde4f5e4c06aa1dcc537e6adc
F20110209_AABOOY lutz_a_Page_106.tif
f0dcae5e1467d64a480ec8301316afd7
63588eba9d1705edfd384d44dcab58781ea42eb5
31843 F20110209_AABPTE lutz_a_Page_134.QC.jpg
a4a7886d581952fc8b47acd40712fe02
b4092d2a92ea5ad4b873e4682a27b59022517d48
8306 F20110209_AABPSQ lutz_a_Page_153thm.jpg
aa8d544ab7ab8bdad171252ad5f02d2f
d3dd5913ccf45e88f709ba5b4427e6f9edcccfa1
F20110209_AABOQC lutz_a_Page_142.tif
7fad2660b241b4e055c90fb9e7cf6b2d
e31a2c11ba4923fa32c023daee04280a4bb43552
F20110209_AABOPO lutz_a_Page_125.tif
889720f7c3cc6a494d8f9ae283e6c80c
ba48894f13d005c3f4ac861116dfe225ca080e56
F20110209_AABOOZ lutz_a_Page_107.tif
a6a57ba5ffbac4cf25ed1c2316af7a23
caf72ea7796400472eccde82e55a16436279cb2f
33593 F20110209_AABPTF lutz_a_Page_030.QC.jpg
a93d96eba6c1d09da38576d7920d2038
5489190cacc054f3030c48a4ce242aa64424699a
7406 F20110209_AABPSR lutz_a_Page_016thm.jpg
44f11e6c4aa3e833c6a3e95d424bfb05
ef8d5bb40ead38f15c72a2e577952a84ca472627
F20110209_AABOQD lutz_a_Page_143.tif
7fc49e48b5472b3fce0d0aad4e3ebb85
010c484ab6458495d88534001de8cea42ef0a2e1
F20110209_AABOPP lutz_a_Page_127.tif
cf2b765828922b7d91970d744d6b779c
9704ac8092accc5c6ee1655bb5d429bfdf44d18f
11830 F20110209_AABPTG lutz_a_Page_168.QC.jpg
514baa25a388d6a04a2a80e280530570
305f867fafe2a6ff146177e622cc024f75722778
8475 F20110209_AABPSS lutz_a_Page_059thm.jpg
b51ceabb03468fafb13aab1e987382dd
44963e17107836e18a313d37692a5d9affc2641f
F20110209_AABOQE lutz_a_Page_145.tif
13c6eb08cee682e4d9501a967cb2458a
f4557d32530a8d3a18389124e9bc7561db92b589
F20110209_AABOPQ lutz_a_Page_128.tif
2aeb7ae0f725b42a08efe22c2435914d
54448f8eadb9339950ea79a833ab03943ca1ef3a
1330 F20110209_AABPTH lutz_a_Page_171thm.jpg
52f6b48fd645658160146749cc808be6
42ce2f0f6949930eda962c4be1185b868b33b38a
8777 F20110209_AABPST lutz_a_Page_026thm.jpg
3b97a260baddd97a19cc6cbf675f1482
a9e554a747ef41a5411cad1923e34097a4d1924a
F20110209_AABOQF lutz_a_Page_146.tif
a05637969c79cfe13ec6f6506cae280a
7f066235782f7cf8e7eaecf1a9b3bba23118728a
F20110209_AABOPR lutz_a_Page_129.tif
0b8e8be2eda168935d08cc95bf550eac
f61c63f88fb7d487d9dd88c54ec58ee66a17c78b
29829 F20110209_AABPTI lutz_a_Page_008.QC.jpg
5f7d3e922f1502066631c63f87799350
ff8f7990bf1031cf008fa4f5f76510c3da3ff392
F20110209_AABOQG lutz_a_Page_148.tif
f4bb6b990a877dc78e45e8376a6bb2c9
3429026adeba1d56701f3153fd9d2f35c0c0b659
7105 F20110209_AABPTJ lutz_a_Page_095thm.jpg
912ef4b637bbd54a9191408d73238564
087e322caf53b518494dfa8c6180f124c42c0493
33026 F20110209_AABPSU lutz_a_Page_044.QC.jpg
cb426d2710c9225d6282648eac2f7317
682638673a54c39e9f543c77e5581708b56b3e80
F20110209_AABOQH lutz_a_Page_149.tif
4d50a12e19f2c4702398d855b1205895
b225750552ded5c66161ea8a6476d08fef51db0b
F20110209_AABOPS lutz_a_Page_130.tif
71e744dcfe2490580eebc3e015676bd1
24bad69b64c5b7f82453ca77e087d987ebdfa24c
33656 F20110209_AABPTK lutz_a_Page_050.QC.jpg
7c3c447f914ef21b6060c48f5113910c
cac298dcccfa1790ff304e91f17e5ac8c8eaedf0
19268 F20110209_AABPSV lutz_a_Page_107.QC.jpg
7e14bf65f03516baa4c094cff0b63ef3
d4d2f40993085e0f3b5ad655771c1a39be4afe3c
F20110209_AABOQI lutz_a_Page_150.tif
d0832b4de0fba5e22a9c7082beb7e468
1ad8d92dc0978527dfcc7e01fa0d0443a15866da
F20110209_AABOPT lutz_a_Page_131.tif
4ce30d3138ce5770b87de2cc7a46651b
f8ec244ec7c8bdc14d62bdf25e7c689850bb26ec
7878 F20110209_AABPTL lutz_a_Page_096thm.jpg
c36d2178a1637fe0f818dbf745d1be2c
81a48784095d57dc08be961f6754300d51735afd
33356 F20110209_AABPSW lutz_a_Page_151.QC.jpg
60e8a68a63ee600a5598142b573788dc
de6f1748bd3ad9532859fc7e7cf4c925ecdbac01
F20110209_AABOQJ lutz_a_Page_151.tif
16045c89121df003b2641c6b358bb569
09715ca0c90b2ac5586adb9a85a929bc6b3d90e4
F20110209_AABOPU lutz_a_Page_132.tif
cbeb8374c9acd93a73631884d567a9a8
d76ef918d79ec5ab572ec6a040f7273ad8932c9d
28962 F20110209_AABPUA lutz_a_Page_053.QC.jpg
a7e658554d09b491c4d4aa3894e5fbdf
6ee5792be7bce2db6afc36ec5bfc6be28d800830
31480 F20110209_AABPTM lutz_a_Page_039.QC.jpg
dacd9538a205f40e604ce0a2c996565b
409c9aaf453a56922e88241272eb37f5f13582d8
28909 F20110209_AABPSX lutz_a_Page_106.QC.jpg
1e4ea34026c27cc468a533f0524af3c0
93e7a1e404e81410c5a5aa0d255f3477b5aecdee
F20110209_AABOQK lutz_a_Page_152.tif
1af6ece6fe1bed8b03a06d29e5ca1770
b8403138fa5117905263980b661c8eadfc267e16
F20110209_AABOPV lutz_a_Page_133.tif
a11fcd12f6dac2c4bd6b3e905b2cd2d9
fe8646c64a85160480e6ed42162d8d2500c583e9
16604 F20110209_AABPUB lutz_a_Page_121.QC.jpg
90514debf046f9182882dc31e8d9dab6
d083d09a49ab1e9eb49ce7ff3a50b5856df0b039
8127 F20110209_AABPTN lutz_a_Page_029thm.jpg
2cdbeb91780e1718befa431b6560711d
45685fca88284846161f8983029f8d7db4ef7cd8
3826 F20110209_AABPSY lutz_a_Page_093thm.jpg
477206780f91b929f88208b3413199c7
cf109a08992da0bf3580ded3d13a0d822f5a8546
F20110209_AABOQL lutz_a_Page_153.tif
281cbd219c56b424f25d1bf892132d6c
d1553a44eeda3943eb3e671028f7c6731cc02be9
F20110209_AABOPW lutz_a_Page_134.tif
6abf86640febf2c8408c14202321b1a6
5745132c89ac64fb0831387fab8c770ff6b7c25d
5199 F20110209_AABPUC lutz_a_Page_107thm.jpg
5827f8c8c909db326a35d12781fb89e5
19fe8d925bb2c8d10bfad3989a70101ddcfdcaac
4295 F20110209_AABPTO lutz_a_Page_180thm.jpg
f8b9cbb9fd6b8626aa8da5e16e428049
ac8d7b9dc9ca37a0bbad546319ede805896a551f
32266 F20110209_AABPSZ lutz_a_Page_115.QC.jpg
c88415bdfe07444d07a8c26a11fe9b37
a86547b60347290cbfc8fb8c6c05245c9bb3d4ae
F20110209_AABOQM lutz_a_Page_154.tif
635c5fbdddea8dc546baaeb962a14bff
fac45a3b4adfc165e841a65b46cd826efe5aae8c
F20110209_AABOPX lutz_a_Page_135.tif
0e5bc4095cad4e437ed74d76b0b59b9b
060e51a15258d00f1a9f81f53ac32cc9806b6fde
F20110209_AABORA lutz_a_Page_169.tif
c6537c499f1f297a77b55976bd7397b1
ea7033cd10cfcf5da61a08be8e0a3df7db15b146
30214 F20110209_AABPUD lutz_a_Page_013.QC.jpg
8115cce54cd927b582400c9de2a40243
a292cf83e549458ffa340df45b508446af3bb809
32438 F20110209_AABPTP lutz_a_Page_148.QC.jpg
3e6049b5c279de98689c3a0725f884ec
d2161581e2ea55d68085aedaa5daaa6194cade5e
F20110209_AABOQN lutz_a_Page_155.tif
06e6e5827082ca31fdaa19591339c49a
3f66b81cc73d5d6c3b2b78ee54e85e0d7a3c63f7
F20110209_AABOPY lutz_a_Page_136.tif
74e527f070ca63762766a4bf4a278213
171314b0170e3c264649b89e57514a73d70e8388
F20110209_AABORB lutz_a_Page_170.tif
6369aa7e148427a444a029132fe562a3
ea70713b996dd6ab518d916964be6e13ae6250ff
30984 F20110209_AABPUE lutz_a_Page_034.QC.jpg
abf20058db431e7dd7cad2a0c3ef20e9
1a0e8c0a27a9f5657f297b4e9e019e7bc34bb1dd
6399 F20110209_AABPTQ lutz_a_Page_128thm.jpg
5b683f5a9efc3f8e73c205d6ba04034d
57fdbcb65670a4d17004115468816f8182140223
F20110209_AABOQO lutz_a_Page_156.tif
f6df9d3ba3a6f60b62c49048db3fd72e
a01c4d5c944eff48a7f4e33d5b0cb336564fe7bd
F20110209_AABOPZ lutz_a_Page_137.tif
f6637de0f02ea732e1bf88d788e1040e
5108a8c0d49830385819061f8372c00021ef0f30
F20110209_AABORC lutz_a_Page_171.tif
2fde7dec58bcf9b4aac61356dc274e46
b82b8682025a6d1a1a925497647c77a82d3b23d4
30778 F20110209_AABQAA lutz_a_Page_102.QC.jpg
f5fb3acfe7dda6ebd1618fa3e0b23669
39783bec76d3e157fbaf8fa7d7fc76b0e6ffce29
8552 F20110209_AABPUF lutz_a_Page_067thm.jpg
cefb30aaf9a37756e874c9ddb61d7c0f
8b86fbca7556a097ad712e70eec318052310b804
8184 F20110209_AABPTR lutz_a_Page_151thm.jpg
2124753cab7523f65a8464f81bb53145
4e71c92c69749a9f266fd54214c708058a2e636b
F20110209_AABOQP lutz_a_Page_157.tif
67b64c417d436a6fa4d09d8147f097d7
3b100532567461a91200cd5f7c55ad89587d6b78
F20110209_AABORD lutz_a_Page_172.tif
6fc4d341782c6868abb36787bd45e753
ab27be4ac6554473cf3fdab39152ef6ebd1bce17
33531 F20110209_AABPUG lutz_a_Page_137.QC.jpg
1992c0fae779f2c7c731461a9b88c80d
f2cf277ce5af9a62360ceec3ead00fa2bba10a30
8723 F20110209_AABPTS lutz_a_Page_105thm.jpg
5d20f709340a0b39aff284d2499e8ae1
7dd0da82d698ab8a330d84effe8073a66977d5bf
F20110209_AABOQQ lutz_a_Page_158.tif
d175eec78646f3d14b1ae86eb870d0cc
d075e1e8f5e2fa67fe55133f35d0e609b91659ea
F20110209_AABORE lutz_a_Page_173.tif
e167368c8fd86389d5e6167d91426baa
81d0a89a72a9dbabc06861a96675d9e6f860ebb8
22026 F20110209_AABQAB lutz_a_Page_104.QC.jpg
23cdb059e49824b26820bdb1ffe14f24
fdc3a87edc0907e07196bd298465315ac09d6c59
8179 F20110209_AABPUH lutz_a_Page_187thm.jpg
4dc3faaed2c2deb7101fd807d08b2ad4
d3ed3294a7f953097427fe9ed83e1a9ba82c7a8d
35477 F20110209_AABPTT lutz_a_Page_025.QC.jpg
2c29443308102678db6c3aec1d0c3de6
f0add90f732adca84e9f7e8e266e222ce0e9bde8
F20110209_AABOQR lutz_a_Page_159.tif
13c29861fb39b94ec3240b1a9f717e9c
7dbcd684f390fcaebcd338cd09091d10c91cb8a3
F20110209_AABORF lutz_a_Page_174.tif
a47843e8f0651ad90fdae8a0aa56eef7
4fd2b27e4ccdb6b3a3b712cb0c2125be03a8b301
35050 F20110209_AABQAC lutz_a_Page_105.QC.jpg
ef36dd1ae1a1ea49a70401387cfb4450
212699127a9e5215343f1ad95ca2680cb75f6fef
3489 F20110209_AABPUI lutz_a_Page_126.QC.jpg
93b9135fdd9f23c12ced36cf3cf5bcc8
463878088d5d12589751bca0b88277c4a40c3e3d
3297 F20110209_AABPTU lutz_a_Page_158thm.jpg
64f6d49c385d6f649d745ffd8e2f3c71
f055a44dcaef996e19db42459eb1423ae7dc2074
F20110209_AABOQS lutz_a_Page_161.tif
2a4c84616fec43a13dd16e1a092a2b1a
6df67dc5142080aa139bc1666b3a2d35d698a670
F20110209_AABORG lutz_a_Page_175.tif
9ba860ebf91f708f9bdbe41a2e324708
f3f94abdc632821eca003e3d26c5f086d47b0922
15378 F20110209_AABQAD lutz_a_Page_108.QC.jpg
295a8ff03ef81250858f820dcf5ade08
4576389964bc68ad87da2f62c2b8968f28535824
3669 F20110209_AABPUJ lutz_a_Page_005thm.jpg
0af25e4991a66f5c631d52468ddccd4d
97210bc79ecf7a56b2265ff0d336b3b46b357500
F20110209_AABORH lutz_a_Page_176.tif
254a778e818f40701ddcaf0abaabbb8c
8a89f693573f0496b90b7f7eac7f6497f02d4af8
32471 F20110209_AABQAE lutz_a_Page_111.QC.jpg
592a5d10033f9149c5aa7cea0eccc5b5
87a4f69f34f78cd6cb49f864ddc42eebc7b88296
4761 F20110209_AABPUK lutz_a_Page_176thm.jpg
312a7e6c19856f720f81a4f6540bf3a7
28700d1f485a8bf953de2aa3c83e35666f4e2eb3
6484 F20110209_AABPTV lutz_a_Page_090thm.jpg
3bb1ee9e4524b69ed84ed3b79ce56f72
5e012b2f29188e4d7ede7c7b8732463fa91910e8
F20110209_AABOQT lutz_a_Page_162.tif
8ec8c83b5182b1f6b61dee4be989951b
6bca3e1499777ae6d71fdc3bb170bc2a1fd17b77
F20110209_AABORI lutz_a_Page_177.tif
774e9d51bfa67a9d2b26d7a4e05e61ff
d94534eb6cdcaa73b44c5254726e4f1346886335
31420 F20110209_AABQAF lutz_a_Page_112.QC.jpg
fee80db95371fb6f2c638876bf894ee2
b27ec25a49b0045d66ca8714631d9205304aa629
31438 F20110209_AABPUL lutz_a_Page_040.QC.jpg
9321f1269c27f8b3dfdefa4dcdcfa066
307b1a6577b64d5f8768dce9662431748bc7eb13
8200 F20110209_AABPTW lutz_a_Page_150thm.jpg
d3fd326df7611c1614daa746a3c27c81
52551928c15f68dcc89a04378aefc1c88b80d337
F20110209_AABOQU lutz_a_Page_163.tif
dca31461fd8a668f6a8f7296c4372e8d
09651c1d1fb197ccdf8579335974bec268fd3ff8
F20110209_AABORJ lutz_a_Page_178.tif
c5fbd936f4253159bae633114200c0c2
728336c0507b5be0e4a08b95c8ec735d45135fed
31602 F20110209_AABQAG lutz_a_Page_114.QC.jpg
3241d4c3302dc211f02904ca191a9f74
e32394dc4aa7d1bd0782f5b01ae0d6c607b01e16
34067 F20110209_AABPVA lutz_a_Page_131.QC.jpg
4fbed5fb0f277caaf9e7e7731f7c8eb6
91a629487aeb0c16fd3dc62302fff2da41ce2d46
6232 F20110209_AABPUM lutz_a_Page_011thm.jpg
d62a715be63572f24b7f32e59f3c1e95
83be4814df4660df336e1f4b0ef7fccb3ca5913d
31052 F20110209_AABPTX lutz_a_Page_009.QC.jpg
46dc744509d4a3b8709dda926272b33b
a6bd66426913c26566786b53bc8c8760d121c5f6
F20110209_AABOQV lutz_a_Page_164.tif
2e3fe571e6152cea3872aff2133e9e39
37c3bc6e42d2c363965f3ba4f3ef5dcf54dd157c
F20110209_AABORK lutz_a_Page_179.tif
0228349caca9804496abb3b501bacbb2
9883b721769bea8165326434d3f00afd852ffc5f
32345 F20110209_AABQAH lutz_a_Page_116.QC.jpg
411dd27b6d7f48551444acf3f603e81d
ac14a0c17ab24832648f4521b87c4f0a6825017a
34966 F20110209_AABPVB lutz_a_Page_022.QC.jpg
5719b829437c27e0efa127adebb017b0
cbc3b1f391bb850336e8607c795cc59011b14de4
4529 F20110209_AABPUN lutz_a_Page_172.QC.jpg
ca20fa284213c61524ce4a47e71ebc33
ee4f79af36a212194381b0011e56f844d8948c03
35991 F20110209_AABPTY lutz_a_Page_023.QC.jpg
fa7c4e08b702463624d4dae3c6aebede
3532f7748948ceb39824705ae31b91e56a3db028
F20110209_AABOQW lutz_a_Page_165.tif
7f672647a755178267b423ad134c42a2
b6e953ea7608bbf0bf663d981e11d911dfc78914
F20110209_AABORL lutz_a_Page_180.tif
59129e6f2fafa508c5c5a8773941e932
d165f75458fecb3374d8829a4b76afb6ac2b3cfe
30095 F20110209_AABQAI lutz_a_Page_120.QC.jpg
3c9844b905593090a99e16c267602d29
e5961564667bd28dea5d79b94e36e9a8551475c5
5657 F20110209_AABPVC lutz_a_Page_027thm.jpg
266486fb1e00103319cf2bd6250b1d9e
c136a8800fccf1685036a5fcb2db4a5a425ed5a4
33125 F20110209_AABPUO lutz_a_Page_081.QC.jpg
931970be49b165a8c0d5eb12fd0b39e4
aeb9b7c644351e6cee7b8d5a43fc69ee9319ca95
32791 F20110209_AABPTZ lutz_a_Page_084.QC.jpg
be2a66887311875a7c696dc7c0bf1576
2b042d6c413bea160b22db386e855c05421ba8ee
F20110209_AABOQX lutz_a_Page_166.tif
610cfbf91ceb04ab6174ff1f0f1c39d3
4ff69fa739866f3c771bed96c6a01be7edb0336e
3962 F20110209_AABOSA lutz_a_Page_008.txt
d1a249fd89730154efd3a55802a41a66
2bff97299740eedf82a9374e51b59201c42c9346
F20110209_AABORM lutz_a_Page_181.tif
94e915c722c3c34d57bc554d158c55b6
d089cf4424dddc7f8cd6cb109e8cd4cc7db6e23e
15849 F20110209_AABQAJ lutz_a_Page_122.QC.jpg
b233e15b3c5407eb55740f70adc34bf6
e65b1cde84b690ae14fae25cb410c18b865a7e5e
7906 F20110209_AABPVD lutz_a_Page_063thm.jpg
be42c82ee722e6815c23dce54a59f060
52b5f77fab69e61cd494dce671778f2319d899d3
4172 F20110209_AABPUP lutz_a_Page_122thm.jpg
1724e1c7cb31b6c649bff8cc9770c9f5
2b08cce98898d38699102b49c80b59fe57ebe897
F20110209_AABOQY lutz_a_Page_167.tif
a92a35764578302865b965e70d2ea4ff
4a409c6e64273c0f1a7baa3a749e6093b8b6ef50
4148 F20110209_AABOSB lutz_a_Page_009.txt
4ace174dc8c46e4f4c8a318e2003e3f1
c875a96ec94778aefdeaf3ed5f03944de4830803
F20110209_AABORN lutz_a_Page_182.tif
a50404564c12ec81afef5cce2cc960a5
f0336a8904e9077908560d6007b4003cd9f18000
33264 F20110209_AABQAK lutz_a_Page_125.QC.jpg
314036ae787fcfdceb50aff3a6d725bd
b0e88f3b951919f26ac964acf6d5d467281d41cf
8283 F20110209_AABPVE lutz_a_Page_142thm.jpg
00cee42c7e32f6e869ebc4809e77530f
69320fc6685cdf0424e78b703746e7642eea06bb
8335 F20110209_AABPUQ lutz_a_Page_031thm.jpg
0250845d863ff3b49ced3605fdc19b91
e4580a49f340ff11aa5287790e7ea1185963cabe
F20110209_AABOQZ lutz_a_Page_168.tif
4d9114adce64d23bfe2819cc69a38708
4e3513e066e226b83199be0a3fa14e07e2672c13
1476 F20110209_AABOSC lutz_a_Page_010.txt
e3876f85d4656668456f70b9ef83f7ed
05c1e36e655b86dd1c5f070498f964845d57c83e
F20110209_AABORO lutz_a_Page_183.tif
bb494710c26e6f601110cbb8f00bc654
6c35f68106c170b09fb45838be07758a5fc457c2
13386 F20110209_AABQBA lutz_a_Page_158.QC.jpg
8e8cb6738868c0b4115e567ade01fd37
d37e6167fa918192b2bd9594ddb0476885688324
33360 F20110209_AABQAL lutz_a_Page_130.QC.jpg
a8b9ef3e559a0af9abc2206b8e9f98bb
62e24649a9cac7a26dc99630a3c7216b5e4630a3
12104 F20110209_AABPVF lutz_a_Page_010.QC.jpg
65a590856faaf485f9b8bbcf16b27d4a
528a092a0f282a3813af29a40b2d9f4bdc8c969d
33997 F20110209_AABPUR lutz_a_Page_055.QC.jpg
7bc9b1a804f0cdbc449f1ef49eb32811
e6d00116d5fdc67487119e0894d83e8305d1e7a8
2514 F20110209_AABOSD lutz_a_Page_011.txt
6c8dd98f51f9077a8cde4c4f9c4237b6
0712ef73e5f4a8c425d8680ed4d6b6e7b2517a9c
F20110209_AABORP lutz_a_Page_184.tif
a0325cd395f357b0944515c922e60c08
e138899dde84d90f23f562e3d4c7b573e08adf6a
8353 F20110209_AABQBB lutz_a_Page_161.QC.jpg
fbf9be5e6b294d6877087490677623a7
efad786b0bd44acf0b315a4b731e4c16fe48b2af
33389 F20110209_AABQAM lutz_a_Page_133.QC.jpg
cf57e4323c27759053ae003a392a3e8e
7d093b75187e1f87f475b16492bc6e4a103a191d
8239 F20110209_AABPVG lutz_a_Page_042thm.jpg
6fbc7ccea81932cecefd831b3c0f2502
2efb9310cd0b78a10e4509750744402ff4c728f5
8164 F20110209_AABPUS lutz_a_Page_143thm.jpg
00dc04d4d912479c9eb94e96b5d96374
8bed3da7ab7b4df3306740470eddc051c785ed5b
3328 F20110209_AABOSE lutz_a_Page_012.txt
a6c2d9ab6bf011aa2c72fbcf33e58be5
a9a0a6fb399a867618e2aa61b6e0a68910881efe
F20110209_AABORQ lutz_a_Page_186.tif
da627a7ecb7c695a839e0279f722d95b
75848b9ee1dba6e4fe99b1397f52922425028a13
27593 F20110209_AABQAN lutz_a_Page_136.QC.jpg
d36c684e052eb533d8fc94af6816aee3
569b7842472010e5eba6616d8aac86928d61ee50
8166 F20110209_AABPVH lutz_a_Page_019thm.jpg
d164253f9a705b23c9613a2b7a66b6a2
513570eddb5bcdae2c00323652490f5f666d1273
26214 F20110209_AABPUT lutz_a_Page_075.QC.jpg
79df9c70f7f4263db544d9980b28fbd3
9efa74eaef699b9ebdfa4792c67530c57fc34815
3098 F20110209_AABOSF lutz_a_Page_013.txt
f0c10fc738f196040aebcfa9fa41e556
99fada240e3aab4135ff650bc4c9fc3125945ba7
F20110209_AABORR lutz_a_Page_187.tif
48df45ae21d42cf70d33abd9fd621b86
553c8e090953cdf635715392db14574257744dd9
3718 F20110209_AABQBC lutz_a_Page_164.QC.jpg
fab99b6a8176d4c2289032c26f61f999
bb681c916b47d9ac7572e01313211ea85432fccd
32124 F20110209_AABQAO lutz_a_Page_139.QC.jpg
13611f2a9f3148cba2cf0896f137c25f
92fc87216decef81caeed600c4486facfb23b390
32717 F20110209_AABPVI lutz_a_Page_029.QC.jpg
3a8b93638c9e0c86e68fd521ed621361
91d9773435940f65c4a463ffdc91edba3b602fcb
13204 F20110209_AABPUU lutz_a_Page_005.QC.jpg
0b9b203e72e9921101b66a117aabeba8
9fafa8d8a55bb14884d4744ce1009b3b4ac01f4a
314 F20110209_AABOSG lutz_a_Page_014.txt
d49c5410d94efb2b4c7318cb138bb5e6
ae069a750366cef9f535c8a9f8a6c8195d71ba0e
F20110209_AABORS lutz_a_Page_188.tif
f68d8f0b4f95db8990e06f0f50a0390b
b74b60ec71e8048165b96994135c26d1ae1f5284
11481 F20110209_AABQBD lutz_a_Page_165.QC.jpg
256e86a71da3894427ba12e8c900503a
5a472ebe9b8b6a93ddac7a8d1f8f1238470fa945
33284 F20110209_AABQAP lutz_a_Page_140.QC.jpg
bdf3a320932b785f721f8c719a172797
30dc26c3171c21bf47d2380ef11ec6ee1be096be
35253 F20110209_AABPVJ lutz_a_Page_031.QC.jpg
3849b940719fca9964a9262139c31903
efe4b2937e737e9cceeff2cf63c7ef16b37f3fe0
31016 F20110209_AABPUV lutz_a_Page_051.QC.jpg
281d185906427aa78c6cd30f9aba02cb
9ddda8ceae42652a67e453de302590858e300617
1660 F20110209_AABOSH lutz_a_Page_015.txt
2879da8327be274c020d0ec2854ceb2e
959e70ee910ebc08d5fb65a0ed66668fe8af9f8b
F20110209_AABORT lutz_a_Page_189.tif
1ededf37f20fa7255cff43ed6a032bf3
4e3a5171a81cfe8124f96333feff9b729c6cc003
10644 F20110209_AABQBE lutz_a_Page_169.QC.jpg
ee86df7fdc438d3620db2264f71d4740
2a9a5f939065d2678baf1d8cef7bfb425822a9ef
33465 F20110209_AABQAQ lutz_a_Page_141.QC.jpg
6fccb4a0040d833a1a63dbf4b5578efd
dd81fdf98df74d3b6f9def833e50c19dd4c43bc9
1893 F20110209_AABPVK lutz_a_Page_173thm.jpg
f0d38709a8d70a3365128db41835b846
9e857c11c5868cea50050d32f8fdfc2cc350dd61
1780 F20110209_AABOSI lutz_a_Page_016.txt
2125ba3b91070ce8efbea24b58791992
d5dad3332610d13ed38132636f377cf9000b99b1
4250 F20110209_AABQBF lutz_a_Page_171.QC.jpg
6d5eee422916d1e53b752a575f667929
69ff1e4caf204f4ac1d886cb40dd5ede125da3d4
32951 F20110209_AABQAR lutz_a_Page_143.QC.jpg
9765e0475b13090789ad8e6f3dc7cc4f
9a0e6f841f8122422dca53970a0522ba4c4a8676
32971 F20110209_AABPVL lutz_a_Page_035.QC.jpg
526b04cdf277bc9ac919f4eb61b122b4
a8419609f024b1eaa27f9b4ea59d9badbd36d543
34311 F20110209_AABPUW lutz_a_Page_037.QC.jpg
7d6da504959f66c607147fef5570828b
99abc149b09ec2e8588b1b504e777a9431685c4d
1819 F20110209_AABOSJ lutz_a_Page_017.txt
60007b12edb3d2d821463be438dde358
854f52bbd5be4f7adfd4cb68c068cbcd5508de60
110 F20110209_AABORU lutz_a_Page_002.txt
5772eb8fa202747b8c7c772b46dff94d
c25ac92197efe4d9a73442abecf36b14055d0f0a
5550 F20110209_AABQBG lutz_a_Page_173.QC.jpg
a2e8d7839392bfafe1fdca2bf2d81d32
fc0caa558838ef6b6bf056bdc59cb7cc77646fb7
32437 F20110209_AABQAS lutz_a_Page_144.QC.jpg
ec3df1043046450b4bb1ef3a380ddd35
5a3736f721ec5dc920b9eb0e9f69964e6cd839b4
31000 F20110209_AABPWA lutz_a_Page_088.QC.jpg
7f05fd1d4edfd8aff9f5cbebda4a3e64
f5b4fabc01b528c632844be5335649333705e35e
6749 F20110209_AABPVM lutz_a_Page_160.QC.jpg
2d5c73aa326c7df3611f726493873460
ee46adeaaaef08c363eb2b8b1ca4e291bd1bee71
34107 F20110209_AABPUX lutz_a_Page_021.QC.jpg
85f0855c27172e362b9fc064299e5db9
6d33182fff6887d49bc9fc694a9150270b7402db
1986 F20110209_AABOSK lutz_a_Page_018.txt
041880e287dae16805ccfd00e49a87a3
78c5dd9c4b77b638517a1ddddf6478c0b861c6a5
1750 F20110209_AABORV lutz_a_Page_003.txt
b9ec5981d9b1e0cf35070b8c483720ca
f74ffa390fcd3a90b0abcdabc32a0efa26393339
9485 F20110209_AABQBH lutz_a_Page_175.QC.jpg
668062b6eebef61745c459f31231d650
9890d3b0c758a42334759fcf837fa7807330913d
33546 F20110209_AABQAT lutz_a_Page_149.QC.jpg
1fdddb3461904ded1de066dc672d620d
f461789e6005ec797d2c76fdf37b77ec5c9c6fad
7975 F20110209_AABPWB lutz_a_Page_004thm.jpg
51ca76a2c44652872f56abc859150dc6
6a4e561c2012887e35e0aa635de5b6b9e9efe675
15640 F20110209_AABPVN lutz_a_Page_179.QC.jpg
19ad14f4bec78053ad2158ff97671723
2878e0146e665458e8c6582d1998df8da8902f90
33835 F20110209_AABPUY lutz_a_Page_041.QC.jpg
a118e616c2b7c2fd7ce933bca43e22e2
ca52d113745eb1b0bf2764390fd96e9ff72f0de6
1932 F20110209_AABOSL lutz_a_Page_019.txt
0448a0d5041e0006411ebc817a2fffc1
4960d2b8170d7087ca75ec5c467e35855cf1c722
1826 F20110209_AABORW lutz_a_Page_004.txt
9554105f0692de32b903a95d685d5228
f892fc306a60d02c41508e4feab0d64ccecf6d71
17170 F20110209_AABQBI lutz_a_Page_176.QC.jpg
79655e74c7de2b3139afce38512447d1
e4edf6bb2327ad85fd3d8f110dcc4eefac635f5e
32862 F20110209_AABQAU lutz_a_Page_150.QC.jpg
10208b72cd963886cc920a50ebd6c808
f6641d07e3f48b0ecd7894959674d0d0b8b6792c
7434 F20110209_AABPWC lutz_a_Page_120thm.jpg
81d0a15a35ea4c5c9c65fbf915d86d1b
a3641889641bed1e0e0b6cdbc103740ca5c385e6
30924 F20110209_AABPVO lutz_a_Page_004.QC.jpg
119ba846d05c243d4a68d423494dbfb2
09e315c19cd323da42cad4f51ae87878fb6393cd
29542 F20110209_AABPUZ lutz_a_Page_147.QC.jpg
deab1b2dac34e4b499d3589ccf78d917
2afe9ac001ccfb4d87108aa40f9f7a643bc146ef
1935 F20110209_AABOTA lutz_a_Page_035.txt
77c8d40ca68408f291e03f6aecd8da41
6805daf20160cd56d9007985d9cd0d7c0b882f9a
F20110209_AABOSM lutz_a_Page_020.txt
e94841135039bc1038157eafbb7604dd
a33bf8de0cb545c128a2dc6f89a64a74cb589ffd
707 F20110209_AABORX lutz_a_Page_005.txt
6eefd2ab434813a82d128c3efe75b357
e00f2c12b7c715b50eb81082549229c15f3c5fc0
11133 F20110209_AABQBJ lutz_a_Page_178.QC.jpg
c9cbba30579d46fae97997cd6cd90ec2
6da30d8a9a65f4e46aaa29918fa2799a2decccbc
31742 F20110209_AABQAV lutz_a_Page_152.QC.jpg
1e626f3e4c9fc0c1bbb29dde7c0bdb39
c66a948456149ccca1df2691fc7f541af86ea69d
32875 F20110209_AABPWD lutz_a_Page_071.QC.jpg
6e7d9b29e69b0914c69b4b5d62c4a1a2
b1808732c5e32a5203aa64b3c2a5cd5d05938bfa
8377 F20110209_AABPVP lutz_a_Page_141thm.jpg
404fd089026d0ee40b1e44baa9d1e88c
ec9f8cdc7e814e1c05a5d2aa9b87b5384fd35419
1996 F20110209_AABOTB lutz_a_Page_036.txt
58b8f9dbc1be12aea2ab1dd39e33fef0
6178fac12c42778dc53517cbcde91fb5d2f7c9bb
1994 F20110209_AABOSN lutz_a_Page_021.txt
09b38e27476c6883d2ef58539fbef71a
4d4b1f52e5f8f545a8b9f9ea8f1ed0acef460ecc
3340 F20110209_AABORY lutz_a_Page_006.txt
ee45f91e2154a1bfe065d85cf91eb9c3
1987348108e49152ed69297a3c4722f36846d70f
31337 F20110209_AABQBK lutz_a_Page_181.QC.jpg
36c3ea2005e550c7ec8bd778ad943ce0
0119fe6570592cc431c66112a80b8fa605e7ca5a
36361 F20110209_AABQAW lutz_a_Page_153.QC.jpg
cf546bafd1428aa7103c69d69b46b5f6
75e9767ee1986ecf291b4410085daa4cdf50ce7d
7349 F20110209_AABPWE lutz_a_Page_003thm.jpg
6ef2556f51a7eca5b053e77f3d467f12
ccfac4991fec8213d58597612cfdb59e7e069ab8
33466 F20110209_AABPVQ lutz_a_Page_097.QC.jpg
d5c89c425a605159e601bb08c8736f25
c2409738c98ebc0a9977d831c3af83211f1b64db
2017 F20110209_AABOTC lutz_a_Page_037.txt
1683222400e34d7873b636300a4fb256
11020a338086fe79a8a905c87cadf64358e35679
2020 F20110209_AABOSO lutz_a_Page_022.txt
00c3d773e463f0dfc685190afb752279
e8f291a23a1045bfd94c77710a07330c157f91b5
4200 F20110209_AABORZ lutz_a_Page_007.txt
1b8e0628601b7b9a0fda7029acd014b5
a3fc1c0646628a90fddfc70267e1932ef4950833
8163 F20110209_AABQCA lutz_a_Page_039thm.jpg
ca0ec2ba590ef291a7f4bf76f2498f88
11b2e776603ff6d45a3f8902ea8e57400887267d
35972 F20110209_AABQBL lutz_a_Page_185.QC.jpg
84915941d43e3f853ba8b703c79cd652
1bb19a6e5aebcbd51ddfd6712155a49a41a6ffac
38604 F20110209_AABQAX lutz_a_Page_154.QC.jpg
3f439460eff37f79bbc1b2b265f9380b
23367a52dde804db234b20cbbc1afe3ef5936fe1
32852 F20110209_AABPWF lutz_a_Page_142.QC.jpg
d7227535082eb0769d588d60d8dcf2ff
d464fc18dee19a8635316ad9aa795237274ccf52
1582 F20110209_AABPVR lutz_a_Page_002.QC.jpg
d5e5e86730966f121b2c188ac611bc24
204491d18fc6821ce1acdc2733c2132e13f4491c
F20110209_AABOTD lutz_a_Page_038.txt
6efceb020efca49e47a9e0dc4b2490fd
c8f4fdfd31cf85866d490d5a7cec8d77305d94c8
2088 F20110209_AABOSP lutz_a_Page_023.txt
e52447c0a9b5d8ab111051a5eff3662b
9638e187d764b290679d7d7484603336c7d3a9c8
8154 F20110209_AABQCB lutz_a_Page_040thm.jpg
9a4e824ffc732acb0ec8898949cf6aba
cce331ca8f4cd6a310c7a99d4dca5a7711dfc402
33085 F20110209_AABQBM lutz_a_Page_186.QC.jpg
ba358e5e8dfff49ae431bd00070fafde
fa027658f45b07c483ff442faa7d4cccaa9d84ef
7624 F20110209_AABQAY lutz_a_Page_156.QC.jpg
d8364ed856fccfe3e7884fc889dc0c65
4ee263d1cd021170b325b9a8881044309365fb61
36555 F20110209_AABPWG lutz_a_Page_155.QC.jpg
acd604a89927d0de2712ad80ee71f937
5fe474bd3074a90b6de3467dedb81efbbd26ea95
3099 F20110209_AABPVS lutz_a_Page_165thm.jpg
df0b8fbc3243a8e3d4a2c1ea24c5e065
50e397a2c09628142755682197b9c2062353ddb9
2532 F20110209_AABOTE lutz_a_Page_039.txt
29c294a1907e4f943d44fe8c0d772676
6408b70ef6d6b29afc50b32183619f3c4e01d4df
1949 F20110209_AABOSQ lutz_a_Page_024.txt
0168d8e5777c1e3fa36218e1cc540003
dce4f1834ffc85f072af6f96138369165958f2fa
8161 F20110209_AABQCC lutz_a_Page_041thm.jpg
af16a98f43d47d10cbbb7a78a9c4ab06
fca9625b9340fee8ffe2aa3ed61c3ee5a82a2e5b
2348 F20110209_AABQBN lutz_a_Page_001thm.jpg
8e0939f749813210fc554b2fd77c8434
7275a4da8c523509d66a9a63ea17e67912c27302
21660 F20110209_AABQAZ lutz_a_Page_157.QC.jpg
a23c818752171cb38411c4a110409775
6aba15df23d2c7993f3c6ef023991ba72cdc1ee8
11337 F20110209_AABPWH lutz_a_Page_166.QC.jpg
a24b3816df26fc4ed5091e2e84c77295
8c65cbc31a6885ebb17bf05fdd8c052c846a6902
16169 F20110209_AABPVT lutz_a_Page_180.QC.jpg
e0d207008f170d58306fe5a109e58272
03e500d08c66e40c5d9c767c479b64a79a155aa0
1881 F20110209_AABOTF lutz_a_Page_040.txt
250acb36b002708f67bb0778d14beece
ba30e890fd794b7e003563315ab5ce58d92238f1
2749 F20110209_AABOSR lutz_a_Page_025.txt
59e330612701a6d3ff3429943f60c298
ac5a9780577c47f034adbf7693e791968f3eb178
6934 F20110209_AABQBO lutz_a_Page_007thm.jpg
773965457c5bedfd0d96c2b49270df79
4b20ee71f7c02a624743803e9c3db921e5e925dc
5931 F20110209_AABPWI lutz_a_Page_188thm.jpg
82bf25c9c67aa1953e9bee1b29e3b12c
a794a17a4889565a2fa95c7b70ad6411e4e58342
8650 F20110209_AABPVU lutz_a_Page_184thm.jpg
467921749a6d0c584396641e266a2ff5
bfa1f605242010621dc82bb56a14f8cda5aede59
2040 F20110209_AABOTG lutz_a_Page_041.txt
9175401d5218222991d6df8bd1348b32
95634f010d0bc1cd204d59446cf4ff837224f369
2873 F20110209_AABOSS lutz_a_Page_026.txt
776619e6a31130e98dec1f7db8488f81
2df75760eb847ff4f682e573aead1659db955968
8173 F20110209_AABQCD lutz_a_Page_043thm.jpg
4940fd1e7e503f42eb81b5d4d9c4ab2c
53b54df614ac94ea8e0c8d68d1aaef0ee92b4c8e
7623 F20110209_AABQBP lutz_a_Page_012thm.jpg
be9cceebaee748aea6340bc91205d5b9
42664ae7b50bdd0e3dab4d70053ecd1ff28071df
2877 F20110209_AABPWJ lutz_a_Page_010thm.jpg
3c8aa627e38e1c9c29346b9b8a782faa
c5421cbcf7160e5dbaa01d42cd7c1ce2ab305db5
8015 F20110209_AABPVV lutz_a_Page_057thm.jpg
ea3b79fed5dd6730971b0c9faf355625
2cc2814b6b183dd407400be411775cf1bf2236a7
1974 F20110209_AABOTH lutz_a_Page_042.txt
c94cbf35f8c4f8317817f2e04558f338
493532256313f71a017b6da65d042a867b1674fd
1611 F20110209_AABOST lutz_a_Page_027.txt
8e3eff754be38c4907ef52de2ceb2d11
e8150250bcc026ebb9b8423f5ef3207cbfc56fc9
8379 F20110209_AABQCE lutz_a_Page_045thm.jpg
ef5233878b517d942aedafcfa783ad09
edef8bcb8e3786531d34ecf73da317d91d084596
7166 F20110209_AABQBQ lutz_a_Page_013thm.jpg
ade80a262f682751be71d65c7ba64470
57389bc10e1e03a8aa2325a2a768f0f07e3d73c3
25024 F20110209_AABPWK lutz_a_Page_099.QC.jpg
4bec8ca10cbac046f2c76f1e734371bf
5d64df205b9ddad3d5a69cf3c0ac636e2dcd3579
28445 F20110209_AABPVW lutz_a_Page_091.QC.jpg
14634138621a47b9e8542c83bdc4d6c2
abc798506280dbcf5b267d787ea2fa694564de7a
2148 F20110209_AABOTI lutz_a_Page_044.txt
6e984bcef7cbc0b550b122d773858bca
7db024788489d70976cba62e4bdf327b1f98d822
1788 F20110209_AABOSU lutz_a_Page_028.txt
0539889176cd83883edaa6d80edf3054
40ef2fbccf043d160d23f7a0da1037d90863362b
7959 F20110209_AABQCF lutz_a_Page_046thm.jpg
fe86445fd87617f49a166977205cd5f5
522ce5dbd86a585b23541a8105442d821250f6eb
8047 F20110209_AABQBR lutz_a_Page_018thm.jpg
cc71be263a702748aa0a1213883fe16f
bf6712f56baf56e25795b1efdddf2ab2597cc7fa
7517 F20110209_AABPWL lutz_a_Page_024thm.jpg
67fb4d580ff9e2121bfd89fc7539e17b
ffc3d1d1c88a907e15c0bf128abdb0eff3dcdde6
2183 F20110209_AABOTJ lutz_a_Page_045.txt
20a62c35159e04171fd466eb23c51432
73fada338b3b49ea4a6965816b20a5d627fc1491
8452 F20110209_AABQCG lutz_a_Page_048thm.jpg
f41a8048dc90286e4c0f480970dc97fb
d9fa877812fa61e895cb6eaf3833a387c0e32314
7970 F20110209_AABQBS lutz_a_Page_020thm.jpg
b149460d520e19735a345a66d87ead0a
11474d1a9269debe27e10b5dd70fa7838b0002ee
1802 F20110209_AABPXA lutz_a_Page_174thm.jpg
d263946871a97a73dbe79d2d9fc420a0
b41035aada0abcd33c48d3aca155903cec22c7c9
4377 F20110209_AABPWM lutz_a_Page_006thm.jpg
12f8b7941cde90bbe818cb3bf481cfe6
a0f984499b9bc0084b50eb25707e4ddb48575af4
8230 F20110209_AABPVX lutz_a_Page_092thm.jpg
328f64bed8e287d2c841a2fb242c50dd
bd4fde7d6c267b862e0b7ab01c426d39e3f61b46
1896 F20110209_AABOTK lutz_a_Page_046.txt
a0113d8b26596b433d638609d390618a
2001f87347103fbe019944e513d1610e6104a359
1948 F20110209_AABOSV lutz_a_Page_029.txt
c8d6af4bb54f6a0bfeb00336776e9459
fb5c35fa33f9dce03044649577031f2b38cf4287
8418 F20110209_AABQCH lutz_a_Page_049thm.jpg
a3ff1bfba362d7b146b6950fdd44a7cc
a2fbc3a042beeae14d070c2544f39ef430cb5a7d
8264 F20110209_AABQBT lutz_a_Page_021thm.jpg
30fdc2b78b35dba2beac60eb0cb5cb4e
c6f804d2ae625c9803ca00bdb469fb0978238073
8210 F20110209_AABPXB lutz_a_Page_068thm.jpg
40fb6a8a82b40313fc5662216de129ad
0a47c6c4ec2ffda3cecf961def72938c54cfb8a1
32445 F20110209_AABPWN lutz_a_Page_119.QC.jpg
3ba09a5fb51d47e1a6217edf4b47e450
01b228d84e740583243281765df3a16960976e56
32708 F20110209_AABPVY lutz_a_Page_145.QC.jpg
c98f425bf0ca8299d2e6131a0bcfbc7e
04178c63af1df9a2503a32c69c8e6f76a1e28471
2050 F20110209_AABOTL lutz_a_Page_047.txt
bc4a4fbe6beda48235deb2ed870d44cd
535a048de720f1c6fe5ba44d2741f5774dbb00a9
1906 F20110209_AABOSW lutz_a_Page_030.txt
18cc77dc5cfd0625c9b3dfd5d87746c8
305b42a3ce3b515e43eb51eb76814f964033ec33
7666 F20110209_AABQCI lutz_a_Page_052thm.jpg
bc548c9d8849bec2931a9db45068e01d
06100d5863239272e5dbee0dbdc860c735971d90
8574 F20110209_AABQBU lutz_a_Page_023thm.jpg
b0b0e4f128aa4a5b019916e11fde35e7
b9e41f293511fccafdd31926c9578d6cf2a6be27
8481 F20110209_AABPXC lutz_a_Page_124thm.jpg
eb09d013841d8c5bae0642058af5a386
bc360922586a3c5bcd0008711d5590f44c33523b
F20110209_AABPWO lutz_a_Page_056thm.jpg
9e19749d44a2222c8228e4db4340b31e
e4a1416ca63c0e117065c8a05784332eb65c7e02
8296 F20110209_AABPVZ lutz_a_Page_069thm.jpg
93f7a814828be844b80a81fbd905b517
38b2525c51f034dd22d913026fb5518dd6d7b344
2066 F20110209_AABOTM lutz_a_Page_048.txt
c39d3e75db3e4ffa17c8cdc85929c84c
e55505a7c599c8d209167726d208ace8086ed4c8
2110 F20110209_AABOSX lutz_a_Page_032.txt
57768350ad042b2fa4ba004999f57a84
9f871f81f45bfe8c9224e1f0dcce4a6f538beb9e
1847 F20110209_AABOUA lutz_a_Page_063.txt
f976d7abf42f362c65d2970eb04e9a71
01acc968baff73b918e65bdaa0c5b1ea25de37a3
F20110209_AABQCJ lutz_a_Page_054thm.jpg
e8c47e583814732a9a68f8e0cf6ccf2d
ff52db7cf9eeecc60e905e5ce6dd3ed4d70a8999
8330 F20110209_AABQBV lutz_a_Page_025thm.jpg
dcc9014d08b562ed36f85466dcaf4754
4da925a1b44dbc5333f61961be7bd96ee859a5f5
8407 F20110209_AABPXD lutz_a_Page_131thm.jpg
81c723a5fd6e9bf324f442e8a1a8755a
a160141080a3060e1e80d9b13e2ab6ba3bcc7d8b
F20110209_AABPWP lutz_a_Page_044thm.jpg
954055bcdbe1e96b322b22cee49875d7
0ed5dbe5cc152369e37273a6ca426ad16e2f1493
1936 F20110209_AABOTN lutz_a_Page_049.txt
ab1f720d49f63fb502cdf85a7226a61d
2db02f8d489ad96d25ec122ba141fb52210e0280
1970 F20110209_AABOSY lutz_a_Page_033.txt
2289bec4e31cc67570af0286cd6853e7
80f955c55aa5c9c663197282c942b3058ac1c1ab
1978 F20110209_AABOUB lutz_a_Page_064.txt
2d2c328383f3f3539aec22c134f72a1d
b35793375980337d8b7ac017026018c6987da237
8091 F20110209_AABQCK lutz_a_Page_055thm.jpg
8287c252062fcb22249a2f3ee508ccb7
53839e09d5354e619032fd1e80853e3466370647
7200 F20110209_AABQBW lutz_a_Page_028thm.jpg
6444b61b06494c5bdc2aab76fc6d2772
81849065468f48d730f3ecca57ee35bd36ec8d3c
29889 F20110209_AABPXE lutz_a_Page_103.QC.jpg
78bdadb34b1a4c98d638031242f3c80a
44cfe9c287b6354495e1f4fca887719bed805bd2
8217 F20110209_AABPWQ lutz_a_Page_022thm.jpg
1bbc725eaa5545d256ec057e864fb58f
d012e6e3c3a9a107bf8254305ae909b1d157b657
2295 F20110209_AABOTO lutz_a_Page_050.txt
ee9015e7994a504f73b385974d429275
f248aaee70558dc491de2172543cd8d7a99cb252
1805 F20110209_AABOSZ lutz_a_Page_034.txt
d07d5408406f4f067e9fdf1f354c57c8
9d9f9dffaaf1be33054fe8241e7cfc6803d736e6
2069 F20110209_AABOUC lutz_a_Page_066.txt
d65587e594796ce69a97918774a4126f
9850ddaf56eb787ded93440fe305e7f90a5bccc8
8224 F20110209_AABQDA lutz_a_Page_082thm.jpg
18a21fd5925fe452d88b876edc81d54d
c73535546033e39f946fe6344b191225c5e57d15
8443 F20110209_AABQCL lutz_a_Page_058thm.jpg
312c6ae435300ec861549d3d1ef59f42
68eb1f76ecebe18e6b31d7d52ede885012af0606
8214 F20110209_AABQBX lutz_a_Page_033thm.jpg
e6ebd8bfaa674ce9eb313bcace31d483
6fb9ea9d28158619a65c5019f92cf3a8d23991f4
10236 F20110209_AABPXF lutz_a_Page_127.QC.jpg
2111b863608476464806b18b2b6751ac
cb74c9b563ed9a8de4a8dd60b4545cd844ec38ab
F20110209_AABPWR lutz_a_Page_146.QC.jpg
088b897622519e1b002d3684b293742c
1f65bdc72c2901eed2e341d5ce4c240332440610
2059 F20110209_AABOTP lutz_a_Page_051.txt
b450c05e1be11cc273edf6a4214ad63b
3ee34bbd713f19b30d6b3c1c36d4e5d066ecb4be
2028 F20110209_AABOUD lutz_a_Page_067.txt
2ee86814964bc6fed95d6cdd613b42ca
2e2d5ceea456e5a31bd09cb7ab2ef55b9cf2713e
7289 F20110209_AABQDB lutz_a_Page_083thm.jpg
936d4b81e60fe9d775657cffa6085096
0cf0a91ad596dc6c9cfd0826326d8988b5379b1e
8243 F20110209_AABQCM lutz_a_Page_060thm.jpg
065736698bac5c48ab84f413d91d6725
78b7685a22df0afd8f94d2736d3becdc8dac7b9f
7660 F20110209_AABQBY lutz_a_Page_034thm.jpg
5c1b0956e8fd41cbf12642c8d32a7bf7
2abd439968682fa1d474d496c1aaf60d4ff6ae9a
32502 F20110209_AABPXG lutz_a_Page_092.QC.jpg
e655e57e4a8856468020d42aed0850fc
b5a623ee0c4d6a166cdade9718a2313596fa520a
4664 F20110209_AABPWS lutz_a_Page_121thm.jpg
b43349cc6d494b7ea70ffd6cea5ec145
3f6bf883f6e978f7bd162793f80e7ac7d2b89a0e
F20110209_AABOUE lutz_a_Page_068.txt
00ddb2108519a9fb517949f4d30857fb
b037e662f9b1d7d5b57515765ae2f82d325bd024
1993 F20110209_AABOTQ lutz_a_Page_052.txt
632b8ebfa15fa7914534777e98c7929d
c17b50797ab91899e30f7a6936f3baa07b988b02
8073 F20110209_AABQDC lutz_a_Page_084thm.jpg
ca68a94d44f387cbad123aadc265bcd0
e9f38167f51469915adc43d1ddc92fc9312fd5ae
8139 F20110209_AABQCN lutz_a_Page_061thm.jpg
9040dce8ab5800e1c2bb341b8558822b
78c40ccbf5eca9a43a7c0f0ae8c8e5d913bc6cb6
7614 F20110209_AABQBZ lutz_a_Page_038thm.jpg
ea33e4bb9b338426cd541032e1315410
d729c548bc32e180c9d0ae95eaba96e4afeb5802
31686 F20110209_AABPXH lutz_a_Page_038.QC.jpg
2d8f09828e642a8c5a031d842b24c803
1368842762c4366a74b078369df0e1585f7277a0
3975 F20110209_AABPWT lutz_a_Page_179thm.jpg
6923ef6bcc1b7e9211d1094878041d87
5cb059a3e6e8b763b7edaaca7643f132633d2172
47336 F20110209_AABPAA lutz_a_Page_040.pro
dea96937184583058c6459361eea3d42
5a56725e4eda03a071898802b354c91d2c7041e9
1985 F20110209_AABOUF lutz_a_Page_069.txt
7081c760a96f444fa556e488fcbf81c5
d4a4a739dd694ffd552605575434008efb6f3bc8
F20110209_AABOTR lutz_a_Page_054.txt
b8a4b9e348fda95538aa8dfe0dd02747
41391d5ef78ee1bb8abecb8b19a82cedea49c42e
7070 F20110209_AABQDD lutz_a_Page_085thm.jpg
a48d844ebd14cff92e3c7daa12000a33
7ac72cedcf9cd14c3f7774583876f0ebc37d9740
8352 F20110209_AABQCO lutz_a_Page_062thm.jpg
e13dfde49c8de8e8a4d530b3ecaa9f61
d8aa7aa3e9ebde6ac94be66d8998446ad5e004a6
31673 F20110209_AABPXI lutz_a_Page_046.QC.jpg
31909ebb9356f32aa4ad3f8850b5d0a1
f9e009a552a56d568bf6b5b00d462182acb26187
3201 F20110209_AABPWU lutz_a_Page_168thm.jpg
e691ea040273744729483e055ea4c2a5
baf9e2c2f6821145467c2aa3fd5a1d78728ca032
50838 F20110209_AABPAB lutz_a_Page_041.pro
c07490ac37929139a14576cdb33e6ac7
cdf0e961b17df950ea23dedfce55d2775ef19d73
2073 F20110209_AABOUG lutz_a_Page_070.txt
5e44aebf7246e3730cca40bd0e14d2f2
6cd2e3312b0bd0ae86e78c124a2c98eed65a7275
F20110209_AABOTS lutz_a_Page_055.txt
36e2cbf93757f9e20061a8419d1d74ca
a6214aac9070f3c0f837876c92e59dadcc7c5537
8183 F20110209_AABQCP lutz_a_Page_064thm.jpg
9fc9e28ac172fc1ef046ba1ef0ed95de
f7fea2a63ff779183d9e3a4b9e99495f6a3c032f
29224 F20110209_AABPXJ lutz_a_Page_028.QC.jpg
ba272cae449a921f2887ea2527a29544
7db88804508de2bf7688daab6db55c748795031c
8209 F20110209_AABPWV lutz_a_Page_035thm.jpg
bf5284689664f468181262af7ba855ce
828272d840e89cc23125cff6937832f3a24246c9
1933 F20110209_AABOUH lutz_a_Page_071.txt
7b4d800577f3a179ec9a94ae8a154be3
cb54ec9f78149692ce2fb9a8a47d3a0840e9867c
F20110209_AABOTT lutz_a_Page_056.txt
179d04820ccb6a14b429258c7b8ad5c9
db65a98b14454cb216a7e4f9a60dc5c8329ed804
8449 F20110209_AABQDE lutz_a_Page_086thm.jpg
303b71e607a0973a468d412618952d3d
9b926113bc2922a6d5bce7d3dc4e62a65e0af78e
8656 F20110209_AABQCQ lutz_a_Page_065thm.jpg
585b51d24f59bf9927ddba63603a9618
5c760068c4f2505443d66f0741e260addf10faad
8741 F20110209_AABPXK lutz_a_Page_185thm.jpg
4cf39a19977ddc02117cc45ae56d01c7
ec0c832258a049db55cc878407d4bce91b2bfb3a
34981 F20110209_AABPWW lutz_a_Page_062.QC.jpg
3ae9e9b4803a93c1bc7bfab942926d9b
240d72cf34e5eff294a8a7a9e4060bc0e8798c35
50073 F20110209_AABPAC lutz_a_Page_042.pro
93f22d584af930fd6be9c908aa4398cc
24e9549d0a8a3ace5568cf65b59dbf14ed811041
2009 F20110209_AABOUI lutz_a_Page_072.txt
4daa3d6d0c5f42ec135b0aaa82652bc0
319bc92e4d0d1e76d25931ea5d34483118c36c4a
1929 F20110209_AABOTU lutz_a_Page_057.txt
b9dd1a161fd72862f418d036ba87c2ba
00779c88f20527f270961f40af8cb439d5e112eb
F20110209_AABQDF lutz_a_Page_087thm.jpg
0c1195d923b9efdaf41d42ce8dd08830
a77bc1e97321a190b308a6797e5fb3ba966480eb
8465 F20110209_AABQCR lutz_a_Page_066thm.jpg
fa87f7d6c8d0a0bf369b4710e44c8aff
4773f0eadb7a138c23f4d9853c196aeacfed84ca
8030 F20110209_AABPXL lutz_a_Page_183thm.jpg
a08d7299d50b4663912c5c5d743d14d1
c6aa07b224b71d9c842df92b7757e694e57ec120
29518 F20110209_AABPWX lutz_a_Page_017.QC.jpg
c28609a644a8cbbea9e24c26d8433ade
80df3d210901876c2054d58544ccc2c87518b42d
50968 F20110209_AABPAD lutz_a_Page_043.pro
1c379ed82681671c7c8381e3589d59ad
7c909a9e130f63e3a16cfa202690a9e95e19cc19
1959 F20110209_AABOUJ lutz_a_Page_073.txt
cf29e9297b006b398b80e32835a5b44b
73d0a1aeff6e82cd7d76b4c9ad064fda1dd22dbd
F20110209_AABOTV lutz_a_Page_058.txt
31e379a24b67738216bc94cdfd8b020b
0932b6fb1e262846a0969fc77b4530ad34e1737b
F20110209_AABQDG lutz_a_Page_089thm.jpg
bb21c958771a814739f9d151ff8051e0
d61352e3975e390cbdee7e696e4be0b9d85d9188
8077 F20110209_AABQCS lutz_a_Page_071thm.jpg
98b5d00cad2aff2d564d9138417c0453
cd514eef8a424763af178f63641172bc58b23fb4
32230 F20110209_AABPYA lutz_a_Page_019.QC.jpg
147d9105bd1e572be624894a32eab263
7b10b2365abaca65220f3a865ee7edaeaa27f389
7190 F20110209_AABPXM lutz_a_Page_017thm.jpg
4faa35c6cdf013a889ff29dbcd0e5465
bfbe46c58b778d6993da9977869dee7e0f80699e
53977 F20110209_AABPAE lutz_a_Page_044.pro
0ecbe54a7e3fa107c09e097063a8d156
f3420c56d26475742306f785f0c1a429df75233b
1858 F20110209_AABOUK lutz_a_Page_075.txt
6ebccc0245078c72b1922963c643b74a
71f4de5ff2d65742c3649cdde50fd4e36ff93a24
7113 F20110209_AABQDH lutz_a_Page_091thm.jpg
46fd62d067d4e1182b608761d7eea065
b6f76764c1fdc53652d6f24ad5e20fd248d6a6ba
8397 F20110209_AABQCT lutz_a_Page_072thm.jpg
057e9af71d3dad7acfc2302ecc88f8fb
be77ed147da65722bafb89ebbe4d1109f29a3097
6343 F20110209_AABPYB lutz_a_Page_015thm.jpg
9c24586142a9a4b6c690cac55599a105
e717985717946018b78888f20ed709214b012e5a
8554 F20110209_AABPXN lutz_a_Page_036thm.jpg
11a3744bd51c4995a1e2549c15ffbc89
ba6e2cfeb0432fded10f65b17233c78c12b4d8f4
25738 F20110209_AABPWY lutz_a_Page_011.QC.jpg
059d9582a5c3b5171240d29cbeb6dac7
d9232faa17b1a2f3381f97da432b3303a242e0ec
55087 F20110209_AABPAF lutz_a_Page_045.pro
11b078050c432bd6db9ba773c80115af
1003f54d402eee2f9c81e861d28d6a7b17dff377
F20110209_AABOUL lutz_a_Page_076.txt
30d76d0f94b5d07c5fdcaf513c51d30d
202bbf31621d00a58a972fb8e97afab8438c58f4
2072 F20110209_AABOTW lutz_a_Page_059.txt
a1f49c37d36300324a3d79780923bd0f
031bc2c1ac4323f53b1406d3845873821bea517d
8493 F20110209_AABQDI lutz_a_Page_097thm.jpg
382ec88af55f66304c0d0291adc25bbf
27f2ac72207628c451cbf07ba00d664698d39961
3271 F20110209_AABQCU lutz_a_Page_074thm.jpg
db765e96153fbaa9d68eb2425faf3b3b
cbe3bfb92f295217d11f7ed90809f3b91334fdba
11287 F20110209_AABPYC lutz_a_Page_177.QC.jpg
e709e6a1821ebb00b321a1d9a02ede45
4d6758cba2ab95495a7a4cf4ccc6a9e82915c5a8
7589 F20110209_AABPXO lutz_a_Page_181thm.jpg
7e238c5404ed14f9e066dc95678eb340
23656e7561450455a1eede3e8f9edd45209b2840
26102 F20110209_AABPWZ lutz_a_Page_085.QC.jpg
71643f9874708c0096ba99fd70666a27
b25f78fc0400bc478a516e9f346cc9846dd6f014
47989 F20110209_AABPAG lutz_a_Page_046.pro
52f902bf353bcc9b6542e021e8e1fb22
099c1ecbbbd4f6aa17166762728de87bdc4df0cb
1923 F20110209_AABOVA lutz_a_Page_092.txt
f23f60fc5eb1776eecc1d9cfbd40e77a
358362c6464760c154fc3540b45e2ccad9aa211e
1889 F20110209_AABOUM lutz_a_Page_077.txt
3d12eaf1c529a1c82dde082fe949103d
db05d89786b429d45314369a717b101bdd217225
1961 F20110209_AABOTX lutz_a_Page_060.txt
f1cb1015ba4b10a648e5a1f40279dfbf
d7b5463a60461ac50cefe91de56de29a08b8e1d3
7193 F20110209_AABQDJ lutz_a_Page_098thm.jpg
595eb152be5551ab9ebfe2924af02b93
ef4ff1e7b06aac845b3e3e210bef550ae1a552c5
7134 F20110209_AABQCV lutz_a_Page_076thm.jpg
82f212c83a1cc14346b991658c7617fc
7d90c725a8b1cf3a26400ff59fc02d9d66a5581c
8076 F20110209_AABPYD lutz_a_Page_101thm.jpg
369fab8deb0d70e1781ae46685785e44
5003de14fea3f9e35598f23d2ac78bb805da51fc
32627 F20110209_AABPXP lutz_a_Page_183.QC.jpg
6d354794dae1298ab0e53696f1352d8f
13c8eaa952b77f054a89faabffc9d2c46acaa53b
52726 F20110209_AABPAH lutz_a_Page_048.pro
f7d2d1317d18825b5f8454ae5090de0d
5a8a22817eb2fbe7108ae4bc33fa81fb6b855b91
2084 F20110209_AABOVB lutz_a_Page_093.txt
c9a18549628567f8709bf5f9f6e76ee9
c1e5aba821dbc80aee76ecc178f45b583b904c83
1973 F20110209_AABOUN lutz_a_Page_078.txt
fd74d1745c0523e3bdcbabe9e4d4dd94
bdee7a11c3917535e39548bf8fcd1ae4deb321de
2045 F20110209_AABOTY lutz_a_Page_061.txt
7e752451aafeeae9a6d206e2d6257653
636ee00ed0109705d9dfe209d372daf2061cbcfd
6308 F20110209_AABQDK lutz_a_Page_099thm.jpg
94f9cbaa5b1da154871d3fddf6cb4155
1bd2db7308841b1b51749533a6e15377eab2e831
7594 F20110209_AABQCW lutz_a_Page_078thm.jpg
7bfa17daf56e538efb9390db1bfffd7c
99fabf6e9cecdb84857047cb2f0d4ac604e7ff43
28887 F20110209_AABPYE lutz_a_Page_052.QC.jpg
d49da9b2822d2c3fead7041c970302af
d597c0b54585e77f06cab31b4ad06b4ec885f5a7
1087 F20110209_AABPXQ lutz_a_Page_014thm.jpg
249d3e212d2f177f3afd4771c138e9a4
98e3123d3f0e5e117abd431afc8f4cbf6f1e4517
49125 F20110209_AABPAI lutz_a_Page_049.pro
c94a478553ac8b0076c299bde338c74a
380fa46119c89728cc65372bdb2de8cca09e2228
2179 F20110209_AABOVC lutz_a_Page_094.txt
de7e5550af31887d2a1d553da3be6686
faf9a769ac0ff02972c9b02551a63bb26ee8324d
F20110209_AABOUO lutz_a_Page_079.txt
4886726c0a7ada7eedd31e71950e4fc3
851b7364c8db1434004a9500c6826d42f9f41798
2051 F20110209_AABOTZ lutz_a_Page_062.txt
5a40eae975839274b9cce85463096de2
52def9d2bbf65020accf592292f40373aff910d4
6807 F20110209_AABQEA lutz_a_Page_123thm.jpg
23448c7d0ce1b37d183f3a4ef7d64ac6
8b9d8252d02d8dc051235f81335cadb8a67b2b26
6275 F20110209_AABQDL lutz_a_Page_100thm.jpg
a9e179ee5199fd6c6fb13cee977abafa
10d95236817e9c5dc4eba3c729f49d992bc48046
8585 F20110209_AABQCX lutz_a_Page_079thm.jpg
fa9e90d89a3e9c766623500a2c5d0376
f184c078e39da02b97507e79bcf83cb902deda93
28977 F20110209_AABPYF lutz_a_Page_003.QC.jpg
2ff78b7996f8964ae34f90dec36898ca
81e3bb4f3474009ce3d5ee6bddb5e74564540ca6
3626 F20110209_AABPXR lutz_a_Page_163thm.jpg
49025a37a6ab6c8e92ec7a5d29989e2a
5be6b9c31ca1589c816392262d71e415d73219d7
53115 F20110209_AABPAJ lutz_a_Page_050.pro
4698b5a1df09c00dc4b6c4e5b0b9d24f
91179764c08d207907282674a1a42614726e7acc
2425 F20110209_AABOVD lutz_a_Page_095.txt
bfdaecb802d71e4d8a7018f08bddc033
63d515ec81eb42f161316bad03fbbcd751c679f5
1964 F20110209_AABOUP lutz_a_Page_080.txt
6fe313603821ea30c2a077684d67ee88
068d83a7f5b98c4d2ab92f2ee8c17666956892c7
3093 F20110209_AABQEB lutz_a_Page_127thm.jpg
f5633cdaeb713f336f1b7338bb532fd7
322be1450871c172eb946577827a259329ea3cda
7619 F20110209_AABQDM lutz_a_Page_102thm.jpg
63b7cd2aa565ca2605bbe12c9832833c
d415cdafa38f6e7f2be84d069997ed2c4ec8a58d
8083 F20110209_AABQCY lutz_a_Page_080thm.jpg
703b5d204996858887ab1ffa65ddbfa2
58f986d3fd67493041e06ed823641c85abcd9a4e
620 F20110209_AABPYG lutz_a_Page_002thm.jpg
e88a2a17c3643053d686ea3b9327a7e0
4697d928c92dfd774032068f39444bcb215069d2
6871 F20110209_AABPXS lutz_a_Page_009thm.jpg
b9b2ea6b239932d58601479c3f7d591b
d4afe92668fb0754674887b9206f79047581f335
51900 F20110209_AABPAK lutz_a_Page_051.pro
9a2e14621f901706e5df20ae102cb478
258416625d4eb419b9bc379bc0081e870c4cd76b
F20110209_AABOVE lutz_a_Page_096.txt
4571abf5c4b60f7ba7626b2f215316fb
7be4e15d52ac421c441ad6051703f5b1747406e2
2006 F20110209_AABOUQ lutz_a_Page_081.txt
627068c9bbe95f53a7e4d27b9ee77065
eb3197cbf8069f2f13808de2e181fdc769ac7fc6
7718 F20110209_AABQEC lutz_a_Page_129thm.jpg
2450128e085b128b44b81a1b4da6edb1
da780561fb1d15f570ac220a0c38c5ae20d0f97b
7848 F20110209_AABQDN lutz_a_Page_103thm.jpg
84b6521ab99aa8de24c35494d9526406
ae262afbd7acc3bdb4011dd652cecd0ff48a3203
8423 F20110209_AABQCZ lutz_a_Page_081thm.jpg
4099a7709e1dcd6ca049bd3b8610dcb0
18338f0c3eaf4fa7e48ea0dcaa542f469469e4ba
301818 F20110209_AABPYH UFE0015641_00001.xml
4746b52ab8ea8c279ac49195340f0609
bc35059b85ed00da93e4675cc5a1cbc517207423
8687 F20110209_AABPXT lutz_a_Page_155thm.jpg
058e14515adc03c8b2c817c71c8cea94
296eb4cab9f36d7c86a78adfb4bbe49205891958
47484 F20110209_AABPAL lutz_a_Page_052.pro
ed63655ad0b08a921a1655d64652cbdd
35c9497b694a953ffb07dafb3eeb721a78162ef2
2053 F20110209_AABOVF lutz_a_Page_097.txt
c6f5b78e5188ec7740eb95fa3bc66a90
39988bc8accbb63cef20711280313d977903ab78
2007 F20110209_AABOUR lutz_a_Page_082.txt
3b73493b9815e17e3eb18c1003ec98a8
ec5acd574a2accfd73e44b6dc51078888b39fb7b
49063 F20110209_AABPBA lutz_a_Page_071.pro
c8d9fe995712a18f8235425acf08c907
cae1634904a806ab10b0557ac4a63dd45e0b5928
8342 F20110209_AABQED lutz_a_Page_130thm.jpg
22034174463cee8380f87f33c8602f45
8e0420ecfd6fc133a17af30b773166a8c99b2687
7330 F20110209_AABQDO lutz_a_Page_106thm.jpg
571c75717e1cb8dfec8f02c57ba1afa2
7a99d01539632ce4e69e30757b25856dc6275205
18658 F20110209_AABPYI lutz_a_Page_006.QC.jpg
4d29a7dbe7ccb77238a665925c3b79d0
f62c255a1d096323842c58e53a4386a30d9ff8ac
8349 F20110209_AABPXU lutz_a_Page_050thm.jpg
e8ab8924640d9ccd5cba8fb6e7c5cb23
a987505722769d88bd15fcc916a417286b387dbd
44745 F20110209_AABPAM lutz_a_Page_053.pro
b59c52a6f97f236cafcc6e66088a4159
1b1e079b2232b7bbea47994dabee9fcb870d9b08
2742 F20110209_AABOVG lutz_a_Page_098.txt
664c0ddaa8ef0e50d14122d013944b3f
f1300fdd23601737cc3ff8eeac5bc6f02e3d69c8
1688 F20110209_AABOUS lutz_a_Page_083.txt
12024f4738fd406d930d3dcd8c794c7c
c7207c38b59a5dc9b8b11ca632261adfb62e71fb
51161 F20110209_AABPBB lutz_a_Page_072.pro
0b8589a486ed5832a363e3f90588a406
959fedbbb793b893e8955503460f5b33abdb646c
8588 F20110209_AABQEE lutz_a_Page_132thm.jpg
7c27909ebc2dcff2b217a1b45b05bc62
c29b36eff0605efe184b2464c7901425483a28be
3940 F20110209_AABQDP lutz_a_Page_108thm.jpg
3debab42fa1371add77faceb53aeee4a
498ec0a12d949301a6974a40443c9c1354bb4529
31099 F20110209_AABPYJ lutz_a_Page_007.QC.jpg
95f78b441a3d54c088d82e2f27ce4708
a77ed4f76ed14a6deac224280e27ec019a761ff4
34081 F20110209_AABPXV lutz_a_Page_132.QC.jpg
b339c24f7ff3e3043743ab1ee704e276
d8217c74401a0e2984e86aa405acb2641df3a795
2077 F20110209_AABOVH lutz_a_Page_099.txt
742901fcc0e7e9102a7988165d25c762
ba91b751facb6cd0411de77934322ff2e3be7236
F20110209_AABOUT lutz_a_Page_084.txt
bf32864024ffd0daa1f89bf207d30ab4
b3f6501d493d5921755d1ddad3ad14f6bc5d99dc
49917 F20110209_AABPBC lutz_a_Page_073.pro
8d7d996fc2302965419b05a4f26115ad
cbc7becb3915ed200703debd020f3da86ad87a17
50553 F20110209_AABPAN lutz_a_Page_054.pro
08379602dd483584d2cc2f8e217e9085
614f927ca76b49f3bde357c74b510897c68d731a
8314 F20110209_AABQDQ lutz_a_Page_110thm.jpg
2e0fe3f06bb725f862f339361118ac9b
45b349e3c492f858b9e79e2aba71c5ad177172a8
33484 F20110209_AABPYK lutz_a_Page_012.QC.jpg
a3333bb4341d50ff70e93b735b74edae
8390f0d7d161eaaeb6b29fc78e95f3ae28a91bf4
6803 F20110209_AABPXW lutz_a_Page_008thm.jpg
8c9e007e0d4c931932ee651b8026b867
2aac528f33f40588dc819a036f5c7e6f86ead8c5
2304 F20110209_AABOVI lutz_a_Page_100.txt
d6ae35d685aea9d442f114f15ae68f84
ea6d2cd5b7365081512bcdb9a80cb33e2f448ce4
1730 F20110209_AABOUU lutz_a_Page_085.txt
3d25ba7785b6cd5d542fdd2f61857ceb
a551ce05a4debfe89525f1c15cf74d8f98fd8158
49336 F20110209_AABPAO lutz_a_Page_055.pro
9e88e95bb5e28a225c0eca23426a8ab7
187d69397403ef14f2a76385aea65cd1c3451846
8358 F20110209_AABQEF lutz_a_Page_133thm.jpg
b9827465d0d6ba28d0349625cecdf803
117f64cc8e8884869a83e2833e29bada8ac37b80
7839 F20110209_AABQDR lutz_a_Page_111thm.jpg
0c5f42a2bf853e359a1c5dec679b6e8e
d008202c11df682d078ddcaf41163684c161bbfa
3073 F20110209_AABPYL lutz_a_Page_014.QC.jpg
4453610a915f1b683f70e128d317d31d
b944c4be652b707afa7302156cce02d832f36c08
10104 F20110209_AABPXX lutz_a_Page_159.QC.jpg
ef1e83d35f0925d04fb5026ff8e0be1a
612932de216f5eeea30eb34ed8167b5522fb0068
2016 F20110209_AABOVJ lutz_a_Page_101.txt
d96e25bb01fc7e9e60605797e87598c0
6e6f1fe38dfddc4bebb17313e1f3e210bac5f577
2003 F20110209_AABOUV lutz_a_Page_086.txt
ef5115dd5d2af189d006470488504b54
a57ec1ab061cf9e5be1f5cced987087304ad5825
15901 F20110209_AABPBD lutz_a_Page_074.pro
610a326ae233124ce3dbac61727314c5
fbe221654f6ea75fa1b84e6cfcb33efa76ad07c3
48968 F20110209_AABPAP lutz_a_Page_057.pro
6b38d4e344bc70e6b83c21771690a489
ac83ee821dcf405c4e7a0e0bd8f1399c4a5818bb
8373 F20110209_AABQEG lutz_a_Page_134thm.jpg
4601771da9296fd572afbee153ac6e51
b4ba24162a5d2719d683249870f8d06c9bc839ea
F20110209_AABQDS lutz_a_Page_112thm.jpg
ce1b51109df4750fc12f71ce9bf0f2b2
f8d8eb969834bfcda9847a20a542a0994481b6e6
35184 F20110209_AABPZA lutz_a_Page_059.QC.jpg
1607da5fa36e4aa2347e1c3e68329779
b3e43967cd1656829b795dfb634a7d50aefff449
24962 F20110209_AABPYM lutz_a_Page_015.QC.jpg
ce279263425848c53ee9fbdb521a99cc
292d3082ec9d8207519f894eeeab2afa8bd99b35
34577 F20110209_AABPXY lutz_a_Page_138.QC.jpg
5763f1e9c11bcd2949dd40d6a189dd51
37e1385f3baf40a76cb2f8d6d3e308c61fe1eae4
1976 F20110209_AABOVK lutz_a_Page_102.txt
f8ab62e815508f72d7cc4c4eb767b896
74d51d299f819a0594ae9d40e74ae894a01b75c0
2043 F20110209_AABOUW lutz_a_Page_087.txt
c9e48816215a00978cf7a87ab3709335
bdce01f4dd4f3b16a83592025db6f68aaabdf0b4
41481 F20110209_AABPBE lutz_a_Page_075.pro
9670f5e207485f9a32a4dc2bfe080758
cb741b9e9f7fed02692c21b882113626e90223f0
50445 F20110209_AABPAQ lutz_a_Page_058.pro
615ef6fa2c0e126cbf1b3c14849768a8
faace24f95f5c9b47c12e9f539e1f865c7758875
8019 F20110209_AABQEH lutz_a_Page_135thm.jpg
d3e2874e1ffe7c0788502f5a2c190658
bb0e1c224bba26cc10e732db54e79e0202803c0c
8681 F20110209_AABQDT lutz_a_Page_113thm.jpg
ff0b2800ec900e7caa72025b2a4ff0f7
db2b5e2cfff0988ef8d766f1d9a60eb028c7f273
33144 F20110209_AABPZB lutz_a_Page_060.QC.jpg
bb5ffe657a7f532c05a595fd563e7751
4c3dd0b2f51a1ad8dded0603901ba08aecfd0ab8
29636 F20110209_AABPYN lutz_a_Page_016.QC.jpg
25f8fa5c9568cc5cee4d7732fb738e79
6ebf9932ef894ec941f0e39a91aad948ac3b0006
2303 F20110209_AABOVL lutz_a_Page_103.txt
e42024ec905c3c5bf8fd7dbb8bec4f72
b264be6939f295622d12fe73c35510f7cd3048f4
46628 F20110209_AABPBF lutz_a_Page_076.pro
f4a6f34778b5d9ab60df0d0ab27b5f45
7645af7bfc6e9eab5a4cf4276d29925b24b8c721
49830 F20110209_AABPAR lutz_a_Page_060.pro
03b0763c4b3163ecd55afd864d69ca04
474dd632a81882877325d9e4c71fea87260ada6c
8582 F20110209_AABQEI lutz_a_Page_137thm.jpg
34b3a1abec8b100a7229204140613c30
c90bd83c5449f06cf2c034ffab0cc7c5f29a729d
7971 F20110209_AABQDU lutz_a_Page_114thm.jpg
67d0c3e9f8cd02245df868380eb6f36e
6d1947730b73fc6d546e101b8ae29b78267ef8c9
34956 F20110209_AABPZC lutz_a_Page_061.QC.jpg
265f47d9d01f934768f1e2ed76fd85a7
fc64764a54b32c288b133543280fb80311005c8b
33629 F20110209_AABPYO lutz_a_Page_018.QC.jpg
f33a6c3b2f7c0d86103f58f98e4dae07
7c200e8416bc0d776451e48b669604d427b52909
8273 F20110209_AABPXZ lutz_a_Page_030thm.jpg
8a05674838f571977f8295fde71416bb
1658aaba4076e181431a7274f5598352ecd09fb7
2494 F20110209_AABOVM lutz_a_Page_104.txt
9acc3630c0dfbec561bc464b52a64ec4
943efb6793e4c10a404db109f286500c46b6935f
1873 F20110209_AABOUX lutz_a_Page_088.txt
9c020a70c8d16a196975ec4c2e12925d
d4405516254b9ee7afa845f2771341f44954ccbc
46897 F20110209_AABPBG lutz_a_Page_077.pro
39b178bd52fbe4657858620ce82a5aca
a739356742b289bb6c6237c8ed1f3fadbe213a8c
2189 F20110209_AABOWA lutz_a_Page_118.txt
958a815fa374d1cad86de11e38e69618
9d07e7aa67c15cc8d6aaca1436cf823a5c17e093
51875 F20110209_AABPAS lutz_a_Page_061.pro
60e69b39b143d0f109e89d5de8a5028f
29e6f37f87de9fe27dc82dc77f40f2fba05349af
F20110209_AABQEJ lutz_a_Page_138thm.jpg
4fbb912bc8789fc15cec53cecf1c08e1
03909a987568a3c147d5e73f0a1dd36ed3850eb3
8037 F20110209_AABQDV lutz_a_Page_115thm.jpg
ee6089a99e3b2f6b3fd0cb2079a4242a
7a97f1ac70e9f7c9ee87e4032c72a25da616cd68
30453 F20110209_AABPZD lutz_a_Page_063.QC.jpg
fe3475d0e03b285866bf453a0c44031b
bad76d76c5292bc7f4a7197a8a3f3725efa17dce
30469 F20110209_AABPYP lutz_a_Page_024.QC.jpg
2b81c20e6bbb1ef65ec5246d5a57cdab
0d7f3b184dff92a77e87986774f84d3e29cfb360
2260 F20110209_AABOVN lutz_a_Page_105.txt
deccd467e8b6899d80f42fbe8e1e43fd
f48b5ec023eaabd7b8e9e024665c84bcdb7f3c78
F20110209_AABOUY lutz_a_Page_089.txt
5323d856eee88b49e5fa6337c2a62623
9c01a6dabed2cb9e4dbc8ef42ddab4908d545166
47069 F20110209_AABPBH lutz_a_Page_078.pro
aead96856bd4dc8713c22c04a1b413ad
34ebaec6b1586d85be0f2584b1e7ceb62775bb07
1789 F20110209_AABOWB lutz_a_Page_120.txt
29ed5a728a380db8a13fd0ff58229965
b4cac9147b46c22ded6ee15489379c4e58063653
52306 F20110209_AABPAT lutz_a_Page_062.pro
8f7bc8784ea7ee92df4967ef84b841e9
e4481baff5a2a508365c2f620507b1dedc3ce4eb
8005 F20110209_AABQEK lutz_a_Page_139thm.jpg
de8253a7c2eb0bf616a41f92db3a3640
a4e1cf00b8ec4039b70eeae3dc296e747e190f2d
8122 F20110209_AABQDW lutz_a_Page_116thm.jpg
3471164ad25f4435d4351a8af5277e12
060d5aa29e246ee17bd042b12f9c19bc295639c6
33091 F20110209_AABPZE lutz_a_Page_064.QC.jpg
5cacbe797488c52bf201bc80769f938a
57ceb07a0f55deed56ec5276a1ac92c5989128fd
33202 F20110209_AABPYQ lutz_a_Page_032.QC.jpg
34ff32f17688f3965bcf7e7573b05c00
0331c32367523f55d9f678ea679352ed095c5d7a
1692 F20110209_AABOVO lutz_a_Page_106.txt
b0ed4065a2d24d7720e4f4b2903de6c7
7245ac228f328d86670b5e63e35a69dc5e99688b
1588 F20110209_AABOUZ lutz_a_Page_090.txt
b7fb945807e23f83801efa9e43175f95
cac0df964d708cc4de140eaf8f4bca83ddbb850e
50075 F20110209_AABPBI lutz_a_Page_079.pro
a79c56a0d01cb5e27c89656a3b71add8
d657a0888338f8656c063196c54d8ee13714d597
F20110209_AABOWC lutz_a_Page_122.txt
5d99fce5dd5951eb61c28d17d5ac4f0c
6e6a6356ad4096e4ebcf8dc166bb0698dd64e4e7
46607 F20110209_AABPAU lutz_a_Page_063.pro
817da91d123a55fefa5b112c9ff4a493
d315a14fb63ef490698ea864ab182e997918e1d6
3090 F20110209_AABQFA lutz_a_Page_177thm.jpg
0a4ac6ef7f8dfd69a283291cfa6af626
3d53c531edd1ca0c1396d85365694eebe2c1409d
8384 F20110209_AABQEL lutz_a_Page_140thm.jpg
231495afc3f787921812bf3922580bf6
57c14d3d96333824f61052dde4cdfb7abbc06b07
8267 F20110209_AABQDX lutz_a_Page_117thm.jpg
18f35546da42fcf22e3d2ecff5e0a446
0339b81cc06bb6bb1fa256aa65c2e158b9fb368e
33373 F20110209_AABPZF lutz_a_Page_065.QC.jpg
93c8c669d759bebf3d8dc32355fe65d2
ee74d62e3df22033c8a4f40ee13dc36847cef010
33102 F20110209_AABPYR lutz_a_Page_033.QC.jpg
196529bfe0e5f945be7adc15d2400e4e
2f733edb0d7db6e4c7f59cfe484351db478188d0
2292 F20110209_AABOVP lutz_a_Page_107.txt
129ddfb51edbf59bf4504b8093ad322d
3ad2437235957e08a2672ee1e9c5180fda240617
49881 F20110209_AABPBJ lutz_a_Page_080.pro
5b0ab6cdd202de3d92be0f5b8bae2bd0
2ecfd3168ada7c8e709408f2b38128ae98ffefda
2562 F20110209_AABOWD lutz_a_Page_123.txt
b1e353549c9a247be7a66955cd96b716
32b441ffa60a284d1e7a960ba49bdab2af22880d
49555 F20110209_AABPAV lutz_a_Page_064.pro
87360ba7d2e76f077aae2ae710854eaa
7b926931d537c7c675d1c3e29f6e514e8f5ad299
3309 F20110209_AABQFB lutz_a_Page_178thm.jpg
9b934c2bbfa1e004dea0f2a2644154f9
ef4c47dc8f081cac8c2f72d4d0df83fe640cbbf6
8312 F20110209_AABQEM lutz_a_Page_145thm.jpg
61e58b4ade6c03b74834256139976701
795425bb7a7310df5c105ffa0653dcbb3ced3865
8112 F20110209_AABQDY lutz_a_Page_118thm.jpg
014fa05972373c993408c9f1b15dab43
3ec40a6119b5d70725fd59760c560c3fe75b71c4
34128 F20110209_AABPZG lutz_a_Page_066.QC.jpg
558e627b74e8b8063c0739fcab481e66
4e1a4a868f0535ac10257489f2857d963aa0f040
33778 F20110209_AABPYS lutz_a_Page_036.QC.jpg
a8b13573b1cc4f023100ae1ad917afff
78da30a29f0638deefbe4ff51581b4c46afa791b
1700 F20110209_AABOVQ lutz_a_Page_108.txt
ce795ba1f5d1ca319f7eff22999326ba
5b83f89f6c35060ecf24eec9e790c4a71a9f9bec
50967 F20110209_AABPBK lutz_a_Page_081.pro
74c2f840e793686bc2ca8ece86a904a1
03e8600cf5c1d3b47e06f770cf12446c269e550e
F20110209_AABOWE lutz_a_Page_124.txt
4ad2c6d5b2ba78e0fb0e753579442f32
5e29535d5fe571c256a57b4d3b3641ad5c1a1151
51312 F20110209_AABPAW lutz_a_Page_065.pro
be24d7f461d0bc43c0267056b7aeb928
5ac3a2a468899b3fe2e2bae05bbcae28120ec04f
8292 F20110209_AABQFC lutz_a_Page_182thm.jpg
039bb93f5034019f922154f108a280c9
2fe5f83c2eb99b97a967909a7d60e29437dcd3fe
8040 F20110209_AABQEN lutz_a_Page_148thm.jpg
909dc8744519bfb520a218b7c0d668b0
3fedf25ee4c38223c366eb44afab321b6b623023
8174 F20110209_AABQDZ lutz_a_Page_119thm.jpg
3488174b5ca74d4937c6d48cc20037fc
4d32c6f967fa1ef2b387e82ec530fa467794cd1d
34227 F20110209_AABPZH lutz_a_Page_067.QC.jpg
5f8c0b1520260b92775ff004df681997
829c8a13eecf58d41f70e936919a00f80a930c8e
32510 F20110209_AABPYT lutz_a_Page_043.QC.jpg
8a4f84e4009fbbd9423e849cf78481cf
2f8a2e8cb3837f1e053f16fdf36b82de5b230bc7
2167 F20110209_AABOVR lutz_a_Page_109.txt
29bc1aa0fd99727afa708d478e8de671
95a8b0bdf324f3d442505a057817d135f2166342
46851 F20110209_AABPCA lutz_a_Page_101.pro
6d3026b64f8c6b7fd97c8cb51579c68a
eb401b60e93ddbc89b3c7478d335d85f4a0e37a9
51172 F20110209_AABPBL lutz_a_Page_082.pro
8e49b5e570827d02894b3f5b25c3dcb4
774942221136f9746b36044a0908db71abff2bfc
1990 F20110209_AABOWF lutz_a_Page_125.txt
12f1d6c9b043cffae7ae6cc7ea3b9eb6
9f43d9dbbb54b33318072580e8fae8ecadf6f250
49066 F20110209_AABPAX lutz_a_Page_068.pro
d3df0f2b78818acd832c3e12322ea6ee
33ae637e3541dcb8c90ff30a1b51136cb76d5101
8457 F20110209_AABQFD lutz_a_Page_186thm.jpg
01db6f1e188adbc6837ee353b31a51a9
b1f33b45be25023dc6e475d86e7f060aabbf6006
8275 F20110209_AABQEO lutz_a_Page_149thm.jpg
98007b52bba74026fcda25f045cd140c
202972685dd7ab01b1ef5e5c4aa10cef1b4f3fea
33239 F20110209_AABPZI lutz_a_Page_069.QC.jpg
56624cd76ab4cb7ab965da58aa0f27ab
35ee955931ac96d203ac74e3f3f0d67bc5df2af8
34619 F20110209_AABPYU lutz_a_Page_045.QC.jpg
3d9331fe1e4cdc603bbad849eb91032d
8b15adc1a4a868cc45a77505ae4f3f36a871a5b6
2054 F20110209_AABOVS lutz_a_Page_110.txt
e3981a75c8582d2fecfe52b588c97bcd
34de9531780a77061dd662c9744c169d4938a613
47631 F20110209_AABPCB lutz_a_Page_102.pro
c87078d0887d591ef427049bfac18782
737d9b14a82197229db6e49bb5c7421f9255080c
42090 F20110209_AABPBM lutz_a_Page_083.pro
9532a273f1cff04552e91f60d30ea8a2
f065f59ae003ec15e3126fad6edbae70534cb500
181 F20110209_AABOWG lutz_a_Page_126.txt
c547bb2b324d603b46c49815a866538d
7b1737b793372c83412d69a42f3c509aac61398a
50568 F20110209_AABPAY lutz_a_Page_069.pro
ae4b245c46c673ba175af68159105dfb
0eb192db7d1a6d4f2c709ec6dfb55d5e7a2ddd0f
4936 F20110209_AABQFE lutz_a_Page_189thm.jpg
82eb624b145627459f5891456fe6021f
31d9e32fdacc969cb95d6c2b19f94df60d110872
7994 F20110209_AABQEP lutz_a_Page_152thm.jpg
2fbbe88d996bcb8ae5e9dc9927fd5ac8
929e082d3f02fdd5009302fca490a275e019b919
35428 F20110209_AABPZJ lutz_a_Page_070.QC.jpg
2993af521cf0aa3e9a70958582a76522
ad162522878b8a63639b7d38eaf92718496dff26
34257 F20110209_AABPYV lutz_a_Page_047.QC.jpg
fcb3a66df3561daf278442e02f6a6c5d
720001eacfeb33ff101d428b641642a4c7c4f97e
2057 F20110209_AABOVT lutz_a_Page_111.txt
d068a1888589f8ba78d8994082d04646
a8af65b2eea16c4473a14339cb2ba28ebef3199e
50413 F20110209_AABPCC lutz_a_Page_103.pro
a5af22a3db4838999017df7278af1c35
10dc6979b84cec2f0d671ae1f7ffafdaa23f81a4
49969 F20110209_AABPBN lutz_a_Page_084.pro
13e63fe209bd2ace3db51e3c0d308a71
dca02fd0125a020640a2a473145637188ec8f676
1604 F20110209_AABOWH lutz_a_Page_127.txt
32b2906550fbb7075496416b6cb6b5ac
4d50a906304e3d480b764c9223e64cb38ff2c04b
52955 F20110209_AABPAZ lutz_a_Page_070.pro
698dcc2c203e66be7eec852a160f72e2
568eaf664010d79c15d7a13577eb5010057037db
8894 F20110209_AABQEQ lutz_a_Page_154thm.jpg
316db4a4496ce1946b30fcf3c69d3b58
5815cc061713852911d528d0bda670de11215582
34413 F20110209_AABPZK lutz_a_Page_072.QC.jpg
dd0d05512a667ab66639ac515ce92280
6a449de7d95675bfd57c3a55765f7be2df703547
32168 F20110209_AABPYW lutz_a_Page_049.QC.jpg
e55b2ecb1c84f9c2aa430e48dc21ce16
6ff023daa65e7076604d485ae653112c18be124b
2204 F20110209_AABOVU lutz_a_Page_112.txt
41c66e25633a993c1c3ae0986be7bea8
8ab0e86d125c2606200cd8574586c5635666cade
48329 F20110209_AABPCD lutz_a_Page_104.pro
69d1c3d9f6fc9250eb0f7d6f916eade2
dc3855399c9e1027d06b93244746908baeee2af3
42229 F20110209_AABPBO lutz_a_Page_085.pro
c6fb9da3551b4c506e0c9dec036099eb
d6d41fe26f1e678b2b1404de801e4b9397d73df1
1674 F20110209_AABOWI lutz_a_Page_128.txt
10524bc05e8ad046526355908849610b
fd0d10b63dc915e8a66150699d7afc8c497e77de
5099 F20110209_AABQER lutz_a_Page_157thm.jpg
fae661408494e3f37d9557aed3bb398d
6256340c65ea8f01d8b7e095b88ddb50216d50fd
33576 F20110209_AABPZL lutz_a_Page_073.QC.jpg
89465444578a2b42325740c865b74bf7
0bb88c10c466d7b7586cc076f1b045109b3d23f0
33445 F20110209_AABPYX lutz_a_Page_054.QC.jpg
22ea1c0a89118f6599a5fb1587daa887
7a72e962c6c587365d540c0e67f2fe4e1b8a4057
2228 F20110209_AABOVV lutz_a_Page_113.txt
8051653c93a0da7a80aa594a22303992
448f422200542cbaa85217c4ff936d9e7cfa1b2a
50910 F20110209_AABPBP lutz_a_Page_086.pro
da04d5b0db59f7034fdcdbf048b54605
9c9e5ae1438042c3fcb82217340dab8e06a0e16f
2434 F20110209_AABOWJ lutz_a_Page_129.txt
36193f85148151789ed0b41f89ab69fd
ecfddfbc29689540a4ebbb73fb5d9323762087de
1937 F20110209_AABQES lutz_a_Page_160thm.jpg
d7092fdac0204372f09b50219e5b63a8
85910bdc93fd65fe5834c15d48f4355c938c3733
11740 F20110209_AABPZM lutz_a_Page_074.QC.jpg
5c8df93060b1bf65f34f86caaf86350f
3cf81b4d23efafc5ad7584b709ac06baf02a6399
33915 F20110209_AABPYY lutz_a_Page_056.QC.jpg
56652e2c750a03f1d14403f7a511a41f
ec15ef50d98e7329ab552e5fe9f38658989d9da9
2221 F20110209_AABOVW lutz_a_Page_114.txt
f625db73231f2f76f1dc3ad8ea7db8ec
a2c04912a53241c31183bc5af8fd3ba10d46ad0d
51415 F20110209_AABPCE lutz_a_Page_107.pro
125f68c737e4c9d65c8cd6da402d2b13
b960af35c709dbec225d81b6cc7eb7d00ef81dee
51308 F20110209_AABPBQ lutz_a_Page_087.pro
b1c7edc81ec968b9e096cc6a2104fc8c
3cc266306d0caf969f7f27a4245378fab28c8d95
F20110209_AABOWK lutz_a_Page_130.txt
3a5230e58a8a670336dc4c4c3da74341
72269deb5a5e748475cccdf21d041f1a7c6bfb7d
2283 F20110209_AABQET lutz_a_Page_161thm.jpg
b4ed278a371eb6e3ff1e3ba15ce424eb
efbf2248346298c56bc6e269ebe24ac74e3facf3
32375 F20110209_AABPZN lutz_a_Page_077.QC.jpg
3d25363e4466d2d0b01ab13a952b318d
2920a3227cf8b946f6cb975fd4f27e66091e8e67
34312 F20110209_AABPYZ lutz_a_Page_058.QC.jpg
d30e2e9cfbe95ea4e1c7d01e2a85608a
2d16105840d4a2d8081e592fb8b3ddd3e2fda3e7
2092 F20110209_AABOVX lutz_a_Page_115.txt
72bcfc54734a244d120bf1ca670f41df
ce6e15fc1aa7ecd245522ad12671fdcdd9cfd701
38290 F20110209_AABPCF lutz_a_Page_108.pro
2746778164024d43f6cf270ce3f53038
f44d0983e76c7919298a9451a9c5b5f2a4855cc4
38854 F20110209_AABPBR lutz_a_Page_090.pro
f3b2a6bc703374c6b08cbe000e571855
20b2911bb3033fba2cbb8d39d33ab2bc7c279258
F20110209_AABOWL lutz_a_Page_131.txt
24f88311a0a04a544a770e2b037d5d89
5e7d45aec44fa855b161a572e5329b4856c804fb
2466 F20110209_AABQEU lutz_a_Page_162thm.jpg
c930c40f63974ffcc25bfb6837f08d06
e079da48b02a2367db217687dbc5e25264130d04
29363 F20110209_AABPZO lutz_a_Page_078.QC.jpg
48e96ebd56d27525ec1624ae3c652c38
06f301997c719d934e9df3b60b063635844c684c
50002 F20110209_AABPCG lutz_a_Page_109.pro
b36cebe756945fc5b29b857a48eff676
903c66c18555205ee4b93c193a721d135115b154
1774 F20110209_AABOXA lutz_a_Page_147.txt
925d3f7f84bd3e5b53bac249260ea299
d620fb5afcbf8acb4c84667663ab3ed5339a3cdd
42455 F20110209_AABPBS lutz_a_Page_091.pro
a46473082e09e2dba25a95d8235ee2f4
5bdd8484824e2ef658b76efb73e4304145ab4f94
2037 F20110209_AABOWM lutz_a_Page_132.txt
08b7b90dfd36a2837f20f06bbe50729d
9f608006da9a6d8e178f127bb8e166ae8e3a503e
1188 F20110209_AABQEV lutz_a_Page_164thm.jpg
c6fdc3bf763614253fd578a86b0cff98
231e2ad39daf53805bebbff54d94be4b244de601
31707 F20110209_AABPZP lutz_a_Page_080.QC.jpg
d5b843304ad44094eec7df34726c7126
0a3863064ed0e301af43b91618c801674ed532d6
F20110209_AABOVY lutz_a_Page_116.txt
b570d67b461cb5688e0fbd1f0ed1ee99
1571828949383ea8e8c730317f8d0043e0abf24e
49842 F20110209_AABPCH lutz_a_Page_110.pro
df161ba8eda9fd4755c86532c533e378
6653d75291096d6655f1d28dc1afbfa59b937ed9
1957 F20110209_AABOXB lutz_a_Page_148.txt
ecc96e3c0252ffef953641bc4cbe17e5
ef5873908a47b6cca3ee762e2060f8f6c2f6d0e8
48689 F20110209_AABPBT lutz_a_Page_092.pro
81b25b084793bb70ed7790d996518cf5
a7a874c7ef40d4b720178e5ab8304b27c4e62324
1912 F20110209_AABOWN lutz_a_Page_134.txt
c16fa046e03c505330f84d28dc0083a2
8fffc3cada45a02b161f768b0288b24c3a6d7b2f
3131 F20110209_AABQEW lutz_a_Page_166thm.jpg
c446866a7520e4cf90aa252e6ef62ea6
5e8bd2d59e2a587a201f91d3e1833a11bf9303e7
33191 F20110209_AABPZQ lutz_a_Page_082.QC.jpg
55fca2c52556c8234ed25aca0c8a6961
8e63e3aef6299850b68fbf00a204331e6cbf1452
2127 F20110209_AABOVZ lutz_a_Page_117.txt
2f3b5aff9c9cda403f3682fa17410424
92943c5f26eb737df8c885669c7307c294e3131c
49645 F20110209_AABPCI lutz_a_Page_111.pro
547d05cbbd77170977f89bdd2d7954f2
2a9293d46052164af83d0169eff7302b7d9355ef
F20110209_AABOXC lutz_a_Page_149.txt
d75d34183e43f12061d6b635f65f712e
38affe233932d443411fa780e7020fdea374d68b
34743 F20110209_AABPBU lutz_a_Page_093.pro
490e5656957b7ee076c2eb2d4708a3db
81c2c0c64fbf8f979ca7ed3edf83e3473371aa3a
1927 F20110209_AABOWO lutz_a_Page_135.txt
bc56e17addc37ff8aeafb6fc99271f73
1dbadf7f39e6e7099df7a082254855fc005aaf0b
1718 F20110209_AABQEX lutz_a_Page_170thm.jpg
77589c76325a3285ba969d84eb62f904
3944b4e87400cde56c111d969bc3ee3110990369
33055 F20110209_AABPZR lutz_a_Page_086.QC.jpg
d519aa2923426fe2541b385ca111128d
ef83a4b64c79c6817976d0a0685e546dd23cf25f
54382 F20110209_AABPCJ lutz_a_Page_113.pro
8908e0c7b5f701d4cabea36e447196ec
fee6b6df0b5b30ced5e800be5fcf749c4710f7aa
1999 F20110209_AABOXD lutz_a_Page_150.txt
446a225a6d2c764287ad310569514188
1322b5fb0c35f223a2ab3befe99f68bc9efc39dc
44998 F20110209_AABPBV lutz_a_Page_094.pro
126c516eae59cb550db95b665ccf94ab
d7e7a4537c09b6a9954fe9f22f4a9339bd80e1e1
1503 F20110209_AABOWP lutz_a_Page_136.txt
0eceda030758257bd48da961818776a1
47d9531b37059ac3c3a0021445c9167552965ef3
1424 F20110209_AABQEY lutz_a_Page_172thm.jpg
ea737056c88b4d6234f7fde85e94da81
05a6a463697e9a58e076d85df31c305ce4aa8979
33693 F20110209_AABPZS lutz_a_Page_087.QC.jpg
46b047113e404214053fab00ec00e79b
ac1b5903bbf7e103914f8913e14e46615b6c157c
50518 F20110209_AABPCK lutz_a_Page_114.pro
163c828d3c138796767de7752e1bda37
6e8ee261e83de270b9bfa793c64cfa0806e2edc4
1965 F20110209_AABOXE lutz_a_Page_151.txt
689b9c14d5de6e98f5fb0d018ee5ec3e
4f5b124b5ee87233ce0529d768602747b66fbf05
47958 F20110209_AABPBW lutz_a_Page_095.pro
5af153ebfb6f7ef4207126093fff1990
cef92c3a048f868ddeefc398eb901c6e6c4c3591
2024 F20110209_AABOWQ lutz_a_Page_137.txt
900bc96f15711b2100d010fccbacdba8
b27d297f9552b736496a8c9a7fbdf170170b72d6
2574 F20110209_AABQEZ lutz_a_Page_175thm.jpg
78549dcce87fb39260185e1dfd5874ce
2048e59c5fb0606e06474dc10d8a58ab471b6d8c
34566 F20110209_AABPZT lutz_a_Page_089.QC.jpg
48a6a77dd6a2238e4000eb1f7edd64ff
1ad18bc321ecadb8017f3eb601aa1a1b1d4df393
50375 F20110209_AABPCL lutz_a_Page_115.pro
ac219d9ff9b5781a7d90eab1b3db849f
8b874deae4c41b66018546a8082f210b08278dde
1907 F20110209_AABOXF lutz_a_Page_152.txt
2291ece3d5176566cb0b5875626014d2
4440eaf61ecc3754bc3753a924e2cc149dfdf85e
49891 F20110209_AABPBX lutz_a_Page_097.pro
ee3baf8532799f92e55d38c5011a3a4a
5872c87b9b2085d7caf0688ab603de76fd66460e
2103 F20110209_AABOWR lutz_a_Page_138.txt
651b0590af84701b16b6035591ba7f9b
c3829313b32b2b49da24670a547ff668ec1bfe8a
51628 F20110209_AABPDA lutz_a_Page_132.pro
fc83d204ef3d196e28bbfe4d2d17d4f7
84fa8d1f42576752bedc5d0faa6658b5185b4fa4
25638 F20110209_AABPZU lutz_a_Page_090.QC.jpg
e43ffde2483aa049ad00586af4163301
e27e373addf60c1a6b9ff44b2759bf9dcf6a764a
49858 F20110209_AABPCM lutz_a_Page_116.pro
3e4b180e5a4bec033207c0bf54cf70b2
1fd0d5558f3bcbada89ff0ce61073e6bccf99c9a
2392 F20110209_AABOXG lutz_a_Page_153.txt
0562b6f5d84ba5f0590456d4f24176fc
a9305f7dfd891c296d81fb00a9717644f63e28dc
43996 F20110209_AABPBY lutz_a_Page_099.pro
f1a80c16752e0d19c6c44956513860a4
9b4b419e3346dc3e7739da65277fc0794b13c13b
1934 F20110209_AABOWS lutz_a_Page_139.txt
a4401453f77ee00181cc8b891535bca6
635ffa5da53c6eaa379d95fb00bc06a2679409e5
51257 F20110209_AABPDB lutz_a_Page_133.pro
db81f53a66db0ea9efbdffcd13bacd09
4fc5c0c2c58c8225ae650ae040d1d85442652dd1
12991 F20110209_AABPZV lutz_a_Page_093.QC.jpg
3b090dac9ef1381e4b99791fd2e9cf71
1feb04e081dfec67dc84382f62efa545863d3b52
51083 F20110209_AABPCN lutz_a_Page_117.pro
debe64e2c43c43fa02f493d56ffcc5e1
72a7d91e2afd083e10601011e2c262d2a209f02d
3387 F20110209_AABOXH lutz_a_Page_154.txt
6424ef2b6f92c1f16cd30d6d7f698c2e
fa4495d3efa2330e7fe374aa0729a79d60412f7e
45600 F20110209_AABPBZ lutz_a_Page_100.pro
d8709d7522bad198b33ad1216001864c
4e36535bd3bc52f546ab7ec9037f6d4281a548a3
1988 F20110209_AABOWT lutz_a_Page_140.txt
f0085113b048f29b0fa045218e4d1278
7d308cec77b6cba302cd8fa940c473a214058e94
48504 F20110209_AABPDC lutz_a_Page_134.pro
b2147064c6e71cbaff1b5c04bb023c06
129d8fdec195871d53c9b86fc979b9c2f1e7e424
26599 F20110209_AABPZW lutz_a_Page_095.QC.jpg
0cd78de64c8d7e3bc02564e3468507b2
8c458aae67cd665a4034ce3d4256e9978e8d3b0b
50294 F20110209_AABPCO lutz_a_Page_118.pro
9e191e9364da886a8d9b51b35bc2c01f
c87cf23ba77972a594c70da315e6c4cf8470a380
2968 F20110209_AABOXI lutz_a_Page_155.txt
3abc28a9272e699ac528aa70e0003e0c
693455466a622051d7be955c0fb88fb5be783d13
2060 F20110209_AABOWU lutz_a_Page_141.txt
0ef572f86f6a1deb28f86c763f75be73
3b3fdf42188e2d247b1d8864d103af12db1a406c
48731 F20110209_AABPDD lutz_a_Page_135.pro
56b41804ecb1cd90ea60371a444f05ce
c3c7ad0682992dfd79a2f89f38892868c0fb1bc3
26674 F20110209_AABPZX lutz_a_Page_098.QC.jpg
d2f11d2b318863bf9b56c5bc80645b2b
4b3df1eed10b918dcdff2186d4064136ca7eb1d6
50891 F20110209_AABPCP lutz_a_Page_119.pro
ee81d894cce2b1fc733d597f3caddbce
e70320f35edb84d37db9fb7ae783e2e526c88eba
443 F20110209_AABOXJ lutz_a_Page_156.txt
d3fe022a6df91347b4ec3b97648d692f
f8697ee38a0faecb49390e3954c977635eb4f085
1989 F20110209_AABOWV lutz_a_Page_142.txt
fdd886ee9de826dfb2e9c1e91812b4dc
0db39cb0fa2dec0dc098249ee12cd4427d8993c2
32686 F20110209_AABPDE lutz_a_Page_136.pro
689f300dccc4b0abefc6c766790ac685
67b02e73839d9d0369c7afd886c94455f002dcb3
23262 F20110209_AABPZY lutz_a_Page_100.QC.jpg
39e845ee7f7a7dd8a671918655a12747
c90f9fa97007dc4baf2aed16e2af506e3f99ea10
45070 F20110209_AABPCQ lutz_a_Page_120.pro
111977f6a207a20492bb115a67000188
239ba2d1a4a1770bbe627e0057970fa0d4e9343c
1594 F20110209_AABOXK lutz_a_Page_157.txt
3cce05236a16e1a9773e511308200709
ad61d1d2e2ddd9c85c8fc5c3b7cc43fc8a32eba5
1975 F20110209_AABOWW lutz_a_Page_143.txt
fcbce1c2c820a697ced1f3f738f542fc
68ca65c13241b04feafc32f92332d3e88539a404
31094 F20110209_AABPZZ lutz_a_Page_101.QC.jpg
d2bb05c5fbbc23cc2c6ee09cf21a5a16
dccf7834e58684dc91427bad9e3e0e445b0551d9
39239 F20110209_AABPCR lutz_a_Page_121.pro
f7b3945a6cc14e712695732cedce137c
74682196a5d83406fb310111760ff164fec18c6b
2566 F20110209_AABOXL lutz_a_Page_158.txt
55900f03e5d6812cf53bb974f3cd9379
cb5928004ff3aca0c6a58d15786c373a025d8b9d
1960 F20110209_AABOWX lutz_a_Page_144.txt
eb309c2c07b9cfed99b01454586cdbeb
4b95a68d8155dac7803e6c63c47dec1c278b1195
51609 F20110209_AABPDF lutz_a_Page_137.pro
d213c44eaf89e3bdedd5099bcf5359b6
57852ce2d7a4de6e8e779fbf02934cd90d32fce1
420 F20110209_AABOYA lutz_a_Page_173.txt
5cb1ee014f6a9dd9943eb0e11096d134
fc0fc63fa81fc9fee5934d2845297aff6db549a6
39564 F20110209_AABPCS lutz_a_Page_122.pro
fbf20ee65c616fe9f3e2209275262cb6
5b859a07c9e0f78a94d4d3aed0460fe2ead56460
1326 F20110209_AABOXM lutz_a_Page_159.txt
cadf186bcbe80414bf454d91c9fcaeec
57fda38f22cacba7337f88190bea61fa260eb915
F20110209_AABOWY lutz_a_Page_145.txt
c1a3d187ab4cbeb2cde820064784e873
2326617bd8a001149e72897ed32666364cefed2a
53381 F20110209_AABPDG lutz_a_Page_138.pro
e5d27a5fd83df2cb0aa8805a87d601a6
7d06950ecd1c94c0193e327ae75462ebf5da93e5
481 F20110209_AABOYB lutz_a_Page_174.txt
6957e8a19c9e7ea3304375d44e8e00c9
97a278dec3db2ed473adcee26949e8ef7b649fa3
43667 F20110209_AABPCT lutz_a_Page_123.pro
dbc1010182d2c819b19914c7e2f9b6a1
2982ca0ab224e06ce1c34ccbb8c37f0ef27e9fac
730 F20110209_AABOXN lutz_a_Page_160.txt
ec405e02b98ce2361751d71196fb1d56
b600ab808ff1ffeb8520f5cfee3999f0f36c7677
48913 F20110209_AABPDH lutz_a_Page_139.pro
ed17956b3c1933ef998565899919ae76
53ad8a6271207f68e9c02beaeb83c799002aff1b
1311 F20110209_AABOYC lutz_a_Page_175.txt
99806e4ad8e680962ed0371fe7bac933
da8c27adac044d6a122fa10658793cf36caa28f9
49553 F20110209_AABPCU lutz_a_Page_125.pro
af13b149dc92e684f01fb1dc62b063f3
0626d1125e953659f290b71bbd77d5dc8d6d0266
964 F20110209_AABOXO lutz_a_Page_161.txt
9beb03655e3b8b2693b398c4c724c056
bcccdd95369d259a0d2bd88174cdf7c320aa2715
2010 F20110209_AABOWZ lutz_a_Page_146.txt
58297a5cbed3fb561d499ba025a028c4
2add9230c209aaa89ac60e3cb49eb8682c100ab5
52393 F20110209_AABPDI lutz_a_Page_141.pro
35e36d30454aedfd04a362b7b65f6205
c152f0d9470549e3a5c000e806d0a8e8f49bb1e5
1952 F20110209_AABOYD lutz_a_Page_176.txt
fe88a7254a1e47439167dc07819153ae
af5208caf611912540953122cc962681b573de14
3426 F20110209_AABPCV lutz_a_Page_126.pro
b6821ddccfa5cc92ef7d45fd655e3879
66275ab437331d97ee458b15e4a5922cfc2ca9a3
870 F20110209_AABOXP lutz_a_Page_162.txt
cf744e929a0fe6e2c598ad5a02cf49be
bc13c65c968210cb6c8b04abf20209c41959bde7
50525 F20110209_AABPDJ lutz_a_Page_142.pro
37acf00c19e3bb424d0b32520153013d
4819d58c7bbb593ab4c31e66abc660ba93f0ffae
681 F20110209_AABOYE lutz_a_Page_178.txt
5d6199d552effd9f87873756011138c0
134b832bb1724e4b748d3962cc2a95337a9cd6e9
37367 F20110209_AABPCW lutz_a_Page_128.pro
860818eb42459ca841b159c0445bb512
8be108f421186c6db506a11bd6e8fb36a0beedd4
1919 F20110209_AABOXQ lutz_a_Page_163.txt
d2490466a7027db3d32f6f9b32bdc5c7
c8af137b243ba0f0940ce1128c611fbbef1df6e3
F20110209_AABPDK lutz_a_Page_143.pro
1b885fd3e33e0cd4776ee0c3de826529
e1fae3c83af980bd0591fca7e968f8fe33b790f1
1141 F20110209_AABOYF lutz_a_Page_179.txt
4bfa9a324647231979c9e959930855aa
428138fa2ab5ed7db07fe6389de96e6d2e6d1610
55117 F20110209_AABPCX lutz_a_Page_129.pro
6c9703c83a36620ca3b755026cd8d2f5
bf0f3645447ae94abefb62a7d0403bfee68ffffa
519 F20110209_AABOXR lutz_a_Page_164.txt
aaee2ed46cb678f8683be2bba6c8d69d
33c66ff3a25d746c1093ef769e3836fc1bf47b59
19120 F20110209_AABPEA lutz_a_Page_161.pro
f73b53933cf6b1161c43849f244733c6
113346f251f8a4f76d1cf623197603659fdfc2c1
49460 F20110209_AABPDL lutz_a_Page_144.pro
c5bc4bffca660375e2a11b2366e8f92f
157d804728fb5ec637768442083daa68af073280
957 F20110209_AABOYG lutz_a_Page_180.txt
da4600d611d6f1f32a9016be8a13ad74
581b65f1c21121950b6044511ea237bc380fea86
48150 F20110209_AABPCY lutz_a_Page_130.pro
bee1560f1088e8376001bf0bd9af00ca
4e68f4495a03e21c3608f009430a5b853b00accf
1518 F20110209_AABOXS lutz_a_Page_165.txt
80ab12fca1d5fa61b82c06a6c221933b
712a149ca7744220e222632795e4e26a160df424
17889 F20110209_AABPEB lutz_a_Page_162.pro
c1a6ff974e103dfb91f891d2789918e5
a0af4b000f4bbf0e0c6450cb93ed23f290c4d333
50267 F20110209_AABPDM lutz_a_Page_145.pro
d98740bba8c2ef9ef5fa1fa1a1090f3e
168588a1ce999eb16df4beb6371d3ad28ddcce49
2143 F20110209_AABOYH lutz_a_Page_181.txt
1a0ee6a12b73bcb94afb138b95cabcfc
8343707b3688ae6808277613ca43c58f0c312915
52100 F20110209_AABPCZ lutz_a_Page_131.pro
f0eac5d8daeab125fa2107cc762781e8
8313de424a840050d06a34fefc397eacdbaf40eb
1465 F20110209_AABOXT lutz_a_Page_166.txt
b3bae0454946ecbff56a2289ac53b555
c9960f1ead8c73847508f6368e055d2803c7a718
38217 F20110209_AABPEC lutz_a_Page_163.pro
af17f28aab8b1fbb7f855645f9cfa5e0
a32e80278ab788faa3ffe6134a9a3d748258224b
50911 F20110209_AABPDN lutz_a_Page_146.pro
5de1c9665eee8d17f34bd07dc2992127
5c132ad9f33491864bb85b8ab53aef750f48e1ff
2363 F20110209_AABOYI lutz_a_Page_182.txt
a5cf00235e9114191425848e505e957c
b5b74f2a2be35c12f557d72194b8dd3b19aeec04
F20110209_AABOXU lutz_a_Page_167.txt
694f86c1ea1019f6c87f11518d51e8c7
9026f614fc037ed27e782fe8855816f8e8003fd0
12251 F20110209_AABPED lutz_a_Page_164.pro
e400e2b3c2dc99586d540c368931cc5c
34ec82680c256d9c80f4f29194102c95a25b1495
44741 F20110209_AABPDO lutz_a_Page_147.pro
1dde8af8cc7dfa112012f29c647530fc
293927aa76389916b946ae01e6e29ac235e97217
2330 F20110209_AABOYJ lutz_a_Page_183.txt
d6e501eb4e3e73aa3959708512b8b35a
7b70fd74ea4fae7ff5f0cad7ea7f62e0dab4a34b
1679 F20110209_AABOXV lutz_a_Page_168.txt
0cac3ca87e17fb94e2c7173a6f360157
2c75642e05da405af8610663b2d68df35bec4f9a
27546 F20110209_AABPEE lutz_a_Page_165.pro
5ccebe063550d0871edaa2249b14104c
2f433212c236d88abfb623f94eab70386e89793f
49405 F20110209_AABPDP lutz_a_Page_148.pro
4989df43e82aed66763608e1e25d7b52
bb87841e5af3cafccda86a4b240dc23dde138eb1
2410 F20110209_AABOYK lutz_a_Page_184.txt
1db30a79bb7ca373c26a31256331b6cf
4ce5d7b695411af04962d7591b179d4b388edae2
1595 F20110209_AABOXW lutz_a_Page_169.txt
2f612e4067f5331643b86139e2333257
fbea70029c9bc172c5d009d58feae83d0449e13a
27734 F20110209_AABPEF lutz_a_Page_166.pro
8cc4dc76f8ef1422579ad878e604044d
bc21dcf409ec77e867bedaf3a8df03c2fd0e59ad
50639 F20110209_AABPDQ lutz_a_Page_149.pro
88fcafc825259cd71b0b63b1cbc6d0ad
53ffa3ba7270febb254b106b6570bbd195684f59
2637 F20110209_AABOYL lutz_a_Page_185.txt
b8bd7f7d5836edeb45c27f80dd48c6b3
c7d7c262ec6c9a334a49e25a260e21d42c7b811b
499 F20110209_AABOXX lutz_a_Page_170.txt
53603005753d99442f162a18757cc127
b47fcaa3473dae3e71f007cdfd87554423ff6086
50835 F20110209_AABPDR lutz_a_Page_150.pro
f469b630304784b974401c9a5d85c3d1
f73be7a918d1972a64d22e4697b1f6203057856f
2314 F20110209_AABOYM lutz_a_Page_186.txt
3d324ffe88eb69e403e1f51b95ea3158
827457d0ef64cd72ce0bfee14c89a88fc0597d25
375 F20110209_AABOXY lutz_a_Page_171.txt
c570a3e6351db031f9981ab5e5399b28
d5b8db4e2d3e070e43c81271a171604488093bcd
29227 F20110209_AABPEG lutz_a_Page_168.pro
58443e757e5e6250b7597f7bd9ec56aa
46692c815549622abee6daea4607ece5f7132076
76419 F20110209_AABOZA lutz_a_Page_013.pro
1603d283d11bb2ee3222911f9efe7c47
ac865ed59d072252695a85615d90a5a18fb97c22
49846 F20110209_AABPDS lutz_a_Page_151.pro
78bdee5f323f874d7bdead29d4bb45f9
e37762c169c6f894248faf6fe3ceaa8da3aacec3
393 F20110209_AABOXZ lutz_a_Page_172.txt
a6a5ee763a4f8d3ee73742ea486f9b7a
dfa01586015724eb2cd8c335af655f568c7b2911
26952 F20110209_AABPEH lutz_a_Page_169.pro
3297571b12f2d5e8cd388f42176dd044
9dbe2c460b818cc1024f184f0afa0df6a3c9f1ce
6619 F20110209_AABOZB lutz_a_Page_014.pro
6f3fe91f1bd8daf8b6ab7a7d4bca6885
a4631bfc71abbc4169c7e256d18b448ca2303ffe
48287 F20110209_AABPDT lutz_a_Page_152.pro
ca054d9efd696da1d29c92a8531f929f
2734bd2b6fd682e41ef1a4b554636b844a1034d7
2408 F20110209_AABOYN lutz_a_Page_187.txt
4fd1ae0f974528c7d02045eb974843a8
2cba554856e9e5daac37ed92f18df530850f5e33
8393 F20110209_AABPEI lutz_a_Page_170.pro
5485266584d67d69e0f09d06b234e729
71a503f9d489ac15e146a6bbbdc9fefdc17c2ac3
37441 F20110209_AABOZC lutz_a_Page_015.pro
0729737c9b9db65f5d41ffcb402d30f7
1415c8150580444a120ab1c760b85fc763319ba8
59916 F20110209_AABPDU lutz_a_Page_153.pro
75e9ce6788e3eea1b253c94d427a20ae
9e7fb69aefd0f307ee3e102aa45a8cdb160fee1f
1075 F20110209_AABOYO lutz_a_Page_189.txt
bedc4a73e5d9af47ec9a3b5506c5bb2a
f2a2da92f85518be024dab481800c2b96f52a15f
7025 F20110209_AABPEJ lutz_a_Page_171.pro
dbf364a280c4af5258b0519b08459321
d056433ea76e0037deb24c4c17a7dea5a0bc3b85
44687 F20110209_AABOZD lutz_a_Page_016.pro
5686afbfd3b6422473e2fb94f40d7b89
7cf6d894afb60f5cd3a553ba9cbc714cbd57a3ba
82923 F20110209_AABPDV lutz_a_Page_154.pro
2671ffb23de8d30f14742d548dc7d609
52a1218993552c348a85fb95d0540c580e9eede1
F20110209_AABOYP lutz_a_Page_001.pro
842219fd9cd1529a2c0dd95cf3bcd381
327502a848541bb4606e33a553a0781891dd313f
7628 F20110209_AABPEK lutz_a_Page_172.pro
d12b6fe62528ae59e64eff1413813bab
f1ceff302edee31625d15709b1871f70ef171a9d
43906 F20110209_AABOZE lutz_a_Page_017.pro
ca72a725f548e44ae7663eb859657692
db94f5bb7140e145b7bad22e9915ce8ceb2cd623
10101 F20110209_AABPDW lutz_a_Page_156.pro
f183758d67219e79abb89621e1795409
be7eac77240404103b2eb05d710fe61897474681
1173 F20110209_AABOYQ lutz_a_Page_002.pro
b036b222d39242f8be086001ecf39ce1
823fdde381bed67986646f23da179c4dc8181926
41020 F20110209_AABPFA lutz_a_Page_188.pro
7bf10c20c776ffec8e010e73c3548ba2
4966b8028240f22ff7cfa63563c8e27f737d976f
8720 F20110209_AABPEL lutz_a_Page_173.pro
140733ce57a8748badc37dc3b2a8fde5
d75bbe748091995b75f0da8e817f52c35866b9fd
49700 F20110209_AABOZF lutz_a_Page_018.pro
7a762154afc51d5305d17c712bfdd511
54baade7e058b5aaadcb33c14e98622f36eeff66
58942 F20110209_AABPDX lutz_a_Page_158.pro
30ea00e5104d43bf25fd71ee2c712dc6
7032ba29d38c881d6964ffd0f504f139936b546b
43174 F20110209_AABOYR lutz_a_Page_003.pro
5f8a7319935879cbafe28dffc27a2031
e83fafcbfdb9a74e6f617d1ef4c4ac20d4c2a689
25571 F20110209_AABPFB lutz_a_Page_189.pro
364736e7d779458a5cbcc0818765ffc4
d51b920439b73f4fe26edcf26497d90fe32ccb4f
9289 F20110209_AABPEM lutz_a_Page_174.pro
d31592ef0f6a4874869d37502f93da0e
635077361a4292e416d5e1d01a7b3275c84584e7
49025 F20110209_AABOZG lutz_a_Page_019.pro
6cfd0c27f40c4f5f603614b5bb8cfc44
cf305b1d5f1fbb04f0979370645d3686b9faef12
27986 F20110209_AABPDY lutz_a_Page_159.pro
7e7815c95a182936cd89e7860e59cb2d
d2b83a82164351dd3871a98826f6062cfe78fda0
17269 F20110209_AABOYS lutz_a_Page_005.pro
b53aa02431322fe3b46a0fe56914f343
16b636d4ca121e2a4b6455fee32c12474ff74b13
26436 F20110209_AABPFC lutz_a_Page_001.jpg
504a816a6d0c55118b59fd82b9cf22b9
dcdcc31fc4832bc2e77704e7b6ef3e79b58c0e88
17579 F20110209_AABPEN lutz_a_Page_175.pro
ac2676892c10c8f14c834d6bdc787a34
aa2b259aaf3ac64b044a85db47a1abcf31a8ab9c
48026 F20110209_AABOZH lutz_a_Page_020.pro
29749d63ff38f683f6b2bde7ca41762e
77974320d3a7489cf40a9e4e6a85689facc3694c
13168 F20110209_AABPDZ lutz_a_Page_160.pro
10cf3e9934597494ebdd15a6e97849ee
9042405abe6e5cf0ce58570e0618a1eda348aa0f
80477 F20110209_AABOYT lutz_a_Page_006.pro
9b46fdc271253961dc93606e6b1de5b6
9635d4225347549e0b1e6bd950fb99dc7a2fb500
4651 F20110209_AABPFD lutz_a_Page_002.jpg
82e1ac3b2c6bf66774d65eb7875e4fb8
f88520f2846bd9a8d896d4134babd23d8d19e9bc
43250 F20110209_AABPEO lutz_a_Page_176.pro
c044f0df0346deb16cf56d92cac221f5
6d75d41e82bf4154b5fe7de38b57a7bf74d3990f
50708 F20110209_AABOZI lutz_a_Page_021.pro
6c28b48625c229af9bc43688fa9bc2dc
8ae6ae2c421f0bd11497e68c648759fd98c39fc9
99177 F20110209_AABOYU lutz_a_Page_007.pro
f8534d075cbe0994230949c0f4da0dc3
350e98d3dcaf85ab0254f8a482cec7186dc92051
89234 F20110209_AABPFE lutz_a_Page_003.jpg
c4dce17457989402cf3960469e8a77ea
a7e284c63e75d033835765a6b2dfc21c5f755c89
31202 F20110209_AABPEP lutz_a_Page_177.pro
e680ce995c2fe2c40f025aa6d1eeda8b
26cb7fd4f657897ee15bdca7caebdc5d59eaefcb
51594 F20110209_AABOZJ lutz_a_Page_022.pro
60e703dc4284781221119031ce1b0d1a
087908f2b8a9115c8bcfd003b2c5083cdbe0b9ed
90682 F20110209_AABOYV lutz_a_Page_008.pro
9f128e88aaa1ccf25201a68786a4d278
4ffe79acd9e7c57b0c6c09f71a6cee6c5b5ac19a
93606 F20110209_AABPFF lutz_a_Page_004.jpg
50c96b6b7d250186c5d85d4fe0b7f395
8662c30116a4c6c2df50fc01388b1eae0d53f01d
14591 F20110209_AABPEQ lutz_a_Page_178.pro
ecffa880e19c69d6b669bff990aa7188
00305c649f158bcf89c7d3d074444b7aa1c55759
53377 F20110209_AABOZK lutz_a_Page_023.pro
444daebb63081181529c85ce97a37ade
1e40cfff2e81073088f3f20b5d48760f3a24f25a
97532 F20110209_AABOYW lutz_a_Page_009.pro
78507d172af2595dd3a9ce107a3a1e4b
446cef6e2d0e066f62a129816cbcbbc53032c00d
40139 F20110209_AABPFG lutz_a_Page_005.jpg
883ed35d0e3c634042104bac85665d67
0929128c0999daf33c31c1602de74cdcbf350217
27321 F20110209_AABPER lutz_a_Page_179.pro
753ed6c96f5a6362fa91a9f65af238d1
0a585a4b14d595ba3aec8ad67e1017e41aae6fe8
46437 F20110209_AABOZL lutz_a_Page_024.pro
d74f2c51fbcbcc3c3a7d944c76ada90d
0ad853b35b7e27eb41266e108e0606c0c36550da
34117 F20110209_AABOYX lutz_a_Page_010.pro
a6b5613d0d79176fc374df2125f4ef15
4aa8611854f839949136229cb4531a686572f0c8
21856 F20110209_AABPES lutz_a_Page_180.pro
ed7df57db181ab9ad154eb9329d939a1
c31833ed4aee17639f2bc70175415664002cbfa0
64006 F20110209_AABOZM lutz_a_Page_025.pro
851422d0e8a88b342f760bded7a44eac
119a90cdcab6593762262d2683938431fdd267f2
62341 F20110209_AABOYY lutz_a_Page_011.pro
e8ff354e02dba8518a7b594a340e5a97
4ae5eef882ad016e3dfc6a29050c2dfdd37ecd00
132807 F20110209_AABPFH lutz_a_Page_007.jpg
998c4bfb89155187761562e61f706584
e30b9df1f88553e7cd140cb7c614b8384d467c63
53000 F20110209_AABPET lutz_a_Page_181.pro
87a0d7990192328861a2aa242ad050f2
0fff9ffcc4da4f9596ece02208f49fc6380d1e3f
37034 F20110209_AABOZN lutz_a_Page_027.pro
cb90c76f0e6d8c37d73655e595397102
14694df0d1a886236d738e11342f2dd7441adc42
82582 F20110209_AABOYZ lutz_a_Page_012.pro
efd5c4eea3cfc392d26eb0becf458cf4
a4e10d38a679571a990cf2c4545e76e7407b4091
126649 F20110209_AABPFI lutz_a_Page_008.jpg
c126fe527fc31acb7fc5be07bfb5bf65
e649a16ddfdc7b5f4a827bf78b07bfa875ec9782
58304 F20110209_AABPEU lutz_a_Page_182.pro
b8a977bca4ccfb81c37b2cb8c6713a02
45ea24fee5bed0a96850a93d6db5650bea9c6c4b
43084 F20110209_AABOZO lutz_a_Page_028.pro
fdf8825b9eca5b2aadd9a083bd92cffb
f877101d07f12edab55317e41eb6c03c0a5cdb47
131955 F20110209_AABPFJ lutz_a_Page_009.jpg
c542c4f39e729348422960bd130197ac
2eb0909a3bc15004dfc49c96d64713ecda41d447
57490 F20110209_AABPEV lutz_a_Page_183.pro
c6cccecf27dbf8f6e8015a7ff1cb7e01
68ed00f9b656503a904537eede9f233d0f69abc7
49521 F20110209_AABOZP lutz_a_Page_029.pro
d1dc96ab771e33351e2d982818b3c905
79477c4203de44d512aaebf1e3e9bfb888574949
58621 F20110209_AABPEW lutz_a_Page_184.pro
505cf119ebf3f514c82778f73da8c6c9
895442ecde9b8864b037a543d65204b6707106f8
48462 F20110209_AABOZQ lutz_a_Page_030.pro
1ff81fba0d842eb07ba8fbadbae1c207
ca1d9f16851ca4e4ca0ed8235b6d1f1fc28dce25
44091 F20110209_AABPFK lutz_a_Page_010.jpg
2b172882c004f4dbf165a91490be7f8c
417fd1718841f37b3b5aeebed9fb9457ba1ed795
65115 F20110209_AABPEX lutz_a_Page_185.pro
1ad65325cbdf7a10d6e9ab4fcf9e95db
dd164f311e9169e9397cabd6d842607f97b054da
52592 F20110209_AABOZR lutz_a_Page_031.pro
3e13f02f13298ad778284a36b395f470
5f682d0b042117b7d710b22fd6443576507f3f21
101402 F20110209_AABPGA lutz_a_Page_029.jpg
73c64aa42550858064826f2a8de37e8c
e779011ad777a43e98e8b707c83a6073761850ee
92437 F20110209_AABPFL lutz_a_Page_011.jpg
07a9f29bdaf3401fce098b7869371441
e0cb6fe99cb8ce0f980baa2547e16f4e5d889348
57005 F20110209_AABPEY lutz_a_Page_186.pro
ecd8c5e93220821430002b1410a11429
2bccbc283169404cb7e85ab62bebac356a6e40cd
51946 F20110209_AABOZS lutz_a_Page_032.pro
41c48e175d32aee1acb522807f038f5f
32d779e6edeec7878d639562d232fe96e115ea42
103803 F20110209_AABPGB lutz_a_Page_030.jpg
ea7b02539238b5b4db97f31c7f7afefd
da7b72461dd7d937bcb26095821e979779c2bcac
129250 F20110209_AABPFM lutz_a_Page_012.jpg
c8ea8d05a946dfd688480a05b0af8f2b
3067fd60fe48f5e1aafc69c9f270620cfe8f3c68
59340 F20110209_AABPEZ lutz_a_Page_187.pro
436007f4d0f82857caceee8ecf25835a
9dd1d8e68c409f5e8cd18c2170c082d6a5d7189f
F20110209_AABOZT lutz_a_Page_033.pro
009a2bf4c740d67093d9159b7d808b6a
2586bdd0221e72af90005c84a4d8427cc43b4587
107278 F20110209_AABPGC lutz_a_Page_031.jpg
a8346f35a6a156664c7f070a34428a03
dd5e75366c1adbc4cfb78975e0ccef6b2b3a95af
116356 F20110209_AABPFN lutz_a_Page_013.jpg
2045c24054a865ca96a55884b1dc95bd
5967f66971a701249a4630cfaafb24f1a7df680e
45496 F20110209_AABOZU lutz_a_Page_034.pro
35d26ad490cd7e7eac121ee4311669b8
03f90a16de8accea09d6a83bc7c59d088671ac98
102430 F20110209_AABPGD lutz_a_Page_033.jpg
85dc2e9c932ab1b5ee3d829d59da0efd
7be37f74b2c03d872770a37099d98afb559f2b3f
10817 F20110209_AABPFO lutz_a_Page_014.jpg
b44cb9a53cd0276cbdd0613e07c0b1a6
6616599276950cecf56c97613630afbc9194aade
48222 F20110209_AABOZV lutz_a_Page_035.pro
b1fe2884e04fbb755b9783cedc76e977
c30dce794e282d782b15f888d56b1d9f2bd453e6
94078 F20110209_AABPGE lutz_a_Page_034.jpg
f01649cf30b9a667510f99a873152dcf
e723d2bd831ff193451a830e428638f67762c75e
80607 F20110209_AABPFP lutz_a_Page_015.jpg
f77e315715a110e699bbec495df56a27
6154ecb7cbb2cf61011199178c2bc5f994b7bc87
50667 F20110209_AABOZW lutz_a_Page_036.pro
5421c4284c978ef4173a6bb5d81a7708
08998bf109ba39dd07d471393097e0574ce4f82c
100257 F20110209_AABPGF lutz_a_Page_035.jpg
40a1fd1b4421ead2933e67fcf2fa37bd
7ce90a222a9724ffa4b768965a7bd205a1c45da4
90886 F20110209_AABPFQ lutz_a_Page_016.jpg
48d755169443f486ff15015970e3cd18
1d8b4275e51faf42501ea224d5dd02455de0ddf7
51255 F20110209_AABOZX lutz_a_Page_037.pro
3caeda25a514f1fa18a90057a37d28ed
96a203c35cdb26c6806627055e75c42e6d7a0e10
105407 F20110209_AABPGG lutz_a_Page_037.jpg
6dc96f4c1c104220aad124218bb66d34
7053be5c0109cf4cfb342fa55a7684370aa57b64
92665 F20110209_AABPFR lutz_a_Page_017.jpg
a893d30e07233d97c12040d03f4d7426
49eaec1c712d234c63dc45af7de1498e47a9725e
47840 F20110209_AABOZY lutz_a_Page_038.pro
cfac473076066a52bfcec744c0fc3911
7251040fbcb3569c255945ad83e32d644ff2d3b8
98518 F20110209_AABPGH lutz_a_Page_038.jpg
7ec6ab7e78c5043858a48d18e523a3a3
662372a668abb92eee0516c5882598a739dbe10a
102652 F20110209_AABPFS lutz_a_Page_018.jpg
199b28b46770e94de4ba2a8cd9f761e8
42d1f7cdd679ad8f5cd2598f53df81cb2f4d3b8e
56340 F20110209_AABOZZ lutz_a_Page_039.pro
0417c2f99edf2b0d9a7882332a049c42
58c42e527e4fd0434c0685606764ee3ab74d1a6b
100810 F20110209_AABPFT lutz_a_Page_019.jpg
cecee1a708238ac4e052497ed1c280a4
1edd396e73004ac60dcbf4aa8859be29d38e05fe
109642 F20110209_AABPGI lutz_a_Page_039.jpg
16136e1451d3c573befcf0f3b91d6d19
6723591f3212f34f736bf3b1f79cfd8c1a59962b
98953 F20110209_AABPFU lutz_a_Page_020.jpg
59cde5197295086a486839a953ca14a0
f692dbabacd064d44a4fb6e5c0e9fca96195321d
97511 F20110209_AABPGJ lutz_a_Page_040.jpg
081f7ec5b78ba21f9faafadf1fee6741
81daed9c914cdcde11b96349f888de62d534b6a0
103459 F20110209_AABPFV lutz_a_Page_021.jpg
0cf91b4465dddcd8005886c678b37502
a07fdfb00cd77a96bb01204baeaf01c6279e2db3
102791 F20110209_AABPGK lutz_a_Page_041.jpg
a5a3655f78f091dd9834b0c491367b0e
3edf8f1de3477fc29b1283032b90a6c292aa385d
109236 F20110209_AABPFW lutz_a_Page_023.jpg
60d7cbd23de04639bc46082b6572edd8
2cccb0d92d4cb93a6dca43a4cb40e8839115eb73
107347 F20110209_AABPHA lutz_a_Page_059.jpg
81bf1293fdf29c7e3facf111c68ffb78
aedce0d759dd44c6624fb1b56da927b12f98c25e
101974 F20110209_AABPGL lutz_a_Page_043.jpg
7d1aab664d7681339fb64a7bcc2642a9
254668882d9c646b0b77b9242d4e24a37469bc52
96866 F20110209_AABPFX lutz_a_Page_024.jpg
16dd1b797ac17e907ff4f2fd073a9a4e
6aceefd8986d9bbb9cde494a6566092f7a428b20
96407 F20110209_AABPHB lutz_a_Page_063.jpg
8a48e636532cc682707ff26de2751caf
ce1277b4b6318b9bb2d68d4d8056601f7517d615
106070 F20110209_AABPGM lutz_a_Page_044.jpg
49a466736da79a4f8fb5547b065db85f
4b92ddd74b3bdc78692706e91293e433f4deac2c
124246 F20110209_AABPFY lutz_a_Page_025.jpg
ebd08ea1b6e74342f930be925ca4407d
56cb2ea1b64c3d42ff2ced07aa7db0ef04258282
100881 F20110209_AABPHC lutz_a_Page_064.jpg
4270dd64dce86c257596a270b201e397
6d801af0a4897826b6295dff57bb22cea27ddf43
109921 F20110209_AABPGN lutz_a_Page_045.jpg
3e760aebcb3a41a386bdb299399f357d
1513aa8334f12355e008d251360edd5079440782
76993 F20110209_AABPFZ lutz_a_Page_027.jpg
c2533c6db6e001d131dd2cf3bdec661e
793e8739d81d387f29e3ad81e4a14c884a0780db
104314 F20110209_AABPHD lutz_a_Page_065.jpg
5b42449774e994b50e35b1eae899da36
4dec6e6d7bcdcb375d3c88df26b828208f101c1b
98638 F20110209_AABPGO lutz_a_Page_046.jpg
1b25a61083f5cef6ca0f608ce2e95515
f4a63d53c73fd58ac85c9bebfc8976db0b9328d4
105373 F20110209_AABPHE lutz_a_Page_066.jpg
27dbf51224ca8d6e4a93c4f221a6f168
7908f411ed711c74cfc1e2c17e4d031f36a428bd
106304 F20110209_AABPGP lutz_a_Page_047.jpg
79ab35745f590d34fa79b8050a130b30
db1ff59efcf09bbbf1f1d623e74ebab224bc16f3
104046 F20110209_AABPHF lutz_a_Page_067.jpg
3a08c79f32c2b009729098d8a34ba572
47ac278eb19140a2e08a863f5dfcff4b09c8f921
107654 F20110209_AABPGQ lutz_a_Page_048.jpg
7e5ea65cc84397dfc59213269646029f
5358613ab1430a4edd591ead7cf2a1b5bed66787
99958 F20110209_AABPHG lutz_a_Page_068.jpg
1bb6abd91c697dd3fc86f51f2327f8ed
1e9d960449c2b20fe7b9c82cacc02d86350dbc88
100041 F20110209_AABPGR lutz_a_Page_049.jpg
4dd31805b9cd8de83fd8ac7026215f94
4a89fbb13860024d35a5fd83a1a382e9479e5f6a
103002 F20110209_AABPHH lutz_a_Page_069.jpg
4db2dc1f15e842bdccfbfef32ca441ff
099d94725e21bd48200ab070a4ae656cbdb1ab2b
110521 F20110209_AABPGS lutz_a_Page_050.jpg
adf66febc83c4c34a3b7f9cfed9bed5c
b5bf6507a59780103544d576c0d21d298edb4f55
107667 F20110209_AABPHI lutz_a_Page_070.jpg
ff55c527f0d82464c19f8a7cf50b96fc
8342b3bc1db2e76e0f7199a569791b33c860e143
106742 F20110209_AABPGT lutz_a_Page_051.jpg
ed615c942528008ba888bb31cf06d9b2
1e0c767baabc158ec66857c14981363bead8ed43
99759 F20110209_AABPGU lutz_a_Page_052.jpg
92912aa8d16f012ab0deebbe9df15f6a
b571def59a7c7a9a1b1acf06fbbe7f3a20afa166
100132 F20110209_AABPHJ lutz_a_Page_071.jpg
8e2e7c2ab345b73468509334b7085a9d
92531badb1bebd5bdd31ca29e7c8c1ef3c343f80
103560 F20110209_AABPGV lutz_a_Page_054.jpg
56747becd49627787a5fa7c70532f1b5
4b13e23a02397e909849c2161e2c087cbeb14c79
103446 F20110209_AABPHK lutz_a_Page_072.jpg
7b7b8afb1981e027f76a2e4c617139af
c661491f02fa67d7b601744d87e60ed26c6e4f60
102180 F20110209_AABPGW lutz_a_Page_055.jpg
91800bd300edaa0fa2938e5724b7c45b
ec35c6fe6672136b0ef6e690ad4438885583b3f5
101700 F20110209_AABPHL lutz_a_Page_073.jpg
47424fca10395a434642ad3996906f3a
2dcf1417a2d0e8d02953266499e7c1cc21d84d73
F20110209_AABPGX lutz_a_Page_056.jpg
8b92112982f1d061830862f2ec65d522
f41f205a92b04a5be55eac4df1be9fa64edc7b86
79250 F20110209_AABPIA lutz_a_Page_090.jpg
f3ff22b678edacc581739aebddf5e6dc
11796e68fe098ab28973ec94e134ef6492e203d1
35403 F20110209_AABPHM lutz_a_Page_074.jpg
566b1bc3c3b013083b7ba38fb32a0ade
ccadca14dfe9923c712d3141f9cb40be90e781d1
101094 F20110209_AABPGY lutz_a_Page_057.jpg
ec875ccbd8ff9c1a4ca214a1189bb0e4
377c32d3908f71bdf1c60aec11362b08b89a4399
88405 F20110209_AABPIB lutz_a_Page_091.jpg
9ab4838d9efb1065317a98c2c439cf37
f9dbe334fbec9e9344c9750638623750200c286d
86621 F20110209_AABPHN lutz_a_Page_075.jpg
d76a70b081def9116de9283f4971f9a4
dbffe87ec4c540aa7dba63635305c98a1b262bb9
104017 F20110209_AABPGZ lutz_a_Page_058.jpg
e909c074278b6d3d99709758472a3ba5
94c7dc4262e2d53c1195a054b66e445528e0fc9d
98204 F20110209_AABPIC lutz_a_Page_092.jpg
94ffa86209e3ebfed597d53672292e67
d6c701a13f9699334f52282fc40c0b096fbbc083
97635 F20110209_AABPHO lutz_a_Page_077.jpg
29f889609f291ae2187d05831c1c2918
2b38517416a41f5bbd817ee826ada972819b3e0a
42439 F20110209_AABPID lutz_a_Page_093.jpg
2a53686b17997e181e94d31a526e374f
e288904a7d1d4470b5634a13bb3898dfa2a24ba3
92953 F20110209_AABPHP lutz_a_Page_078.jpg
1740369fb505e44c91ead1fc94032ff4
4196b4a27cee5e1e5761b1a7146fcd52d319e99a
84531 F20110209_AABPIE lutz_a_Page_094.jpg
445812a7cfe74dd8b4c904ed24b70b6d
a95aef8393570b07e555b4005194c61eae17a58c
103104 F20110209_AABPHQ lutz_a_Page_079.jpg
25f2c1bec3a3418e1a4f063ac7b4be9b
5b6293e237e6a193ee0885fecc957ebc2f018f48
83691 F20110209_AABPIF lutz_a_Page_095.jpg
8bf15498164b5c15c6fa41480ddd30ad
810f2c78d007b917fd233be9ccf953ae58995d72
99256 F20110209_AABPHR lutz_a_Page_080.jpg
db35e15efe0a277c81618982adb6364a
531a79d73f7e1476f5189a63e0fd313c4b1ffee0
94652 F20110209_AABPIG lutz_a_Page_096.jpg
85be2bfa6dd12c5cf486b384d9566507
6ea421ed3d625d239167def7769a88248071156f
102500 F20110209_AABPHS lutz_a_Page_081.jpg
d79e4f1b59371fb5586fed6229bc6906
3d6721c826646d7daf3acb262480fdba236d11de
104031 F20110209_AABPIH lutz_a_Page_097.jpg
f1872aeb7d72393c9a05f628fa3cf163
15553a9ed9decdb1d2e689026c8bba1490ad932a
102714 F20110209_AABPHT lutz_a_Page_082.jpg
c6c36bd4b422d3233e79c5c479489aa4
70613d7955baa0836ed53fab1491d8bfe9b895cb
76822 F20110209_AABPII lutz_a_Page_099.jpg
20b997c53d6a90361fa4fcbf6513723e
df1e2b608f1aeb40fa76634b8dbe8c993f5de5e8
89250 F20110209_AABPHU lutz_a_Page_083.jpg
9c95071c1cf202db7d06788b47534166
97a9a1791d9b52fec7abe70e0bfd2481ca8ed582
94987 F20110209_AABPIJ lutz_a_Page_101.jpg
05e2b6e2b3d10ef145973becb9e7f2a5
58e44dc2ae46945a699554b2529a5bab66a8a6e3
104507 F20110209_AABPHV lutz_a_Page_084.jpg
1aecf80313b0e22db214f90825b21032
f7b65484737288e8920b1926785319b217254f66
101871 F20110209_AABPHW lutz_a_Page_086.jpg
1d5928abd051dd2e616bfcb89688ec0e
11cbf89169c5930b025c41ab7448656df9eec23a
F20110209_AABPIK lutz_a_Page_102.jpg
0d663ac71d242231ac0584ca5fbf56d3
714e2b8f190a2a56ee82969f7d626a4ae2f8b437
101725 F20110209_AABPHX lutz_a_Page_087.jpg
cb9327815320c6df2a6722ec97d3de0f
f93ded463a781765c670322258f12d4bddbc92b2
77882 F20110209_AABPJA lutz_a_Page_123.jpg
c9796efee62774f49211b13e479bd31a
0b6b02170984d09a0986d8b342f57d892487b210
94688 F20110209_AABPIL lutz_a_Page_103.jpg
63a76d08898a03b6e18502cc3f39b665
cf217d09133a84cdfd1396b84729a7340357831a
94761 F20110209_AABPHY lutz_a_Page_088.jpg
f5f2465fcd1b382f9cb0bb86621abbc4
6f316eb223b01a2784c6ed175afd330e3dcdc716
106627 F20110209_AABPJB lutz_a_Page_124.jpg
9bcbeb81ac470e116fc8ea7f6d538e00
4a4ab3499688cf30c6825c554e6edb4da952a70b
73579 F20110209_AABPIM lutz_a_Page_104.jpg
bd2ea8f9da502d9bfc6c0b0edf7ca7b5
6b8f38600d95c19cac8af9194f508d20cc81f842
103523 F20110209_AABPHZ lutz_a_Page_089.jpg
69ea08bdbcafd009167805e60bbdf75f
1a49389bd66c729b136f9668e815827152f5446e
101193 F20110209_AABPJC lutz_a_Page_125.jpg
0aeccad4553a034bc8933fc617910cc9
ea9aa0736df6d01a74b5ce796cc17d07812a5326
113213 F20110209_AABPIN lutz_a_Page_105.jpg
9dca2cafd4f047179d03a2757893bb12
97621dfd4842b93e8f40d7e52bf97d9a5b4fe74c



PAGE 1

KNOWLEDGE, PERCEPTIONS, AND BEHA VIORS OF FLORIDA EXTENSION AGENTS REGARDING COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY By ALISON EVE LUTZ A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Alison Eve Lutz

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who gave me support and love throughout this process. First, I would like to thank my graduate committee members. I was very lucky to have Dr. Nick Place as my advisor and my graduate committee chair. His guidance, support, and encouragement were invaluable during my time spent at the University of Florida. I enjoyed working with him, not only on my thesis study, but on other projects as well. He had an ability to help me stay on track and focus on my accomplishments. Dr. Place is a wonderful advisor and educator. His constant availability and willingness to help not only helped me get through graduate school, but also made it a joy. Dr. Mickie Swisher helped me make th is study something of which I could be proud. I truly enjoyed working with her. She presented me with challenges, and supported me as I worked through them. Dr. Swisher has an ability to make me think about the world in a new way. I was very lu cky to have had her support and enthusiasm for my study. I would also like to thank Dr. Mark Kistler. His ideas, feedback, and assistance were so helpful in this process. He alwa ys had time to meet and discuss my work. My family deserves a heartfelt thank you. I woul d like to thank my father for all the late-night statistics sessions. His patien ce and help gave me the confidence I needed to pursue the challenges that lay before me. I would also like to thank my sister, Gerse. She was a constant source of comedic relief. Her positive attitude a nd enthusiasm for life always cheer me up when I am down. I w ould like to extend a thank-you to my

PAGE 4

iv grandmother, Evelyn, for being so proud of me She has always been a role-model for me. Her devotion to her family is one of the biggest assets I have in my life. I would also like to thank my mother for being pr oud of me. I appreciated her support, advice, and encouragement throughout this process. A very big thank you goes to my friend Beth. She has been a steadfast and wonderful friend since I met her. I consider myself lucky to have such a great best friend. Throughout my graduate career, she has been my support, my friend, and my psychologist. I could never have made it th rough these years (or many others) without the late-night phone calls fu ll of laughter, tears, and ev erything in between. I would also like to thank Ni ck Fuhrman. He has been a constant source of support and encouragement. He was always availabl e for advice, suggestions, feedback, or as a shoulder to cry on. I thank all of my friends that I have been so lucky to make in my life. I looked forward to coming into the graduate offices everyday because of all the great fellow students in the department. I would like to thank the original crew: Abbe, Jaime, and Marshall. I was so lucky to meet such w onderful, honest, and funny friends when I first arrived at the University of Florida. I tha nk Brian, Carrie, Renee, Elio, Katy, Katie, and Jessica for making the bat cave such a special place. I would also like to thank the Depart ment of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida. I am so ve ry grateful that I had the opportunity to work and learn in this depa rtment. The department has offered me opportunities for growth and improvement that ar e not only reflected in this thesis, but also in my life.

PAGE 5

v Lacy Park and Jodi DeGraw both provid ed support and guidance throughout this process. Lacy helped me to begin my gradua te program and Jodi helped me to complete it. I would like to thank Mimi Stanford who le t me steal the book that set me on the path for my thesis. My gratitude also goes to Graham Stanford who helped with some of the technical aspects and helped me to keep perspective. Finally, I would like to ac knowledge Bluegrass and Noah. They have been the most faithful and wonderful companions. Their understanding a nd patience with my hectic schedule are so appreciated. They are the ones who keep me grounded and make my house a home.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................xi FIGURE......................................................................................................................... ..xiv ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY...............................................1 Introduction to the Study..............................................................................................1 Background and Significance of the Problem..............................................................2 Florida Extension...................................................................................................5 Theory of Planned Behavior..................................................................................6 Statement of the Problem......................................................................................7 Purpose and Objectives.........................................................................................8 Operational Definitions................................................................................................9 Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................11 Summary.....................................................................................................................11 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................................12 Extension Systems in the United States......................................................................12 History of Extension in the United States...........................................................12 Extension in the United States Today.................................................................14 Management in Extension...................................................................................15 The Florida Extension System....................................................................................16 The History of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences in Florida.........16 Management and Employment in the Florida Cooperative Extension Service...16 Community Food Security..........................................................................................19 The Evolution of Community Food Security......................................................19 Defining Community Food Security...................................................................22 Defining Community..................................................................................................25 Communitarianism..............................................................................................26 Psychological Sense of Community....................................................................29 Geographic Community......................................................................................30

PAGE 7

vii Community and Community Food Security........................................................32 Community Food Security and the Cooperative Extension Service..........................34 Extension Programs and Food-Access Issues.....................................................37 Extension Program and Food-Safety Issues........................................................39 Extension Programs and Nutrition Issues............................................................42 Extension Programs and Local Food Systems....................................................43 Extension Programs and Su stainable Agriculture...............................................45 Extension Program and Culturally Acceptable Food..........................................46 Extension Programs and Social Justice...............................................................47 Theoretical Framework for the Study.........................................................................48 The Development of the Theory of Planned Behavior........................................48 Applications of the Theory of Pla nned Behavior in Health Contexts.................51 Applications of the Theory of Planne d Behavior in Technological Contexts.....54 Efficacy and Generalizability of the Theory of Planned Behavior.....................56 The Use of the Theory of Planned Behavior in This Study................................57 Summary.....................................................................................................................58 3 THE RESEARCH PROTOCOL.................................................................................59 Introduction.................................................................................................................59 Research Design.........................................................................................................60 Subjects....................................................................................................................... 60 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................61 Objective 1: To Identify Florida Ex tension Agents Levels of Knowledge Regarding Community Food Security.............................................................61 Objective 1a: To describe Florida Ex tension agents levels of knowledge regarding community food security..........................................................61 Objective 1b: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida Extension agents based on demographic characteristics..........................63 Objective 2: To Identify Florida Extension Agents Perceptions of Community Food Security in Their Respective Counties...............................63 Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extension agents perceptions of community food security in their respective counties..............................63 Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents perceptions of community food security based on demographic characteristics.............67 Objective 3: To Identify Florida Extension Agents Perceptions of Organizational Levels of Support fo r Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs.............................................................................67 Objective 3a: To describe Florida Extension agents perceptions of organizational levels of support fo r participation in community food security-focused programs........................................................................67 Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extension agents perceptions of organizational levels of support fo r participation in community food security-focused programs........................................................................68 Objective 4: To Identify Florida Extens ion Agents Levels of Interest in Receiving Different Dimensions of Organizational Support for Participation in Community F ood Security-Focused Programs......................68

PAGE 8

viii Objective 4a: To identify Florida Extension agents levels of interest in receiving different dimensions of organizational support for participation in community f ood security-focused programs...................68 Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents interest levels in organizational dimensions of support based on demographic characteristics...........................................................................................68 Objective 5: To Identify and Describe Florida Extension Agents Current Levels of Participation in Commun ity Food Security-Focused Programs......69 Respondent Data Collection.......................................................................................69 Data Analysis Procedures...........................................................................................71 Nonresponse Error......................................................................................................73 Summary.....................................................................................................................74 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................75 Population...................................................................................................................75 Objectives...................................................................................................................78 Objective 1: To Identify Florida Exte nsion Agents Levels of Knowledge Regarding Community Food Security.............................................................78 Objective 1a: To describe Florida Extension agents level of knowledge regarding community food security..........................................................78 Objective 1b: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida Extension agents based on demographic characteristics..........................79 Objective 2: To Identify Florida Extension Agents Perceptions of Community Food Security in Their Respective Counties...............................81 Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extension agents perceptions of community food security in their respective counties..............................81 Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents perceptions of community food security in their county based on demographic characteristics...........................................................................................84 Objective 3: To Identify Florida Extension Agents Perceptions of Organizational Levels of Support fo r Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs.............................................................................87 Objective 3a: To describe Florida Extension agents perceptions of organizational levels of support fo r participation in community food security-focused programs........................................................................87 Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extension agents perceptions of organizational levels of support fo r participation in community food security-focused programs based on demographic characteristics...........88 Objective 4: To Identify Florida Extens ion Agents Level of Personal Interest in Receiving Different Dimensions of Organizational Support for Participation in Community F ood Security-Focused Programs......................89 Objective 4a: To describe Florida Ex tension agents levels of personal interest in receiving different dimens ions of organizational support for participation in community f ood security-focused programs...................89

PAGE 9

ix Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents personal interest levels in organizational dimensi ons of support based on demographic characteristics...........................................................................................90 Professional development opportunities to participate in community food security-focused programs........................................................................90 Time for participation in community food security-focused programs.......94 Financial support for par ticipating in community food security-focused programs...................................................................................................96 The availability of specialist support for participation in community food security-focused programs........................................................................98 Acknowledgement in performance a ppraisals for participation in community food security-focused programs..........................................100 The availability of an established curriculum for community food security-focused programs......................................................................101 Objective 5: To Identify and Describe Florida Extension Agents Current Levels Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs.........103 Objective 6: To Identify and Descri be Associations Between Dependent Variables........................................................................................................104 Summary...................................................................................................................109 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................112 Introduction...............................................................................................................112 Objectives of the Study.............................................................................................112 Methodology.............................................................................................................113 General Discussion and Conclusions........................................................................114 Objective 1: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding Florida Extension Agents Knowledge Levels Regarding Community Food Security..........................................................................................................114 Objective 2: General Discussion a nd Conclusions Regarding Florida Extension Agents Perceptions of Community Food Security in Their Counties.........................................................................................................116 Objective 3: General Discussion a nd Conclusions Regarding Florida Extension Agents Perceptions of Organizational Support Levels for Participation in Community F ood Security-Focused Programs....................120 Objective 4: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding Florida Extension Agents Personal Interest in Receiving Dimensions of Organizational Support for Participa tion in Community Food SecurityFocused Programs..........................................................................................122 Objective 5: General Discussion a nd Conclusions Regarding Florida Extension Agents Current Levels of Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs...........................................................................128 Objective 6: General Discussi on and Conclusions Regarding the Associations between Dependent Variables in This Study............................130 Overall Implications and Recommend ations for Florida Extension.........................132 Recommendations for Extension Partnerships..................................................132 Recommendations for Needs Assessments.......................................................134

PAGE 10

x Recommendations for Support..........................................................................135 Recommendations for Edu cation and Motivation.............................................136 Recommendations for Future Research....................................................................137 Summary...................................................................................................................139 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT.......................................................................141 B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF PROTOCOL MEMORANDUM....................................................................................................160 C PRE-NOTIFICATION POSTCARD........................................................................161 D FIRST-WAVE QUESTIONNAIRE EMAIL...........................................................162 E SECOND-WAVE QUESTIONNAIRE EMAIL......................................................163 F THIRD-WAVE QUESTIONNAIRE EMAIL..........................................................164 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................165 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................173

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Matrix of prevalent community food security definitions as of 2006........................22 2-2 Florida statewid e goals and underlying focus area teams, 2005................................34 2-3 Corresponding community food security concepts and exte nsion focus areas, Florida, 2006............................................................................................................36 3-1 Panel of expert responses of commun ity food security concepts, Florida, 2005.......62 4-1 Demographic profile of Florida Ex tension agent respondents, Florida, 2006............77 4-2 Florida Extension agents knowledge scor es descriptiv e statistics, Florida, 2006.....78 4-3 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agen t knowledge scores by district, Florida, 2006...............................................................................................80 4-4 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents knowledge scores by time spent in current county, Florida, 2006.............................................................81 4-5 Florida Extension agents community food security Likert summated scores, Florida, 2006............................................................................................................82 4-6 Florida Extension agents mean respons e for questions regarding the relevance of community food security in their counties, Florida, 2006.......................................83 4-7 Comparison of male and female Florid a Extension agents summated Likert scale scores using t-test, Florida, 2006..............................................................................85 4-8 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents Likert scores by program focus, Florida, 2006...................................................................................85 4-9 Comparison of male and female Flor ida Extension agents mean response for questions regarding the relevance of co mmunity food security in their counties using t-test, Florida, 2006.........................................................................................86 4-10 One-way analysis of variance of Flor ida Extension agents mean responses for questions regarding the relevance of co mmunity food security issues in their counties by program focus, Florida, 2006................................................................87

PAGE 12

xii 4-11 Florida Extension agents mean res ponses for questions regarding levels of organizational support for participation in community food security-focused programs, Florida, 2006...........................................................................................87 4-12 One-way analysis of variance of Flor ida Extension agents mean responses to questions regarding levels of organi zational support for participation in community food security-focused program s by program focus, Florida, 2006.......89 4-13 Florida Extension agents mean re sponses to questions regarding personal interest in dimensions of organizationa l support for participation in community food security-focused programs, Florida, 2006.......................................................91 4-14 Comparison of Florida Extension agen ts mean responses indicating personal interest levels in professional de velopment opportunities between county extension directors and non-county ex tension directors, Florida, 2006...................93 4-15 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in professional development opportunities by time spent in current county, Florida, 2006.............................................................93 4-16 One-way analysis variance of Flor ida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in professional development opportunities by program focus, Florida, 2006...................................................................................94 4-17 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in receivi ng time to participate in community food security-focused programs by program focus, Florida, 2006...................................95 4-18 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in receiving time to participate in community food security-focused programs by time sp ent in current county, Florida, 2006.....96 4-19 Comparison of Florida Extension ag ents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in financial support for participation in community food securityfocused programs between county extensi on directors and non-county extension directors, Florida, 2006............................................................................................96 4-20 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in financial su pport for participating in community food security-focused program s by program focus, Florida, 2006.......97 4-21 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in financial su pport for participating in community food security-focused progr ams by time spent in current county, Florida, 2006............................................................................................................98 4-22 Comparison of Florida Extension agen ts mean responses indicating personal interest in the availabil ity of specialist support for participation in community

PAGE 13

xiii food security-focused programs between county extension directors and noncounty extension directors, Florida, 2006................................................................98 4-23 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in the av ailability of sp ecialist support for participation in community food secur ity-focused programs by time spent with current county, Florida, 2006...................................................................................99 4-24 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in the av ailability of sp ecialist support for participation in community food secur ity-focused programs by program focus, Florida, 2006..........................................................................................................100 4-25 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in receivi ng support through performance appraisals for participation in community food security-focused programs by program focus, Florida 2006.................................................................................................100 4-26 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in receivi ng support through performance appraisals for participation in community food s ecurity-focused programs by time spent with current county, Florida, 2006.........................................................................101 4-27 Comparison of Florida Extension agen ts mean responses indicating personal interest in the availability of an es tablished curriculum for community food security-focused programs between male and female respondents, Florida, 2006.102 4-28 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in the availability of an established curriculum for community food security-focused progr ams by time spent with current county, Florida, 2006..........................................................................................................102 4-29 One-way analysis of variance of Fl orida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in the availability of an established curriculum for community food security-focused program s by program focus, Florida, 2006.....103 4-30 Florida Extension agents current pa rticipation in comm unity food securityfocused programs, Florida, 2006............................................................................105 4-31 Association between Flor ida Extension agents characteristics and participation in community food security-focused programs, Florida, 2006..............................107 4-32 Pearson correlation tabl e for Florida Extension agents dependent variables (M = Mean, S = Score), Florida, 2006............................................................................111

PAGE 14

xiv FIGURE Figure page 5-1 Distribution of Florida Extension agen ts across program focus by gender, Florida, 2006........................................................................................................................120

PAGE 15

xv Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science KNOWLEDGE, PERCEPTIONS, AND BEHA VIORS OF FLORIDA EXTENSION AGENTS REGARDING COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY By Alison Eve Lutz August 2006 Chair: Nick T. Place Major Department: Agricultur al Education and Communication Cooperative Extension in the United States has historically focused on aspects of the food system. Extension continues to a ddress the needs of consumers, producers and other stakeholders in the food system, both in the United States and internationally. In order to modify or improve current extension programming, it is essentia l to first look at the knowledge and perceptions of extensions front-line responders regarding the food system and food system issues. This study focused on the relationship between extension and the concept of community food security. The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors of Florida Extension agents re garding community food security in their counties. The goal of this study was to identify and describe extension agents knowledge and perceptions of community food security. A second goal was to identify current levels of organizational support fo r extension agent participation and current levels of participation in these types of programs.

PAGE 16

xvi The study used the theory of planned beha vior as a theoretical framework. This theory is an attempt to predict human behavi or by looking at a pers ons attitude toward the behavior, their intention to perform the behavior, their perceived social norms, and their perceived social control. The study used this framework as a lens through which the data was examined. This study was descriptive in nature, but included data analysis that was predictive in nature. The researcher sent a questionnaire to a cen sus of all Florida Extension agents (N = 324). There was a response rate of 62% (n = 201). The researcher utilized a pre-notice postcard and multiple-wave reminder emails to increase response rate. The results of the study indica ted that Florida Extension ag ents had a wide range of knowledge. The results also showed that respondents did not view community food security issues as extremely negative or extremely positive in their counties. Respondents indicated, overall, they were receiving moderate to low amounts of organizational support to participate in comm unity food security-focused programs. In addition, respondents indicated that they we re interested in receiving organizational support for these types of programs in terms of the availability of an established curriculum and the specialist support. Fi nally, the results sh owed that 41% of respondents have not participated in any type of community food security program within the last year. Based on these results, the research made recomme ndations for extension agent education on community food securit y. The researcher also recommended an increase in organizational support for community food security programs.

PAGE 17

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Introduction to the Study The modern food system in the United States is a complex, internationally connected network of industries and markets th at is continuously changing and growing to meet the needs of its consumers. C ooperative Extension Service programming works to meet the needs and address the issues of both producers and consumers in this system. The Cooperative Extension Serv ice has had a focus on agriculture, the food system, and the community since the es tablishment of land-grant universities in 1862. Many extension programs relate to the food and fi ber system from best management practices in agronomic crops and livestock to nutriti on, diet, and health and resource management (Thomson et al., 2003, p. 201). Extension is constantly evolving, adapting, and improving its educational programs to meet the needs of its communities and clientele. Extensions mission today focuses strongl y on empowering people to solve their own problems (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997, p. 238). Extension has sometimes sought collaborations or inter-organ izational relationships to help best meet the needs of the community and work toward their mission. The overarching goal of this study was to identify and describe the knowledge levels and perceptions of Florida Extension agents regarding comm unity food security. A secondary goal was to identify (a) curre nt levels of organizational support for extension agent partic ipation in community food securi ty-focused programs, and (b) current participation in these t ypes of programs. One of the anticipated outcomes of this

PAGE 18

2 study was to explore the commonalities a nd possibilities for collaboration between Florida Extension and other organizations fo cused on community food security (CFS). A second goal was to provide information rega rding Florida Extension agents perceived needs as a first step in improving the way Extension meets the community food security needs of its clientele. There is currently a lack of research in this area. However, there is a potential relationship between extension and CFS, bridged by the initiatives set forth by the USDA. The United States Department of Agricu lture, the federal partner of Extension, recognized a specific need in the field of agriculture and food systems by adding the Community Food Security Act to the 1996 Farm Bill. Extension agents knowledge and perceptions regarding CFS are primary el ements in understanding the relationship between Florida Extension and CFS. Their kno wledge and perceptions may also lead to the improvement or revision of current Exte nsion programs. An understanding of Florida Extension agents knowledge of CFS and thei r perceptions of CFS in their respective counties is essential in determining their needs. The purpose of this study was to measur e Florida Extension agents knowledge about CFS, their perceptions of local CFS issues of salience, describe their perceptions of organizational levels of support in addressing those issues, and identify current levels of participation in CFS-focused programs. The researcher collected the data for this research study with a web-based questionnaire dist ributed to a census population of Florida Extension agents and county extension directors. Background and Significance of the Problem The relationship and similarities between the 11 national emphasis areas of the United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and

PAGE 19

3 Extension Service (USDA-CSREES) and the con cepts considered essential to CFS served as the basis for this study. This chapte r will describe the concepts of CFS, the 11 national emphasis areas for the USDA -CSREES, and the seven overarching programmatic goal areas for Florida. This in formation provided the prerequisite context for establishing the need to examine Fl orida Extension agen ts programming needs through the measurement of their kn owledge and perceptions of CFS. Community food security is a concept that while relatively new, has come to the forefront for several initiatives and areas of focus for the United States government. The definition of community food security is most often a situation in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally accepta ble, nutritionally ade quate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes comm unity self-reliance and social justice (Hamm & Bellows, 2003, p. 37). USDA-CS REES, one of the most prevalent government organizations that deals with CFS issues, outlined 11 areas of national emphasis. Five of these areas directly addr ess issues that are i nherent to CFS. USDACSREES identifies five knowledge areas that involve some of the main concepts addressed in the Hamm and Bellows (2003) defi nition of CFS. These concepts are: food access, safe food, culturally acceptable f ood, nutritionally useful food, sustainable systems by which food is produced and di stributed, community independence and functionality, and social justice. The Cooperative Extension Service wo rks to identify food producers and consumers needs within a community and pr ovide educational programs to meet those needs. It is the [extension] educators res ponsibility to identify and prioritize the needs of learners in the community or geographica l area and to decide how best to allocate

PAGE 20

4 resources such as time, money, energy, a nd personnel to achieve maximum results (Seevers et al., 1997, p. 98). Extension edu cators use several methods to determine appropriate programming in order to meet those needs. These methods include needs assessments and evaluations. The purpose of th ese methods is to learn about the situation and context of a community or to examine the process and the functionality of current programs. The Pendleton Community Garden Project in Oregon is an example of a food system-focused program that was a respons e to community needs. Umatilla County Extension agents delivered this program to youth in the community in order to prevent them from engaging in risk behaviors such as drug use and sexual activity (Voluntad et al., 2004). The program provide d food to members of the community in need while providing at-risk youth with constructive, positive activities (Voluntad, Dawson, & Corp, 2004, 2). The program used a facet of CFS, community food production, to address two identified needs within th e community: youth risk behaviors and hunger among community members. This example illustrates extensions involvement in both the community and the community food system. One must understand the knowledge and pe rceptions of the extension agents serving a community to begin identifying the needs of that community. In addition, the extension agents must be awar e of their levels of knowledge and perceptions of CFS. Finally, extension administrators must be aw are of agents perceptions of systematic barriers to properly facilitate extensions c ontribution to addressing CFS issues in their communities (Thomson, Radhakrishna, & In ciong, 2004). This study explored the knowledge levels and perceptions of Florida Extension personnel to begin to identify

PAGE 21

5 programming needs, areas for improvement, and possibilities for collaboration with outside organizations in Florid a. Previous studies have s hown that national leaders of CFS focused programs and CFS stakeholders at the county level generally agree on CFS concepts (Pelletier, Kraak, McCullum, Uusita lo, & Rich, 1999). Th ere is a plausible connection between the concepts inhere nt to CFS and Flor ida Extension. Thomson et al. (2003) conducted a study in which they examined Pennsylvania Extension agents perceptions of local food system issues. The study found significant differences in extension agent perceptions ba sed on program and othe r characteristics. The researchers suggested that program ming resources were perceived as an organizational barrier to local food syst ems-focused programming in Pennsylvania (Thomson et al., 2003). In additi on, the researchers st ated that such variables as gender, program focus, and extension region were important to consider when designing extension educational programs for local food system issues (Thomson et al., 2003). The current study looked at similar variables in the context of Florida Extension, focusing both on local food system issues and other i ssues inherent to CFS. Florida Extension Researchers defined extension as a govern mental agency that provides service to anyone who requests service, utilizing info rmal education about topics generally grounded in agriculture, home economics, a nd similar areas (Seevers et al., 1997). USDA-CSREES identifies five of the 11 national emphasis areas for Cooperative Extension programming as: agricultural systems; economics and commerce; families, youth and communities; food, nutrition, and health; and natural resources and environment (National Emphasis Areas, 2005). Florida Extension f unctions both at the statewide and the county levels. Florida Ex tension has seven stat ewide goal areas in

PAGE 22

6 addition to the USDA-CSREES 11 national emphas is areas. Each of these goal areas has several underlying components called focus area teams. These statewide goal areas include: enhancing and maintaining agricu ltural and food systems; maintaining and enhancing Floridas environment; developi ng responsible and pr oductive youth through 4-H and other youth programs; creating and ma intaining Florida la ndscapes; assisting individuals and families in achieving econom ic well-being and life quality; achieving economic prosperity and community vitality in Floridas urban and rural communities; and, promoting professional development ac tivities designed to enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Statewide Goals and Focus Areas for 2004-2007, 2004). Extension promotes these goals and serves the communities by providing usable, accessible, and relevant research-based information. Theory of Planned Behavior This study will examine Florida Extensi on personnels perceptions of local CFS issues and of areas of support or opposition wi thin Florida Extension in the context of intention to implement, adjust, or discon tinue CFS-focused Extension educational programs. Fishbein and Ajzen developed th e theory of reasoned action (1975) in an attempt to understand and predict inten tional human behavior by measuring the integration of attitude toward a behavior, intention to perform the behavior, and subjective norms. Ajzen eventually added pe rceived social control to the model and the theory evolved into the theory of planned beha vior (Ajzen, 1991). This theory serves as the basis for this study because it suggests that a great deal of intentional human behavior can be predicted based on these four component s. The four parts of the theory comprised the lens through which the data was examin ed, although this study did not strive to measure these components. The reason th e researcher chose th e theory of planned

PAGE 23

7 behavior and not reasoned action was due to th e addition of perceived social control. An integral part of the study was an examina tion of organizational levels of support for participation in CFS-focused programs within the extension system. These influences were interpreted as social control over a behavior. The researcher considered the identified levels of personal interest in organizational support to participate in CFSfocused programs as perceptions of a behavior. The general applicati on of the theory of planned behavior can provide insight into predicting and understanding intentional human behaviors such as participating in certain types of programs (Ajzen, 1991). Statement of the Problem Understanding extension agents knowledge of CFS and their perceptions of local CFS issues is a primary and essential step in determining extens ion agents programming needs and areas in need of improvement. Researchers have not examined the current perceptions of Florida Extension agents. The study about Pennsylvania Extension educators and local food system issues by Thoms on et al. (2003) reveal ed that while most extension agents found food system issues to be important in their counties, they found limited support from certain aspects of exte nsion administration. They also found that extension agents needed to incorporate thei r own perceptions of importance with the real needs of their communiti es (Thomson et al., 2004). Pell etier, McCullum, Kraak, and Asher (2002) found that while CFS-focused gr oups in New York were interested in working with local extension agents on CFS i ssues in their community, extension agents were unable to participate in these programs because they experienced barriers in the form of heavy work loads or insufficient admi nistrative support. However, in a similar study several years prior, rese archers found that New York Ex tension administrators were willing to have extension personnel involved in a CFS conference (Pelle tier et al., 1999).

PAGE 24

8 These studies suggest that while there is some information regarding current relationships between extension and CFS concepts and issu es, there is much th at remains uncertain. The researcher conducted this study to shed light on the cu rrent relationship between Florida Extension and CFS issues in Florida counties. The researcher designed this study with the results of the Thompson et al. (2004) and the Pelletier et al. (2002) studies in mind. This study measured Florida Extension agents knowledge and perceptions of CFS and identif ied levels of organizational support for participation in CFS programs to address local Florida county needs. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to measure Florida Extension agents knowledge and perceptions of CFS and to identify curre nt levels of orga nizational support for participation in CFS programs to address lo cal Florida county needs. In addition, the researcher performed this study in order to id entify current levels of participation in CFSfocused programs. Objective 1: To identify Florida Extens ion agents levels of knowledge regarding community food security o Objective 1a: To describe Florida Ex tension agents levels of knowledge regarding community food security o Objective 1b: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida Extension agents based on demographic characteristics Objective 2: To identify Florida Extens ion agents perceptions of community food security in their respective counties o Objective 2a: To describe Florid a Extension agents perceptions of community food security in their respective counties o Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents perceptions of community food security based on demographic characteristics

PAGE 25

9 Objective 3: To identify Florida Extens ion agents perceptions of organizational levels of support for participation in co mmunity food security-focused programs o Objective 3a: To describe Florid a Extension agents perceptions of organizational levels of support fo r participation in community food security-focused programs o Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extension agents perceptions of organizational levels of support fo r participation in community food security-focused programs Objective 4: To identify Florida Extension agents levels of interest in receiving different dimensions of organizational s upport for participation in community food security-focused programs o Objective 4a: To describe Florida Exte nsion agents levels of interest in receiving different dimensions of or ganizational support for participation in community food security-focused programs o Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents interest levels in organizational dimensions of support based on demographic characteristics Objective 5: To identify and describe Flor ida Extension agents current levels of participation in community f ood security-focused programs Objective 6: To identify a nd describe associations be tween dependent variables Operational Definitions COMMUNITY. For this study, this term will refer to geographic groups and local infrastructure as it relates to food system and food security issues. For a further discussion on this term, please see th e Community section in Chapter Two. COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY (CFS). This study will use the definition proposed by Bellows and Hamm (2003): a situation in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes community self -reliance and social justice (p. 37). COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY-FOCUSED. This term refers to programs that have one or more dimensions of community food security as the t opic for the program. CULTURAL ASPECTS OF THE FOOD SYSTEM. In this study, this phrase will refer to the concepts of culturally acceptable f ood, culturally acceptable food acquisition practices, and culturally acceptabl e food preparation practices. EXTENSION. This study will use the definition de scribed by Seevers et al (1997). Extension is a public-funded, non-formal, educational system that links the

PAGE 26

10 education and research resources of the United States Department of Agriculture, land-grant universities, and county administ rative units (p. 1) in order to provide research based information and education to meet the needs of the communities it serves. EXTENSION AGENT. A change agent (or extension ag ent, extension educator) is an intermediary between the developers of the original form of a technology and its end users (Dragon, 2005, p. 13). In this st udy the change agents are the extension agents in Florida. The end users woul d be the community stakeholders in the counties they serve. FOOD SECURITY. The most widely referenced defi nition of this term is the one proposed by the World Bank (1986): access by all people at all times to enough food for an active healthy life. FOOD SYSTEM. For this study, this term will be defined using the definition proposed by Gillespie and Gillespie (2000). Their definition includes the foundations for food production, the social aspects of consumption, and relevant government and other policies, as well as the actual growing, processing, and distributing of substances that results in foods that people consume (Gillespie & Gillespie, 2000, 3). IMPORTANCE. Likely to determine or influence events; significant. Local food system. In this study, this te rm will be synonymous with the definition for community food system proposed by G illespie and Gillespie (2000): that part of the larger food syst em that is geographically lo cated within a community ( 8). ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS OF SUPPORT. In this study, this phrase will refer to perceptions of emotional, admi nistrative, or material barrie rs or bridges to specific behaviors (i.e. engaging in or es tablishing an extension program). PARTICIPATION. In this study, this term will mean taking an educational or developmental role in a particul ar Extension education program. SALIENCE. This study will use this phrase as used by Pelletier et al (1999): the meaning and intensity of concern as sociated with an issue (p. 402). SOCIAL JUSTICE. For this study, this term will refer to problems regarding food security, hunger, and the adequacy of wages and working conditions for all those who earn their livelihoo ds from the food system (Winne, n.d., p. 2). SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE. The USDA has defined this term as an integrated system of plant and animal production pract ices having a site-sp ecific application (USDA, 2004). These applications will ha ve long term effects such as satisfying human food and fiber needs, improve e nvironmental conditions, sustain the

PAGE 27

11 economic viability of farm operations a nd improve the quality of life for farmers and communities (USDA, 2004). Limitations of the Study The following are potential limitations for this study: The results of this study ar e specific to the Florida Cooperative Extension Service and may not be generalizable to other situations. The researcher distributed the instrument to the population via the internet. Some limitations of this medium of distri bution are noted in Dillman (2000). Specifically, technical issues may preven t the respondent from properly viewing the instrument, internet connection speed may affect how the respondent sees the instrument, and the respondents computer li teracy may affect how they fill out the questionnaire. The researcher used data reduction methods to analyze the collected data. The researcher decided to use these methods due to time and resource limitations. These methods have the potential to decrease precision in the study. Summary This chapter justified the need for and provided the background on this research study. The importance and relevancy for this research has been a ddressed. The chapter described the relationship between the concep t of community food security and the goals and emphasis areas of Cooperative Extension, bo th at the national and state levels. In addition, this chapter outlined the purpose and objectives for this study.

PAGE 28

12 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter provides an overview of the literature about community food security and its relationship with current extension pr ogramming efforts in Florida. The chapter begins by describing the histor y and development of the Ex tension system in both the United States and in the state of Florida. The chapter then explains the development and the components of community food security. The researcher provides an outline of areas in which community food security and the goals and objectives of extension converge and provides examples of current extension pr ograms that focus on the different aspects of community food security. The chapter also provides the development and applications of the theoretical framework for this study. This chapter consists of the following sections: Extension Systems in the United Stat es; The Extension System in Florida; CFS; Defining Community; CFS and the Cooperativ e Extension Service; and, Theoretical Framework for the Study. Extension Systems in the United States History of Extension in the United States The Morrill Act of 1862 was a response to the belief that schools with an agricultural focus would not re ceive funding (Sanders, 1966). It specified land to be sold to generate funds that would create colleges to teach the agricultural and mechanical arts (Seevers et al., 1997; UF/IFAS, 2003). This act created land-grant universities. These land-grant institutions lacked the materials n ecessary to teach agricultural and mechanical arts in most cases. The Hatch Act establishe d agricultural experiment stations for these

PAGE 29

13 colleges in 1887 (UF/IFAS, 2003). Morrills second act in 1890 increased funding to the states and stipulated that states with land-grant schools that refused admission to nonwhite students establish alte rnative land-grant schools of equal quality for non-white students. The government required that the states distribute the land-grant funds equally between the two schools (Program Developm ent and Evaluation Center, 2005a). The Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935 included schools in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam in the land-grant status and the Native Indian Legislation included Tribal Colleges in 1994 (Seevers et al., 1997; UF/IFAS, 2003). In 1914, the Smith-Lever Act established an official relationship between the extension service and the US DA in order to provide federal appropriations to the extension service and to extend the benefits of federal aid to those colleges established under the acts of 1862 and 1890 (Seevers et al ., p. 35). The land-grant institutions and the United Stated Department of Agricult ure (USDA) developed a partnership in education through this act. The memora ndum of understanding denoted the roles, relationships, and expectations of state and USDA responsib ility in this partnership. Seevers et al. (1997) explaine d the criteria in this memora ndum. They explained that it was the states responsibility to establish an ex tension service within each state as an arm of the land-grant university. Each state had to appoint an extensi on director to overlook all extension work in the state. The states responsibility in cluded all financial aspects of state extension work. Each state was respons ible for education and programs in the areas of agriculture, home economics, and 4-H. The USDA was responsible for establishing a Federal Extension Service, a ppoint a Secretary of Agricult ure, provide program leaders

PAGE 30

14 for the areas of agriculture, home economics, and 4-H, and supervise educational programs of the USDA. Extension in the United States Today The federal extension partne r in the United States is now the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA-CSREES). Congress combined the extension service with the Cooperative Stat e Research Service as a result of the Department Reorganization Act in 1994. USDACSREES is one of four USDA agencies with a Research, Education and Economics (REE) focus. The mission of USDACSREES is to to advance knowledge for agricu lture, the environment, human health and well-being, and communities by supporting re search, education, and extension programs in the Land-Grant University System and other partner organizat ions (CSREES, 2005a, 5). USDA-CSREES expanded its focus from the three areas of agricultural, home economics and 4-H to a broader set known as the 11 national emphasis areas. These emphasis areas are: Agricultural and Food Bi osecurity; Agricultural Systems; Animals and Animal Products; Biotechnology a nd Genomics; Economics and Commerce; Families, Youth, and Communities; Food, Nutr ition and Health; Na tural Resources and Environment; Pest Management; Plants and Plant Products; and, Technology and Engineering (CSREES, 2005b). The relationship between state extension systems, land-grant institutions and USDA-CSREES falls under two main USDA-CSR EES structures. The first mechanism is national program leadership. One of the main goals of the organization is to help states identify and meet research, extension, and education prioritie s in areas of public concern that affect agricultural producers, small business owners, youth and families, and others (CSREES, 2005a, 6). The second mech anism is federal assistance by which the

PAGE 31

15 government provide[s] annual formula funding to land-grant universities and competitively granted funds to researchers in land-grant and other universities (CSREES, 2005, 6). USDA-CSREES works to address problems that affect peoples everyday lives through the resulting networ k of partnerships and collaborations. Extension works in the following areas: proble ms in the agricultural sector; new product development; safeguarding animals and plan ts; supporting human h ealth and nutrition; youth and families; and strengthening a nd rebuilding rural communities (CSREES, 2005a). All of these issues fall under one of the 11 national emphasis areas. The programming and funding mechanisms define the relationships between the levels of Cooperative Extension. The three partners in funding extension are the federal, state, and local governments, while the three partners in programming are the USDA, the land-grant universities of the state, and local extension offices (Seevers et al., 1997). Management in Extension Researchers depict extensions manageme nt structure in a six-tiered pyramid (Buford, Bedeian, & Lindner, 1995). The first or lowest level on this pyramid consists of the non-managers or agents and specialist s. The second level is the first-line management, or the county directors and projec t leaders, the largest group of managers. They are responsible for managing agents, specialists, program assistants, clerical personnel, and other non-managing staff (Buf ord et al., 1995, p. 7). The third level of management in extension is the middle manageme nt level, comprised of district directors and district agents, department heads, and st ate leaders. Middle managers primary focus is to incorporate different groups within exte nsion so they can colla borate (Buford et al., 1995). The last three levels of the pyrami d are top management. These levels are occupied by associate director for field opera tions, associate director for programs, heads

PAGE 32

16 of service programs, and the Director of Exte nsion, respectively. According to Buford et al., (1995) top management has three basic roles: interpersonal (figurehead, leader, liaison); informational (monitor, dissem inator, spokesperson); and decisional (entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resour ce allocator, negotiator) (p. 11). Top management defines the mission and direction of extension. The Florida Extension System The History of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences in Florida The Morrill Act of 1862 assigned the Universi ty of Florida land-grant status. The Morrill Act also paved the way for the estab lishment of the College of Agriculture in 1906 (UF/IFAS, 2004a). The University of Florida reorganized its College of Agriculture, School of Forestry, and Cooperativ e Extension into a single entity called the Institute of Food and Agricultural Scienc es, or IFAS in 1964 (UF/IFAS, 2004a). Today, UF/IFAS includes extension in each of the state's 67 counties, 14 research and education centers with a total of 19 locations throughout Florida, the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the School of Forest Resources and Conservation, the Center for Tropical Ag riculture, portions of the College of Veterinary Medicine, the Florida Sea Grant Program and the International Program for Food, Agriculture and Natural Resour ces. (UF/IFAS, 2004, 4) The research mission of IFAS is to invent discover and develop knowledge to enhance the agriculture and the natural resources of Florida (UF/IFAS, 2004, 12) while its extension mission is to provide scientif ic knowledge and expe rtise to the public (UF/IFAS, 2000, 1). Management and Employment in the Fl orida Cooperative Extension Service Florida Cooperative Extension Service (FCE S) management uses the Buford et al. (1995) six tiered management pyramid. County extension agents are the nonmanagement tier of the pyramid. These agents conduct educa tional programs in

PAGE 33

17 agriculture, family and consumer science, 4-H/youth development, natural resources, urban horticulture, community development, Sea Grant, and energy. Extension agents fall into four ranks: Agent I, Agent II, Agent III, and Agent IV. These ranks are comparable to university positions of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor, respectively. County extension agents are responsible for developing and implementing an educational program in a designated subject matter to help people acquire knowledge and develop problem-solvin g skills to meet their needs (UF/IFAS, 2005, 9). The Personnel Department for IFAS published a county extension agent job description that includes providing leadersh ip, implementation, de livery, and evaluation for extension education programs. The job desc ription states that extension agents must be accountable for their work and make the information about their work and programs available to all stakeholders and relevant parties. Extension agents must design their edu cational programs to reflect the countys diversity, population and educational needs. Seevers et al. (1997) describe the program development process as a three-pa rt model. The first part of the model is planning. This part includes the identification of goals, de termining needs, setting program priorities, identification of target audi ences, and development of program objectives (Seevers et al., 1997, p. 92). The second part is desi gn and implementation, which focuses on program content, methods of delivery, and delivering the program. Finally, the third component is evaluation, which focuses on the measurement of program success and impact (Seevers et al., 1997, p. 92). Extension agents also make use of a dvisory committees to incorporate the involvement of community members into the educational program development process.

PAGE 34

18 The Program Development and Evaluation Center (PDEC) of IFAS defines advisory committees as a group of citizens organized by Extension for the purpose of providing advice on and assistance with the planning, legitimization, implem entation, evaluation and accountability of Extension programs, and the maintenance of th e general health and welfare of the Extension organi zation (PDEC, 2005a, 2). Extension agents use input from clientele or stakeholders in addition to that od the advisory committees. Seevers et al. (1997) defines stakehol ders as people who have a vested interest in a program (p. 251). Th ese people can include everyone from actual participants in the program, to their families, other individuals in extension, community members, and producers or employees in the area of the educationa l program. Extension agents usually use needs assessments to identif y the needs of the stakeholders. Extension agents can address questions such as what aspects of the community can be improved, who is being affected by current problems or issues, and what resources are needed to develop a particular program (Seevers et al. 1997 ). In this way, extension agents are not only responsible for the development of edu cational programs, but also must take the needs, thoughts, and interests of the comm unity into account through advisory committee consultations and needs assessments. The first-line managers are the county extension directors (CEDs). They are responsible for delivering edu cational programs in their area of specializa tion, providing leadership in their countys extension system and for maintaining re sponsibility for all administrative and program matters in their county (UF/IFAS, 2005).

PAGE 35

19 Community Food Security The Evolution of Community Food Security Community food security partially evolved out of the concept of food security. Researchers first defined food security in the early 1970s as the abil ity to meet aggregate food needs in a consistent way (Anders on & Cook, 1999, p. 142). This concept was a response to several key factors associated with growing world hunger in the 1960s and 1970s. The first factor was the high populat ion growth rates in many countries. The global population increased by more than 2 billion between 1970 and 1995, increasing the world's population to 5.7 billion. The popul ation grew by about 80 million people per year on average during this period, equiva lent to the population of Germany in 1995 (Fritschel, Pandya-Lorch, & Rose, 1996, 3) The World Food Conference in 1974 responded to this increase in population by focusing on food production as a way to avert increasing hunger and famine in the worl d (Anderson & Cook, 1999). They brought the right to food concept to the forefront fo r both international and domestic development when they proclaimed every man, woman and child has the inalienable right to be free from hunger and malnutrition in order to deve lop their physical and mental faculties (Foreign Agricultural Se rvice, 1995, 2). Changes in food production technology and goa ls were the second major factor that drove the food security movement. In 1950, scientists began a concerted effort to develop varieties of necessary crops such as corn and rice to combat world hunger problems in developing countries in Asia and Latin America (Evenson & Gollin, 2003). The media and others were referring to these efforts success as the Green Revolution by 1970. The Green Revolution included hybrid ized forms of wheat and other grains

PAGE 36

20 that were resistant to disease and drought in order to increase food access and increase per capita income for farmers in these areas (Environmenta l Literacy C ouncil, 2005). The increase in food production and a focus on vertical integration contributed to a food entitlement or food first framework fo r food security. In other words, assuring short-term nutritional intake [was] th e main objective (Anderson & Cook, 1999, p. 142) of the food security movement in 1980. The ne ed for greater yields to meet demands and the vertical integration of th e food industry led to a more is the solution mindset. The development of the concept of food secu rity in the 1970s and 1980s revolved around individuals rights to food. The measurement of food security in geographic regions or countries as a universal dimension of household and personal well-being (Holben, 2002, p. 157) reinforced the food first concep t. The World Bank, an organization that provides financial and other t ypes of assistance to devel oping countries, became involved in the food security movement in 1984. They id entified food security as a vital issue for developing countries and for lower socioeconom ic strata in the United States. They developed the most commonly accepted definitio n of food security today: access by all people at all times to enough food for an active healthy life (Anderson & Cook, 1999, p. 142). A reflection on the 1974 World Food Conference revealed that in the twenty years that followed, food security efforts were succes sful in achieving their goals of decreasing incidences of malnourishment and starvati on around the world (Fritschel et al., 1996; Evenson & Gollin, 2003). The United Stat es government illustrated the national influence of the food security movement by strengthening assistance programs such as Women Infants Children (WIC) and Food St amps. The government designed these

PAGE 37

21 programs to assist unemployed, ill, or otherw ise unable people in th e United States in obtaining food. However, the swift expansion of the world populati on coupled with the time needed to match agricultural producti on with the growing need made for slow progress in alleviating hunger in developing countries and the United States (Fritschel et al., 1996; Evenson & Gollin, 2003). The food s ecurity movement suggested substantial changes during these two decades. The Wo rld Bank and the World Food Conference both envisioned a greater food supply to meet the needs of the population. However, toward the end of the 1980s, they discovered th at an adequate food supply did not ensure adequate food access for hungry people (Anderson & Cook, 1999). Although people agreed that world hunger wa s an issue, many groups had different positions about how to address hunger. The food assistance programs and the increase in food production in the world helped the ta rgeted populations of the food security movement. However, some food security methods there were unduly affecting other groups of people. Vertical integration was putting smaller farms out of business. There was also and increase in the use of fossil fuel s for transportation a nd production purposes. The demand for yields resulted in increas ed land use, pesticide use, and other environmentally degrading effects (Gussow, 2001; Evenson & Gollin, 2003). Holben (2002) revisited the concept of food security adding that access to food includes the ready availabil ity of nutritionally adequate safe foods and the assured ability to acquire them in socially acceptable ways (p. 156). Proponents for CFS argued that this concept was not broad enough to a ddress the social and environmental issues that were arising due to food security methods. Hamm and Bellows (2003) proposed a definition of CFS that would become one of the most widely accepted. This definition is

PAGE 38

22 a situation in which all community reside nts obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet th rough a sustainable food system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice (Hamm & Bellows, 2003, p. 37). Holbens (2002) definition of food security incorporated the concepts of food access, nutritionally adequate foods, and social acceptability. Hamm and Bellows (2003) expanded this definition into the umbrella concept of CFS by modifying the concept of social acceptability, and by adding the concepts of su stainable food systems, local food systems (community self-reliance), and social justi ce. These additional components address the environmental and social issues explai ned by Gussow (2001) and Evenson and Gollin (2003). Food security analysis evaluates the existence of resources, both community and personal . CFS analysis, however, can also extend beyond such basic questions as adequacy of personal resources into an examin ation of the food system itself (Gottlieb & Fisher, 1996b, p. 24). Defining Community Food Security The evolution of CFS definitions consis ted of inclusions and exclusions of concepts, and metamorphoses of meanings The process generated many other definitions. While the definition proposed by Hamm and Bellows (2003) is the most widely accepted, there are many others that researchers commonly refer to in current literature. Table 2-1 illustrates the ma jor definitions and their originators. Table 2-1. Matrix of prevalent commun ity food security definitions as of 2006. Author Definition Gottlieb and Fisher (1996a) food system-based issues of hunger, access, quality and availability as well as related questions of how food is grown, processed, or manufactured, and distributed (p. 193)

PAGE 39

23 Table 2-1. Continued. Author Definition Hamm and Bellows (2003) a situation in which all commun ity residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritiona lly adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice (p. 37) USDA (2004) a prevention-oriented con cept that supports th e development and enhancement of sustainable, community-based strategies to improve access of low-income households to healthful nutritious food supplies, to increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs, and to promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues ( 1) Cohen (2002) concerns the underlying social, economic, and institutional factors that affect th e quantity and quality of available food and its affordability or price relative to the sufficiency of financial resources available to acquire it (p. 3) Pelletier, Kraak, McCullum, Uusitalo, and Rich (1999) the ability of a community to en sure that all its member have adequate access to health ful, acceptable food through environmentally sustainable, ec onomically viable, and socially desirable production, processing, and distribution methods (p. 401) Many authors precede their definitions by stating that there is no one accepted definition. The definition of CFS is in n eed of focus and delineation. Anderson and Cook (1999) state CFS as a concept suffers from loose definitions and absence of a theoretical structure (p. 142). They go on to say that CFS has the potential to improve the understanding of the ba rriers to food security at several levels of analysis, and help policy makers and practitioners improve food s ecurity in a given area (p. 142). There are seven concepts that are common to most cu rrent definitions; thes e are all represented in the Hamm and Bellows (2003) definition. The seven concepts are: food access, food safety, nutrition, sustainabl e agriculture (food production), local food systems (community food systems), culturally acceptabl e food and social justice. These are the

PAGE 40

24 core seven concepts that occur most ofte n, although some definitions of CFS do not include some concepts or incorporate concepts not in this list. As mentioned previously, Holben (20 02) defines food access as the ready availability of nutritionally adeq uate safe foods and the assure d ability to acquire them in socially acceptable ways ( p. 156). Kantor (2001) supports this definition when she states that food access includes the ability of a household to acquire enough food to support life, health, and activit y. One can determine the adeq uacy of food access through such factors as the abil ity or inability to ge t to a supermarket or food retail store due to the availability of tran sportation (Winne, n.d.). The definition of food safety includes both the safety of foods being sold and the knowledge of community members on how to sa fely prepare foods so as to avoid food borne illness (Thomson et al., 2004). Nutrition issues are rates of diet-related health problems, including obesity and diabetes as well as infant mortality, low-bi rth weight babies, and iron-deficient anemia (Winne, n.d., p. 1). The concept of nutrition also includes a balanced diet and access to foods that are healthy and wholesome. Sustainable agriculture refers to the pr ovision of a more profitable income for farmers and producers while promoting respons ible environmental management and care (CSREES, 2005b). Feenstra (2002) adds to this by saying th at sustainable agriculture can be characterized as more environmen tally sound, more economically viable for a larger percentage of community members (p. 100). The USDAs official definition of sustainable agriculture is an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having site-specific application (USDA, 2004).

PAGE 41

25 Local or community food systems relate to the concept of sustainable agriculture. These systems are collaborative efforts to build more locally ba sed, self-reliant food economies one[s] in which sustainable food production, processing, distribution, and consumption are integrated to enhance the econo mic, environmental, and social health of a particular place (University of California, 2002). Commun ity self-reliance is integral to the concept of local food systems because community residents are engaged in all phases of planning, evaluation and implementation. The concept of culturally acceptable foods re fers to both the type of food consumed and the manner in which the food was obtained. For example, in some cultures, it is unacceptable to kill and eat animals such as cats and dogs. A major indicator for food insecurity would be eating culturally unacceptable animals. The concept of social justice has many definitions. Reisch (2002) illustrated the elusive nature of this co ncept. He states social justice is often viewed as an alternative to dominant or hierarchi cal forces, focusing on individual ri ghts and egalitarianism. In the context of CFS, social justic e is the injustice of hunger a nd food insecurity as well as the adequacy of wages and working conditi ons for all those who earn their livelihoods from the food system (Winne, n.d., p. 2). Defining Community One must examine the concept of community when defining the concepts of CFS. Almost all researchers reference the fact that there is no common definition for community. It is a concept that holds ma ny points of contention and disagreement for researchers, sociologists, a nd community developers. Bell and Newby (1972) said, In considering the concept of comm unity, the sociologist shares an occupational hazard with the architect and the pla nner: the more he attempts to defi ne it in his own terms, the more

PAGE 42

26 elusively does the essence of it seem to es cape him (p. 21). The researchers go on to explain that the basic confusion in defi ning the concept of community lies in a differentiation between empirical description and normative pres cription. In other words, what the concept involves has not proved to be too difficult to elaborate; attempts to describe what it is, however, have prove d impossible without making value judgments (Bell & Newby, 1972, p. 21). Othe r researchers have also documented the issues and barriers in finding a common or agreed-upon definition for community (Wood & Judikis, 2002; Wilkinson, 1991; Rubin & Rubin, 2001). Obst, Smith, and Zinkiewicz (2002) documented a 1995 literature review that f ound at least 94 definitions for the term community. This section will not attempt to provide an ultimate definition, but will provide a brief overview of the most promin ent, current ideas re garding community. This section will provide the definitions refe renced in terms of local food systems and CFS and provide a working definition for this study. The section will cover the concepts in four sections: Communitarianism, Ps ychological Sense of Community, Geographic Community, and Community and CFS. Communitarianism Bell (1993) describes the co mmunitarian approach by us ing the definition in The Responsive Communitarian Platform: A co mmunitarian perspec tive recognizes both individual human dignity and the social dime nsion of human existence (p. 1). Etzioni (1997) suggests that commun itarians seek an agreement on the constitution of a good society. The communitarian paradigm focuse s less on what constitutes a community than what constitutes a good community. He writes: The communitarian paradigm applies the notion of the gol den rule at the societal level to characterize the good society as one that nourishes both social virtues and

PAGE 43

27 individual rights. I argu e that a good society requires a carefully maintained equilibrium of order and autonomy, rather th an the maximization of either. (p. 4) Communitarianism focuses on both the com ponents and the whole that make up a community. Bell (1993) asserts that commun itarianism can be defined by looking at the beliefs about the self, the methodological appr oach to political theo ry, and the stated value of the community. Be ll (1993) agrees with Etzioni and suggests that true communitarianism sees individuals as so cial beings. He also suggests that communitarians, therefore, can only approach political theory with an explanation of shared interpretation regarding community. Fi nally, he suggests th at the value of the community is ultimately important because it is the community that defines the individual, not the othe r way around (Bell, 1993). Etzioni (1997) also identi fies several components that make up the communitarian paradigm and contrasts those components w ith the ones that make up libertarianism, a perspective on the other side of the spectrum. In contrast to the libertarian perspective, Etzioni (1997) argues that co mmunitarians see people as i nherent parts of a social context, and not as free agents. It is impossible to view pe ople as individuals apart from society. This paradigm also addresses the fact that community is a set of attributes, not a concrete place (Etzioni, 1997, p. 6). Etzi oni argues that communities have common needs, although they may have different attr ibutes. The attributes will determine the differences in the responses to those n eeds, but the needs remain universal among communities. The call for social order is another point that differentiates communitarianism from libertarianism. Etzioni states, Commun itarians see a need for a social order that contains a set of shared values to which i ndividuals are taught that they are obligated

PAGE 44

28 their starting point is a shared set of defin itions of what is right versus what is wrong (Etzioni, 1997, p. 12). He argues that membersh ip in a community that has these shared values should be voluntary rather than force d, therefore reinforcing the meaningfulness of the individuals commitment to the community and to all of the members of that community. This shared set of values furthers the autonomous nature of communitarianism, rather than a commitme nt to furthering morality or values. Communitarians limit the virtues the society favors to a core set of values while legitimating differences on other normative ma tters (Etzioni 1997, p. 17). However, the autonomy in this model is somewhat limited. The autonomy articulated here is only within the limits of the core shared values and works to balance th e voices of those in power versus those being ruled (Etzioni, 1997). Communitarianism is admittedly on a definiti ve side of the spectrum and it has its critics. Bell (1993) identifies the Left Neo-Kantian Liberal framework as a theory that opposes communitarianism. Specifically, wher e communitarians see i ndividuals as parts of the communities and societ ies they make up, liberals s ee people as struggling to be individuals in spite of societal barriers. He illustrates this point when he wrote that liberalism: offered a defense of liberal freedoms so ba sic that they could not be overridden by the good of society as a whole. The cr ucial move was to found liberalism on the capacity (and responsibility) we have to exercise our Kantian moral powers of shaping, pursuing, and revising (if need be) our own life plans, and to respect the exercise of these same powers of self-d etermination on the part of other persons. (Bell, 1993, p. 3) Etzioni (1996) said that th ere is room for moderation in the communitarian paradigm despite its extreme perspective. He suggested that there was a part of a person that fell into the social category and a part of a person that fell into the individual category, as

PAGE 45

29 described by Bell (1993). Th e person as an individual wa s the spring of creativity and transformation within community. Indivi duality fulfilled the pe rson on a fundamental level. The person as a part of a community was the foundation for work toward the needs of the community and for support for the social virtues within that community (Etzioni 1996). Etzioni (2000) put forth his own definition for community with these perspectives in mind. He wrote: Community is a combination of two elements: A) A web of affect-laden relationships among a group of individuals, relationships that often crisscross and reinforce one another (rather than one-on-one or chainlik e individual relationships). B) A measure of commitment to a set of shared values, norms, and meanings, and a shared history and identity in shor t, to a particular culture. (p. 188) Psychological Sense of Community In the midst of the debate over what c onstitutes a community and what qualities constitute a good community, there was a not ed lack of measurability of these characteristics in the scientific community. Sarason (1974) devel oped the theory of a psychological sense of community and sugge sted that community was self-defined through this sense. Saras ons research provided the ba sis for future theoretical development by McMillan and Chavis (1986). They adapted Sarason s concept into the definition, a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members needs will be met through their commitment to be together. They argue that community is comprised of four basic elements: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection. Most current researchers argue that this theory provides the best foundation upon which to build our understand ing of communities (Obst et al., 2002, p. 121). Obst and White (2005) state that the psychological sense of community is what defines a quality or well-functioning communit y. They found that psychological sense of

PAGE 46

30 community is strongly relate d to group identification and in-group ties (Obst and White, 2005). Researchers have conducted many studies to examine psychological sense of community in connection to geographic commun ities or communities of place. Obst et al. (2002) examined psychologica l sense of community across rural, urban, and suburban communities. Their findings supported the four dimensions of psychological sense of community as described by McMillan and Chavis (1986), and found a fifth dimension through factor analysis. Obst et al. (2002) found that conscious iden tification was also a major indicator of psychological sense of comm unity. This factor appeared to be more important than geographic location. Some researchers argue that the psychol ogical sense of community does not allow for the complexities that are inherent in comm unities, particularly those that are in an urban context. Colombo, Mosso, and De Piccoli (2001) write that community has historically been defined as homogeneous a nd harmonized. The researchers feel that descriptions of community such as the one put forth by Etzioni (2000) do not paint a realistic picture. The psychological sense of community and its instrument, the Sense of Community Index (SCI) do not take into account the dynamic and conflicting components that may be present at the level of the local community, in particular, with urban contexts (Colombo et al., 2001, p. 462). Geographic Community Researchers have also examined community as a geographic location. Hirst (1980) issued a proposal for a firmer theoretical framework for community as a geographic place in order to further community development efforts. He util ized the term local social system defined as a set of interrelated social institutions which exist within a

PAGE 47

31 geographically defined locality (Hirst, 1980, p. 54) for his proposal. This definition was tentative, and the author sugge sted that more research be done in looking at the role of location and community power, examining co mmunities geographic circumstances and their effects on their community issues. Resear chers interested in community in terms of community development have responded to this proposal in recent years. Organizers and researchers currently define communities geographically for the purposes of sustainable community developm ent. Rubin and Rubin (2001) write that organizers can use the term community to describe a geographica l place in order to employ strategies that allow peopl e within those areas to work together to create a better space. They describe community as a ge ographic place as a neighborhood, perhaps a large housing complex, or a park in which the homeless congre gate. People living in this place interact with each ot her, at least occasionally (Rubin & Rubin, 2001, p. 97). The definition of community proposed by comm unitarians and the geographic definition utilized by community organizers clearly have little in co mmon. Martin (2003) states, Proximity fosters common e xperiences of problems and t hus common interests, but location does not, in itself, ma ke a community. Yet many scholars have argued that place fosters a common identity, based on common experi ences, interests, a nd values (p. 730). Scholars agree that the concept of neighborhood denotes places, whereas community does not (Flora, 1998; Galster, 2001; Rubin and Rubin, 2001; Martin, 2003). Galster (2001) defines the concept of neighborhood as the bundle of spatially based attributes associated with clusters of residences, sometimes in conjunction with other land uses (p. 2112). These spatially ba sed attributes are characteristics such as: architectural quality, quality and type of roads, utilities, and sidewalks, demographics of

PAGE 48

32 the population, environmental attributes, and local social network traits. One can measure or observe these charac teristics within a designated location, unlike those of less place-based communities (G alster, 2001). These spatially-based attributes are significant not only to those wanting to delineate neighbor hoods, but also to community developers. Martin (2003) found that local communities constitute their territorial sphere as a legitimate and meaningful site for activism (p. 747). Curry and McGuire (2002) base their argument on the assumption that commun ity and geographic space are inherently connected. They state that social groups of people look to develop communities as well as provide stewardship of the la nd on which the community lives. Community and Community Food Security The concept of community is fundamental to CFS. However, there is no accepted definition of this concept in CFS literature. Local CFS projects distinguish themselves by their attention to community infrastructure and their lo cal food system approach to achieving food security (Hamm and Bellows 2003, p. 38). Gillespie and Gillespie (2000) discuss community as it relates to the f ood system in four different categories. The first is the classical community. They describe this as a small grouping of people who are dependent on one another for their needs. The members of this community could readily identify other members a nd would share a common culture. They distinguish the classical community from th e community of place, or geographic areas where people live inhabitants may exhibit very few or none of the other properties embodied in the classical sense of community (Gillespie & Gillespie, 2001, 6). They also identify communities of interest, where social groups congregate based on a shared concern or issue. Finally, they discuss the modern community where people can live independently of other community member s due to access to imported or outside

PAGE 49

33 resources that meet individual needs. In this community, people may not be able to recognize all members of the community, and they are not aware of the sources or producers of the products they consume. While Gillespie and Gillespie (2000) discu ss this last type of community as one that warrants concern when talking about the food system, they do not identify one description or definition of community in CFS terms. They describe their conceptualization of a commun ity food system. They identify this concept as part of the larger food system that is geographically located in a community (Gillespie & Gillespie, 2001, 8). They depict the comm unity food system as being a self-reliant system that is controlled by lo cal community members. The pr oducts of this type of food system should be accessible by all residents. The products should also be healthy, safe to consume, and their production should contribut e to the sustainability of the environment and of the community in which the food system is located. The system should be able to function in the face of disturbances, environmen tal or weather challenges, and in times of economic insecurity. The system should also promote the food security of all community members. Gillespie and Gillespie (2001) said that th e attributes that make a community food system functional or effective are subjectiv e in the case of each community. Hamm and Bellows (2003) concur with this when th ey write, The term community in CFS promotes highly differentiated understandings that vary according to the geographic environs (size, location, environmental qualit y, etc), the local polit ical economy and the demographic identity of those defining food secu rity (p. 38). It is not just the physical manifestation of community and the food system that is of importance, but also the action

PAGE 50

34 and efforts of the community to address a nd meet community members needs (Bellows & Hamm, 2003). Community Food Security and th e Cooperative Extension Service As mentioned in Chapter One, extension ha s long had a distinct relationship with the food system in the United States. The long desired outcome for extension educators and their communities is to build community consensus and to develop a common vision for a sustainable food system (Thomson, et al., 2004, p. 201). Extension educators have a patent role in working with their commun ities in building and shaping an effective food system through educational programming and st akeholder interaction. The concept of CFS deals with many aspects of the food syst em and with community involvement in the food system. Florida Cooperative Extensi on Service works with both the 11 National Focus Areas of USDA-CSREES and with the statewide goals for Florida for 2004-2007. Each of these statewide goals has an underlying focus area te am. These are presented as the overarching statewide goal and the underlyi ng focus area teams in Table 2-2. Table 2-2. Florida statewide goals and underlying focus area teams, 2005. Florida Statewide Goals A ssociated Focus Area Teams Goal 1: To enhance and maintain agricultural and food systems FT* 1a: Agricultural Profitabil ity and the Sustainable Use of Environmental Resources FT 1b: Awareness of Agricultures Importance to an Economy That Ranges From Local to Global FT 1c: Processing, Distribution, Safety and Security of Food Systems FT 1d: Plant, Animal, and Human Protection FT 1e: Safety for Agricultural Operations and Equipment Goal 2: To maintain and enhance Floridas environment FT 2a: Water Resources FT 2b: Conservation and Sustai nable Use of Freshwater and Terrestrial Natural Res ources and Ecosystems FT 2c: Environmental Education FT 2d: Conservation and Sust ainable Use of Coastal and Marine Natural Resources and Ecosystems *FT=focus area team (PDEC, 2005b)

PAGE 51

35 Table 2-2. Continued. Florida Statewide Goals A ssociated Focus Area Teams Goal 3: To develop responsible and productive youth through 4-H and other youth programs FT 3a: Life Skills Developed In Youth Through Subject Matter Experiences FT 3b: Organizational Strategi es and Learning Environments to Support Youth Programs FT 3c: Volunteer Development and Systems to Support Youth Goal 4: To create and maintain Florida friendly landscapes: The smart way to grow FT 4a: Commercial Horticultu re/Urban Forestry Services FT 4b: Residential Landscapes FT 4c: Florida Yards and Neighborhoods (FYN) Goal 5: To assist individuals and families to achieve economic well-being and life quality FT* 5a: Personal and Family Well-Being FT 5b: Financial Management and Economic Well-being FT 5c: Nutrition Food Safety And Health FT 5d: Housing and Environment FT 5e: Nonprofit Organizations Leadership and Volunteer Development Goal 6: Healthy Communities FT 6a: Addressing the Urban/Rural Interface FT 6b: Broad-Based Citizen Participation and Active Communities FT 6c: Economic Diversity FT 6d: Community Preparedness Goal 7: To promote professional development activities designed to enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness FT 7a: Program Development, Implementation and Evaluation FT 7b: Faculty Orientation and Training FT 7c: Effective Communication and Technology Use FT 7d: Personal and Organizational Health FT 7e: Administration and Leadership *FT=focus area team (PDEC, 2005b) There are areas of associa tion between the seven main concepts of CFS and the established foci of Cooperative Extension. Many of these focus areas, both on the national and state level, corres pond with the seven concepts of CFS. Table 2-3 illustrates the relationships between these concepts. Th e first column contains the CFS concept and the second column contains the national and st ate focus areas that address that concept.

PAGE 52

36 Table 2-3. Corresponding community food secur ity concepts and extension focus areas, Florida, 2006 CFS Key Concept USDA-CSREES National Focus Area and Relevant Focus Area Concepts Florida Statewide Goals and Focus Area Teams Food Access Food Nutrition and Health Hunger and food security Goal 5: To Assist Individuals and Families Achieve Economic Well-Being and Life Quality Goal 1: To Enhance and Maintain Agricultural and Food Systems FT* 1b: Awareness of agricultures importance to an economy that ranges from local to global Food Safety Food Nutrition and Health Food safety Goal 1: To enhance and Maintain Agricultural and Food Systems FT 1c: Processing, distribution, safety and security of food systems Nutrition Food Nutrition and Health Nutrition Obesity/healthy weight Goal 5: To Assist Individuals and Families Achieve Economic Well-Being and Life Quality FT 5b: Nutrition, food safety, and health Sustainable Agriculture (food production) Agricultural Systems Organic agriculture Small farms Sustainable agriculture Natural Resources and Environment Environmental and resource economics Sustainable development Goal 1: To Enhance and Maintain Agricultural and Food Systems FT 1b: Awareness of agricultures importance to an economy that ranges from local to global Goal 2: To Maintain and Enhance Floridas Environment FT 2a: Water resources FT 2c: Environmental Education Local Food Systems (community food systems) Economics and Commerce Public policy Small and home based businesses Family, Youth & Communities Rural and community development Goal 5: To Assist Individuals and Families Achieve Economic Well-Being and Life Quality Goal 6: Healthy Communities *FT=focus area team, national focus areas are in italics

PAGE 53

37 Table 2-3. Continued. CFS Key Concept USDA-CSREES National Focus Area and Relevant Focus Area Concepts Florida Statewide Goals and Focus Area Teams Culturally Acceptable Food Food Nutrition and Health Hunger and food security Goal 5: To Assist Individuals and Families Achieve Economic Well-Being and Life Quality FT 5c: Nutrition, food safety, and health Goal 1: To Enhance and Maintain Agricultural and Food Systems FT 1c: Pro cessing, distribution, safety and security of food systems Social Justice None None *FT=focus area team, national focus areas are in italics Extension Programs and Food-Access Issues The concepts of CFS are in both the nati onal focus areas and Floridas statewide goals and focus area teams, with the exception of social justice. These areas are also evident in extension programs and studies th roughout the United States. For example, Greer and Poling (2001) discuss a program called the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and its impact on local food security. The USDA funds the EFNEP program and state extension services manage it (Greer & Poling, 2001). The program helps low-income families deal with nutrition and food insecurity issues. The mission of this program is to provide commun ities with an effective, research supported, nutrition education program that enables limited resource families and youth to acquire nutrition behaviors contributing to quality health and wellness (EFNEP/IFAS, 2004, 3). Greer and Poling (2001) designed a study to examine the relationship between food insecurity and participation in nutri tion education classes and the relationship

PAGE 54

38 between food insecurity and ove rall health status (p. 3) in Tennessee. The purpose of the study was to establish the impact of an extension program on hunger and nutrition issues, two of the concepts inherent to CFS. The sample in this study consisted of an intervention group that was enrolled in the EFNEP program and had taken two or more lessons, and a non-intervention gr oup in which subjects were eligible for EFNEP lessons, but had taken one or no lessons. Each res pondent filled out the Bickels (2000)18-item household food security questionnaire. This questionnaire is also known as the Food Security Core Survey Module (Holben, 2002) The studys results suggested that participation in the extension-based EFNE P program showed an increase in household food security among the studys subjects (Gr eer & Poling, 2002). The results also indicated that people with less food security are more likely to have issues associated with poor health than those with more food security (Greer & Po ling, 2002). Subjects who had completed the program were more lik ely to have food at the end of the month and were more likely to have higher intake levels of vitamins and minerals (Greer & Poling, 2002). The authors conclude the pape r by suggesting that there is a need for multi-session nutrition education for low-inco me households, focusing on basic nutrition, food shopping, and cooking skills. The impacts of such programs can be increased food security for participants, bette r health, and more efficient use of food resources (Greer & Poling, 2002, p. 9). The Family Living Program, offered thr ough University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, is another example of extensi ons direct involvement in hunger and foodaccess issues. Row (2005) starte d a series of papers called Hunger Close to Home, published through the Extension service in Wisc onsin. The purpose of this series was to

PAGE 55

39 educate community members and state reside nts of hunger, food insecurity, and risk factors in their area. Row (2005) points out that relativ e to other states, Wisconsin households have become more food insecure and hungry. People are also seeking more food assistance (p. 2). Food Stamp, or F ood Share, participation in Wisconsin has increased more than anywhere else in th e United States (Row, 2005). University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension responded to these food access and hunger issues by offering publications such as the Hunger Close to Home series and by offering the Wisconsin Nutrition Education Program (WNEP) to families and individuals (Row, 2002). Specifically, UW-Extension conducts re search to better understand the extent of food insecurity and hunger in Wisconsin, a nd the characteristics of food insecure households (p. 3). University of Wisconsin Extension Service de signed and evaluated the programs that address the hunger and food ins ecurity issues in th e state in order to meet the needs of the community. These examples illustrate extensi on programs that focus on food access and nutrition and the impact they can have on community participants and their families. These programs incorporate the CFS con cepts of food access and nutrition. The programs also incorporate the national focus area, Food, Nutrition, and Health. The programs fall under Floridas goal area of assi sting individuals and families in achieving economic well-being and life qua lity. The focus area team under that goal area is Nutrition, Food Safety, and Health. Currentl y, Florida has 12 coun ties participating in EFNEP (EFNEP/IFAS, 2004). Extension Program and Food-Safety Issues Extension programs also address food-saf ety issues and food safety education. Gentry-Van Laanen and Nies (1995) conducte d an evaluation of extension food safety

PAGE 56

40 programs in Texas. Researchers requested pa rticipant lists of Texans who had attended a food safety program in the previous two year s to identify their population. Gentry-Van Laanen and Nies (1995) identified eligible programs as those utilizing a group meeting or result demonstration format to teach safe food handling or food preservation practices to adults ( 8). The researchers develope d 16-question interview forms based on content material such as lesson plans, activity sheets or fact sheets (Gentry-Van Laanen & Nies, 1995). The interviews were in a pre-test / po st-test format, wherein program participants were given the same questions before and after the program. They conducted a follow-up interview via telephone up to 10 weeks after the program. Gentry-Van Laanen and Nies (1995) f ound that specific food handling and food safety behaviors showed statis tically significant shifts towa rd desired behaviors. In addition, almost one half of the participants identified publications or programs provided by the Extension Service as their main sour ce of food safety information (Gentry-Van Laanen & Nies, 1995, 14). The researchers found that the extension service in Texas met a definitive food-related need in the community that was not addressed by other agencies. The results suggested that the pr ograms attempting to address the needs were successful in their efforts. The study a ddressed the current lo cal concerns about foodborne illness and its costs. The research ers suggested that educ ational efforts on the part of the extension service should be c ontinued, and possibly directed toward certain members of the community (Gen try-Van Laanen & Nies, 1995). An extension website offered food safety knowledge for Penn State Cooperative Extension agents. The site was a response to an extension agen t questionnaire that indicated extension agents wanted more suppor t from specialists in food science in the

PAGE 57

41 areas of home food preservation and f ood safety (LaBorde, 2003). Researchers conducted a study to determine the extent to wh ich extension agents us ed the site for food safety information, the effect the site ha d on extension agents level of knowledge the extension agents had regarding food safety, a nd changes in behavior or attitude toward the Internet as a result of using the site (LaBorde, 2003). The researchers sent an electronic questionnaire to 72 Cooperative Ex tension agents who subscribed to a mailing list that focused on food safety information (LaBorde, 2003). The results suggested that the web site has been successful because it has responded to a specific request from Cooperative Extension agents for rapid and easy access to food safety and home food preservation information (LaBorde, 2003, 21). In addition, the web site increased extension agent awareness of research, activit ies, and education in the Department of Food Science at Penn State University (LaBorde 2003). The web site served as a way to provide extension agen ts with information pertinent to addressing community members food-safety issues, concerns, and questions. Both the Texas food safety program evalua tion and the web site dedicated to food safety through Penn State illustrate extensio ns furthered involvement with food safety, an essential concept to CFS. These examples showed extension agents need for organizational support. This organizational support could be accessible information, the availability of specialist s upport, or accessible evaluative data for extension agents engaging in educational programs that focu s on food-safety issues. These programs reflect a concentration on the national focu s area of Food Nutrition and Health. Programs such as these in Florida show a focus on the goal area of enhancing and maintaining

PAGE 58

42 agricultural and food systems. The focus area team with in that goal area would be Processing, Distribution, Safety and Security of Food Systems. Extension Programs and Nutrition Issues Many extension educational programs fo cus on nutrition. Texas Agricultural Extension Service offers an educational progr am that addresses nutrition choices of those who receive food stamps. The program is called The Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program or FSNEP, but for marketing purposes in Texas the program is delivered as the Better Living for Texans program (BLT) (Anding, Fletcher, Van Laanen, & Supak, 2001). The Texas Agricultural Extension Serv ice designed the BLT program to address a community food-related issue identified by the USDA in 1999. A nation-wide survey found that, while the national average of food-insecure households was 9.7% in 1999, Texas had a higher-than-average total of 12.9% of households that were food insecure (Anding et al., 2001). A major objective of th e BLT program was to provide education and guidance in the area of food resource management to prevent food insecurity (Anding et al., 2001, 18). Anding et al. (2001) performed an evaluation in order to determine the effectiveness of the program. They conducte d a telephone-based survey targeted toward participants in the BLT program. The evalua tion results indicated that the program was successful in its efforts to influence f ood selection, food safety knowledge, and food resource management among participants. Th e researchers predicted that changes in these behaviors would have long term health effects. The rese archers based this projection on the assumption that increased consumption of fruits and vegetables and decreased consumption of dietary fat are thought to promote good health and prevent disease (Anding et al., 2001, 15). Overall, the study found the program to successfully

PAGE 59

43 address the established need for education in nutrition, food management, and food safety and reduce community dependency on local food banks and emergency food reserves (Anding et al., 2001). This program, like others focused on one core concept of CFS, but incorporated several others in its educational curricula. Extension Programs and Local Food Systems Thompson et al. (2003) made the argument that extension should promote a focus on local food systems. They conducted a survey of all Pennsylvania Extension agents. The goal of the study was to determine persp ectives of extension educators relative to local food system issues and programming in Pennsylvania (Thomson et al., 2003, p. 201). The researchers measured four main vari able categories to achie ve this goal. The first variable was respondent s attitudes regarding local food system issues. The researchers measured these attitudes with a Likert scale. The second category of variables consisted of extensi on agents perspectives on suppor t or barriers to local food system programming. The third category of variables measured extension agents responses to the involvement of local orga nizations in local food systems programming. Finally, the fourth category c onsisted of respondents demogr aphic characteristics. The researchers collected this data from exte nsion agents using a web-based instrument. The researchers found that extension agents felt that the most support for local food systems programming came from their CEDs, wh ile the least came from local residents. They also found that extension agents felt that the top three barriers to participating in local food systems programming were: lack of organizational resources; the programming did not fit in with their programmatic responsibilities; or, that they did not have enough knowledge. The researchers conc luded that while extension agents found most local food system issues important, they did not feel that this alone was enough to

PAGE 60

44 determine programming for a community. In ot her words, the researchers suggested that the community must demonstrate a need and th e extension agents must feel the topic is important in order to achie ve effective programming for a community. Finally, the researchers suggested that inte rdepartmental collaboration an d partnerships with outside organizations can strengthen community suppor t for local food system programming. In this way, the researchers sugge sted that Pennsylvania Exte nsion educators focus on an important facet of CFS: local or community food systems. Thomson, Abel and Maretski (2001) state that many of the community issues on which extension bases its programs stem from the capacity of the communitys local food system. Sharp, Imerman, and Peters (2002) write that community based agriculture programs such as Community Supported Agri culture (CSA) can help extension bring people together through food production and co ntribute to the emergence of stronger communities ( 31). All of the components of CFS are interrelated in different ways, as implied in the Hamm and Bellows (2003) CFS definition. Hunger. Economic development. Job creation. Farmland and open space preservation. Proper nutrition of children and adults (Thomson et al., 2001, 1). These are all issues that are related to local food systems. Thomson, Abel, and Maretski (2001) wrote a bout a program called Edible Connections and describe how it relates to the Extension Service in Pennsylvania. The program is designed to initiate conversation and to take action on critical food issues to generate changes at both an individual and a commun ity level (Thomson et al., 2001, 5). The researchers suggest that this type of program can work to bolster extension programs in all areas that deal with food or aspects of the food system. In addition, programs such as

PAGE 61

45 Edible Connections can help extension e ducators in establishing collaborations and partnerships with community members and community based organizations to develop action plans to address local food syst em issues (Thomson et al., 2001). The authors illustrate the potential relati onship between Cooperative Extension and local CFS efforts. The Community Food S ecurity Initiative of 1999 encourages the collaborations between the USDA and other federal agencies, nonpr ofit organizations, states, and municipalities (Thomson et al., 2001, 19). They also identify the relationship between the seven action areas named in the initiative and the 11 national focus areas developed by the USDA. Specifi cally, the authors point out the fact that programs such as Edible Connections can bridge the relationshi p between Cooperative Extension and CFS efforts by he lping extension educators addr ess food insecurity issues in a community by making it possible to iden tify potential collabor ators and activities (Thomson et al., 2001, 21). Extension Programs and Sustainable Agriculture Cooperative Extension also focuses on su stainable agriculture and food production, another core concept of CFS. In North Ca rolina, researchers c onducted a study to assess Extension professionals percep tions of sustainable agricu lture (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000). They distributed a questi onnaire to professionals that were identified as having a focus in agriculture. The study found that th e majority of respondents felt that North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service ha d a strong commitment to sustainable agriculture (Minarovic & Muel ler, 2000, 14). In addition, the researchers found that respondents were interested in working on collaborative projects with members from other disciplines (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000, 25). However, Exte nsion professionals reported that they felt that these collaborat ions were not supported by administration.

PAGE 62

46 Fifty-seven percent agreed that there we re institutional barriers to engaging in interdisciplinary or collaborative research in sustainable agriculture (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000). More than 75% of respondents also reported that they felt there was not enough organizational support fo r grassroots involvement in agriculture programs and research (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000). While the respondents felt interested in participating in sustainable agriculture re search and programming, they reported some institutional barriers to engaging in thes e activities in a way that allowed for interdisciplinary collaboration or for local involvement at a meaningful level. Extension Program and Culturally Acceptable Food Cooperative Extension has recently been focusing more of its attention on programs that reach more diverse audiences (Hassel, 2004). Hassel (2004) suggests that extension agents must incorporate divers e audiences previous knowledge, ways of learning, and ways of knowing while designi ng educational programs. Fishman, Pearson, and Reicks (1999) acknowledged these variable s when designing their study intended to gather nutrition and food information from th e children of migrant farm workers. They began by observing the behaviors and current knowledge of the children in order to design culturally appropriate in terview questions. The researchers stated, A richer understanding of their worl d and needs would increase the service communitys effectiveness in providing nutrition progr amming (Fishman et al., 1999, 7). The researchers thought that a bett er understanding of local know ledge and culture would not only benefit their study, but w ould also lend itself to mo re successful educational programming through extension. The resear chers go on to recommend that extension agents use foods found in the households of migrant farm workers when teaching children about nutrition. They also state, Nutrition educators need to understand

PAGE 63

47 traditional food and health customs to provide culturally relevant nutrition education (Fishman et al., 1999, 19). Hoover, Cooper, Tamplin, Osmond, and Edge ll (1996) also recogni zed the need for culturally aware extension education program s for diverse audiences. While designing their study, they wrote, As the Cooperative Extension Service continues to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse and multicul tural client group, it is important that educational materials both writ ten and verbal be made availa ble to those individuals in their primary language (Hoover et al., 1996, 7). Hoover et al. (1996) emphasize the need for extension agents to make educational programs accessible, usable, and relevant to diverse audiences. Extension Programs and Social Justice The concept of social justi ce is not found in the USDAs 11 national focus areas, or Floridas statewide goals, alt hough it is a possible area for expa nsion for extension agents in the United States. Kelsey (2002) writes about the role of C ooperative Extension in delivering educational programs dealing with civic engagement and democracy. Kelsey (2002) argues that Cooperative Extension mu st incorporate social engagement, civil associations, and democracy-building into its educational curricula in order to fulfill its mission. Checkoway (2001) writes, Commun ities in a diverse democratic society require citizens who understand their own social identities, communicate with those who are different from themselves, and build bridges across a common cause (Checkoway, 2001, p. 129). Both Checkoway (2001) and Ke lsey (2002) argue that land-grant universities and Cooperative Exte nsion have a vital role in developing a community sense of social and civic engagement.

PAGE 64

48 Theoretical Framework for the Study The Development of the Theory of Planned Behavior The theory of planned behavior is a fusi on of two other major social psychological theories. The first of these theories is the theory of reasoned acti on. Ajzen and Fishbein played a major role in developing this theory to understand and be able to predict human behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Acco rding to the theory of reasoned action, researchers can use two major factors to predict a humans intention to perform a behavior. The first factor is the individuals attitude toward a partic ular behavior. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) describe th is as the persons positive or negative evaluation of the behavior (p. 7). The subjective norm is th e second factor affec ting an individuals behavior. This factor refers to the weight of social in fluence regarding a decision to perform a behavior. In other words, if an individual perceives th at a behavior is not socially acceptable or is not encouraged, th e individual will be less likely to perform the behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) Both of these factors are effective predictors of the individuals level of intention to perform the behavior. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) write, Our theory assumes that the relative importa nce of these factors depends in part on the intention under investig ation. For some intentions, att itudinal considerations may be more important than normative considerations (p. 6). Researchers have used the theory of reas oned action to predict such behaviors as those regarding weight loss programs, smoki ng cessation, and family planning behaviors (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Research found that the theory only explained the decisionmaking process in settings where the level of volitional control was high. In other cases, it did not explain the entire pro cess (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 1996).

PAGE 65

49 The theory of self-efficacy is the seco nd psychosocial theory that led to the development of the theory of planned behavi or. This theory s uggests that people are more likely to perform a behavior if they think they can do it successfully. Bandura (1997) stated that self-efficac y, or a belief in ones pe rsonal capabilities, regulates human functioning in four major ways ( 1). The first way is cognitive. People with a high sense of self-efficacy are more likely to set elevated goals for themselves (Bandura, 1997). The second way is motivational. An individuals level of motivation to perform the behavior is higher if they believe that th e intended behavior is achievable. The third way is mood or affect. An individuals le vel of self-efficacy can regulate their emotional state because it influences the ways they pe rceive risks, manage stress and anxiety, and deal with upsetting thoughts (Bandura, 1997). The fourth wa y is social. People with a low level of self-efficacy can work to reduce their own social support, while people with a high level of self-efficacy te nd to attract social support (Bandura, 1997). Researchers have successfully applied this theory in cases of overcom ing obstacles, social modeling, social persuasion, and reducing stress levels and occurrences of depression (Bandura, 1997). Ajzen (1991) incorporated the concepts of the theory of reas oned action with the theory of self-efficacy to develop the theory of planned behavior. The theory of planned behavior compensated for the inadequacies of the theory of reasoned action. Similarly to the theory of reasoned action, th e theory of planned behavior centered on the intention of an individual to perform a behavior. The theory also incorporated the attitude toward the behavior and the subjective norms detailed in the theory of r easoned action. Ajzen (1991) incorporated the theory of self-e fficacy by adding the concept of perceived

PAGE 66

50 behavioral control and its affect on the indi viduals intention to pe rform the behavior. This concept fuses the self-efficacy beliefs of an individual with their perceptions of control. Perceived behavioral control is a blending of ones percep tions of the likelihood they will successfully perform a behavior with their perception s of the amount of external, social control rega rding the behavior. Accordi ng to the theory of planned behavior, perceived behavioral control, together with behavi oral intention, can be used directly to predict behavioral achievement (Ajzen, 1991, p. 184). Ajzen (2001) differentiates perceived beha vioral control from both self-efficacy and from locus of control. He describes pe rceived behavioral cont rol as the degree of control an individual believes he has over a particular behavior In contrast, self-efficacy is the degree to which an individual be lieves he or she can accomplish a behavior successfully. He describes perceived behavioral control also as the extent to which they have the requisite resources and believe they can overcome whatever obstacles they may encounter (Ajzen, 2002, p. 677). Perceived behavi oral control is different than locus of control because locus of contro l is categorized into internal or external sources, whereas perceived behavioral control does not identify the source of control. Accurate prediction requires the presence of several conditions since the theory of planned behavior states that the performance of a behavior is a result of both intentions and perceived behavioral contro l (Ajzen, 1991). First, the m easures of intention and of perceived behavioral control must correspond to or be compatible with the behavioral that is to be predicted (A jzen, 1991, p. 185). The researcher must measure the intention and the perceived behavioral control of the exact behavior not a generalization of the behavior. The second condition for accurate pr ediction is that intentions and perceived

PAGE 67

51 behavioral control must remain stable in the interval between their assessment and observation of the behavior (Ajzen, 1991, p. 185). The prediction will no longer be accurate if the variables that ar e measured are allowed to fluctuate. The third condition is that perceived behavioral control should refl ect the actual levels of existing control as realistically as possible. Applications of the Theory of Planne d Behavior in Health Contexts There are several main applications for th e theory of planned behavior. Godin and Kok (1996) reviewed the applicat ion of the theory of planne d behavior to health-related behaviors. They included 56 studies that examined behaviors in one or more of the following categories: addict ive, clinical or screen ing, diving, eating, exercising, HIV/AIDS, and oral hygiene. They found that the theory was generally effective in explaining the intentions of individuals to perform the health-related behavior observed in the study. The combination of the indivi duals attitude towa rd the behavior, the subjective norms, and the perceived behavi oral control successf ully predicted the individuals intention to pe rform the specific health-relate d behavior. The theorys effectiveness in predicting the actual beha viors, however, varied between categories (Godin & Kok, 1996). For example, the researchers found that the R2 was quite low for clinical and screening beha viors, whereas much higher values were observed for addictive and HIV/AIDS-related behavioral categories (Godin & Kok, 1996, p. 93-94). They draw on the supposition that the failure of the individual to perform the behavior may be a result of the intervention of envir onmental factors or personal barriers during the steps taken to accomplish the behavior. Other research has presented different re sults. Albarracn, Johnson, Fishbein, and Muellereile (2001) examined the use of both th e theory of reasoned action and the theory

PAGE 68

52 of planned behavior in the c ontext of condom use using a meta-analysis. The researchers chose only studies that included condom use, a measure of condom use behavior or the intention to use a condom, measures of a ttitudinal and normative f actors, measures of perceived behavioral control (in the case of the utilizati on of the theory of planned behavior in the study) and the presence of meaningful statistics (Albarracn et al., 2001). The results of their meta-analysis indicated th at both the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior are highly successful pred ictors of condom use (Albarracn et al., 2001, p. 155). This finding contrasts with the findings in the Godin and Kok (1996) meta-analysis. The results in the Albarracn et al. (2001) study suggested that the theory of planned behavior predicted both intentions and behavi or. They found that p eople are more likely to use condoms if they have previously formed the corresponding intentions. These intentions to use condoms a ppear to derive from atti tudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Albarracn et al., 2001, p. 155). The authors conclude that changing the intentions to use condoms will ul timately work to decrease the incidences of HIV/AIDS in the world. Norman, Conner, and Bell (1999) examined th e theory of planned behavior in the context of smoking cessation. They looked at a sample of 84 i ndividuals who were currently smokers and who attended health pr omotion clinics. The researchers gave the respondents questionnaires that measured th e primary components of the theory of planned behavior, past attempts to quit smoki ng, and perceived susceptibility (Norman et al., 1999). Through regression anal yses, the researchers produ ced results that were in concordance with the observations of G odin and Kok (1996) in terms of addictive

PAGE 69

53 behaviors. Norman et al. (1999) suggested that the theory of planned behavior was highly predictive of smokers intentions to quit, explaining almost 50% of the variance in behavioral intentions (Norman et al., 1999, p. 92). They also found that the perceived behavioral control was the most important pred ictor of intention. In terms of behavior, the researchers found th e theory to effectively predic t the smokers attempts to quit smoking over the six months that followed the completion of the questionnaires. The intention, rather than the perc eived behavioral control, surf aced as the most significant predictor of the actual performance of the behavior (Nor man et al., 1999). However, the theory was unable to predict the success or lack of success for a cessation attempt. In summary, this study found that the theory of planned behavior contains some of the necessary variables for determining behavi or, but does not encompass all of them (Norman et al, 1999). Sheeran, Conner, and Norman (2001) also ex amined the theory of planned behavior in a health context. They looked specifically at patterns of change in health behaviors resulting from a health screening. The re searchers distributed a questionnaire to 407 respondents who have never before had a h ealth screening. Similarly to the study conducted by Norman et al. (1999), Sheeran et al. (2001) measured the constructs of the theory of planned behavior in terms of a ttending health screeni ngs. The researchers found that the respondents intentions and the perceived behavioral control were important predictors, but explained a smalle r proportion of variance in behaviors in comparison to other studies. They argued that this was because the respondents had never before attended a hea lth screening, and therefore, may have had less stable intentions regarding their perf ormance. This instability w ould have indicated a weaker

PAGE 70

54 relationship between intentions and behavior (Sheeran et al., 2001). The study indicated a major weakness in the application of the th eory of planned behavior. The researchers note: Although the theory of planned behavior predicted attendance versus nonattendance, and frequency of attendance, at a health screening, this model could not discriminate among participants who consiste ntly attended, those who delayed attending, and those who did not maintain attendance (Sheeran et al., 2001). The researchers suggested the inclusion of additional pred icting elements to account for the specific variance in this application. Applications of the Theory of Planne d Behavior in Technological Contexts Researchers have also used the theory of planned behavior to a lesser extent in the context of adoption of technologies. Mathie son (1991) conducted a study that compared the use of the theory of planned behavior with the use of the technology acceptance model in the context of technology adoption. He explains that the technology acceptance model is designed to explicate behaviors re garding computer usage. Both models attempt to predict individuals behaviors, but there are implicit differences between the two. The first difference is in the degree of generality. Ajzen cons tructed the theory of planned behavior to allow fo r different beliefs in diffe rent contexts, whereas the technology acceptance model assumes that beli efs about usefulness and ease of use are always the primary determinants of use decisions (Mathieson, 1991, p. 178). In other words, the theory of planned behavior allows for a lack of generali zability in the beliefs regarding a behavior, but the technol ogy acceptance model does not. The second difference is that, while the theory of planned behavior includes soci al variables such as social norms, the technology acceptance m odel does not (Mathieson, 1991). The argument is that social norms are not indepe ndent of the outcome in the context of the

PAGE 71

55 adoption of technology, so they need not be included in the technology acceptance model. The third difference is in the treatmen t of behavioral contro l. Mathieson (1991) states that the technology acceptance model only incorporates the ease of use of a computer technology, while the theory of planne d behavior incorporat es both internal and external forces and barriers in its perceived behavioral control. Mathiesons (1991) research focused on the adoption and use of information systems within organizations using both the theory of planned behavior and the technology acceptance model. He selected a sa mple of college students who were taking an introductory computer class for credit. The researcher gave the respondents questionnaires via one of two computer programs designed by Mathieson. The first computer program delivered a questionnair e based on the technology acceptance model and the second computer program delivered a questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior. Mathieson (1991) found that both the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior worked to explain the variance in intentions to use information systems. In addition, the results sugges ted that the technology acceptance model explained more of the variance than did the theory of planned behavior, but not to the extent where the researcher was confident in asserting that one mode l was better than the other (Mathieson, 1991). The results indicate d that the perceived behavioral control element of the theory of planned behavior worked to provide more specific information regarding beliefs, attitudes, and perceived ba rriers of the respondent s. The technology acceptance model provided information only on respondents perceptions about the ease of use of the program. Mathieson (1991) points out that there have been specific

PAGE 72

56 instruments developed for the technology accep tance model whereas the instrument of measurement for the theory of planned behavi or has to be constructed for each specific instance. In summary, the theory of planned behavior provided equitable explanation of variance and more specific information th an the technology accep tance model in the context of technology-adoption. However, the technology acceptan ce model was easier to apply (Mathieson, 1991). Lynne, Casey, Hodges, and Rahmani (1995) used the theory of planned behavior in the context of the adoption of water saving technology by Florida strawberry farmers. The researchers selected a stratified random sample of Floridas strawberry producer population. The researchers then conducted pe rsonal interviews w ith each producer in the sample. They found that perceived behavi oral control was an important predictor for an individuals adoption of th e water saving technology. Th e researchers suggested the ability of perceived behavioral control to ex plain behavioral varian ce was in part due to the producers familiarity with the technology (Lynne et al., 1995). Sheeran et al. (2001) later found supporting results. The researchers suggest that their findings support the construct validity of the theory of planned behavior in the context of technology adoption decisions. Efficacy and Generalizability of the Theory of Planned Behavior Armitage and Conner (2001) performed a meta-analysis of applications of the theory of planned behavior in order to de termine the overall efficacy of the theory of planned behavior. The researchers looked at 185 independent studi es that sought to measure the constructs in the theory of pla nned behavior. The rese archers did the studies in numerous contexts. In accordance with the results of the meta-analysis done by Godin and Kok (1996), Armitage and Conner (2001) found that studies overall indicated that the

PAGE 73

57 theory of planned behavior worked well to pr edict the intention to perform a behavior. They found that the theory explained 39% of the variance in intention (Armitage and Conner, 2001). Their findings also compare positively with previous meta-analyses in that they found that the theory of planne d behavior worked to explain 27% of the variance in behavior. The perceived be havioral control c onstruct was found to contribute uniquely to the prediction of be haviour, demonstrating the efficacy of the [theory of planned behavior ] construct (Armitage & Conner, 2001, p. 486). However, they also found that the theory was more e ffective in predicting self-reported behavior than it was in predicting behavior that was observed. Armitage and Conner (2001) concluded that the theory of planned behavior was an effective predictor of both intention and behavior in a wide variety of contexts They also concluded that the perceived behavioral control construct could also act as an independent predictor in several different situations. The Use of the Theory of Planned Behavior in This Study This study did not aim to measure the constr ucts of the theory of planned behavior directly. Rather, the theory provided the lens through which the findings of the study were examined. This study attempted to pr ovide a description of Florida Extension agents attitudes toward engaging in programs that focus on different aspects of CFS by measuring their level of intere st in these types of programs. The study also examined the subjective norms by asking in what CFS-focu sed programs they are currently or have previously been involved. Fina lly, the study attempted to descri be the levels of perceived behavioral control by describing both the le vel of organizational support the extension agents feel they are currently receiving to engage in programs that focus on CFS and how

PAGE 74

58 much organizational support they would be interested in for participating in these types of programs. Summary This chapter provided the groundwork for research on community food security and the Cooperative Extension System in the st ate of Florida. The chapter explained the historical and developmental framework for current extension syst ems, both on a national and a state level. The chapter also provided evidence that the goals of current extension systems are compatible with the elements of community food secu rity. Finally, this chapter explained the theoretical framework for this study.

PAGE 75

59 CHAPTER 3 THE RESEARCH PROTOCOL Introduction This study described the knowledge and per ceptions of Florida Extension agents regarding community food security in th eir respective countie s as well as their perceptions of organizationa l support levels for engaging in community food securityfocused programming. This chapter provides an overview of the res earch design used for the study. This chapter will also describe the methods and instrumentation used for data collection, the participants in the study, and the data collect ion procedures. The chapter is organized by the studys six objectives and their respective sub-objectives. The objectives are as follows: Objective 1: To identify Florida Extens ion agents levels of knowledge regarding community food security o Objective 1a: To describe Florida Extension agents levels of knowledge regarding community food security o Objective 1b: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida Extension agents based on demographic characteristics Objective 2: To identify Florida Extens ion agents perceptions of community food security in their respective counties o Objective 2a: To describe Florid a Extension agents perceptions of community food security in their respective counties o Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents perceptions of community food security based on demographic characteristics Objective 3: To identify Florida Extens ion agents perceptions of organizational levels of support for participation in co mmunity food security-focused programs

PAGE 76

60 o Objective 3a: To describe Florid a Extension agents perceptions of organizational levels of support fo r participation in community food security-focused programs o Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extension agents perceptions of organizational levels of support fo r participation in community food security-focused programs Objective 4: To identify Florida Extension agents levels of interest in receiving different dimensions of organizational s upport for participation in community food security-focused programs o Objective 4a: To describe Florida Exte nsion agents levels of interest in receiving different dimensions of or ganizational support for participation in community food security-focused programs o Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents interest levels in organizational dimensions of support based on demographic characteristics Objective 5: To identify and describe Flor ida Extension agents current levels of participation in community f ood security-focused programs Objective 6: To identify a nd describe associations be tween dependent variables Research Design The study The Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behaviors of Florida Extension Agents Regarding Community Food Security is a descriptive study that takes the form of a single-method survey research desi gn as defined by Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (2002). The researcher used a web-based, ques tionnaire instrument as a census survey to collect data from all Florida Extension agents. Subjects The studys population consisted of a censu s of all Florida Extension agents, including extension agents cl assified as county extension directors. The researcher obtained the list of current extension personnel as the most recent personnel listing at the

PAGE 77

61 time of the data collection. The population was N=324 for extension agents, including county extension directors. Instrumentation The researcher developed a questionnaire in strument that consisted of four main components: a standardized knowledge test, a Li kert scale, a set of five indices, and a section with demographic questions (Appendix A). The purpose of this questionnaire was to identify information relevant to the six objectives of this study. The researcher submitted the instrument to the University of Floridas Institutional Review Board and they approved it (Appendix B). Objective 1: To Identify Florida Extens ion Agents Levels of Knowledge Regarding Community Food Security Objective 1a: To describe Florida Extensio n agents levels of knowledge regarding community food security The researcher used a standardized knowledge test to achieve the first objective and sub-objective for this study. The purpose of th e knowledge test in this instrument was to measure the amount of knowledge respondents have regarding CFS as a concept. The researcher sent emails to a panel of 11 e xperts consisting of faculty members and other significant researchers or practitioners in the fi eld of CFS. The rese archer selected these experts by identifying major organi zations or research studies in the field of CFS. The eleven people selected were the most prom inent names found in CFS -related research and conceptual papers. The researcher asked the e xperts to respond to the emails with their perceptions of concepts that ar e essential to CFS. Six experts responded to the emails. A priori, the researcher set a minimum level of 80% of responses for a concept to be included. This process ensured the content validity of the instrument as described by

PAGE 78

62 DeVellis (1991). Table 3-1 illustrates the seve n concepts that occu rred in over 80% of the responses. Table 3-1. Panel of expert responses of co mmunity food security concepts, Florida, 2005 Concept Percentage of Responses Food Access 100 Social Justice 83 Locally Based Food Systems 100 Sustainability 83 Safe Food 100 Culture 83 Nutrition 83 The researcher developed the standardized knowledge test by composing questions regarding the definition, the e ssential concepts, and applications of CFS, based on the seven concepts as provided by the panel of experts. The researcher developed the questions using the steps suggested by Shultz and Whitney (2005). The researcher used Blooms Taxonomy of Educati onal Objectives to construc t the knowledge test. Bloom divided this taxonomy into six categories, each increasing in co mplexity: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthe sis, and evaluation (Seddon, 1978; Shultz & Whitney, 2005). The questions ranged fr om the cognitive levels of knowledge, comprehension, and application. The resear cher chose to offer constructed-response questions formatted as true/false and multiple-c hoice. The majority of the questions in the standardized test were knowledge-bas ed, some comprehension-based, and two questions that were application-based. The researcher sent the questi ons to a panel of 32 experts in the field of sustainable agriculture, as suggest ed by Shultz and Whitney (2005). These experts were state sustainable agriculture coordi nators in the southern regi on for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE). The researcher decided a priori that those questions that

PAGE 79

63 were unanimously answered either correctly or incorrectly were to be discarded. There were a total of 12 responses from the panel of experts. The test was left with 10 questions after the researcher removed all que stions answered correc tly or incorrectly by all 12 experts. Objective 1b: To compare knowledge leve ls among groups of Florida Extension agents based on demographic characteristics In order to be able to compare knowledge levels among extension agent groups, the questionnaire prompted respondents to provide their demographic ch aracteristics. The questions asked for such information as ge nder, rank within extension, whether or not they were a county extension director, their program focus, and the extension region in which they worked. This categorization of respondents provided the basis for the comparison of knowledge scores among groups. Objective 2: To Identify Florida Exte nsion Agents Perceptions of Community Food Security in Their Respective Counties Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extensio n agents perceptions of community food security in their respective counties The researcher used two question types to address the second objective in this study. The first question type was a Likert scale. The purpose of the Li kert scale in this instrument was to measure respondents percep tions of CFS in the county in which they worked. When a Likert scale is used, the item is presented as a declarative sentence, followed by response options that indicate varying degrees of agreement with or endorsement of the statement (DeVellis, 1991, p. 68). Although CFS is composed of several concepts, the goa l of the Likert-scale in this instrument was to address CFS as a single construct. DeVellis ( 1991) states that the measuremen t of a general construct is legitimate if it meets the needs of the researcher. The resear cher decided to design a new

PAGE 80

64 scale because there were no pre-existing scales that measure attitudes regarding CFS. There was also no CFS theory to guide the de velopment of a scale on this topic. The researcher conducted the scale to reflect the essential concepts of CFS gleaned from the responses from the panel of experts. DeVellis (1991) stated that, in the absence of an extant theoretical framework, a well-formulat ed definition of the phenomenon they wish to measure (p. 52) can be sufficient. The researcher developed a list of 139 stat ements that were reflective of all seven concepts in the panels responses. Heners on, Morris, and Fitz-Gibbon (1987) state that it is best to begin with a larg e pool of statements that includes a range of opinions, from strongly negative to strongly positive. DeVe llis (1991) suggests that the researcher develop the items to reflect the intended cons truct of the scale. The researcher worded the statements to reflect different aspects of CFS. Some were re dundant expressions of similar or identical thoughts. By using multiple and seemingly redundant items, the content that is common to the items will su mmate across items, while their irrelevant idiosyncrasies will cancel out (DeVellis, 1991, p. 56). The statements were written to have a fairly equal balan ce between strongly negative statements, mildly negative statements, mildly positive statements, and st rongly positive statements. DeVellis (1991) suggests that positive and negative wording can prevent respondents from having an agreement bias. The researcher then randomized the statements and gave them to a panel of 20 judges, as recommended by Heners on et al. (1987). The pane l of judges consisted of 20 student volunteers at the Univer sity of Florida. The judges rated the statements on a scale of one to seven, where one indicated the stat ement was very weak and seven indicated the

PAGE 81

65 statement was very strong. One responde nt in the group of 20 judges had clearly reversed the scaling for the responses, i ndicating low numbers where all others had indicated high numbers and high numbers wher e all other respondents had indicated low numbers. The researcher removed this res ponse from the panel of judges, leaving 19 usable questionnaires. The researcher recoded the items so they were all reflecting a positive attitude. The researcher ran a reliability analysis usi ng Cronbachs alpha to measure internal consistency in responses. This statistic measures the intern al consistency of a set of indicators, ranging from zero ( no internal consistency) to unity (perfect internal consistency) (Knoke, Bohrnstedt, & Mee, 2002) There were four respondents who had missed one question each. For the purposes of this test, the researcher decided that it would be acceptable to fill in the mode respons e for that question. This was necessary to ensure the four respondents w ould be included in the analys is. The researcher ran the reliability analysis several times. During the first round of analyses, the researcher eliminated statements if they had a Cronbachs alpha of below .60. The adjustment of the statements reflected a balance between weak and strong, and between negative and positive. The second analysis eliminated all statements that fell below .50. This process effectively eliminated all statements that related to culturally acceptable foods. After the tests, there were 54 statements that co llectively had an even distribution between strong and weak, negative and positive, a nd had a Cronbachs alpha of at least .5. The researcher sent the statements and th e knowledge test questi ons to the panel of 32 SARE state coordinators. The statements had a five point Likert -like scale where one indicated strongly disagree three indicated neutral, and five indicated strongly agree

PAGE 82

66 There were 12 responses from this panel of experts. The researcher followed the steps suggested by Henerson et al. ( 1987) to select the statements for the Likert scale. The researcher performed independent sample t-tests on each statement to discriminate between opinions. Each of the 12 responde nts received summative scores for their responses after the researcher recoded the statements to re flect a positive attitude. The researcher compared the top ranking 25% of statements to the bottom ranking 25% and vice versa. The researcher then chose 15 st atements with p-value pair scores of under .03. The statements remained fairly equal in number of strongly positive, positive, negative and strongly negative. This process eliminated all statements that related to social justice. Two of the 15 statements were oriented around food access and were deemed to not have worked as well. Th ese were also discarded. The remaining 13 statements comprised the Likert scale. The 13 remaining statements reflected five of the seven essential components of CFS: food access, food safety, nutrition, sustainable agriculture, and loca l food systems. The researcher used a supplementary inde x to provide additional insight into the perceptions of respondents rega rding CFS in their counties. This index was the second question type used to achieve the second obj ective in this stu dy. The purpose of the supplementary index in this case was to de scribe the respondent s perceptions of the relevance of specific components of CFS in th eir counties. The researcher decided to construct the index so that it reflected only the five compone nts of CFS represented in the Likert scale. The index only referred to th e concepts in the Likert scale because the researcher designed the index to provide addi tional insight into the measurements of the scale. The researcher designe d a set of statements followe d by a scalar set of response

PAGE 83

67 options. The questionnaire prompted respondents to indicate the level of relevance they perceived in their counties for each of the five facets of CFS. A fou r-point scale followed each question, where one corresponded with not at all relevant and four corresponded with very relevant Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extensio n agents perceptions of community food security based on demographic characteristics The researcher used the demographic char acteristics described above to compare the scores derived for each respondents answer s to the Likert scale. The demographic characteristics also provided a comparison fo r respondents perceptions of the relevance of individual components of CFS. The rese archer used the combination of these two comparisons to fulfill the second sub-objective for this study. Objective 3: To Identify Florida Extens ion Agents Perceptions of Organizational Levels of Support for Pa rticipation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs Objective 3a: To describe Florida Extens ion agents perceptions of organizational levels of support for participation in community food security-focused programs The questionnaire presented respondents with a series of five questions regarding the level of organizational support the respondents were currently receiving in order to participate in CFS-focused programs. E ach question asks about support regarding programs that focus on a different aspect of C FS. The respondents indicated the level of support on a four-point scale, where one corresponds with no support and four corresponds with a great deal of support

PAGE 84

68 Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extensio n agents perceptions of organizational levels of support for participation in community food security-focused programs The researcher used the demographic ch aracteristics to compare respondents perceptions of organizational support leve ls among extension agents grouped by characteristics. Objective 4: To Identify Florida Extension Agents Levels of Interest in Receiving Different Dimensions of Organizational Support for Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs Objective 4a: To identify Florida Extens ion agents levels of interest in receiving different dimensions of organizational support for participation in community food security-focused programs The researcher used a series of five indices to describe the types of support respondents would like to receive for educat ional programming that addresses the CFS component. The researcher measured the levels of interest in the support on a four-point scale, where one indicated not at all interested and four indicated very interested There were six dimensions of organizational suppor t in the index: professional development opportunities, time, financial support, the availability of sp ecialist support, acknowledgement in performance appraisals and an established curriculum. The researcher developed these dimensions of organizational support with an extension professional with an extensive background in extension educa tion and educational programs. Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents interest levels in organizational dimensions of support based on demographic characteristics The researcher used the demographic ch aracteristics to compare respondents interest levels by extension agent charact eristics. The researcher examined each dimension of organizational support separa tely, based on respondent demographic characteristics.

PAGE 85

69 Objective 5: To Identify and Describe Fl orida Extension Agents Current Levels of Participation in Community F ood Security-Focused Programs The questionnaire prompted respondents to indicate in which types of CFS-focused programs they had participated in the last y ear. The question was in a select all that apply format. The types of programs foci listed were: Food-access issues Food-safety issues Nutrition issues Sustainable agriculture issues Cultural aspects of the food system Social justice issues Local food system issues None of the above Respondents were able to check each of the program types in which they had participated in the last year. Respondent Data Collection The researcher used a web-based program called Zoomerang to distribute the questionnaire to the respondents. The resear cher chose this method because of its low cost, dynamic interaction possibilities, uncompli cated distribution, and ease of return for recipients. These aspects outweighed the li mitations of this method, as discussed by Dillman (2000): respondents may not have a computer, respondents may not have internet access, and respondents may not feel confident enough in their abilities to work on a computer to take an internet questionna ire. The researcher decided that most extension agents would have access to a comput er and internet connection at their place of work. The researcher conducted a pilot test with th e final draft of the instrument. Ary et al. (2002) stated that pilot studi es can help the researcher to decide whether the study is

PAGE 86

70 feasible and whether it is worthwhile to cont inue. It provides an opportunity to assess the appropriateness and practicality of the rese arch methodology (p. 111). The researcher sent a link to the instrument in an email. The respondents for the p ilot test consisted of eight extension agents from Cornell C ooperative Extension in New York and 15 extension agents from Pennsylvania Extension. The researcher made minimal changes to the instrument based on the feedback of the pilot st udy participants. The researcher performed the data collec tion procedures as suggested by Dillman (2000). The first step in the data collec tion process was a pre-notice postcard. The researcher sent the postcard to the study s population through the mail. The postcard notified the recipients that th ey would receive a questionnaire via email in the next few days. The researcher hand-addressed the post cards for each recipient. The postcards had the same textual information typed onto each card. The postcard also contained the researchers and Dr. Nick Places (superviso r) signatures and contact information for questions. The goal of the postcard was to no tify the recipients that they were going to receive an email with a web-link to the questionnaire and to encourage them to participate. The goal was also to prevent recipients from deleting the email without looking at the content (Appendix C). The researcher emailed the questionnaire to the population on e week after the postcard. The researcher grouped the emails by county, so the only recipients names in the emails were coworkers in the same county. The email explained how to link to the questionnaire and provided the re searchers contact informati on for questions or technical issues (Appendix D). The researcher sent ou t a reminder email with the link and contact information one week after the initial email ha d been sent. The researcher only sent the

PAGE 87

71 reminder email to those who had not yet res ponded to the questionnaire (Appendix E). Finally, the researcher sent a third email to remaining non-respondents one and a half weeks after the second email. The research er addressed the third email by county, like the second email. This email used the name s of the recipients in the greeting of the message. It also contained the link to th e questionnaire and the researchers contact information (Appendix F). Data Analysis Procedures The researcher analyzed the first objectiv e using a point scale designated for each knowledge-based question a priori. The resear cher assigned one point for each question that was knowledge-based, two points for each question that was understanding-based, and three points for each ques tion that was application-base d. The exception to this was with the question that had a s elect all that apply format There were seven correct answers possible. Respondents scored one point if they selected between one and three of the correct answers. They scored three poi nts if they selected between four and seven of the correct answers. The resulting sc ore range was zero points for all incorrect answers to 19 points for all co mpletely correct answers. The researcher analyzed the second object ive using a summated scale score since the Likert scale was designed to measure a si ngle construct. A summ ated scale score is achieved by summing the responses for the Li kert scale for each respondent. The researcher summed the scores after recodi ng the directionality of each corresponding statement for uniformity. The researcher calc ulated the Cronbachs alpha coefficient for the scale in order to determine the reliability and internal consistency of the scale. Reliability is defined as the extent to which different op erationalizations of the same concept produce consistent results (Knoke et al., 2004, p. 13). A scale is reliable if the

PAGE 88

72 alpha score is .70 or higher (Sweet & GraceMartin, 2003). In addition, the researcher used correlations to describe relationships between the variables in the first and second objectives. The analyses included Pearson s correlations, one-way ANOVA, and t-tests. The researcher analyzed the questions re lating to the second a nd third objectives using scores obtained through a summary of mean responses to questions focused on similar constructs. The researcher sorted th e questions into the categories relevance of CFS in county and current levels of organi zational support. The re searcher calculated basic descriptive statistics to fulfill the descri ptive nature of these two objectives. The researcher then used independent t-te sts and ANOVAs to compare means between extension agent groups. This fulfilled the sub-objectives for each of these main objectives. The researcher calculated a summary of mean responses to questions regarding personal interest in receiving each of the six dimensions of organizational support. Basic descriptive statistics describe d extension agents interest levels as a population and by demographic group. This fulfilled the fourth objective for this study. The researcher used independent t-tests and ANOVAs to co mpare groups interest level means for each dimension of organizational support. This fulfilled the second sub-objective for the fourth objective. The researcher addressed the fifth objective for this study by describing participation or non-participation in the CFS-focused groups using basic descriptive statistics. The researcher provided more insi ght in the participation by using chi-square tests to identify associations between participation in the different types of programs and extension agent characteristics.

PAGE 89

73 Finally, the researcher addressed the si xth objective in this study by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients and performi ng additional independent t-tests to explore correlations and relationships between th e dependent variables in this study. Nonresponse Error Dillman (2000) describes nonresponse error as the possibility that those who do not respond to a survey or do not provide usab le responses differ from those who do respond and provide usable responses. Lindner, Mu rphy, and Briers (2001) cite five generally accepted, possible procedures for addressing nonresponse error. These are: ignore nonrespondents, compare respondents to population, compare respondents to nonrespondents, [and] compare earl y respondents to late respond ents (Lindner et al., 2001, p. 44). For the purposes of this study, the re searcher decided it woul d be appropriate to utilize the fourth of these recommended pro cedures and compare the early to the late respondents in this study. In or der to avoid a threat to the external va lidity of this study, the researcher used ex trapolation methods. These methods assume that late responders are similar to nonresponders (Lindner et al ., 2001). For the purpose of this study, the researcher defined late responders as those who responded to the last wave of reminder emails and early responders as those who responded to th e first wave of emails, as suggested by Lindner et al. (2001). Ninety -six respondents completed questionnaires after the first wave email, an additional 41 respondents completed que stionnaires after the second wave email, and 64 respondents comple ted questionnaires after the third wave email. The researcher divided the res pondents into two groups of 30 for comparison purposes. The researcher first used independent t-test s to compare the late responders with the early responders on variables of interest. Specifically, the researcher examined the

PAGE 90

74 groups in terms of knowledge score means and su mmated scale scores for the Likert scale in the survey. The t-tests failed to provide evidence that the groups differed in their means in either case ( =.05). Second, the researcher examined the early and late respondents in terms of characte ristics. The researcher used the chi-square statistical significance test to determine whether the ear ly and late respondent s were different in terms of gender, rank, CED status, time spent with their current county, district, or program focus. In each case, the chi-square statistic did not provide evidence of an association with one group or the other. In light of these results the researcher felt confident in the external validity of this study. Summary This chapter provided an overview of th e construction of each component of the instrument used in this study. The chapter al so explained how the instrument served to describe or measure each of the six objectives for this study. In addition, the chapter served to explain how the respondents were selected, contacted, and how the instrument was distributed to them. Fi nally, this chapter served to address how the researcher planned for data analysis for each component of the questionnaire, as well as how the researcher accounted for nonresponse error in this study. The following chapter will serve to provide specific information on data analysis procedures and results. These results will be discus sed in Chapter Four.

PAGE 91

75 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Although there are many possibilities fo r extension programs and collaboration with other organizations, Florida Extension employs methods such as needs assessments and extension agent professional development to utilize its resources in the best, most effective way possible. It is for this reason th at it is important to discover and describe Florida Extension agen ts knowledge of possible areas for collaboration, th eir perceptions of community needs, and their perceptions of organizational suppor t to address those needs. The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge and perceptions of Florida Extension agents rega rding community food security. This chapter provides the comprehensive results of the study in orde r to describe Florida Extension agents knowledge and perceptions of CFS. The chapter presents the results within the six study objectives. Population The researcher collected demographic charact eristics from the extension agents in Florida to provide a portrait of the population. The researcher sent the questionnaire to 324 Florida Extension agents. A total of 201 respondents successf ully completed and submitted the online questionnaire, for a response rate of 62%. This group and their demographic characteristics are in Table 4-1. Of these respondents, 66% were female and 34% were male. The questionnaire prompt ed respondents to report their rank as an extension agent and whether or not they were also a county extension director (CED). The largest group reported having the rank of Ag ent I (33% of all respondents), while the

PAGE 92

76 second largest group reported having the rank of Agent IV (28% of all respondents). Five respondents indicated th at they had a rank other than the four ranks offered as answer options. Nineteen percent of responde nts indicated that they were currently a CED in their county. The questionnaire also prompted respondent s to indicate both the amount of time they have spent with their current county a nd the time they have spent with extension overall. The researcher eliminated the quest ion asking about time spent overall for data analysis purposes, since in most cases the re spondents indicated the same option for time with current county and time spent overall. The researcher used the question regarding the time they have spent with their current c ounty in data analysis. The largest of these groups reported that they have been with exte nsion in their current county for two to five years (37% of all respondents). The next la rgest group reported that they had been with their county for more than 15 years (24% of all respondents). Finally, the questionnaire prompted responde nts to indicate their program focus and the county in which they served. Twenty-eight percent of respondents indicated that their program focus was agriculture. No respondent s indicated that their program focus was energy and two respondents i ndicated that their progr am focus was community development. The researcher combined th ese two groups with the group that indicated other for their program focus for data an alysis purposes. This group constituted 7.5% of all respondents. Similarly, the researcher also reduced repo rted counties into the five districts in which they are categorized. The researcher created a sixth category for those who reported working more than one districts counties. This final category was 3% of the population.

PAGE 93

77 Table 4-1. Demographic profile of Florida Extension agen t respondents, Florida, 2006. Characteristic Frequency Percent Gender Male 68 33.8 Female 133 66.2 Rank Agent I 67 33.3 Agent II 47 23.4 Agent III 27 13.4 Agent IV 55 27.4 Other 5 2.5 CED 38 18.9 Time with Current County Less than one year 23 11.4 2-5 years 74 36.8 6-10 years 42 20.9 11-15 years 13 6.5 More than 15 years 49 24.4 Program Focus Agriculture 57 28.4 Natural Resources 5 2.5 Urban Horticulture 31 15.4 Family & Consumer Sciences 44 21.9 4-H 40 19.9 Sea grant 9 4.5 Other 15 7.5 District Northwest 39 19.4 Northeast 39 19.4 Central 45 22.4 South Central 44 21.9 South 28 13.9 More than one District 6 3.0

PAGE 94

78 Objectives Objective 1: To Identify Florida Extension Agents Levels of Knowledge Regarding Community Food Security Objective 1a: To describe Florida Extens ion agents level of knowledge regarding community food security The questionnaire included a standardized knowledge test to determine Florida Extension agents knowledge levels of CFS, as determined by a panel of experts. The level of difficulty of questions served as the basis for the scoring system. The score range was zero points if none were correct, to 19 points if all ques tions were answered completely correctly. No respondents received a zero for none correct or a score of 19 for perfect responses. The score range for the population was between 1 and 17 points. The overall population had a mean score of 9.49 with a standard deviation of 3.38. The scores are reported by population and by demographic group in Table 4-2. Table 4-2. Florida Extension agents knowledge scores* descri ptive statistics, Florida, 2006. Group n Mean S.D. Range Min Max Overall Population 201 9.49 3.38 1.00 17.00 Gender Male 68 9.05 3.23 3.00 17.00 Female 133 9.73 3.44 1.00 16.00 Rank Agent I 67 10.04 3.43 4.00 17.00 Agent II 47 9.74 3.43 1.00 16.00 Agent III 27 9.48 3.20 4.00 15.00 Agent IV 55 8.56 3.26 2.00 16.00 Other 5 9.80 3.77 4.00 14.00 CED Yes 38 8.66 3.51 3.00 15.00 No 163 9.68 3.33 1.00 17.00 *Scores on a scale of zero points for all inco rrect to 19 points for all perfect responses

PAGE 95

79 Table 4-2. Continued. Group n Mean S.D. Range Min Max Time in Current County < 1 year 23 10.00 2.69 5.00 15.00 2-5 years 74 10.62 3.42 4.00 17.00 6-10 years 42 8.50 3.14 1.00 15.00 11-15 years 13 7.54 2.60 4.00 13.00 > 15 years 49 8.90 3.46 2.00 16.00 Program Focus Agriculture 57 9.70 3.18 4.00 17.00 Natural Resources 5 10.00 4.06 4.00 15.00 Urban Horticulture 31 9.93 2.73 4.00 15.00 Family & Consumer Sciences 44 9.43 3.26 1.00 14.00 4-H 40 9.26 3.80 3.00 16.00 Sea Grant 9 9.11 5.13 3.00 16.00 Other 15 8.66 3.50 4.00 15.00 District Northwest 39 9.82 3.16 4.00 15.00 Northeast 39 11.36 3.06 4.00 17.00 Central 45 8.24 2.96 1.00 14.00 South Central 44 8.68 3.42 2.00 15.00 South 28 9.78 3.69 4.00 16.00 >1 District 6 9.00 3.10 3.00 12.00 *Scores on a scale of zero points for all inco rrect to 19 points for all perfect responses Objective 1b: To compare knowledge leve ls among groups of Florida Extension agents based on demographic characteristics The researcher compared the knowledge score means of extension agent groups using one-way analysis of variance and inde pendent t-tests. The researcher used histograms for the knowledge scores to check for normal distribution before performing the ANOVA and t-tests. The researcher perfor med Levenes homogeneity of variance to meet the assumption of equality of varian ce for ANOVA. In addition, the researcher assumed that the groups being compared were independent.

PAGE 96

80 The ANOVA comparing knowledge scores sh owed that there was evidence of a statistically significant diffe rence among districts (P=.001; =.05). The researcher calculated Eta2 to show that district accounted for 10.6% of the variance in knowledge scores among Florida Extension ag ents (Table 4-3). In addi tion, the Duncan post hoc test identified differences in subset groups. The test revealed two hom ogeneous subsets at the .05 level. The first group consisted of the No rthwest, Central, South Central, and South Districts. The second homogenous subset c onsisted of The Northw est, Northeast and South Districts. Table 4-3. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agen t knowledge scores by district, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 5 242.930 48.59 4.64 .001 Within 195 2041.289 10.46 Totals 200 2284.216 .106 The ANOVA comparing mean knowledge scores between the groups reporting their time spent in their current county show ed evidence of significance at the .05 level (P=.001). The Eta2 showed that the extension agents reported time spent with their current county accounted for about 9% of the variance in knowledge scores (Table 4-4). In this case, the Duncan post hoc test reveal ed three separate homogeneous subset groups at the .05 level. The first group consisted of those who had spent 6-10 years with their current county, those who had spent 11-15 year s with their current county, and those who had spent more than 15 years with their current county. Th e second subset included those who had spent less than one year, those w ho had spent 6-10 years and those who had spent more than 15 years with their current county. The third subset included those who

PAGE 97

81 had spend less than one year, those who ha d spent 2-5 years and those who had spent more than 15 years with their current county. Table 4-4. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agen ts knowledge scores by time spent in current county, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 4 208.593 52.15 4.92 .001 Within 196 2075.626 10.59 Totals 200 2284.219 .091 Objective 2: To Identify Florida Extensio n Agents Perceptions of Community Food Security in Their Respective Counties Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extensio n agents perceptions of community food security in their respective counties The researcher generated two scores to describe Florida Extension agents perceptions about CFS. The first was a summat ed score derived from the Likert scale. The scale consisted of both negatively and pos itively phrased statements. Each statement had answer options that were presented on a scale of one to five, where one indicated strongly disagree and five indicated strongly agree The researcher recoded the items so they all were positive. Once the responses were recoded, the re searcher performed a reliability analysis using the 13 items on the scale. The Cronbachs alpha for the scale was .545. If one were to remove the second, ei ghth, eleventh, and th irteenth items from the scale, there would be nine items remaining with a Cronbachs alpha of .617. The researcher gave each respondent a summated score by summing their responses. The scores could range from 13, which would indicate all strongly negative responses and 65 which would indicate all st rongly positive responses. There was an overall mean score of 37.38 with a standard deviation of 5.00. No respondents had a summated score of 13 or 65. The minimum score was 24 and the maximum score was 48 (Table 4-5).

PAGE 98

82 Table 4-5. Florida Extension agents community food secur ity Likert summated scores*, Florida, 2006. Group n Mean S.D. Range Min Max Overall Population 201 37.38 5.00 24.00 48.00 Gender Male 68 38.53 5.16 25.00 48.00 Female 133 36.79 4.83 24.00 47.00 Rank Agent I 67 36.61 5.02 24.00 46.00 Agent II 47 37.87 5.40 28.00 48.00 Agent III 27 37.78 3.77 33.00 45.00 Agent IV 55 37.56 5.16 25.00 47.00 Other 5 38.80 5.72 34.00 45.00 CED 38 38.34 4.21 29.00 46.00 Non-CED 163 37.15 5.16 24.00 48.00 Time in Current County < 1 year 23 37.49 4.31 28.00 45.00 2-5 years 74 36.97 5.34 24.00 47.00 6-10 years 42 37.54 4.69 27.00 48.00 11-15 years 13 38.23 4.76 32.00 48.00 > 15 years 49 37.57 5.25 25.00 47.00 Program Focus Agriculture 57 38.54 4.64 28.00 48.00 Natural Resources 5 33.20 2.95 29.00 37.00 Urban Horticulture 31 38.06 4.93 24.00 46.00 Family& Consumer 44 36.50 4.90 25.00 45.00 4-H 40 36.10 4.91 26.00 46.00 Sea Grant 9 36.44 5.57 26.00 45.00 Other 15 39.47 5.78 30.00 48.00 District Northwest 39 38.79 4.40 27.00 47.00 Northeast 39 37.90 4.49 26.00 45.00 Central 45 35.84 5.60 26.00 48.00 South Central 44 37.23 5.03 25.00 47.00 South 28 37.53 5.25 24.00 48.00 >1 District 6 36.67 4.46 33.00 45.00 *Likert summated scales measured on a scal e of 13 (strongly nega tive attitudes) to 65 (strongly positive attitude) regarding commun ity food security in respondents counties.

PAGE 99

83 The second method for describing Florida Ex tension agents per ceptions of CFS in their counties was a series of indices. Each index prompted the respondent to indicate the level of relevance or irrelevan ce of each of five dimensions of CFS in their counties. These dimensions were the same as those re presented in the Likert scale: food access, food safety, nutrition, sustainabl e agriculture, and local food systems. Each dimension had a corresponding four point scale where one indicated not at all relevant and four indicated very relevant The researcher calculated each respondents mean response to each of these questions to reduce the data to one score that was representative of their perceptions of the relevance or irrelevance of CFS issues in th eir county (Table 4-6). The general population had a mean response of 3.053 with a standard deviation of .573. Table 4-6. Florida Extensi on agents mean response for questions regarding the relevance of community food security in their counties, Florida, 2006. Group n Mean* S.D. Overall Population 201 3.053 .573 Gender Male 68 2.882 .639 Female 133 3.141 .516 Rank Agent I 67 3.044 .504 Agent II 47 3.076 .523 Agent III 27 3.185 .576 Agent IV 55 2.978 .680 Other 5 3.080 .657 CED Yes 38 3.057 .659 No 163 3.052 .553 *Response options were 1 not at all relevant 2 a little relevant 3 somewhat relevant and 4 very relevant

PAGE 100

84 Table 4-6. Continued. Group n Mean* S.D. Time in Current County < 1 year 23 3.130 .437 2-5 years 74 3.089 .547 6-10 years 42 3.061 .540 11-15 years 13 3.092 .646 > 15 years 49 2.946 .673 Program Focus Agriculture 57 2.950 .587 Natural resources 5 2.720 .521 Urban horticulture 31 3.032 .529 Family & Consumer Sciences 44 3.304 .468 4-H 40 3.005 .539 Sea Grant 9 2.622 .674 Other 15 3.240 .669 District Northwest 39 3.031 .590 Northeast 39 3.051 .546 Central 45 3.037 .624 South Central 44 3.072 .518 South 28 3.121 .574 >1 District 6 2.900 .787 *Response options were 1 not at all relevant 2 a little relevant 3 somewhat relevant and 4 very relevant Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extensio n agents perceptions of community food security in their county based on demographic characteristics The researcher compared the Likert su mmated scores of Extension agent groups using one-way analysis of variance and inde pendent t-tests. The researcher used histograms for the summated scores to check for normal distribution before performing the ANOVA and t-tests. The researcher perf ormed Levenes homogeneity of variance test to meet the assumption of equality of variance for ANOVA. In addition, the researcher assumed that the groups being compared were independent.

PAGE 101

85 A t-test revealed evidence to suggest a significant difference between male and female extension agents percep tions of CFS in their respecti ve counties. Specifically, the t-test evidenced that females had a statistically significantly lower score mean than males (Table 4-7). In other words, females scores reflected a more negative perspective than did males. Table 4-7. Comparison of male and female Florida Extension agen ts summated Likert scale scores using ttest, Florida, 2006. Gender n Mean S.D. T Male 68 38.53 5.16 2.36* Female 133 36.79 4.83 P .05 The researcher performed an ANOVA to compare summated score means among program foci. The test showed evidence of a significant difference between group mean scores at the .05 level. (P=.027). The researcher calculated Eta2 which showed that program focus explained 7% of the variance in means in summated scores (Table 4-8). The researcher performed a Duncan post hoc te st to identify homogenous subset groups. The test revealed two subsets at the .05 leve l. The first subset consisted of those who reported their program focus as natural resour ces, family and consumer science, 4-H and youth development, or Sea Grant. The s econd subset included those respondents who reported their program focus as agriculture urban horticulture, family and consumer sciences, 4-H and youth development, S ea Grant, or the other category. Table 4-8. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents Likert scores by program focus, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 6 351.897 58.649 2.442 .027 Within 194 4659.367 24.017 Totals 200 5011.264 .070

PAGE 102

86 The researcher used t-tests and ANOVAs to examine the differences between mean responses for questions regarding the relevance of CFS issues in their respective counties. The researcher checked for all assumptions before performing these tests. A t-test compared the relevance means between males a nd females. The test statistic was -2.893 ( =.05), giving evidence that female means we re statistically signi ficantly higher than males (Table 4-9). In other words, the test showed that females indicated higher relevance means than males. Table 4-9. Comparison of male and female Florida Extension agents mean response for questions regarding the relevance of co mmunity food security in their counties using t-test, Florida, 2006. Gender n Mean S.D. T Male 68 2.882 .639 -2.893* Female 133 3.141 .516 P .05 The researcher performed ANOVAs to compare mean responses for questions regarding the relevance of CFS issues in their counties between multiple groups. The ANOVA showed that there was evidence of a statistically significant difference among reported program foci (P=.003; =.05). The researcher calculated Eta2 2 which showed that 9.4% of the variance in perceptions of the relevance of CFS issues can be explained by extension agents program focus. A Dun can post hoc test revealed two different homogenous subsets at the point .05 level. Th e first group consisted of those respondents who reported their program focu s as agriculture, natural re sources, urban horticulture, 4H and youth development, or Sea Grant. The second subset included those respondents who reported their program focu s as agriculture, urban horticu lture, family and consumer sciences, 4-H and youth developmen t, and the other category.

PAGE 103

87 Table 4-10. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses for questions regarding the relevance of community food security issues in their counties by program focus, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 6 6.193 1.032 3.372 .003 Within 194 59.387 .306 Totals 200 65.580 .094 Objective 3: To Identify Florida Extension Agents Perceptions of Organizational Levels of Support for Pa rticipation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs Objective 3a: To describe Florida Extens ion agents perceptions of organizational levels of support for participation in community food security-focused programs The questionnaire prompted respondents to indicate levels of organizational support they were currently receiving for participation in programs that focused on any of the five dimensions of food security addressed in the Likert scale. Each dimension had a corresponding four-point answer scale, where one indicated no support and four indicated a great deal of support The researcher combined these responses into a mean response representative of the res pondents perceptions of orga nizational support for data reduction purposes (Table 4-11). Table 4-11. Florida Extension agents mean responses* for que stions regarding levels of organizational support for participation in community food security-focused programs, Florida, 2006. Group n Mean* S.D. Overall Population 201 2.671 .641 Gender Male 68 2.615 .632 Female 133 2.699 .646 Rank Agent I 67 2.564 .081 Agent II 47 2.668 .637 Agent III 27 2.800 .677 *Response options were: 1 no support 2 very little support 3 some support and 4 a great deal of support

PAGE 104

88 Table 4-11. Continued. Group n Mean* S.D. Agent IV 55 2.749 .600 Other 5 2.560 .607 CED Yes 38 2.768 .515 No 163 2.648 .666 Time in Current County < 1 year 23 2.530 .602 2-5 years 74 2.651 .683 6-10 years 42 2.714 .623 11-15 years 13 2.477 .776 > 15 years 49 2.779 .565 Program Focus Agriculture 57 2.639 .540 Natural Resources 5 1.880 .672 Urban Horticulture 31 2.580 .660 Family & Consumer 44 2.950 .569 4-H 40 2.715 .580 Sea Grant 9 2.067 .742 Other 15 2.667 .813 District Northwest 39 2.728 .704 Northeast 39 2.748 .588 Central 45 2.564 .587 South Central 44 2.718 .639 South 28 2.600 .764 >1 District 6 2.566 .320 *Response options were: 1 no support 2 very little support 3 some support and 4 a great deal of support Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extensio n agents perceptions of organizational levels of support for participation in community food security-focused programs based on demographic characteristics The researcher performed t-tests and ANO VAs to compare the mean responses of Florida Extension agents to questions regarding current or ganizational support. The researcher checked for the tests assumptions before performing these tests. An ANOVA showed that there was evidence of a signifi cant difference in mean responses between

PAGE 105

89 program foci (P=<.001; =.05). The researcher calculated Eta2 to show that program focus explained 12.5% of the variance in mean responses to questions regarding current organizational support (Table 4-12). The D uncan post hoc test revealed two homogenous subsets at the .05 level. The first subset consisted of those who reported their program focus as natural resources of Sea Grant. Table 4-12. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses to questions regarding levels of orga nizational support for participation in community food security-focused progr ams by program focus, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 6 10.231 1.705 4.599 <.001 Within 194 71.926 .371 Totals 200 82.157 .125 Objective 4: To Identify Florida Extensio n Agents Level of Personal Interest in Receiving Different Dimens ions of Organizational Support for Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs Objective 4a: To describe Florida Extensio n agents levels of personal interest in receiving different dimensions of organiz ational support for participation in community food security-focused programs The questionnaire prompted respondents to i ndicate their levels of personal interest in receiving six different type s of organizational support in order to participate in CFSfocused programs. The related scalar answ er options were where one corresponded to no interest and four corresponded with very interested. The researcher calculated a mean response for these questions and used that mean as a score representative of the respondents personal interest in organizat ional support for CFS-focused programs. Thus, each respondent has a mean score represen tative of their personal interest in each of the six dimensions of organizational suppor t in order to partic ipate in CFS-focused programs. The six dimensions are: pr ofessional development opportunities, time, financial support, the availabi lity of specialist support, acknowledgement in performance

PAGE 106

90 appraisals, and the availability of an established curriculum for the program. The means and standard deviations for each groups pers onal interest in receiving these dimensions of support are found in Table 4-13. Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extensio n agents personal interest levels in organizational dimensions of support based on demographic characteristics The researcher compared group mean res ponses to questions regarding the six dimensions of support individually. The re searcher compared means between groups using ANOVAs and t-tests. The research er checked for all assumptions before performing these tests. The researcher ch ecked for normal distri bution using histogram representations of the numerical variables. The researcher used Levenes test to check for homogeneity of variance. Finally, the re searcher assumed that the variables were independent of one another. Professional development oppo rtunities to participate in community food securityfocused programs The t-test revealed evidence of a sta tistically significant difference in means between respondents who were CEDs and re spondents who indicated they were not CEDs on questions regarding professional development opport unities (Table 4-14). The test evidenced that CEDs had higher m eans on a scale where one corresponded to no interest and four indicated very interested. The higher means indicated that the respondents who indicated that they were cu rrently working as CEDs in their counties were more interested in receiving profe ssional development opportunities in order to participate in CFS-focused programs.

PAGE 107

91Table 4-13. Florida Extension agen ts mean responses* to questions regarding person al interest in dimens ions of organizational support for participation in community food security-focused programs, Florida, 2006. Group N Professional Development M S.D. Time M S.D. Financial Support M S.D. Availability of Specialist M S.D. Performance Appraisal M S.D. Availability of Curriculum M S.D. Overall Pop. 201 2.666 .784 2.577 .786 2.728 .835 2.739 .817 2.500 .817 2.760 .844 Gender Male 68 2.602 .751 2.489 .777 2.677 .864 2.657 .819 2.400 .813 2.591 .812 Female 133 2.698 .800 2.622 .792 2.755 .822 2.780 .816 2.551 .816 2.847 .850 Rank Agent I 67 2.663 .845 2.549 .823 2.639 .849 2.706 .871 2.460 .837 2.740 .903 Agent II 47 2.694 .781 2.655 .804 2.817 .842 2.770 .843 2.600 .798 2.834 .845 Agent III 27 2.614 .715 2.593 .735 2.726 .780 2.704 .761 2.578 .800 2.733 .815 Agent IV 55 2.625 .764 2.491 .766 2.724 .862 2.731 .783 2.375 .817 2.702 .813 Other 5 3.160 .590 3.080 .687 3.160 .590 3.160 .590 3.120 .642 3.120 .642 CED Yes 38 2.890 .657 2.737 .759 3.053 .813 3.063 .710 2.605 .871 2.932 .770 No 163 2.614 .803 2.540 .792 2.563 .824 2.664 .823 2.476 .804 2.720 .857 Time w County < 1 year 23 3.217 .508 3.026 .550 3.174 .498 3.304 .559 3.034 .609 3.357 .556 2-5 years 74 2.700 .757 2.627 .793 2.797 .831 2.741 .784 2.543 .826 2.768 .843 6-10 years 42 2.462 .853 2.361 .809 2.433 .843 2.500 .930 2.320 .805 2.586 .869 11-15 years 13 2.308 .831 2.477 .881 2.615 .968 2.446 .784 2.216 .719 2.554 .821 > 15 years 49 2.625 .745 2.502 .766 2.699 .846 2.755 .763 2.412 .828 2.674 .844 *Response options were: 1 not at all interested 2 a little interested 3 somewhat interested and 4 very interested

PAGE 108

92Table 4-13. Continued. Group N Professional Development M S.D. Time M S.D. Financial Support M S.D. Availability of Specialist M S.D. Performance Appraisal M S.D. Availability of Curriculum M S.D. Program Focus Agriculture 57 2.804 .625 2.646 .647 2.846 .693 2.849 .655 2.660 .763 2.870 .706 Nat. Res. 5 1.920 .912 1.680 .626 2.080 1.054 1.920 .889 1.640 .590 2.080 1.054 Urban Hort. 31 2.258 .797 2.290 .834 2.387 .924 2.407 .913 2.161 .800 2.355 .927 FCS 44 3.027 .710 2.936 .746 3.046 .754 3.073 .698 2.877 .772 3.100 .794 4-H 40 2.655 .653 2.620 .693 2.735 .700 2.740 .738 2.455 .712 2.900 .678 Sea Grant 9 1.911 .788 1.800 .748 2.067 1.010 2.000 .854 1.733 .632 1.933 .806 Other 15 2.653 1.049 2.507 .965 2.653 1.062 2.747 1.068 2.360 .885 2.560 .983 District Northwest 39 2.667 .705 2.564 .731 2.692 .793 2.697 .796 2.436 .757 2.708 .830 Northeast 39 2.815 .617 2.682 .594 2.856 .670 2.830 .655 2.612 .670 2.887 .663 Central 45 2.760 .830 2.640 .806 2.770 .846 2.822 .839 2.618 .840 2.889 .889 South Cent. 44 2.590 .931 2.559 .985 2.677 1.016 2.705 .968 2.409 .946 2.714 .947 South 28 2.450 .799 2.429 .803 2.600 .836 2.614 .857 2.357 .856 2.607 .848 >1 District 6 2.533 .575 2.333 .450 2.800 .669 2.633 .388 2.667 .628 2.367 .852 *Response options were: 1 not at all interested 2 a little interested 3 somewhat interested and 4 very interested .

PAGE 109

93 Table 4-14. Comparison of Florida Extens ion agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in professi onal development oppor tunities between county extension directors and non-county extension directors, Florida, 2006. Group n Mean S.D. t CED 38 2.890 .658 1.969* Non-CED 163 2.614 .803 P .05 The researcher performed an ANOVA to compare mean responses to questions regarding respondents interest in professi onal development opportunities by time spent with their current county. The ANOVA showed that there was eviden ce of a statistically significant difference between means (P=.001; =.05). The Eta2 demonstrated that 8.6% of the variation in Florida Extension agents interest in professional development opportunities to particip ate in CFS-focused programs can be explained by the amount of time spent in their current county (Table 4-15). The researcher also performed a Duncan post hoc test to identify subset groups. The post hoc test revealed two homogenous subset groups at the .05 level. The test s howed that the responde nts who reported their time with their current county as less than one year was the one group that was different from the others. Table 4-15. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in professional development opportunities by time spent in current county, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 4 10.581 2.645 4.620 .001 Within 196 112.232 .573 Totals 200 122.813 .086 The researcher also performed an ANOVA to compare mean responses to questions regarding personal in terest in professional develo pment opportunities among program foci. The ANOVA showed there was evidence of a significant difference between the

PAGE 110

94 means (P=<.001; =.05). The Eta2 showed that program focu s explained 16.2% of the variance in respondents personal interest levels in profe ssional development opportunities to participat e in CFS-focused programs (Table 4-16). The researcher also performed the Duncan post hoc test to identify homogenous subset groups among program foci. The test revealed three separa te subset groups. The first subset included those who reported their program focus as na tural resources, urban horticulture, or Sea Grant. The second subset included thos e who reported their program focus as agriculture, urban horticulture, 4-H and youth development, or the other category. Finally, the third category included thos e who reported their program focus as agriculture, family and consumer sciences, 4-H and youth development, or the other category. Table 4-16. One-way analysis variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in professional development opportunities by program focus, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 6 19.898 3.316 6.251 <.001 Within 194 102.915 .530 Totals 200 122.813 .162 Time for participation in community food security-focused programs The researcher performed an ANOVA to compare mean responses to questions regarding personal inte rest in receiving time to part icipate in CFS-focused programs among the different program foci. The test re vealed evidence of a significant difference (P=<.001; =.05). The researcher then calculated Eta2 which showed that program focus explained 14.6% of the variance in personal interest levels in receiving time to participate in CFS-focused programs (Table 4-17). The Duncan post hoc test revealed four homogenous subset groups among program foci at the .05 level. The first group included

PAGE 111

95 those who reported their program focus as na tural resources or Sea Grant. The second subset included those who reported their pr ogram focus as urban horticulture or Sea Grant. The third subset included those who reported their program focus as agriculture, urban horticulture, 4-H and youth development, or the other category. Finally, the fourth subset consisted of those who reporte d their program focus as agriculture, family and consumer sciences, 4-H and youth de velopment, or the other category. Table 4-17. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in receivi ng time to participate in community food security-focused programs by pr ogram focus, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 6 18.103 3.017 5.522 <.001 Within 194 105.992 .546 Totals 200 124.095 .146 The researcher used an ANOVA to compare mean responses to questions regarding receiving time to participate in CFS-focused programs by time spent in the respondents current counties. The test showed that there was evidence of a significant difference among the groups who identified different amount s of time spent working in their current counties (P=.019; =.05). The Eta2 showed that the amount of time spent with their current county explained 5.8% of the vari ance in respondents personal interest in receiving time to participate in CFS-focused programs (Table 4-18). The researcher used the Duncan post hoc test to identify homoge neous subsets in this ANOVA. The test revealed two homogenous subsets. The firs t homogenous subset c onsisted of those who reported their time with their current county as less than one year a nd those who reported their time as 2-5 years. The second subset consisted of those who reported their time as 2-5 years and higher.

PAGE 112

96 Table 4-18. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in receiving time to participate in community food security-focused progr ams by time spent in current county, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 4 7.173 1.793 3.006 .019 Within 196 116.922 .597 Totals 200 124.095 .058 Financial support for partic ipating in community food security-focused programs The researcher conducted a t-test to dete rmine differences in mean responses to questions regarding personal in terest in receiving financia l support for par ticipation in CFS-focused programs between respondents who indicated they were CEDs and respondents who indicated that th ey were not CEDs. The test revealed evidence that the means were statistically signifi cantly different at the .05 leve l (Table 4-19). The test suggested that those who reported that they were CEDs had higher means than did those who reported that they were not CEDs. In other words, the test evidenced that CEDs indicated higher levels of personal interest in receiving financial s upport for participation in CFS-focused programs than did non-CEDs. Table 4-19. Comparison of Florida Extens ion agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in financial support for participation in community food security-focused programs between county extension directors and noncounty extension directors, Florida, 2006. Group n Mean S.D. t CED 38 3.053 .813 2.701* Non-CED 163 2.653 .824 P .05 The researcher conducted an ANOVA to comp are levels of personal interest in financial support for particip ating in CFS-focused program s among the different program focus groups. The ANOVA showed that there was evidence of a significant variance in

PAGE 113

97 means (P=.001; =.05). The Eta2 showed that program focus explained 10.7% of the variance in levels of persona l interest in fina ncial support for participating in CFSfocused programs (Table 4-20). The Duncan post hoc test reveal ed three homogenous subset groups within program foci. The first subset consisted of those who reported their program focus as natural resources, urban horti culture, Sea Grant, or the other category. The second subset consisted of those who re ported their program fo cus as agriculture, urban horticulture, 4-H and youth development, or the other categor y. The third subset included those who reported th eir program focus as agriculture, family and consumer sciences, 4-H and youth developmen t, or the other category. Table 4-20. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in financial su pport for participating in community food security-focused progr ams by program focus, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 6 14.947 2.941 3.884 .001 Within 194 124.422 .641 Totals 200 139.368 .107 The ANOVA between mean responses to que stions regarding personal interest in financial support for participat ing in CFS-focused programs and the time spent in the respondents current counties also revealed ev idence of significance. This test evidenced statistically significant varian ce in mean responses (P=.012; =.05). The Eta2 showed that the amount of time spent in the responde nts current counties explained 6.3% of the variance in the respondents inte rest in financial support for participation in CFS-focused programs (Table 4-21). In addition, the res earcher conducted the Dunc an post hoc test to identify homogenous subset groups in the test. The test showed two homogeneous subsets at the .05 level. The first subset included those who had reported the time spent with their current county as less than one y ear, and those who had reported the time spent

PAGE 114

98 as two to five years. The second subset included those who had reported their time with their county as two to five years and higher. Table 4-21. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest levels in financial su pport for participating in community food security-focused progr ams by time spent in current county, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 4 8.784 2.196 3.296 .012 Within 196 130.584 .666 Totals 200 139.368 .063 The availability of specialist support for pa rticipation in communi ty food securityfocused programs The researcher used a t-test to identify th e possibility of significant differences in the mean responses of CEDs and non-CEDs to questions regarding personal interest levels in having the availability of specia list support for participation in CFS-focused programs. The test provided evidence of a st atistically significant difference between the two groups at the .05 leve l (Table 4-22). The direction of the test statisti c suggested that CEDs have a higher mean than do non-CEDs. In other words, CEDs indicated higher levels of personal interest in the availability of specialist support for participation in CFSfocused programs. Table 4-22. Comparison of Florida Extens ion agents mean responses indicating personal interest in the availability of specialist support for participation in community food security-focused programs between county extension directors and non-county extensi on directors, Florida, 2006. Group n Mean S.D. t CED 38 3.063 .710 2.758* Non-CED 163 2.663 .824 P .05 An ANOVA test showed evidence of a signi ficant difference in mean responses to questions regarding personal in terest in the availability of specialist support for

PAGE 115

99 participation in CFS-focused programs by am ount of time spent in the respondents counties. The test showed a significant difference (P=.002; =.05). The Eta2 showed that the amount of time spent in their current counties explained 8.2% of the variance in respondents interest levels in the availability of specialis t support (Table 4-23). The researcher performed a Duncan post hoc test which revealed that there were two subsets at the .05 level. Those who repor ted that they were with thei r current county for less than a year were different than all other categories. Table 4-23. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in the av ailability of sp ecialist support for participation in community food secu rity-focused programs by time spent with current county, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 4 10.878 2.720 4.358 .002 Within 196 122.581 .625 Totals 200 133.460 .082 The researcher performed an ANOVA to compare mean responses to questions regarding personal interest in the availability of specialist support for participation in CFS-focused programs among program foci. Th e test evidenced a significant difference between program foci at the .05 level (P=< .001). The researcher calculated the Eta2 to show that program focus explained 13% of the variance in respondents interest levels in the availability of speci alist support (Table 4-24 ). The Duncan post hoc test revealed that there were three homogenous subsets at the .05 le vel. The first subset consisted of those who reported their program focu s as natural resources, urban horticulture, or Sea Grant. The second subset consisted of those who re ported their program fo cus as agriculture, urban horticulture, 4-H and youth development, or the other categor y. The third subset

PAGE 116

100 included those who reported th eir program focus as agriculture, family and consumer sciences, 4-H and youth developm ent, and the other category. Table 4-24. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in the av ailability of sp ecialist support for participation in community food secur ity-focused programs by program focus, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 6 17.290 2.882 4.812 <.001 Within 194 116.170 .599 Totals 200 133.460 .130 Acknowledgement in performance appraisals for participation in community food security-focused programs An ANOVA evidenced a significant diffe rence between mean responses to questions regarding personal interest in receiving acknow ledgement in performance appraisals for participation in CFS-focu sed programs between program foci. The analysis found significance at th e .05 level (P=<.001). The Eta2 showed that program focus explained 15.5% of the variance in interest levels in acknowledgement in performance appraisals among respondents (Tab le 4-25). The researcher performed the Duncan post hoc test to identify homogeneous su bsets. The post hoc test revealed three subsets at the .05 level. Table 4-25. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in r eceiving support through performance appraisals for participation in comm unity food security-focused programs by program focus, Florida 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 6 20.635 3.439 5.918 <.001 Within 194 112.735 .581 Totals 200 133.370 .155 The researcher performed an ANOVA to compare mean responses to questions regarding personal inte rest in receiving acknowledgement in performance appraisals for

PAGE 117

101 participating in CFS-focused programs by time spent with respondents current counties. The analysis showed evidence of a signifi cant difference among groups at the .05 level (P=.005). The Eta2 showed that the amount of time re spondents spent with their current county explains 7.3% of the variance in interest levels in acknowledgment through performance appraisals (Table 4-26). The Duncan post hoc test revealed two different homogenous subsets at the .05 level. The pos t hoc test demonstrated that those who reported being with their current county for less than one year made up the one group that was different from all the others. Table 4-26. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in r eceiving support through performance appraisals for participation in comm unity food security-focused programs by time spent with current county, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 4 9.737 2.434 3.859 .005 Within 196 123.632 .631 Totals 200 133.370 .073 The availability of an established curricu lum for community food security-focused programs The researcher used a t-test to compar e mean responses to questions regarding levels of personal interest in the availability of an established cu rriculum for CFS-focused programs between males and females. The test showed evidence of a statistically significant difference in means at the .05 level (T able 4-27). Specifical ly, the direction of the test statistic suggests that female res pondents interest levels in an established curriculum are higher than those of male respondents. The researcher performed an ANOVA to compare mean responses to questions regarding levels of personal interest in the availability of an established curriculum by time spent with the responde nts current counties. The ANOVA provided evidence of a

PAGE 118

102 statistically significant differe nce among means at the .05 level (P=.005). The researcher then calculated the Eta2 to show that the amount of time spent with their current county explained 7.3% of the variance in personal interest in the availability of an established curriculum (Table 4-28). The Duncan post hoc test revealed two homogenous subsets at the .05 level. The respondents who reported their time with their current county as less than one year were in one group. All of th e other respondents program foci fell into another homogenous subset. Table 4-27. Comparison of Florida Extens ion agents mean responses indicating personal interest in the availability of an established curriculum for community food security-focused pr ograms between male and female respondents, Florida, 2006. Gender n Mean S.D. t Male 68 2.591 .812 -2.047* Female 133 2.846 .849 P .05 Table 4-28. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in the availability of an established curriculum for community food security-focused progr ams by time spent with current county, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 4 10.384 2.596 3.854 .005 Within 196 132.018 .674 Totals 200 142.402 .073 An ANOVA provided evidence of a statistically significant difference in mean responses to questions regardi ng personal interest in an established curriculum for CFSfocused programs among program foci. The an alysis showed evidence of significance at the .05 level (P=<.001). The re searcher calculated Eta2 to show that program focus explained 14.4% of the variance in respondent s interest levels in an established curriculum (Table 4-29). The researcher also used the Duncan post hoc test to identify

PAGE 119

103 homogenous subsets among program foci. The test revealed four subset s at the .05 level. The first subset consisted of respondents w ho indicated their program focus as natural resources, urban horticulture, or Sea Gr ant. The second subset included those respondents who indicated their program focus was natural re sources, urban horticulture, or the other category. The third subset included respondent s with a program focus of agriculture, 4-H and youth development, urba n horticulture, and th e other category. The fourth subset consisted of the agriculture, 4-H and youth development, family and consumer sciences, and the other categories. Table 4-29. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents mean responses indicating personal interest in the availability of an established curriculum for community food security-focused progr ams by program focus, Florida, 2006. Source df SS MS Eta2 F P Between 6 20.523 3.421 5.445 <.001 Within 194 121.878 .628 Totals 200 142.402 .144 Objective 5: To Identify and Describe Florida Extension Agents Current Levels Participation in Community F ood Security-Focused Programs The questionnaire prompted respondents to indicate in what kind of CFS-focused programs, if any, they had participated in the la st year. This was a select all that apply question with eight answer options. Th ese options were: food access, food safety, nutrition, sustainable agricultur e, local food systems, cultura l aspects of the food system, social justice, and none of th e above. The researcher analyz ed the participation levels by overall population and demographic characteri stics in Table 4-30. In each group, the largest percentages of responde nts indicating participation fe ll in the food access, food safety, nutrition, sustainable agri culture, or the none of the above categories. No groups

PAGE 120

104 had a substantial percentage in the local food systems, cultural aspects of the food system, or the social justice categories. The researcher performed a chi-square stat istical significance test to determine the probability that the demographic variables id entified in this study were unrelated to participation in the different kinds of CFS-focused programs. The researcher deemed the test appropriate because th e responses were drawn from a census population and the respondents numbered more than one hundred. The researcher determined significance by checking the critical values of chi-squa re at the .05 level. Table 4-31 shows chisquare tests that resulted in evidence that the included variables were dependent. With the exception of partic ipation in programs that address cultural aspects of the food system, all of the tests for program focus were found to have strong evidence against there being no association. Objective 6: To Identify and Describe Associations Between Dependent Variables The researcher used two methods to iden tify associations between the measured dependent variables in this study. The fi rst method was a correlation table. The researcher used this to identify correlati ons between dependent variables in the study (Table 4-32). The Pearson correlation coeffi cient calculated for the association between respondents knowledge scores and other scor es and means showed weak evidence that there was a positive linear relationship between the variables. The Pearson correlation coefficient did not provide any evidence of a linear relationship between respondents Likert summated scale scores and other va riables with the exception of respondents relevance means.

PAGE 121

105Table 4-30. Florida Extension agents current pa rticipation in community food security-focused programs, Florida, 2006. Group n Food Access n % Food Safety n % Nutrition n % Sustainable Agriculture n % Local Food Systems n % Cultural Aspects n % Social Justice n % None n % Overall Population 201 17 8.5 67 33.3 69 34.3 6 27.9 22 10.9 11 5.5 6 3.0 82 40.8 Gender Male 68 5 7.4 15 22.1 7 10.3 30 44.1 7 10.3 2 2.9 3 4.4 30 44.1 Female 133 12 9.0 52 39.1 62 46.6 26 19.5 15 11.3 9 6.8 3 2.3 52 39.1 Rank Agent I 67 0 0.0 14 20.9 15 22.4 10 14.9 7 10.4 1 1.5 0 0.0 41 61.2 Agent II 47 5 10.6 15 31.9 18 38.3 12 25.5 3 6.4 2 4.3 3 6.4 19 40.4 Agent III 27 1 3.7 11 40.7 13 48.1 6 22.2 3 11.1 2 7.4 1 3.7 9 33.3 Agent IV 55 10 18.2 24 43.6 20 36.4 23 41.8 7 12.7 5 9.1 2 3.6 13 23.6 Other 5 1 20.0 3 60.0 3 60.0 5 100.00 2 40.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 CED Yes 38 8 21.1 17 44.7 18 47.4 18 47.4 6 15.8 6 15.8 2 5.3 10 26. 3 No 163 9 5.5 50 30.7 51 31.3 38 23.3 16 9.8 5 3.1 4 2.5 7 2 44.2 Time in County < 1 year 23 1 4.3 5 21.7 8 34.8 6 26.1 4 17.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 52.2 2-5 yrs 74 5 6.8 24 32.4 27 36.5 20 27.0 9 12.2 5 6.8 2 2.7 29 39.2 6-10 yrs 42 1 2.4 10 23.8 12 28.6 7 16.7 1 2.4 0 0.0 1 2.4 22 52.4

PAGE 122

106Table 4-30. Continued. Group n Food Access n % Food Safety n % Nutrition n % Sustainable Agriculture n % Local Food Systems n % Cultural Aspects n % Social Justice n % None n % 11-15 ys 13 1 7.7 3 23.1 3 23.1 2 15.4 1 7.7 0 0.0 1 7.7 7 53.8 > 15 yrs 49 9 18.4 25 51.0 19 38.8 21 42.9 7 14.3 6 12.2 2 4.1 12 24.5 Program Focus Ag. 57 4 7.0 18 31.6 6 10.5 33 57.9 11 19.3 2 3.5 0 0.0 17 29.8 Nat. res. 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 40. 0 3 60.0 Ur. Hort 31 1 3.2 0 0.0 2 6.5 5 16.1 2 6.5 0 0.0 0 0. 0 26 83.9 FCS 44 8 18.2 32 72.7 37 84.1 7 15.9 6 13.6 7 15.9 1 2.3 5 1 1.4 4-H 40 2 5.0 13 32.5 18 45.0 4 10.0 6 13.6 2 5.0 3 7.5 18 45.0 Seagrant 9 8 88.9 2 22.2 1 11.1 2 22.2 1 2.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 55.6 Other 15 14 93.3 2 13.3 5 33.3 4 26.7 1 11.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 53.3 District N.W. 39 5 12.8 14 35.9 17 43.6 13 33.3 4 10.3 1 2.6 1 2.6 13 33.3 N.E. 39 3 7.7 15 38.5 17 43.6 12 30.8 6 15.4 4 10.3 1 2.6 14 3 5.9 Central 45 4 8.9 17 37.8 15 33.3 11 24.4 5 11.1 4 8.9 3 6.7 19 42.2 S. Cent. 44 3 6.8 11 25.0 13 29.5 11 25.0 4 9.1 1 2.3 0 0.0 2 0 45.5 South 28 0 0.0 8 28.6 6 21.4 5 17.9 2 7.1 1 3.6 1 3.6 1 5 53.6 >1 Dist. 6 2 33.3 2 33.3 1 16.7 4 66.7 1 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 16.7

PAGE 123

107 Table 4-31. Association between Florida Extension agents characteristics and participation in community food secur ity-focused programs, Florida, 2006. Independent Variable Program Participation Pearson Chi-Square Statistic df Asymp. Significance (2-sided) Gender Food Safety 5.878 1 .015 Nutrition 26.332 1 <.001 Sustainable Ag. 13.513 1 <.001 Rank Food Access 14.845 4 .005 Food Safety 9.601 4 .048 Sustainable Ag. 24.409 4 <.001 None 22.318 4 <.001 CED Food Access 9.601 1 .002 Sustainable Ag. 8.872 1 .003 Cultural Food 9.641 1 .002 None 4.068 1 .044 Time Spent with Current County Food Safety 10.646 4 .031 None 9.957 4 .041 Program Focus Food Safety 52.019 6 <.001 Nutrition 80.134 6 <.001 Sustainable Ag. 37.488 6 <.001 Cultural Food 13.180 6 .040 Social Justice 29.994 6 <.001 None 45.280 6 <.001 The Pearson correlation showed weak evid ence of a negative relationship between the two variables at the .05 level (P=.011). All other variables ha d strong positive linear relationships with each other. These variab les all had Pearson correlation coefficients that were found to be significant at th e .001 level. These variables were: Respondents indication of the level of re levance of CFS issues in their counties Respondents perceptions of current levels of organizational support for participation in CFS-focused programs

PAGE 124

108 Respondents personal interest levels in professional development opportunities for participation in CFS-focused programs Respondents personal interest levels in receiving time to participate in CFSfocused programs Respondents personal interest levels in financial support for participation in CFSfocused programs Respondents personal interest levels in th e availability of sp ecialist support for participation in CFS-focused programs Respondents personal interest levels in acknowledgement in performance appraisals for participati on in CFS-focused programs Respondents personal interest levels in the availability of an established curriculum for CFS-focused programs The researcher used independent t-test s as the second method of determining associations relevant to the dependent variables measured in this study. The researcher used the t-tests to compare mean responses a nd mean scores between the participants and non-participants of the different CFS-focused programs. The t-tests revealed evidence ( =.05) that participation in educational programs that focu sed on nutrition had a positive relationship with all variables with the excep tion of the Likert summated score. The ttest for that variable showed evidence th at participation in nut rition programs had a negative relationship with respondents Likert summated scores. The tests also provided evidence ( =.05) that participation in food access, food safety, and local systems had positive relationships with res pondents perceptions of the re levance of CFS issues in their counties, their perceptions of current or ganizational support leve ls for participation in CFS-focused programs, and their personal in terest levels in all six dimensions of organizational support ( =.05). Finally, the tests revealed evidence that no n-participation in any of the CFS-focused programs had a negative relationship with respondents perceptions of current levels of organizational suppor t and with interest levels in all six

PAGE 125

109 dimensions of organizational support ( =.05). None of the t-tests revealed evidence of a relationship with participation in programs that focused on sustainable agriculture. Summary The goals of this study were: (a) to identif y and describe the knowledge levels and perceptions of Florida Extension agents regarding community f ood security, (b) to identify current levels of organizational support for extension agent participation in community food security-focused programs, and (c) to identify curre nt participation in these types of programs. The re searcher conducted this study in order to identify possible programming needs for Florida Extension ag ents and to identify possible areas for collaboration between Florida Extension and ot her organizations. In doing this, the study identified how extension agents perceived CFS in their respectiv e counties. The study also served to identify how Florida Extens ion agents perceive current organizational support levels for participation in CFS-fo cused programs. The study then described respondents levels of interest in receiving different dimensi ons of organizational support for participation in CFS-focused programs. Fi nally, the study identified levels of current participation in these types of programs. The researcher used basic descriptive sta tistics to describe the population for this study, their knowledge levels regarding CFS, and their perceptions of CFS in their counties. The researcher then identified relationships, associations, and correlations between groups and dependent variables by utilizing one-way analyses of variance, independent t-tests, chi-square tests, and calculation of Pear son correlation coefficients. These procedures provided a description of Florida Ex tension agents and their knowledge, perceptions, and relationships with CFS. The next chapter will provide the

PAGE 126

110 researchers conclusions for each of the si x objectives for this study and will include discussion and implications.

PAGE 127

111Table 4-32. Pearson correlation ta ble for Florida Extension agents dependent va riables (M = Mean, S = Score), Florida, 2006. Know. S. Likert S. Relevan. M. Support M. Prof. Dev. M. Time M. Financial M. Specialist M. Appraisal M. Curric. M. Know. S. --.185** .049 .144* .151* .144* .157* .155* .154* Likert S. ---.178* .016 .005 -.019 -.003 -.172 -.015 -.021 Relevan. M. --.475*** .378*** .412*** .353*** .372*** .370*** .360*** Support M. --.440*** .443*** .440*** .436*** .404*** .421*** Prof.Dev. M. --.911*** .905*** .883*** .844*** .886*** Time M. --.921*** .881*** .874*** .873*** Financial M. --.859*** .815*** .874*** Specialist M. --.805*** .857*** Appraisal M. --.842*** Curric. M. --* P .05 **P .01 ***P=<.001

PAGE 128

112 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction This chapter presents conclusions for each of the six objectives for this study. This chapter also provides discussion on the results and conclusions. The chapter will begin by offering a brief overview of the studys objectives and methodology. Discussion and conclusions will follow each objective. In addition, this chapter will include the implications of this study. Finally, th is chapter will list the researchers recommendations to extension for future prog ramming efforts as well as future research needs on this topic. Objectives of the Study The overarching goal of this study was to identify and describe the knowledge levels and perceptions of Florida Extension agents regarding comm unity food security. A secondary goal was to identify (a) curre nt levels of organizational support for extension agent partic ipation in community food securi ty-focused programs, and (b) current participation in these types of progr ams. The researcher developed the following objectives to accomplish these goals: Objective 1: To identify Florida Extens ion agents levels of knowledge regarding community food security o Objective 1a: To describe Florida Ex tension agents levels of knowledge regarding community food security o Objective 1b: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida Extension agents based on demographic characteristics

PAGE 129

113 Objective 2: To identify Florida Extens ion agents perceptions of community food security in their respective counties o Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extension agents perceptions of community food security in their respective counties o Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents perceptions of community food security based on demographic characteristics Objective 3: To identify Florida Extens ion agents perceptions of organizational levels of support for participation in co mmunity food security-focused programs o Objective 3a: To describe Florida Extension agents perceptions of organizational levels of support fo r participation in community food security-focused programs o Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extension agents perceptions of organizational levels of support fo r participation in community food security-focused programs Objective 4: To identify Florida Extension agents levels of interest in receiving different dimensions of organizational s upport for participation in community food security-focused programs o Objective 4a: To describe Florida Exte nsion agents levels of interest in receiving different dimensions of or ganizational support for participation in community food security-focused programs o Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents interest levels in organizational dimensions of support based on demographic characteristics Objective 5: To identify and describe Flor ida Extension agents current levels of participation in community f ood security-focused programs Objective 6: To identify a nd describe associations be tween dependent variables Methodology The study focused on identifying Florida Exte nsion agents levels of knowledge of CFS as well as variables that are pertinent to the theory of planned behavior. These variables included intention to perform a behavior (interpreted as interest in receiving support for participating in CFS-focused programs), attitude toward a behavior (interpreted as their percep tions of CFS), and their per ceived social control over a

PAGE 130

114 behavior (interpreted as th eir perceptions of current organizational support). The researcher collected data thr ough the use of a web-based, quan titative survey instrument. The data provided findings that suggeste d common themes that reoccur throughout the results. General Discussion and Conclusions Objective 1: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding Florida Extension Agents Knowledge Levels Regarding Community Food Security The calculated knowledge scores provided insight into Florida Extension agents levels of knowledge regarding CFS. Th e overall score range indicated that no respondents answered all questions incorrec tly. Likewise, no respondents answered all questions completely correctly. It is possible that the corr ect answers to some of the knowledge-based questions were easy to guess, even if the respondent had no knowledge whatsoever regarding CFS. The lowest scor e achieved was one point indicating that the respondents answered only one knowledge-based question corr ectly. The highest scorers had 17 points, indicating the respondents failed to achieve two of the possible points. These scores indicate that th e population of Florida Extension agents has a wide range of knowledge levels regarding CFS. Thompson et al. (2003) found that extension agents in Pennsylvania felt that lack of knowledge was one of the top three barri ers to participating in local food systems-focused programs. It is possible that lack of knowledge is a considerable barrier to Florid a Extension agents participation in programs that focus on CFS. The results showed that respondents re ported extension district accounted for 10.6% of the variance in knowledge scores am ong Florida Extension agents. This is similar to the findings of Thomson et al. ( 2003). They found that th ere were significant

PAGE 131

115 differences in extension agent responses and perceptions based on th eir extension region. It is possible that extension agents in different district s receive divers e levels of educational training regarding CFS or concepts re lated to CFS. It is also possible that the difference in training or educat ion relates to the existing need s in a specific county. For example, the Duncan post hoc test indicated that the means of respondents in the South Central district differed from the means of respondents in the Northeast district. It is possible that the needs of the clientele in th e two districts differ. Thus, the extension agent group from one district may receive tr aining, education, and experience with CFS and CFS-related concepts, while the extension agents in the other district may not. As mentioned in Chapter Two, extension agents are responsible for id entifying the needs of the clientele in their region or county and allo cating resources to most effectively address those needs (Seevers et al., 1997). The results of an ANOVA also suggested that the amount of time the respondents had spent with their curren t county explained 9.1% of th e variance in their knowledge score means. The researcher expected to find that those who spent less time in their county would be in one homogenous subset, while those who had spent more time in their county would be in another. However, in both subsets, the respondents who had spent less than one year with their current county were found to be homogenous with those who had spent more than fifteen years w ith their current county. It is possible that extension agents who have been with their county for different amounts of time are receiving different types of support, training, or having different types of experiences that would have an effect on their knowledge of C FS. It is also possi ble the state of CFS issues in an extension agent s county has a relationship w ith their knowledge of CFS.

PAGE 132

116 For example, if there are prominent CFS-re lated problems within an extension agents county such as nutrition problem s, hunger, or lack of sustai nability the extension agent may have more knowledge of CFS. Objective 2: General Discussion and Co nclusions Regarding Florida Extension Agents Perceptions of Community F ood Security in Their Counties This objective had two components: a Likert scale and a relevance index. The researcher constructed the Likert scale for the purpose of measuring respondents perceptions of CFS in their counties. The researcher be gan by including all seven established and essential com ponents of CFS. The process of developing the scale indicated that two components (social justice and cultural as pects of the food system) be discarded. The resulting scale had a Cronbach s alpha of .545. This indicates that the scale does not have an adequate level of internal consistency. Further exploration revealed that the removal of four of the ite ms would result in a Cronbachs alpha of .617. This would indicate slightly higher internal consistency, but still does not indicate the scale is measuring a single cons truct. The weakness of this scale could explain the failure of respondents summated scale scores to corr elate with other dependent variables. Some possible explanations for the weakness of this scale may be that statements or concepts were unclear or lending themselves to multiple interpretations. It is possible that the constructs within the scale ar e not collectively related, but have relational patterns that are not illustrated in this scale. The Likert scale was useful in this study in that it reve aled respondents perceptions of CFS in their counties. Th ese perceptions were not extrem ely negative nor were they not extremely positive. Respondents were presented with statements such as very few people are knowledgeable about food safety a nd the majority of people in my county

PAGE 133

117 are knowledgeable about good nutrition. Once th e researcher recoded the responses to reflect positive attitudes rega rding CFS, the range of summ ated scale scores was 13 for an extremely negative attitude and 65 for an extremely positive attitude. All respondents received scores between 24 and 48. One can interpret this overal l score range in two ways. This range may reflect that Florida Ex tension agents do not feel strongly one way or the other regarding CFS in their counties. The second in terpretation is that the CFS issues in Florida counties, wh ile not dire, indicate a need for programming. Finally, the scores also indicate that some CFS issues are important in some areas while not in others. Thomson et al. (2003) found that extension agen ts must find issues important or salient before they will want support for participat ion in programming that addresses these issues. In this case, some extension agents indicated that they felt CFS issues were important or salient in their counties while others did not. This finding directly connects to the attitude toward behaviors referenced in the theory of pla nned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The overall results of the Like rt scale indicate that more information is needed in order to draw conclusions about the relati onship between the actua l status of CFS in Florida and Florida Extension ag ents perceptions of CFS. Extension agents perceptions may or may not accurately reflec t the actual CFS issues in thei r counties. In this way, the Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit (Cohen, 2002) would be a useful tool. A researcher could assess CFS issues in a co mmunity using an instrument and compare the findings of the assessment with the percepti ons of extension agents who work in the community. In doing this, the researcher w ould have to refer back to the geographic definitions of community (Hirst, 1980; Flor a, 1998; Galster, 2001; Rubin & Rubin, 2001;

PAGE 134

118 Martin, 2003). It is possible that the concept of CFS cannot be applied to so large a region as an extension district or state, but rather should be applied to neighborhoods or small geographic communities. The Likert scale used in this study may be more useful in this context. The researcher used a second method to identify Florida Extension agents perceptions of CFS in their c ounties. The researcher used a mean response to questions asking about the relevance of CFS-related i ssues to the respondents counties. The researcher decided to do this for data reduction purposes. Although data reduction lessens the precision of measurement, the re searcher decided this method was acceptable due to time and resource rest rictions for this study. The m ean responses indicated that, overall, respondents felt that CFS was moderate ly relevant in thei r respective counties (mean=3.053). This could indicate that extensio n agents feel that extension educational programs that address CFS issues in their count ies are useful and needed. This is similar to the results of the Thomson et al. (2003) study. They found that extension educators thought local food systems issues were important enough to warrant extension programming. Tests revealed evidence that females had lower mean summated scale scores than did males. There was also evidence th at females had higher means for questions regarding the relevance of CFS -related issues in their countie s. In other words, female respondents saw CFS-related issues more nega tively than did male respondents. The researcher interpreted these results to indicate that female Florida Extension agents perceived CFS issues as more salient in thei r counties. Upon reflection of these results, the researcher constructed an additional hypothesis that drew on the suppositions made

PAGE 135

119 based on the results of the knowledge test. Th e researcher proposed that program focus may be directly or indirectly associated with extension agents knowledge levels and perceptions of CFS in their counties. If exte nsion agents have more training or professional experience involving CFS or C FS-related issues, they may be more knowledgeable about the concepts inherent to CFS as well as being more aware of CFSrelated problems in their counties. Thus, there are two ways to interpret th e difference between females and males perspectives on CFS. The first interpretation is that females are different than males and have different experiences. This concept could account for females more negatively skewed perceptions. The s econd interpretation is that program focus (and, hence, professional training and experience) is a majo r determinant of perceptions of CFS. If more females have program foci that dire ctly address CFS-related issues such as nutrition, hunger, and food safety, they ma y naturally have more experience and awareness of CFS issues within their county. The researcher constr ucted a bar chart to visually depict this inte rpretation (Figure 5-1). Research has shown a gender bias in extension employment positions. Seevers and Foster (2004) noted that women in agricu ltural or extension positions are seen as minority populations. The researcher listed several barriers that female extension educators had experienced in their careers (Seevers & Foster, 2004). The data in the current study suggest that women in extensi on work in program foci that have a more traditional feminine focus, such as family and consumer sciences or 4-H. The researcher found that the distribution of gender was not equal across areas of program focus. In addition, the researcher performed an ANOVA wh ich illustrated that

PAGE 136

120 program focus explained only 7% of the va riance in means in respondents summated scale scores. There may be unknown associa tions between gender, program focus, and extension agents knowledge and perceptions of CFS. Figure 5-1 Distribution of Florida Extension agents across program focus by gender, Florida, 2006. Objective 3: General Discussion and Co nclusions Regarding Florida Extension Agents Perceptions of Organizational Support Levels for Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs The questionnaire prompted respondents to indicate the levels of organizational support they were currently receiving for participation in programs that focused on each of the five included components of CFS. The researcher performed a data reduction procedure similar to the one performed w ith the relevance ques tions. Instead of examining support for each program type, the researcher reduced the data by calculating a mean response for each respondent. The rese archer deemed this procedure appropriate due to time and resource constraints. Th e respondents had a response scale of one to 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Number of Extension Agents Agriculture Natural Resources urban Horticulture Family and Consumer Sciences 4-H Sea Grant Other Male Female

PAGE 137

121 four, where one indicated no support and four indicated a great deal of support The overall population of Florida Extension agents had a mean of 2.67 for current support for participation in CFS-focused programs. This m ean indicates moderate levels of support. However, when the researcher examined th e means of individual demographic groups, the means revealed levels of support were bi ased toward one side of the scale or the other. The researcher made the supposition that the levels of support were strongly related to the needs of clientele in differe nt communities, districts, and due to their involvement in the different extension program foci. However, the researcher noted a loss of precision inherent in the chosen da ta reduction procedure. This result is comparable to those in previous studies. Researchers found that extension agents did not feel as if they were receiving organizationa l or administrative suppor t to engage in CFSfocused collaborations (Pelletier et al., 2002) In another study, Pelletier et al. (1999) found that administrators felt that they were giving extension agents adequate support to engage in CFS-focused activities. The responde nts perceptions in both previous studies, as in the current study, did not indicate a str ong sense of either support or lack of support in this context. To further explore the data, the researcher examined response means to questions regarding current organizational support among the characteristic groups of respondents. An ANOVA illustrated that respondents prog ram focus was the one characteristic that showed evidence of significant variance among means. This is a similar finding to those in the study by Thompson et al. (2003). They found that program focus was a significant indicator of organizational or administrativ e support for local f ood systems programming. The test showed that program focus accounted for 12.5% of the variance. The researcher

PAGE 138

122 expected this result, as re spondents whose program focus involved CFS-related issues would receive more support to address t hose issues than would respondents whose program focus did not address CFS-related i ssues. The results supported this conclusion. Objective 4: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding Florida Extension Agents Personal Interest in Receiving Dimensions of Organizational Support for Participation in Community F ood Security-Focused Programs Florida Extension agents indicated that they were moderately interested in receiving most dimensions of support for pa rticipation in CFS-focused programs. The overall mean responses ranged from 2.577 for in terest in receiving additional time to 2.76 for interest in the availability of an establ ished curriculum. The researcher derived these means from a scale of one to four, where one corresponded to not interested and four corresponded to very interested The researcher reduced the data in a similar fashion to the questions regarding levels of organizational support. Rather than reporting interest in dimensions of support for participation in each type of CFS-focused program, the researcher calculated a mean for each dime nsion. The researcher decided this data reduction would prove efficient desp ite the diminution of precision. The higher interest in an established curri culum is similar to the findings of the LaBorde (2003) study. The researcher found that extension agents in Pennsylvania wanted support for food safety programs that was easy to access and understand. In their study, extension specialists provided the suppor t through an informational web site. This type of support is similar to an available cu rriculum in that extension agents are not required to prepare or research too much info rmation in order to deliver an educational program in this context. LaBorde (2003) al so found that extensi on agents wanted the availability of a specialist to support their particip ation in food safety programs. This is

PAGE 139

123 similar to the findings of the current study. Florida Extension agents reported a mean level of interest in speci alist support of 2.74. The researcher examined each of the six dimensions of organizational support in terms of the demographic groups in this st udy. There were several demographic groups that showed evidence of significan t associations in levels of in terest in the different types of organizational support. Specifically, th e groups included CEDs versus non-CEDs, program foci, and the amount of time spen t with respondents current counties. A series of t-tests revealed evidence that CEDs indicated higher interest levels in several dimensions of organizational support than did non-CEDs. First, the researcher found evidence that CEDs were more interest ed in receiving professional development opportunities for participation in CFS-focused programs than were non-CEDs. There are several ways to interpret this result. CEDs may be more aware of their countys needs. As mentioned in Chapter Two, CEDs are res ponsible for providing leadership in their countys extension system and for managi ng all programming w ithin their county (UF/IFAS, 2005). As a result of this leadersh ip position, CEDs may have experience or knowledge of CFS issues in their counties th at other extension agents may not have. These factors could lead to a greater awareness, and thus more interest in pursuing professional development opportunities that woul d help them or thei r extension agents respond to community CFS issues. Respondents who work as CEDs may be a self-selecting population that are naturally more interested in professional development oppor tunities overall. In other words, CEDs may have more responsibil ity and may have participated in more professional development opportunities than have non-CEDs. The CEDs may be more

PAGE 140

124 interested in or open to the possibility of professional developmen t opportunities in any context than are extension agents in lower ranks Another way to interpret this finding is that CEDs are more interested in acquiring th is type of organizatio nal support to learn more about CFS. This would be similar to the findings in the Pelle tier et al. (1999) study, where they concluded that extension administ rators in New York were interested in supporting their extension agents in participating in CFS-relate d activities. In the current study, one might extrapolate that if CEDs learn more about CFS or participate in more CFS-focused activities as a result of receiv ing additional organizational support, they may encourage their extension agents to learn more about the topic as well. The researcher examined CEDs in the context of interest in receiving financial support and the availability of specialist support to participate in CFS-focused programs. A t-test revealed evidence that CEDs indica ted more interest in receiving both of these types of financial support than did non-CEDs This supports previous evidence that CEDs may be more inclined to pursue additional programming or professional opportunities than do non-CEDs. There may also be other differences between CEDs and non-CEDs that could have an effect on their leve ls of interest in re ceiving these types of support. The amount of time the respondents had sp ent in their current county showed associations in several dimensions of or ganizational support. An ANOVA revealed evidence that there is a relationship between the amount of time an extension agent has spent in their county and their level of inte rest in receiving professional development opportunities for participation in CFS-focused programs. The test revealed that time spent with their current counties explained 8.6 % of the variance in re spondents interest

PAGE 141

125 levels in professional development opportunitie s in this context. If one were to extrapolate from these results using the result s of the CED t-test, it may be possible that those who have spent more time with thei r county are more interested in learning opportunities. CEDs are likely to have spent more time with their current county than respondents who have Agent I or II ranks. In this way, it may be that the respondents who have spent more time in their county, re gardless of rank, may be more open to or interested in professi onal development opportunities of this type. The amount of time spent in the respondents current counties explained 5.8% of the variance in interest in receiving more ti me to participate in these programs and 6.3% of the variance in interest in receiving financial support for pa rticipation. Although, again this variable does not e xplain a substantial amount of variance, the post hoc tests revealed subsets that are found in several of the dependent variable categories, and is therefore worth noting. The post hoc test for interest in receiving more time reveals that the respondents who have spent less than one year or between two and five years are in one subset while all other time frame categor ies are in a separate subset. The post hoc test for interest in receivi ng financial support reveals that those who have spent less than one year with their current counties are different than all other groups. An ANOVA revealed evidence that this vari able showed variance in interest in the availability of specialist support among responde nts. The researcher showed that the amount of time spent in respondents current counties explained 8.2% of the variance in interest in this dimension of organizational support. Th e post hoc test was congruent with the tests run in the context of the other variables in that it showed that those who have been with their current county for less than one year we re different than all other

PAGE 142

126 groups. Tests produced similar evidence for th is demographic category in terms of both interest in receiving acknowle dgement through performance appr aisals and interest in an established curriculum for participat ing in CFS-focused programs. Respondents who have been with their cu rrent county have been in one subset while all other time frame categories are in another subset. This may suggest that the respondents who have been with their current co unty for less than one year differ from all other extension agents in their interest in receiving the different dimensions of organizational support. It is possible that the extension agen ts who have been with their counties for less than one year may be less interested in receiving organizational support to engage in additional activities because th ey are already engaged in orientation and basic tasks within their county. It may also be possible that extension agents who have spent more time in their current counties ar e more available for additional programs, types of support, or activities than those who are still establishing themselves within their county. The researcher explored the association be tween levels of intere st in the different dimensions of organizational support to participate in CFS-focused programs and program focus. As expected, the tests showed evidence of significant variation in interest levels among the different program foci. As mentioned earlier, this finding corresponds with the study that found Penns ylvania Extension agents showed variations of interest in engaging in local food systems programming based on their area of expertise (Thomson et al., 2003). An ANOVA showed evidence of va riation in interest le vels in professional development opportunities among the program foci The test showed that program focus explained 16.2% of the variance in interest in this type of support. The homogenous

PAGE 143

127 subgroups revealed by the post hoc test support the researcher supposition that respondents that work in programs that alr eady deal with CFS issues will be more interested in this type of organizationa l support. While thos e who reported natural resources, Sea Grant, and urban horticult ure were in one subgroup, another subgroup consisted of those in agriculture, family and consumer sciences, and 4-H and youth development. Each of these programs is different in thei r focus. Extension describes the Florida 4-H program as focusing on the development of youth as individuals and as responsible and productive citizens (UF/IFAS, n.d. a) th rough methods such as organized clubs, groups, and activities. Alachua Extension desc ribes their Family and Consumer Sciences program as focusing on topics such as nutri tion, food safety, and financial management (UF/IFAS, n.d. b). Florida Sea Grant progr amming focuses on enhancing the practical use and conservation of coastal and marine resources for a sustainable economy and environment. One can clearly see the differe nces in program foci such as these. However, as mentioned in Chapter Two, USDA-CSREES supports both multidisciplinary programs and extension partnerships with outsi de organizations to most effectively meet the needs of the clientele (C SREES, 2005a). Minarovic a nd Mueller (2000) found that extension agents were interested in working with extension agents in other disciplines. As mentioned in Chapter One, both partic ipation and the empowerment of community members are primary goals in extensions ende avors (Seevers et al., 1997). In this way, the researcher draws from the results of the current study to suggest that interd isciplinary collaborations may enhance Florida Extension s ability to address CFS needs on a county or local level. Extension must be able to motivate agents of all types to be interested in

PAGE 144

128 receiving support for par ticipation in CFS-focused programs n order to facilitate this type of collaboration. The researcher also examined the demogr aphic groups in terms of their interest levels in receiving time to participate in CFS-focused programs. Again, the researcher hypothesized that program focus would be asso ciated with interest in all types of organizational support. An ANOVA provided evidence of this in terms of receiving time. In this case, program focus explained 14.6% of the variance in interest levels in receiving this type of orga nizational support. The post hoc test revealed similar homogenous subsets among program foci as the post hoc test for professional development opportunities. This again supports the previous findings of Thomson et al. (2003). An ANOVA revealed that program focu s explained 10.7% of the variance in respondents interest levels in receiving financial support to participate in CFS-focused programs. These results support the research ers hypothesis that pr ogram focus plays a major role in determining interest in or ganizational support for participating in CFSfocused programs. The post hoc tests for th is dimension of organizational support also provided a foundation for this supposition. The homogenous subsets consisted of those who do not address CFS issues in th eir program versus those who do. Objective 5: General Discussion and Co nclusions Regarding Florida Extension Agents Current Levels of Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs The researcher measured extension ag ents recent (within the past year) participation in programs that dealt with a ny components of CFS. The findings suggest that overall, the largest percenta ge of extension agents in Flor ida have not participated in programs that deal with CFS. The research er examined participation levels among the

PAGE 145

129 demographic groups. The majority of res pondents in the following categories had not recently participated in a CFS-focused pr ogram: respondents with Agent I rank, those who have been with their counties for less than one year, those who have been with their county for between 11 and 15 years, responde nts with a program focus in natural resources, respondents with a program focus in urban horticulture, respondents with a focus in Sea Grant, and respondents in the South District. There was a measurement error with the respondents in th e other category for program focus. Several respondents in this category marked both that they had part icipated in a program and marked that they had not participated in a program. These results support the rese archers hypothesis regarding levels of interest in dimensions of organizational support. The re searcher suggested that those who were not as involved in programs addressing CFS issues would be less interested in receiving organizational support for participation in th ese types of programs. The groups that showed less interest or a difference in inte rest in receiving orga nizational support were also the groups that had the majority of respondents indicate that they had not participated in CFS-focused programs within the last year. The researcher performed chi-square tests to identify associat ions between the demographic groups and participation in these types of programs. Gender, rank, CED status, time spent in current county, and program focus all showed associatio ns with participation in at least one of the program types. It is possible, and ev en likely, that particip ation in CFS-focused programs is affected or influenced by many di fferent variables. Florida Extension must have a full understanding of the variables involved in order to effectively motivate extension agents to participate in these types of programs.

PAGE 146

130 Objective 6: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding the Associations between Dependent Variables in This Study The results of this study i ndicated that several dependent variables were associated with one another. First, stat istical tests showed evidence of a weak relationship between respondents knowledge scores and all other depe ndent variable scores. In other words, as a respondents knowledge score got higher, their indicatio n of the relevance of CFS issues in their county got higher, as did thei r interest in receivi ng organizational support to participate in CFS-focused programs. Th ese relationships were weak, which surprised the researcher. Orig inally, the researcher hypothesized that hi gher knowledge levels would have a strongly positive relationship with each of these variables. It is possible that knowledge by itself does not heavily influen ce perceptions of releva nce or interest in participation. The results of this study s uggest that it is possi ble that the extension agents participation in CFS-focused pr ograms has a stronger influence on their perceptions and their interest in future participation. In other words, if an extension agent engages in professional activities that focu s on addressing CFS issues, they are more likely to perceive these as relevant issues. Second, data analysis provided evidence that interest levels in all of the dimensions of organizational support were posi tively associated with one another. Thus, if a respondent was interested in one type of support they were likely to be interested in all types of support. This fi nding is logical and is not surp rising. However, there may be types of organizational support not offered in this questionn aire that extension agents may or may not be interested in receiving. This finding is al so similar to the findings of LaBorde (2003) and of Gentry-Van Laanen and Nies (1995) in that ex tension agents were

PAGE 147

131 interested in multiple types of support for participation in programs that focus on a CFS context. Finally, analysis showed evidence that th e respondents who ha d participated in nutrition programs in the previous year had a significant positive relationship with all other variables with the excepti on of their Likert scores. Nutrition was the only program participation category that showed a signifi cant positive relationship with each of the dependent variables. There were other pr ogram participation categories such as food access, food safety, and local food systems that had positive relationships with some of the dependent variables. This indicates the possibility that nutrition programs are different than other programs. Nutrition programs have an obvious invol vement with more than one of the dimensions of CFS. Greer and Poling ( 2002) found that people who participated in nutrition programs in Tennessee improved in hunger issues, f ood management, food choices, food safety, and cooking skills. Anding et al. (2001) found Texas Extension nutrition program to not only influence participants food choices, knowledge of nutrition, and food management; it also re duced community impact of hunger and emergency food reserve depletion. These resu lts, as well as those of the current study, support the researchers supposition that pr ogram focus and previous involvement in CFS-focused programs have significant rela tionships with knowledge, perceptions, and interest in CFS. In this way, it is possible that if one were to increase extension agent participation in these types of programs or activ ities, it could lead to increased extension agent awareness and interest.

PAGE 148

132 Overall Implications and Recommendations for Florida Extension Community food security is an issue of concern in the United States. The Cooperative Extension Service offers programs such as the Expanded Food and Nutrition Program, The Family Living Program in Wisc onsin, and the Better Living for Texans Program in Texas to identify and address local CFS issues. Extension offers web site support for extension agents in Pennsylvani a who would like more information on CFS issues such as food safety. Edible Connections is a program in Pennsylvania that uses the promotion of local food production to deal with teen risk behaviors in the community. Extension services across the county are al ready engaged in addressing CFS issues in their community. The opportunity to build collaborations and inter-organizational partnerships between extension and other CFS organizations in the community is not only available, it is relevant and can help Florida Extension meet the needs and interests of its extension agents and its clientele. Recommendations for Extension Partnerships The results of this study s uggest that some Florida Exte nsion agents see CFS as a salient issue in their countie s and are interested in rece iving support to engage in programs that work to address these issues. As noted by Thomson et al. (2003), this is half the battle. They concluded that extens ion agents needed to incorporate their own perceptions of importance with the issues in their communities (Thomson et al., 2003). Florida Extensions resp onsibility is to allot resources and allow for opportunities so that extension agents can most effectively addre ss clientele needs. As mentioned earlier, collaborations with outside nonprofit or othe r types of community organizations can be an excellent resource for a ddressing community issues, spec ifically in a CFS context.

PAGE 149

133 There are many organizations in Florida that work to address CFS issues and community development. Farmers markets, food banks, community gardens, and educational outreach organizati ons are just a few examples Cooperative extension and extension educators work toward community development, citizen empowerment and education for community members so they can make informed decisions. Holland (2004) suggests that an integration of sustainabi lity projects with community development efforts can facilitate both community participation and citizen empowerment. GentryVan Laanen and Nies (1995) provided an ex ample of a CFS-focused extension education program that worked to supplement current community outreach efforts to address CFS issues in the community. Minarovic and Mueller (2000) determined that extension agents in North Carolina were interested in the involvement of local organizations and community members to enhance CFS-focuse d extension programming. Finally, the Community Food Security In itiative of 1999 encourages collaborations between government and nonprofit organizations (Thomson, et al., 2003). Based on previous research and on the resu lts of the current study, the researcher recommends that Florida Extension explore th e possibilities for partnerships with local and community organizations in order to assist extension agen ts in effectively addressing CFS issues. In doing so, Florida Extension can function to not only address individual issues, but can also work to improve the condi tion of the community in which it serves. This would work like the example in the Anding et al. (2001) study. Hancock (2001) writes, A healthy community is one that has high levels of social, ecological, human, and economic capital, the combination of which may be thought of as community capital. (p. 275). Hancock (2001) goes on to suggest that co llaborations on projects that

PAGE 150

134 focus on sustainability and ecology, such as community gardens would work to strengthen the capital within a community. In this way, partnerships with Florida Extension could work not only to address C FS issues, but also strengthen economies, ecologies, and social cap ital in their counties. Recommendations for Needs Assessments Florida Extension agents do not perceive CFS in their c ounties very negatively, but neither do they perceive it as very positively. This indicates that while CFS issues are not an immediate problem in Florida, they are in need of concern and attention. Extension agents responses to questions regarding the relevance of CFS issu es in their counties also provide evidence that these issues are of concern. As established earlier, Florida Extension has direct involvement with the food systems in the state, in both the contexts of consumers and producers. The perceptions of Florida Extension ag ents indicate that there are issues in need of address in the state. Florida Extension can utilize needs assessments and asset assessments to aid exte nsion agents in addr essing these types of issues. Needs assessments are one of the tools exte nsion agents use to determine the needs, issues, and concerns within their counties a nd communities. The researcher suggests that extension agents in Florida conduct needs assessments in their communities. This would serve several purposes. First, the needs a ssessments would allow extension agents to gauge actual CFS needs or salient CFS issues in their counties. Second, the results of the needs assessments would allow researchers to compare extension agent perspectives on CFS issues with data regarding CFS in their communities. Third, the results of the needs assessments would help extension agents work toward IFAS research mission: to provide scientific knowledge and expertise to the public (UF/IFAS, 2004, 12). The

PAGE 151

135 needs assessments would also help extens ion agents direct CFS programming toward community members that need it the most. Th e results of the Fishman et al. (1999) study indicated that extension educator s must not only be aware of the needs of th eir clientele, but must also be aware of their culture and background. In this way, a needs assessment would assist extension agents in utilizing their time and programm ing resources in the most effective way possible. The needs assessments would allow extension agents to examine CFS in a geographical community or neighborhood. Th e Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit (Cohen, 2002) provides inst ruments such as questionnai res, interview guides, and directions for focus groups that would assist extension agents or other researchers in determining CFS needs within the community. The researchers would need to examine each of the seven components of CFS. For example, researchers would need to find out if community members were having a hard time getting to the grocer y store, if there was a problem with spoiled or improperly cooke d food in the community, if people were having a hard time getting culturally acceptable foods, or if workers in the food system were being treated properly by their employers. Recommendations for Support The results of this study showed that some extension agents in Florida were interested in receiving su pport for participation in CFS-focused programs. The researcher recommends that Florida Extensi on administration work to allot needed and wanted support for these agents. While ther e were six dimensions of support addressed in this study, there may be other methods of desired support such as web sites. Florida Extension must examine who is in terested in receiving what kinds of support and who is interested in participating in these type s of programs to effectively

PAGE 152

136 address these issues within their counties. This study revealed evidence that some program foci want organizational support for participation in CFS-focused programs more than others. Overall, extension agen ts are moderately interested in receiving organizational support for participation. Fl orida Extension can allot these types of support on a county-by-county basis, as needed. The decision to allot these types of support can also be based on needs assessments and county issues of salience. Florida Extension agents showed the most interest in the availability of a curriculum. The researcher recommends that Florida Extensi on make available a developed and available curriculum for extension agents interested in participating in CFS-focused programs. The results of this study also indicated that CEDs may be mo re interested in receiving these types of support. If this is the case, Flor ida Extension can support their CEDs by making these types of support available to them. The CEDs act as leaders in their counties and, in doing so, set an example for other extension agents. If extension agents are motivated to engage in these types of programs by their CEDs, they may be more interested in participating. Recommendations for Education and Motivation The study showed that extens ion agents have a wide ra nge of knowledge of CFS. While no one in the study answered every que stion in the knowledge test incorrectly, no one answered every question correctly. Th ere were differences in knowledge across districts and by the amount of time the responde nt had spent in their county. This implies that Florida Extension should look at the ne ed for additional education or training in some areas. Florida Extension could offer additional education on CFS as a concept and on the different components of CFS.

PAGE 153

137 The study revealed high levels of non-partic ipation in CFS-focused programs. The results showed that more than 40% of all ex tension agents have not participated in a program that focuses on a CFS component in th e last year. Florid a Extension needs to identify reasons for non-participation. This may be as a result of program focus or community needs, lack of organizational support, or lack of interest in participation. Florida Extension must work to support their agents in participating in programs that address issues that are clearly of concern in the state. In additi on to support, Florida Extension must also work to motivate their ag ents to address these issues within their counties. As stated above, the motivati onal process may involve engaging the CED for the county in garnering support for these program s. It is extensions responsibility to identify the needs of their clientele and a ppropriate resources in order to adequately address those needs. Recommendations for Future Research This study was a descriptive study and a primary step in examining Florida Extension in the context of co mmunity food security. The results of this study provide a platform for future research studies. The re search gained insight into Florida Extension agents knowledge, perceptions and behavior in terms of CFS, but each insight inevitably leads to more questions and further expl oration. The research made the following recommendations for further research based on the findings and conclusions of this study. The researcher recommends that further research be conducted regarding extension agents levels of knowledge regarding CFS. Specifically, the researcher recommends that research be done to iden tify the relationship between CFS issues in specific districts or counties within Florida and the knowle dge levels of the extension agents within t hose extension regions. Th e Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit (Cohen, 2002) would be a usef ul tool in this type of endeavor. The assessment would help researchers to determine the state of CFS within a particular region. The knowledge scores of extension agents w ithin a region where CFS is a measured issue could be compar ed with scores for extension agents

PAGE 154

138 working within a region where CFS is less of a measured issue. This type of research could provide insight into the relationship between experience, clientele needs, and extension agent knowledge levels The researcher also recommends a longitudinal study to identify differences in extension agent traini ng over time. It is possible that extension agent training and education varies depending on such factors as funding, administration changes, a nd current county needs. If this is the case, then extension agents knowledge le vels would vary based on when they receive training or from whom they recei ve training. A longi tudinal study would help to identify these differences. The researcher recommends further explor ation and development of a Likert scale for perceptions of CFS. Sp ecifically, the researcher reco mmends factor analysis to identify constructs within the scale. Res earch could develop thos e constructs into a series of scales that may effectively be ab le to identify respondents perceptions of CFS in their community. The researcher recommends further resear ch to evaluate CFS within a community and compare the results of the assessment with extension agent perceptions. The researcher recommends further investigation to identify the relationship between extension agents perceptions of CFS and their attitudes toward engaging in CFS-related activities or programs. The basis of this research would be a strong foundation in the theory of planned behavior. The researcher recommends further resear ch to explore the as sociations between gender, program focus, and knowledge and perceptions of CFS. This research could reveal either two distinct relations hips or a spurious relationship between gender and knowledge and per ceptions of CFS. If a relationship is found with gender, this research could delve into th e question of why fema le extension agents have a more negative persp ective on CFS in their counties than do male extension agents. The researcher suggests further research to examine differences in CEDs interests and non-CEDs interests in a CFS context. In addition, the researcher suggests research to examine CEDs interest in organizational support for CFS and non-CFS related issues. In this way, one could di scover whether CEDs are more interested in pursuing professional opportunities in a CFS context, or whether they are more interested in pursuing professional o pportunities in all or many contexts. The researcher suggests research be done to examine the difference between extension agents who have been with their counties fo r less than one year and extension agents who have b een in their county for more than one year. It is possible that the extension agents who have been with their counties for less than one year may be less interested in recei ving organizational support to engage in additional activities because they are alrea dy engaged in orientation and basic tasks within their county. It is possible that extension agents who have spent more time in their current counties are more ava ilable for additional programs, types of

PAGE 155

139 support, or activities than those who are st ill establishing themse lves within their county. The researcher suggests further res earch in this area. Specifically, the researcher recommends addressing the fo llowing questions: does the position of CED have a relationship with interest in professional development opportunities in a CFS context, and do those who have sp ent more time with their counties feel more open to or available for pr ofessional development opportunities. The researcher suggests rese arch to discover whether the extension agents who already work with CFS issues are the one s who are more interested in receiving support to address those issues. Based on the results of this study, one could delve into the question of what specifically motivat es extension agents to be interested in receiving support for these types of programs. If extension agents who are already invol ved in programs that address CFS-focused issues are more interested in receiv ing support for these activities than are extension agents who are not involved in these types of programs, then the researcher suggests research be done to discover the appropri ateness of getting other extension agents interested in C FS issues. If extension agents who do not have a CFS-focus in their program can a ddress CFS issues through their own foci, then the researcher suggests research be done to discove r how to integrate programs such as natural resources or Sea Grant w ith CFS-focused issues. In addition, one must pose the question: how can extension wo rk to get extension agents interested in incorporating CFS in their programs? In light of these results, the researcher suggests further research to explore motivation and opportunity to participate in programs that address CFS issues. The study found that knowledge does not have a strong relationship with extension agents perceptions or interest in CF S. The researcher recommends further research to explore the ro le of extension agents pa rticipation in CFS-focused programs or activities on perceptions and interest in CFS in their counties. Summary This chapter presented discussion and conclusions for each of the six objectives for this study. Specifically, the chapter discu ssed the conclusions re garding the knowledge and perceptions of Florida Extension agents regarding CFS. In addition, the chapter addressed the conclusions rega rding Florida Extension agen ts perceptions of current levels of organizational suppor t and their interest in rece iving future organizational support for participation in CFS-focused progr ams. The chapter provided conclusions regarding Florida Extension agents participation in CFS-focused programs and drew

PAGE 156

140 conclusions based on the associations of th e dependent variables of the study. The researcher made comparisons based on the results of the current study and those of previous research. The researcher also offered recommendations and implications for Florida Extension. Finally, this chapter offere d an outline of future research needs in the context of CFS and extension.

PAGE 157

141 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT Dear Florida Extension Agent, Extension programming has long had a focus on food system and agricultural issues. One of the primary elements in understanding th e relationship between Florida Extension and the food system is the discovery of Extensi on agents knowledge and feelings toward this connection. In order to determine Florida Ex tension agents programming needs, it is essential to first understand Extension agents knowledge of Community Food Security and their perceptions of local Co mmunity Food Security issues. The results of this study will be used to help enhance Florida Extension programming by identifying possible areas of local collabora tion and agents programming needs. The results will be published in my Masters thesis and will be available to Extension administration and to the University of Flor ida and Extension faculty. As an Extension agent in Florida, you are an essential link to the community and to the county in which you work. Your perceptions and opinions are a crucial part of this study. The results of this survey will be confiden tial and will be presented in summary form only. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the number or email address below. I thank you so very much for your particip ation and your contribu tion to this study! Sincerely, Alison Eve Lutz University of Florida 408 Rolfs Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 (352) 392-0502 ext. 244 allutz@ufl.edu

PAGE 158

142

PAGE 159

143

PAGE 160

144

PAGE 161

145

PAGE 162

146

PAGE 163

147

PAGE 164

148

PAGE 165

149

PAGE 166

150

PAGE 167

151

PAGE 168

152

PAGE 169

153

PAGE 170

154

PAGE 171

155

PAGE 172

156

PAGE 173

157

PAGE 174

158

PAGE 175

159 Many thanks for completing this survey! If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at either of the email addresses listed below. Alison Lutz allutz@ufl.edu Nick Place nplace@ufl.edu

PAGE 176

160 APPENDIX B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF PROTOCOL MEMORANDUM

PAGE 177

161 APPENDIX C PRE-NOTIFICATION POSTCARD

PAGE 178

162 APPENDIX D FIRST-WAVE QUESTIONNAIRE EMAIL Hello! Dr. Place and I sent you a postcard last week about this email. I have posted the link to our survey below. Simply click on the link. The survey should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. If you have any ques tions, concerns, or technical problems with this survey, please do not hesitate to contact either me via return email or Dr. Place at nplace@ufl.edu. Thank you so very much in advance for your help with this important research study! http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224WUCZEFJG

PAGE 179

163 APPENDIX E SECOND-WAVE QUESTIONNAIRE EMAIL Hi! Last week, Dr. Place and I sent you a link to a survey regarding Community Food Security and Florida Extension. This email is simply a reminder to take 10 to 15 minutes to fill out the questionnaire. Regardless of your knowledge or background with this topic, your input and perspect ive are extremely important to this study. The results of this study will work to help identify agents programming thoughts and needs. Our goal is to include the knowledge and perceptions of all Flor ida Extension agents. I have included the link to the survey belo w. Simply click on the link and the survey will pop up in a new window. If you have any technical issues or questions regarding the questionnaire or this study, please do not hesitate to contact either Dr. Place at nplace@ufl.edu or me via return email. Thank you so much for your time and assist ance. Your participation will greatly contribute to this study! Sincerely, Alison Lutz http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224WUCZEFJG

PAGE 180

164 APPENDIX F THIRD-WAVE QUESTIONNAIRE EMAIL Hello (names of county agents)! This email is a final reminder regarding my survey on Florida Extension and Community Food Security. In addition to the importance of this study, your participation in this study will help me complete my thesis and achieve my Master of Science degree. Your thoughts and perspective are valuable to this study, even if you are not familiar with the topic. Please take 10 minutes to complete the survey. Simply click on the link below to open a ne w window into the survey. If you have any questions or technical issues with the surve y, please feel free to contact me via return email or Dr. Place at nplace@ufl.edu. I appreciate your time and your help with my thesis! Sincerely, Alison Lutz http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224WUCZEFJG

PAGE 181

165 LIST OF REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 179. Ajzen, I. (1996). The directive influence of attitudes on beha vior. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Link ing cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 385). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Ajzen, I. (2001). Perceived behavioral contro l, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied So cial Psychology, 32 665. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and pr edicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Albarracn, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellereile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as m odels of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (1), 141. Anderson, M. D., & Cook, J. T. (1999). Commun ity food security: Practice in need of theory? Agriculture and Human Values, 16 141. Anding, J., Fletcher, R. D., Van Laanen, P., & Supak, C. (2001, December). The Food Stamp Nutrition Education Programs (FSNEP) impact on selected food and nutrition behaviors among Texans [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 39 (6). Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Effi cacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 13 (9). Beus, C. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1990). Conven tional versus alternative agriculture: The paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology, 55 (4), 590. Bell, D. (1993). Communitarianism and its critics. New York: Oxford University Press. Bell, C., & Newby, H. (1972). Community studies: An introduc tion to the sociology of the local community. New York: Praeger Publishers.

PAGE 182

166 Bellows, A. C., & Hamm, M. W. (2003). Inte rnational effects on and inspiration for community food security policie s and practices in the USA. Critical Public Health, 13 (2), 107. Buford, J. A., Jr., Bedeian, A. G., & Lindner, J. R. (1995). Management in extension (3rd ed.). Columbus: Ohio State University Extension. Chaves, D. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). Sense of community: Advances in measurement and application. Journal of Community Psychology, 27 (6), 935. Checkoway, B. (2001). Renewing the civic missi on of the American research university. The Journal of Higher Education, 72 (2), 125. Cohen, B. (2002, July). USDA community food security assessment toolkit. (Electronic Publication from the Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program No. 02013). Economic Resource Service. Colombo, M., Mosso, C., & De Piccoli, N. ( 2001). Sense of community and participation in urban contexts. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11 457 264. CSREES. (2005a). CSREES background. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://www.csrees.usda. gov/about/background.html CSREES. (2005b). National emphasis areas. Retrieved December 20, 2005 from http://www.csrees.usda.gov/ nea/emphasis_area.html Curry, J. N., & McGuire, S. (2002). Community on land: Community, ecology, and the public interest. Cumnor Hill, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Department of Foods and Nutrition and the Cooperative Extension Service at Purdue University. (2003). Safe foods for the hungry. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://www.cfs.purdue.edu/safefood/sfhungry.html DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd Edition) New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. EFNEP/IFAS. (2004). Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program Retrieved January 15, 2005, from http://efnep.ifas.ufl.edu/ Environmental Literacy Council. (August, 2005). Green revolution. Retrieved on September 20, 2005, from http://www.envi roliteracy.org/article.php/234.html Etzioni, A. (1996). A modera te communitarian proposal. Political Theory, 24 (2), 155 171.

PAGE 183

167 Etzioni, A. (1997). The new golden rule: Community and morality in a democratic society. New York: Basic Books. Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, 300 (5620), 758. Feenstra, G. (2002). Creating space for sustai nable food systems: Le ssons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values, 19 99. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, inten tion, and behavior: An introduction to theory and rese arch. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Fishman, A., Pearson, K., & Reicks, M. ( 1999, October). Gathering food and nutrition information from migrant farmworker chil dren through in-depth interviews [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 37 (5). Flora, J. L. (1998). Social capital and communities of place. Rural Sociology, 63 (4), 481 506. Foreign Agricultural Se rvice. (1995, November). World Food Summit: Basic information. Retrieved September 20, 2005, from http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/summit/basic.html Frischel, H., Pandya-Lorch, R., & Rose, B. (E ds). (1996, May). Key trends in feeding the world. International Food Policy Research Institute Retrieved September 20, 2005, from http://www.ifpr i.org/2020/synth/trends.htm Galster, G. (2001). On the nature of neighborhood. Urban Studies, 38 (12), 2111. Gentry-Van Laanen, P., & Nies, J. I. ( 1995, October). Evaluation extension program effectiveness: Food safety educati on in Texas [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 33 (5). Gillespie, G. W., & Gillespie, A. H. (2000). Community food systems: Toward a common language for building productive partnerships Cornell Community Nutrition Program, Division of Nutri tional Sciences, Cornell University. Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11 (2), 87. Gottlieb, R., & Fisher, A. (1996a). First feed the face: Enviro nmental justice and community food security. Antipode, 28 (2), 193. Gottlieb, R., & Fisher, A. (1996b). Community food security and environmental justice: Searching for a common discourse. Agriculture and Human Values, 3 (3), 23.

PAGE 184

168 Greer, B., & Poling, R. (2001, December). Impact of participating in the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Pr ogram on food insecurity. Mississippi State, Southern Rural Development Center. Guest, A. M., & Weirzbicki, S. K. (1999) Social ties at the neighborhood level: Two decades of GSS evidence. Urban Affairs Review, 35 (1), 92. Gussow, J.D. (2001). This organic life: Confession s of a suburban homesteader White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Hamm, M. W., & Bellows, A. C. (2003). Community food security and nutrition educators. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 35 (1), 37. Hancock, T. (2001). People, partnerships and human progress: Building community capital. Health Promotion International, 16 (3), 275. Hassel, C. A. (2004, April). Can diversity extend to ways of knowing? Engaging crosscultural paradigms [E lectronic version]. Journal of Extension, 42 (2). Henerson, M. E., Morris, L. L ., & Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1987). How to measure attitudes Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc. Hirst, M. A. (1980). The geogra phical basis of community work. Community Development Journal, 15 (1), 53. Holben, D. H. (2002). An overview of food security and its measurement. Nutrition Today, 37 (4), 156. Holland, L. (2004). Diversity and connections in community gardens: A contribution to local sustainability. Local Environment, 9 (3), 285. Hoover, T., Cooper, A., Tamplin, M., Osmond, J., & Edgell, K. (1996, June). Exploring curriculum to meet the food safety needs of bilingual youth [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 34 (3). Kameshwari, P., & Kaufman, J.L. (1999). Pl acing the food system on the urban agenda: The role of municipal institu tions in food systems planning. Agriculture and Human Values, 16 213. Kantor, L. S. (2001). Community food security programs improve food access. Food Review, 24 (1), 20. Kelsey, K. D. (2002, August). What is old is new again: Cooperative extensions role in democracy building through civil e ngagement [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 40 (4). Knoke, D., Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Mee, A. P. (2002). Statistics for social data analysis (4th ed.). Itasca: F. E. Peacock Publishers.

PAGE 185

169 Laborde, L. (2003, April). Impact of the Penn St ate food safety web site as a food safety information resource for extension professionals [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 41 (2). Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42 (4), 43. Lynne, G. D., Casey. C. F., Hodges, A., & Rahmani, M. (1995). Conservation technology adoption decisions and the th eory of planned behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16 581. Martin, D. G. (2003). Place-framing as place-making: Constituting a neighborhood for organizing and activism. Annals of the Associatio n of American Geographers, 93 (3), 730. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user inte ntions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2 (3), 173. Mengeling, M. A. (2000). The construction of sta ndardized tests and th eir uses. In W. G. Wraga & P. S. Hlebowitsh (Eds.), Research review for school leaders (Vol. 3). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Minarovic, R. E., & Mueller, J. P. (2 000, February). North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service professionals attit udes toward sustainable agriculture [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 38 (1). Nagayets, O. (2005). Small farms: Current status and key tre nds: Prepared for the Future of Small Farms Research Workshop at Wye College. International Food Policy Research Institute 1. National Emphasis Areas. (2005, February). Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and the United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved July 14, 2005, from http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/emphasis_area.html Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Norman, P., Conner, M., & Bell, R. (1999). Th e theory of planned behavior and smoking cessation. Health Psychology, 18 (1), 89. Obst, P, Smith, S. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. ( 2002). An exploration of sense of community, part 3: Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in geographical communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 30 (1), 119. Obst, P. L., & White, K. M. (2005). An exploration of the interplay between psychological sense of community, so cial identification, and salience. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15 127.

PAGE 186

170 Pelletier, D., McCullum, C., Kraa k, V., & Asher, K. (2002, April). Participation, power, and beliefs shape local food and nutrition policy Paper presented at the Beliefs, Power, and the State of Nutrition: Inte grating Social Science Perspectives in Nutrition Interventions Symposium, New Orleans, LA. Pelletier, D. L., Kraak, V., McCullum, C., Uusitalo, U., & Rich, R. (1999). Community food security: Salience and partic ipation at a community level. Agriculture and Human Values, 16 401. Program Development and Evaluation Center (2005a). University of Florida extension faculty orientation modules. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from http://pdec.ifas.ufl.edu Program Development and Evaluation Center (2005b). Statewide goals and focus teams. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from http://pdec.ifas.ufl.edu/foci/ Reisch, M. (2002). Defining social ju stice in a socially unjust world. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83 (4), 342. Row, K. (2002). UW extension impact report: Fa mily living programs helping communities achieve food security Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, Cooperative Extension. Row, K. (2005). Hunger close to home Madison, Wisconsin: Univ ersity of Wisconsin, Cooperative Extension. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2001). Community organizing and development (3rd ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bac on: A Pearson Education Company. Sanders, H. C. (Ed.). (1966). The cooperative extension service. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Sandwich, P.B.J. (2003). Community food security: Its delicious. Jif: Smuckers Publishers. Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of comm unity: Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shultz, K. S., & Whitney, D. J. (2005). Measurement theory in ac tion: Case studies and exercises. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Seddon, G. M. (1978, Spring). The properties of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain. Review of Educational Research, 48 (2), 303 323. Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through cooperative extension New York: Delmar Publishers.

PAGE 187

171 Seevers, B. S., & Foster, B. B. (2004, Decembe r). A profile of female county agricultural agents in todays CES [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 42 (6). Sharp, J., Imerman, E., & Peters, G. (2002, June). Community supported agriculture (CSA): Building community among farmers a nd non-farmers [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 40 (3). Sheeran, P., Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2001) Can the theory of planned behavior explain patterns of h ealth behavior change? Health Psychology, 20 (1), 12. Sweet, S. A., & Grace-Martin, K. (2003). Data analysis with SPSS: A first course in applied statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Thomson, J. S., Abel, J. L., & Maretski, A. N. (2001, April). Edible Connections: A model to facilitate citizen dialogue and bu ild community collaboration [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 39 (2). Thomson, J. S., Radhakrishna, R. B., & Inciong, L. (2004, May). Extension educators perspectives on local food system issues: Implications for extension research and programming Paper presented at the 31st National Agriculture Education Research Conference, St. Louis, MO. UF/IFAS. (n.d. a). The history of Florida 4-H. Florida 4-H. Retrieved May 20, 2006, from http://4h.ifas.ufl.edu/newsa ndinfo/History/about4h/BEGINNING.HTM UF/IFAS. (n.d. b). Meet your FCS agent. Alachua County Family and Consumer Sciences. Retrieved May 20, 2006, from http://alachua.ifas.ufl.edu/fcs/bwilliams.htm UF/IFAS. (2000). Cooperative extension system. Extension. Retrieved December 23, 2005, from http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/extension/ces.htm UF/IFAS. (2003). Acts, hi story, and institutions. Land and Sea Grant. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://ifas.ufl.edu/ls_grant/index.htm#extension UF/IFAS. (2004a, December). IFAS facts Retrieved December 23, 2005, from http://analysis2001.ifas.ufl.edu/facts150.htm UF/IFAS Extension Statewide Goal s and Focus Areas for 2004. (2004b). Program Development and Evaluation Center Retrieved August 9, 2005, from http://pdec.ifas.ufl.edu/foci/statewideGoals.htm UF/IFAS. (2005). Ranks, titles, responsibilities a nd general position descriptions for county extension faculty Retrieved July 24, 2005 from http://ded.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty_Ranks/Faculty_Titles.htm

PAGE 188

172 United States Department of Agriculture ( 2004, November). Food security in the United States: Community food security. Economic Research Service. Retrieved December 27, 2005, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Brief ing/FoodSecurity/community/ United States Department of Ag riculture. (2005, February). U.S. market profile for organic food products. Retrieved August 14, 2005, from http://www.fas.usda.gov/agx/organics /USMarketProfileOrganicFoodFeb2005.pdf United States Department of Agriculture. (2004, May). What is sustainable agriculture? Retrieved August 14, 2005, from http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/agnic/agnic.htm#definition University of California Sustainable Agri culture Research and Education Program. (2002). What is a community food system? Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/cdpp/cfsoverview.htm Voluntad, A., Dawson, P., & Corp, M. (2004, December). The Pendleton community garden: More than just planting seeds. Journal of Extension, 42 (6). Retrieved August 11, 2005, from http://www.joe .org/joe/2004december/iw2.shtml Wilkinson, K. P. (1991). The community in rural America. New York: Greenwood Press. Winne, M. (n.d.). Community food security: Promo ting food security and building healthy food systems. Venice, CA: Community Food Security Coalition. Wood, G. S., & Judikis, J. C. (2002). Conversations on community theory. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. World Bank (1986). Poverty and hunger: Issues and options for food security in developing countries World Bank Policy Study. Washington, DC: World Bank.

PAGE 189

173 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alison Eve Lutz was born in Bethlehem, Pe nnsylvania. She developed an interest in traveling at the age of eighteen. She wo rked in Costa Rica with several outreach programs. After returning, she attended Ursinus College, where she majored in communication and theatre. She spent two se mesters at the University of Hawaii, studying international womens studies for her minor. After graduating college, Alison moved to a biodynamic farm in British Columbia. There, she managed a community-supported agriculture program and worked as a livestock manger. This expe rience ignited her passion for agriculture, food systems, and education. Throughout her life, Alison has had a love of animals and the outdoors. She has wanted her own small farm si nce she was five years old. After moving to Florida, she attended th e University of Florida, wanting to specialize in extensi on education. She would like to work with food systems and community outreach.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015641/00001

Material Information

Title: Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behaviors of Florida Extension Agents Regarding Community Food Security
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015641:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015641/00001

Material Information

Title: Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behaviors of Florida Extension Agents Regarding Community Food Security
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015641:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












KNOWLEDGE, PERCEPTIONS, AND BEHAVIORS OF FLORIDA EXTENSION
AGENTS REGARDING COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY















By

ALISON EVE LUTZ


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Alison Eve Lutz















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people who gave me support and love throughout this process.

First, I would like to thank my graduate committee members. I was very lucky to

have Dr. Nick Place as my advisor and my graduate committee chair. His guidance,

support, and encouragement were invaluable during my time spent at the University of

Florida. I enjoyed working with him, not only on my thesis study, but on other projects

as well. He had an ability to help me stay on track and focus on my accomplishments.

Dr. Place is a wonderful advisor and educator. His constant availability and willingness

to help not only helped me get through graduate school, but also made it a joy.

Dr. Mickie Swisher helped me make this study something of which I could be

proud. I truly enjoyed working with her. She presented me with challenges, and

supported me as I worked through them. Dr. Swisher has an ability to make me think

about the world in a new way. I was very lucky to have had her support and enthusiasm

for my study.

I would also like to thank Dr. Mark Kistler. His ideas, feedback, and assistance

were so helpful in this process. He always had time to meet and discuss my work.

My family deserves a heart-felt thank you. I would like to thank my father for all

the late-night statistics sessions. His patience and help gave me the confidence I needed

to pursue the challenges that lay before me. I would also like to thank my sister, Gerse.

She was a constant source of comedic relief. Her positive attitude and enthusiasm for life

always cheer me up when I am down. I would like to extend a thank-you to my









grandmother, Evelyn, for being so proud of me. She has always been a role-model for

me. Her devotion to her family is one of the biggest assets I have in my life. I would

also like to thank my mother for being proud of me. I appreciated her support, advice,

and encouragement throughout this process.

A very big thank you goes to my friend Beth. She has been a steadfast and

wonderful friend since I met her. I consider myself lucky to have such a great best

friend. Throughout my graduate career, she has been my support, my friend, and my

psychologist. I could never have made it through these years (or many others) without

the late-night phone calls full of laughter, tears, and everything in between.

I would also like to thank Nick Fuhrman. He has been a constant source of support

and encouragement. He was always available for advice, suggestions, feedback, or as a

shoulder to cry on.

I thank all of my friends that I have been so lucky to make in my life. I looked

forward to coming into the graduate offices everyday because of all the great fellow

students in the department. I would like to thank the original 'crew': Abbe, Jaime, and

Marshall. I was so lucky to meet such wonderful, honest, and funny friends when I first

arrived at the University of Florida. I thank Brian, Carrie, Renee, Elio, Katy, Katie, and

Jessica for making the bat cave such a special place.

I would also like to thank the Department of Agricultural Education and

Communication at the University of Florida. I am so very grateful that I had the

opportunity to work and learn in this department. The department has offered me

opportunities for growth and improvement that are not only reflected in this thesis, but

also in my life.









Lacy Park and Jodi DeGraw both provided support and guidance throughout this

process. Lacy helped me to begin my graduate program and Jodi helped me to complete

it.

I would like to thank Mimi Stanford who let me "steal" the book that set me on the

path for my thesis. My gratitude also goes to Graham Stanford who helped with some of

the technical aspects and helped me to keep perspective.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge Bluegrass and Noah. They have been the

most faithful and wonderful companions. Their understanding and patience with my

hectic schedule are so appreciated. They are the ones who keep me grounded and make

my house a home.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES ................................... ................................. ............ xi

FIGURE ........................................ ................. ....... ....... .............. xiv

A B STR A C T ............... ...........................................................................................xv

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY.............................................. 1

Intro du action to th e Stu dy ................................................................... ..................... 1
Background and Significance of the Problem ............................................................2
F lo rid a E x ten sio n ......................................................................... .......... .. .. 5
T heory of Planned B ehavior.................................................................... .......6
Statem ent of the Problem ......................................................... .............. 7
Purpose and Objectives .............. .............. ................. ...............
O operational D definitions .................................................................... .9
Lim stations of the Study ............. .... .............. ............ .......... .. ..11
Sum m ary ................ ................................... ...........................11

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............... ...... ... ............... 12

Extension System s in the United States.................................. ........................ 12
H history of Extension in the U united States ................................... ... ................. 12
Extension in the United States Today ...................................... ............... 14
Management in Extension ........... ..... ......... ................... 15
The Florida Extension System ..................................................... .... ............... 16
The History of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences in Florida.........16
Management and Employment in the Florida Cooperative Extension Service... 16
Com m unity Food Security ............................................................ ............... 19
The Evolution of Community Food Security ............................................... 19
Defining Community Food Security ....................................... ............... 22
D defining Com m unity ....................................................... ................. 25
C om m unitarianism .............. ............... .. ................................ .............. 26
Psychological Sense of Com m unity ................................................................ 29
G geographic C om m unity ........................................................... .....................30









Community and Community Food Security.......................................................32
Community Food Security and the Cooperative Extension Service ........................34
Extension Programs and Food-Access Issues ........................................... 37
Extension Program and Food-Safety Issues..................................................... 39
Extension Program s and Nutrition Issues................................. ............... 42
Extension Programs and Local Food Systems ......................................... 43
Extension Programs and Sustainable Agriculture ............................................ 45
Extension Program and Culturally Acceptable Food .......................................46
Extension Programs and Social Justice .................................... ............... 47
Theoretical Fram work for the Study.......................................................................... 48
The Development of the Theory of Planned Behavior....................................48
Applications of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Health Contexts.................51
Applications of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Technological Contexts.....54
Efficacy and Generalizability of the Theory of Planned Behavior ...................56
The Use of the Theory of Planned Behavior in This Study ..............................57
Sum m ary ............... ..................................... ........................... 58

3 THE RESEARCH PROTOCOL............................................. 59

Introduction ........................ ..........................59
R e se arch D e sig n ................................................................................................... 6 0
Subjects ............. .. .. .................................. ........ ...... ...... ........ 60
Instrum entation ....................... ....... ... ....... .... ........... ................. ... .... ....... 61
Objective 1: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Levels of Knowledge
Regarding Com m unity Food Security ............................ .................... .... 61
Objective la: To describe Florida Extension agents' levels of knowledge
regarding community food security .............. ..... .....................61
Objective lb: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida
Extension agents based on demographic characteristics ........................63
Objective 2: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Perceptions of
Community Food Security in Their Respective Counties ............................63
Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
community food security in their respective counties ...........................63
Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
community food security based on demographic characteristics ............67
Objective 3: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Perceptions of
Organizational Levels of Support for Participation in Community Food
Security-Focused Programs ......................... .. .............67
Objective 3a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
organizational levels of support for participation in community food
security-focused programs............... .. ..... .. ...............67
Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
organizational levels of support for participation in community food
security-focused programs........................... .....................68
Objective 4: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Levels of Interest in
Receiving Different Dimensions of Organizational Support for
Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs ....................68









Objective 4a: To identify Florida Extension agents' levels of interest in
receiving different dimensions of organizational support for
participation in community food security-focused programs ................. 68
Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents' interest levels in
organizational dimensions of support based on demographic
ch aracteristics ........................... .. ............. .. .. .... .. ........... ... ....... ....6 8
Objective 5: To Identify and Describe Florida Extension Agents' Current
Levels of Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs ......69
R espondent D ata C collection ............................................... ............................ 69
Data Analysis Procedures ............. ................... ......... ...............71
N onresponse Error .................. ............................. ................ .... 73
S u m m a ry ......................................................................................................7 4

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................7 5

P o p u la tio n ............................................................................................................. 7 5
Objectives .............. ............. ...... ..... ..........................78
Objective 1: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Levels of Knowledge
Regarding Community Food Security .................................... .................. 78
Objective la: To describe Florida Extension agents' level of knowledge
regarding community food security ........... ....................................... 78
Objective lb: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida
Extension agents based on demographic characteristics ........................79
Objective 2: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Perceptions of
Community Food Security in Their Respective Counties ............................81
Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
community food security in their respective counties...........................81
Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
community food security in their county based on demographic
characteristics .................. ...... ... ............................ .. ............ ..... .. 84
Objective 3: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Perceptions of
Organizational Levels of Support for Participation in Community Food
Security-Focused Programs ......................... .. .............87
Objective 3a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
organizational levels of support for participation in community food
security-focused programs............... .. ..... .. ...............87
Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
organizational levels of support for participation in community food
security-focused programs based on demographic characteristics ..........88
Objective 4: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Level of Personal Interest
in Receiving Different Dimensions of Organizational Support for
Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs ....................89
Objective 4a: To describe Florida Extension agents' levels of personal
interest in receiving different dimensions of organizational support for
participation in community food security-focused programs ................. 89









Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents' personal interest
levels in organizational dimensions of support based on demographic
characteristics ................. ...... .... ...... ..... ........ .......... ............ 90
Professional development opportunities to participate in community food
security-focused programs......................... ...............90
Time for participation in community food security-focused programs .......94
Financial support for participating in community food security-focused
program s ............... ..... .... ..... ... .. ...................................... .96
The availability of specialist support for participation in community food
security-focused programs................. .. .... ... .....................98
Acknowledgement in performance appraisals for participation in
community food security-focused programs .......................................100
The availability of an established curriculum for community food
security-focused programs......................... ... ........................... 101
Objective 5: To Identify and Describe Florida Extension Agents' Current
Levels Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs......... 103
Objective 6: To Identify and Describe Associations Between Dependent
V ariables ......................................... .................. .... ........ 104
S u m m ary .......................................................................................10 9

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................... ...............112

In tro d u ctio n ......................................................................................................... 1 12
Objectives of the Study .................. ........................... .. .. .... .. ........ .. .. 112
M ethodology ................................................................................ 113
General Discussion and Conclusions .................................................................. 114
Objective 1: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding Florida
Extension Agents' Knowledge Levels Regarding Community Food
Security ................ ... .. ......................... ..... ...... ................. 114
Objective 2: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding Florida
Extension Agents' Perceptions of Community Food Security in Their
Counties .................................................... ..... ..................... 116
Objective 3: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding Florida
Extension Agents' Perceptions of Organizational Support Levels for
Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs ..................120
Objective 4: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding Florida
Extension Agents' Personal Interest in Receiving Dimensions of
Organizational Support for Participation in Community Food Security-
F focused Program s .......... ........ .. ................. .. ......... ...... .................... .. 122
Objective 5: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding Florida
Extension Agents' Current Levels of Participation in Community Food
Security-Focused Program s ............................ ........... ............... .... 128
Objective 6: General Discussion and Conclusions Regarding the
Associations between Dependent Variables in This Study............................130
Overall Implications and Recommendations for Florida Extension.........................132
Recommendations for Extension Partnerships............................................... 132
Recommendations for Needs Assessments .............................................134










Recom m endations for Support.................................. ..................................... 135
Recommendations for Education and Motivation............................................136
Recommendations for Future Research............. ..... ......... ...............137
Sum m ary ............. .............................................. .......... ...... 139

APPENDIX

A QUESTIONNAIRE IN STRUM ENT ............................................ .....................141

B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF PROTOCOL
M E M O R A N D U M ....................................................................... .......................160

C PRE-NOTIFICATION POSTCARD .............................................. .................. 161

D FIRST-WAVE QUESTIONNAIRE EMAIL .................... .......................... 162

E SECOND-WAVE QUESTIONNAIRE EMAIL .................................... ................163

F THIRD-WAVE QUESTIONNAIRE EMAIL...................................................164

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................... ..................... 165

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ............... 173































x
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Matrix of prevalent community food security definitions as of 2006......................22

2-2 Florida statewide goals and underlying focus area teams, 2005. ............................34

2-3 Corresponding community food security concepts and extension focus areas,
F lorida, 2 006 .........................................................................36

3-1 Panel of expert responses of community food security concepts, Florida, 2005 .......62

4-1 Demographic profile of Florida Extension agent respondents, Florida, 2006............77

4-2 Florida Extension agents' knowledge scores descriptive statistics, Florida, 2006.....78

4-3 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agent knowledge scores by
district, F lorida, 2006. .......................... ...... ................ ............... .... ...... ...... 80

4-4 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' knowledge scores by
time spent in current county, Florida, 2006. ................................. .................81

4-5 Florida Extension agents' community food security Likert summated scores,
F lorida, 2006 ...................................................... ................. 82

4-6 Florida Extension agents' mean response for questions regarding the relevance of
community food security in their counties, Florida, 2006. .....................................83

4-7 Comparison of male and female Florida Extension agents' summated Likert scale
scores using t-test, Florida, 2006......................................... ......................... 85

4-8 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' Likert scores by
program focus, Florida, 2006. .............................................................................85

4-9 Comparison of male and female Florida Extension agents' mean response for
questions regarding the relevance of community food security in their counties
using t-test, Florida, 2006.............. .. .......................................... 86

4-10 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses for
questions regarding the relevance of community food security issues in their
counties by program focus, Florida, 2006 ........................................... .................87









4-11 Florida Extension agents' mean responses for questions regarding levels of
organizational support for participation in community food security-focused
program s, Florida, 2006. ............................................... ............................... 87

4-12 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses to
questions regarding levels of organizational support for participation in
community food security-focused programs by program focus, Florida, 2006......89

4-13 Florida Extension agents' mean responses to questions regarding personal
interest in dimensions of organizational support for participation in community
food security-focused programs, Florida, 2006. ...................................... .......... 91

4-14 Comparison of Florida Extension agents' mean responses indicating personal
interest levels in professional development opportunities between county
extension directors and non-county extension directors, Florida, 2006...................93

4-15 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest levels in professional development opportunities by
time spent in current county, Florida, 2006. ................................. ..................93

4-16 One-way analysis variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest levels in professional development opportunities by
program focus, Florida, 2006. ............................................................................94

4-17 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest in receiving time to participate in community food
security-focused programs by program focus, Florida, 2006................................95

4-18 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest levels in receiving time to participate in community
food security-focused programs by time spent in current county, Florida, 2006.....96

4-19 Comparison of Florida Extension agents' mean responses indicating personal
interest levels in financial support for participation in community food security-
focused programs between county extension directors and non-county extension
directors, F lorida, 2006. ........................... .... ................ ............ .... ............ 96

4-20 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest levels in financial support for participating in
community food security-focused programs by program focus, Florida, 2006......97

4-21 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest levels in financial support for participating in
community food security-focused programs by time spent in current county,
F lorida, 2 006 ...................................................... ................. 9 8

4-22 Comparison of Florida Extension agents' mean responses indicating personal
interest in the availability of specialist support for participation in community









food security-focused programs between county extension directors and non-
county extension directors, Florida, 2006. .................................... .................98

4-23 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest in the availability of specialist support for
participation in community food security-focused programs by time spent with
current county, Florida, 2006. ............................................................................99

4-24 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest in the availability of specialist support for
participation in community food security-focused programs by program focus,
Florida, 2006. .......................................................................100

4-25 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest in receiving support through performance appraisals
for participation in community food security-focused programs by program
focu s, F lorida 2 006 .............................. .................................................... 100

4-26 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest in receiving support through performance appraisals
for participation in community food security-focused programs by time spent
w ith current county, Florida, 2006 ........................................................................ 101

4-27 Comparison of Florida Extension agents' mean responses indicating personal
interest in the availability of an established curriculum for community food
security-focused programs between male and female respondents, Florida, 2006.102

4-28 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest in the availability of an established curriculum for
community food security-focused programs by time spent with current county,
Florida, 2006. .......................................................................102

4-29 One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' mean responses
indicating personal interest in the availability of an established curriculum for
community food security-focused programs by program focus, Florida, 2006.....103

4-30 Florida Extension agents' current participation in community food security-
focused program s, Florida, 2006 ......................................................................... 105

4-31 Association between Florida Extension agents' characteristics and participation
in community food security-focused programs, Florida, 2006 ...........................107

4-32 Pearson correlation table for Florida Extension agents' dependent variables (M =
M ean, S = Score), Florida, 2006. ............................ ...... ..................... 111
















FIGURE


Figure page

5-1 Distribution of Florida Extension agents across program focus by gender, Florida,
2 0 0 6 ........................................................................... 12 0















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

KNOWLEDGE, PERCEPTIONS, AND BEHAVIORS OF FLORIDA EXTENSION
AGENTS REGARDING COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY

By

Alison Eve Lutz

August 2006

Chair: Nick T. Place
Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication

Cooperative Extension in the United States has historically focused on aspects of

the food system. Extension continues to address the needs of consumers, producers and

other stakeholders in the food system, both in the United States and internationally. In

order to modify or improve current extension programming, it is essential to first look at

the knowledge and perceptions of extension's front-line responders regarding the food

system and food system issues. This study focused on the relationship between extension

and the concept of community food security.

The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, perceptions, and

behaviors of Florida Extension agents regarding community food security in their

counties. The goal of this study was to identify and describe extension agents'

knowledge and perceptions of community food security. A second goal was to identify

current levels of organizational support for extension agent participation and current

levels of participation in these types of programs.









The study used the theory of planned behavior as a theoretical framework. This

theory is an attempt to predict human behavior by looking at a person's attitude toward

the behavior, their intention to perform the behavior, their perceived social norms, and

their perceived social control. The study used this framework as a lens through which the

data was examined. This study was descriptive in nature, but included data analysis that

was predictive in nature.

The researcher sent a questionnaire to a census of all Florida Extension agents (N=

324). There was a response rate of 62% (n = 201). The researcher utilized a pre-notice

postcard and multiple-wave reminder emails to increase response rate.

The results of the study indicated that Florida Extension agents had a wide range of

knowledge. The results also showed that respondents did not view community food

security issues as extremely negative or extremely positive in their counties.

Respondents indicated, overall, they were receiving moderate to low amounts of

organizational support to participate in community food security-focused programs. In

addition, respondents indicated that they were interested in receiving organizational

support for these types of programs in terms of the availability of an established

curriculum and the specialist support. Finally, the results showed that 41% of

respondents have not participated in any type of community food security program within

the last year. Based on these results, the research made recommendations for extension

agent education on community food security. The researcher also recommended an

increase in organizational support for community food security programs.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Introduction to the Study

The modern food system in the United States is a complex, internationally

connected network of industries and markets that is continuously changing and growing

to meet the needs of its consumers. Cooperative Extension Service programming works

to meet the needs and address the issues of both producers and consumers in this system.

The Cooperative Extension Service has had a focus on agriculture, the food system, and

the community since the establishment of land-grant universities in 1862. "Many

extension programs relate to the food and fiber system from best management practices

in agronomic crops and livestock to nutrition, diet, and health and resource management"

(Thomson et al., 2003, p. 201). Extension is constantly evolving, adapting, and

improving its educational programs to meet the needs of its communities and clientele.

"Extension's mission today focuses strongly on empowering people to solve their own

problems" (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997, p. 238). Extension has

sometimes sought collaborations or inter-organizational relationships to help best meet

the needs of the community and work toward their mission.

The overarching goal of this study was to identify and describe the knowledge

levels and perceptions of Florida Extension agents regarding community food security.

A secondary goal was to identify (a) current levels of organizational support for

extension agent participation in community food security-focused programs, and (b)

current participation in these types of programs. One of the anticipated outcomes of this









study was to explore the commonalities and possibilities for collaboration between

Florida Extension and other organizations focused on community food security (CFS). A

second goal was to provide information regarding Florida Extension agents' perceived

needs as a first step in improving the way Extension meets the community food security

needs of its clientele. There is currently a lack of research in this area. However, there is

a potential relationship between extension and CFS, bridged by the initiatives set forth by

the USDA.

The United States Department of Agriculture, the federal partner of Extension,

recognized a specific need in the field of agriculture and food systems by adding the

Community Food Security Act to the 1996 Farm Bill. Extension agents' knowledge and

perceptions regarding CFS are primary elements in understanding the relationship

between Florida Extension and CFS. Their knowledge and perceptions may also lead to

the improvement or revision of current Extension programs. An understanding of Florida

Extension agents' knowledge of CFS and their perceptions of CFS in their respective

counties is essential in determining their needs.

The purpose of this study was to measure Florida Extension agents' knowledge

about CFS, their perceptions of local CFS issues of salience, describe their perceptions of

organizational levels of support in addressing those issues, and identify current levels of

participation in CFS-focused programs. The researcher collected the data for this research

study with a web-based questionnaire distributed to a census population of Florida

Extension agents and county extension directors.

Background and Significance of the Problem

The relationship and similarities between the 11 national emphasis areas of the

United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and









Extension Service (USDA-CSREES) and the concepts considered essential to CFS served

as the basis for this study. This chapter will describe the concepts of CFS, the 11

national emphasis areas for the USDA-CSREES, and the seven overarching

programmatic goal areas for Florida. This information provided the prerequisite context

for establishing the need to examine Florida Extension agents' programming needs

through the measurement of their knowledge and perceptions of CFS.

Community food security is a concept that, while relatively new, has come to the

forefront for several initiatives and areas of focus for the United States government. The

definition of community food security is most often "a situation in which all community

residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a

sustainable food system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice"

(Hamm & Bellows, 2003, p. 37). USDA-CSREES, one of the most prevalent

government organizations that deals with CFS issues, outlined 11 areas of national

emphasis. Five of these areas directly address issues that are inherent to CFS. USDA-

CSREES identifies five knowledge areas that involve some of the main concepts

addressed in the Hamm and Bellows (2003) definition of CFS. These concepts are: food

access, safe food, culturally acceptable food, nutritionally useful food, sustainable

systems by which food is produced and distributed, community independence and

functionality, and social justice.

The Cooperative Extension Service works to identify food producers' and

consumers' needs within a community and provide educational programs to meet those

needs. "It is the [extension] educator's responsibility to identify and prioritize the needs

of learners in the community or geographical area and to decide how best to allocate









resources such as time, money, energy, and personnel to achieve maximum results"

(Seevers et al., 1997, p. 98). Extension educators use several methods to determine

appropriate programming in order to meet those needs. These methods include needs

assessments and evaluations. The purpose of these methods is to learn about the situation

and context of a community or to examine the process and the functionality of current

programs.

The Pendleton Community Garden Project in Oregon is an example of a food

system-focused program that was a response to community needs. Umatilla County

Extension agents delivered this program to youth in the community in order to prevent

them from engaging in risk behaviors such as drug use and sexual activity (Voluntad et

al., 2004). The program provided food to members of the community in need while

"providing at-risk youth with constructive, positive activities" (Voluntad, Dawson, &

Corp, 2004, T 2). The program used a facet of CFS, community food production, to

address two identified needs within the community: youth risk behaviors and hunger

among community members. This example illustrates extension's involvement in both

the community and the community food system.

One must understand the knowledge and perceptions of the extension agents

serving a community to begin identifying the needs of that community. In addition, the

extension agents must be aware of their levels of knowledge and perceptions of CFS.

Finally, extension administrators must be aware of agents' perceptions of systematic

barriers to properly facilitate extension's contribution to addressing CFS issues in their

communities (Thomson, Radhakrishna, & Inciong, 2004). This study explored the

knowledge levels and perceptions of Florida Extension personnel to begin to identify









programming needs, areas for improvement, and possibilities for collaboration with

outside organizations in Florida. Previous studies have shown that national leaders of

CFS focused programs and CFS stakeholders at the county level generally agree on CFS

concepts (Pelletier, Kraak, McCullum, Uusitalo, & Rich, 1999). There is a plausible

connection between the concepts inherent to CFS and Florida Extension.

Thomson et al. (2003) conducted a study in which they examined Pennsylvania

Extension agents' perceptions of local food system issues. The study found significant

differences in extension agent perceptions based on program and other characteristics.

The researchers suggested that programming resources were perceived as an

organizational barrier to local food systems-focused programming in Pennsylvania

(Thomson et al., 2003). In addition, the researchers stated that such variables as gender,

program focus, and extension region were important to consider when designing

extension educational programs for local food system issues (Thomson et al., 2003). The

current study looked at similar variables in the context of Florida Extension, focusing

both on local food system issues and other issues inherent to CFS.

Florida Extension

Researchers defined extension as a governmental agency that provides service to

anyone who requests service, utilizing informal education about topics generally

grounded in agriculture, home economics, and similar areas (Seevers et al., 1997).

USDA-CSREES identifies five of the 11 national emphasis areas for Cooperative

Extension programming as: agricultural systems; economics and commerce; families,

youth and communities; food, nutrition, and health; and natural resources and

environment (National Emphasis Areas, 2005). Florida Extension functions both at the

statewide and the county levels. Florida Extension has seven statewide goal areas in









addition to the USDA-CSREES 11 national emphasis areas. Each of these goal areas has

several underlying components called focus area teams. These statewide goal areas

include: enhancing and maintaining agricultural and food systems; maintaining and

enhancing Florida's environment; developing responsible and productive youth through

4-H and other youth programs; creating and maintaining Florida landscapes; assisting

individuals and families in achieving economic well-being and life quality; achieving

economic prosperity and community vitality in Florida's urban and rural communities;

and, promoting professional development activities designed to enhance organizational

efficiency and effectiveness (Statewide Goals and Focus Areas for 2004-2007, 2004).

Extension promotes these goals and serves the communities by providing usable,

accessible, and relevant research-based information.

Theory of Planned Behavior

This study will examine Florida Extension personnel's perceptions of local CFS

issues and of areas of support or opposition within Florida Extension in the context of

intention to implement, adjust, or discontinue CFS-focused Extension educational

programs. Fishbein and Ajzen developed the theory of reasoned action (1975) in an

attempt to understand and predict intentional human behavior by measuring the

integration of attitude toward a behavior, intention to perform the behavior, and

subjective norms. Ajzen eventually added perceived social control to the model and the

theory evolved into the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). This theory serves as

the basis for this study because it suggests that a great deal of intentional human behavior

can be predicted based on these four components. The four parts of the theory comprised

the lens through which the data was examined, although this study did not strive to

measure these components. The reason the researcher chose the theory of planned









behavior and not reasoned action was due to the addition of perceived social control. An

integral part of the study was an examination of organizational levels of support for

participation in CFS-focused programs within the extension system. These influences

were interpreted as social control over a behavior. The researcher considered the

identified levels of personal interest in organizational support to participate in CFS-

focused programs as perceptions of a behavior. The general application of the theory of

planned behavior can provide insight into predicting and understanding intentional

human behaviors such as participating in certain types of programs (Ajzen, 1991).

Statement of the Problem

Understanding extension agents' knowledge of CFS and their perceptions of local

CFS issues is a primary and essential step in determining extension agents' programming

needs and areas in need of improvement. Researchers have not examined the current

perceptions of Florida Extension agents. The study about Pennsylvania Extension

educators and local food system issues by Thomson et al. (2003) revealed that while most

extension agents found food system issues to be "important" in their counties, they found

limited support from certain aspects of extension administration. They also found that

extension agents needed to incorporate their own perceptions of "importance" with the

real needs of their communities (Thomson et al., 2004). Pelletier, McCullum, Kraak, and

Asher (2002) found that while CFS-focused groups in New York were interested in

working with local extension agents on CFS issues in their community, extension agents

were unable to participate in these programs because they experienced barriers in the

form of heavy work loads or insufficient administrative support. However, in a similar

study several years prior, researchers found that New York Extension administrators were

willing to have extension personnel involved in a CFS conference (Pelletier et al., 1999).









These studies suggest that while there is some information regarding current relationships

between extension and CFS concepts and issues, there is much that remains uncertain.

The researcher conducted this study to shed light on the current relationship

between Florida Extension and CFS issues in Florida counties. The researcher designed

this study with the results of the Thompson et al. (2004) and the Pelletier et al. (2002)

studies in mind. This study measured Florida Extension agents' knowledge and

perceptions of CFS and identified levels of organizational support for participation in

CFS programs to address local Florida county needs.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to measure Florida Extension agents' knowledge and

perceptions of CFS and to identify current levels of organizational support for

participation in CFS programs to address local Florida county needs. In addition, the

researcher performed this study in order to identify current levels of participation in CFS-

focused programs.

* Objective 1: To identify Florida Extension agents' levels of knowledge regarding
community food security

o Objective la: To describe Florida Extension agents' levels of knowledge
regarding community food security

o Objective lb: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida
Extension agents based on demographic characteristics

* Objective 2: To identify Florida Extension agents' perceptions of community food
security in their respective counties

o Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
community food security in their respective counties

o Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
community food security based on demographic characteristics









* Objective 3: To identify Florida Extension agents' perceptions of organizational
levels of support for participation in community food security-focused programs

o Objective 3a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
organizational levels of support for participation in community food
security-focused programs

o Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
organizational levels of support for participation in community food
security-focused programs

* Objective 4: To identify Florida Extension agents' levels of interest in receiving
different dimensions of organizational support for participation in community food
security-focused programs

o Objective 4a: To describe Florida Extension agents' levels of interest in
receiving different dimensions of organizational support for participation
in community food security-focused programs

o Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents' interest levels in
organizational dimensions of support based on demographic
characteristics

* Objective 5: To identify and describe Florida Extension agents' current levels of
participation in community food security-focused programs

* Objective 6: To identify and describe associations between dependent variables

Operational Definitions

* COMMUNITY. For this study, this term will refer to geographic groups and local
infrastructure as it relates to food system and food security issues. For a further
discussion on this term, please see the 'Community' section in Chapter Two.

* COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY (CFS). This study will use the definition proposed by
Bellows and Hamm (2003): "a situation in which all community residents obtain a
safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food
system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice" (p. 37).

* COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY-FOCUSED. This term refers to programs that have one
or more dimensions of community food security as the topic for the program.

* CULTURAL ASPECTS OF THE FOOD SYSTEM. In this study, this phrase will refer to the
concepts of culturally acceptable food, culturally acceptable food acquisition
practices, and culturally acceptable food preparation practices.

* EXTENSION. This study will use the definition described by Seevers et al (1997).
Extension is a "public-funded, non-formal, educational system that links the









education and research resources of the United States Department of Agriculture,
land-grant universities, and county administrative units" (p. 1) in order to provide
research based information and education to meet the needs of the communities it
serves.

* EXTENSION AGENT. "A change agent (or extension agent, extension educator) is an
intermediary between the developers of the original form of a technology and its
end users" (Dragon, 2005, p. 13). In this study the change agents are the extension
agents in Florida. The end users would be the community stakeholders in the
counties they serve.

* FOOD SECURITY. The most widely referenced definition of this term is the one
proposed by the World Bank (1986): "access by all people at all times to enough
food for an active healthy life."

* FOOD SYSTEM. For this study, this term will be defined using the definition
proposed by Gillespie and Gillespie (2000). Their definition "includes the
foundations for food production, the social aspects of consumption, and relevant
government and other policies, as well as the actual growing, processing, and
distributing of substances that results in foods that people consume" (Gillespie &
Gillespie, 2000, T 3).

* IMPORTANCE. Likely to determine or influence events; significant.

* Local food system. In this study, this term will be synonymous with the definition
for "community food system" proposed by Gillespie and Gillespie (2000): "that
part of the larger food system that is geographically located within a community" (
8).

* ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS OF SUPPORT. In this study, this phrase will refer to
perceptions of emotional, administrative, or material barriers or bridges to specific
behaviors (i.e. engaging in or establishing an extension program).

* PARTICIPATION. In this study, this term will mean taking an educational or
developmental role in a particular Extension education program.

* SALIENCE. This study will use this phrase as used by Pelletier et al (1999): "the
meaning and intensity of concern associated with an issue" (p. 402).

* SOCIAL JUSTICE. For this study, this term will refer to problems regarding food
security, hunger, and "the adequacy of wages and working conditions for all those
who earn their livelihoods from the food system" (Winne, n.d., p. 2).

* SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE. The USDA has defined this term as "an integrated
system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application"
(USDA, 2004). These applications will have long term effects such as satisfying
human food and fiber needs, improve environmental conditions, sustain the









economic viability of farm operations and improve the quality of life for farmers
and communities (USDA, 2004).



Limitations of the Study

The following are potential limitations for this study:

* The results of this study are specific to the Florida Cooperative Extension Service
and may not be generalizable to other situations.

* The researcher distributed the instrument to the population via the internet. Some
limitations of this medium of distribution are noted in Dillman (2000).
Specifically, technical issues may prevent the respondent from properly viewing
the instrument, internet connection speed may affect how the respondent sees the
instrument, and the respondents' computer literacy may affect how they fill out the
questionnaire.

* The researcher used data reduction methods to analyze the collected data. The
researcher decided to use these methods due to time and resource limitations.
These methods have the potential to decrease precision in the study.

Summary

This chapter justified the need for and provided the background on this research

study. The importance and relevancy for this research has been addressed. The chapter

described the relationship between the concept of community food security and the goals

and emphasis areas of Cooperative Extension, both at the national and state levels. In

addition, this chapter outlined the purpose and objectives for this study.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter provides an overview of the literature about community food security

and its relationship with current extension programming efforts in Florida. The chapter

begins by describing the history and development of the Extension system in both the

United States and in the state of Florida. The chapter then explains the development and

the components of community food security. The researcher provides an outline of areas

in which community food security and the goals and objectives of extension converge

and provides examples of current extension programs that focus on the different aspects

of community food security. The chapter also provides the development and applications

of the theoretical framework for this study. This chapter consists of the following

sections: Extension Systems in the United States; The Extension System in Florida; CFS;

Defining Community; CFS and the Cooperative Extension Service; and, Theoretical

Framework for the Study.

Extension Systems in the United States

History of Extension in the United States

The Morrill Act of 1862 was a response to the belief that schools with an

agricultural focus would not receive funding (Sanders, 1966). It specified land to be sold

to generate funds that would create colleges to teach the agricultural and mechanical arts

(Seevers et al., 1997; UF/IFAS, 2003). This act created land-grant universities. These

land-grant institutions lacked the materials necessary to teach agricultural and mechanical

arts in most cases. The Hatch Act established agricultural experiment stations for these









colleges in 1887 (UF/IFAS, 2003). Morrill's second act in 1890 increased funding to the

states and stipulated that states with land-grant schools that refused admission to non-

white students establish alternative land-grant schools of equal quality for non-white

students. The government required that the states distribute the land-grant funds equally

between the two schools (Program Development and Evaluation Center, 2005a). The

Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935 included schools in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and

Guam in the land-grant status and the Native Indian Legislation included Tribal Colleges

in 1994 (Seevers et al., 1997; UF/IFAS, 2003).

In 1914, the Smith-Lever Act established an official relationship between the

extension service and the USDA in order to provide federal appropriations to the

extension service and to "extend the benefits of federal aid to those colleges established

under the acts of 1862 and 1890" (Seevers et al., p. 35). The land-grant institutions and

the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed a partnership in

education through this act. The memorandum of understanding denoted the roles,

relationships, and expectations of state and USDA responsibility in this partnership.

Seevers et al. (1997) explained the criteria in this memorandum. They explained that it

was the state's responsibility to establish an extension service within each state as an arm

of the land-grant university. Each state had to appoint an extension director to overlook

all extension work in the state. The state's responsibility included all financial aspects of

state extension work. Each state was responsible for education and programs in the areas

of agriculture, home economics, and 4-H. The USDA was responsible for establishing a

Federal Extension Service, appoint a Secretary of Agriculture, provide program leaders









for the areas of agriculture, home economics, and 4-H, and supervise educational

programs of the USDA.

Extension in the United States Today

The federal extension partner in the United States is now the Cooperative State

Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA-CSREES). Congress combined the

extension service with the Cooperative State Research Service as a result of the

Department Reorganization Act in 1994. USDA-CSREES is one of four USDA agencies

with a Research, Education and Economics (REE) focus. The mission of USDA-

CSREES is to "to advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human health and

well-being, and communities by supporting research, education, and extension programs

in the Land-Grant University System and other partner organizations" (CSREES, 2005a,

T 5). USDA-CSREES expanded its focus from the three areas of agricultural, home

economics and 4-H to a broader set known as the 11 national emphasis areas. These

emphasis areas are: Agricultural and Food Biosecurity; Agricultural Systems; Animals

and Animal Products; Biotechnology and Genomics; Economics and Commerce;

Families, Youth, and Communities; Food, Nutrition and Health; Natural Resources and

Environment; Pest Management; Plants and Plant Products; and, Technology and

Engineering (CSREES, 2005b).

The relationship between state extension systems, land-grant institutions and

USDA-CSREES falls under two main USDA-CSREES structures. The first mechanism

is national program leadership. One of the main goals of the organization is to "help

states identify and meet research, extension, and education priorities in areas of public

concern that affect agricultural producers, small business owners, youth and families, and

others (CSREES, 2005a, 6). The second mechanism is federal assistance by which the









government provides[] annual formula funding to land-grant universities and

competitively granted funds to researchers in land-grant and other universities"

(CSREES, 2005, T 6). USDA-CSREES works to address problems that affect people's

everyday lives through the resulting network of partnerships and collaborations.

Extension works in the following areas: problems in the agricultural sector; new product

development; safeguarding animals and plants; supporting human health and nutrition;

youth and families; and strengthening and rebuilding rural communities (CSREES,

2005a). All of these issues fall under one of the 11 national emphasis areas. The

programming and funding mechanisms define the relationships between the levels of

Cooperative Extension. The three partners in funding extension are the federal, state, and

local governments, while the three partners in programming are the USDA, the land-grant

universities of the state, and local extension offices (Seevers et al., 1997).

Management in Extension

Researchers depict extension's management structure in a six-tiered pyramid

(Buford, Bedeian, & Lindner, 1995). The first or lowest level on this pyramid consists of

the non-managers or agents and specialists. The second level is the first-line

management, or the county directors and project leaders, the largest group of managers.

They are "responsible for managing agents, specialists, program assistants, clerical

personnel, and other non-managing staff" (Buford et al., 1995, p. 7). The third level of

management in extension is the middle management level, comprised of district directors

and district agents, department heads, and state leaders. Middle managers' primary focus

is to incorporate different groups within extension so they can collaborate (Buford et al.,

1995). The last three levels of the pyramid are top management. These levels are

occupied by associate director for field operations, associate director for programs, heads









of service programs, and the Director of Extension, respectively. According to Buford et

al., (1995) "top management has three basic roles: interpersonal (figurehead, leader,

liaison); informational (monitor, disseminator, spokesperson); and decisional

(entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, negotiator)" (p. 11). Top

management defines the mission and direction of extension.

The Florida Extension System

The History of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences in Florida

The Morrill Act of 1862 assigned the University of Florida land-grant status. The

Morrill Act also paved the way for the establishment of the College of Agriculture in

1906 (UF/IFAS, 2004a). The University of Florida reorganized its College of

Agriculture, School of Forestry, and Cooperative Extension into a single entity called the

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, or IFAS in 1964 (UF/IFAS, 2004a).

Today, UF/IFAS includes extension in each of the state's 67 counties, 14 research
and education centers with a total of 19 locations throughout Florida, the College of
Agricultural and Life Sciences, the School of Forest Resources and Conservation,
the Center for Tropical Agriculture, portions of the College of Veterinary
Medicine, the Florida Sea Grant Program and the International Program for Food,
Agriculture and Natural Resources. (UF/IFAS, 2004, 4)

The research mission of IFAS is to "invent, discover and develop knowledge to enhance

the agriculture and the natural resources of Florida" (UF/IFAS, 2004, 12) while its

extension mission is "to provide scientific knowledge and expertise to the public"

(UF/IFAS, 2000, 1).

Management and Employment in the Florida Cooperative Extension Service

Florida Cooperative Extension Service (FCES) management uses the Buford et al.

(1995) six tiered management pyramid. County extension agents are the non-

management tier of the pyramid. These agents conduct educational programs in









agriculture, family and consumer science, 4-H/youth development, natural resources,

urban horticulture, community development, Sea Grant, and energy. Extension agents

fall into four ranks: Agent I, Agent II, Agent III, and Agent IV. These ranks are

comparable to university positions of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor,

and professor, respectively. County extension agents are "responsible for developing and

implementing an educational program in a designated subject matter to help people

acquire knowledge and develop problem-solving skills to meet their needs" (UF/IFAS,

2005, 9). The Personnel Department for IFAS published a county extension agent job

description that includes providing leadership, implementation, delivery, and evaluation

for extension education programs. The job description states that extension agents must

be accountable for their work and make the information about their work and programs

available to all stakeholders and relevant parties.

Extension agents must design their educational programs to reflect the county's

diversity, population and educational needs. Seevers et al. (1997) describe the program

development process as a three-part model. The first part of the model is planning. This

part includes "the identification of goals, determining needs, setting program priorities,

identification of target audiences, and development of program objectives" (Seevers et

al., 1997, p. 92). The second part is design and implementation, which focuses on

program content, methods of delivery, and delivering the program. Finally, the third

component is evaluation, which focuses on the measurement of "program success and

impact" (Seevers et al., 1997, p. 92).

Extension agents also make use of advisory committees to incorporate the

involvement of community members into the educational program development process.









The Program Development and Evaluation Center (PDEC) of IFAS defines advisory

committees as "a group of citizens organized by Extension for the purpose of providing

advice on and assistance with the planning, legitimization, implementation, evaluation

and accountability of Extension programs, and the maintenance of the general health and

welfare of the Extension organization" (PDEC, 2005a, T 2).

Extension agents use input from clientele or stakeholders in addition to that od the

advisory committees. Seevers et al. (1997) defines stakeholders as "people who have a

vested interest in a program" (p. 251). These people can include everyone from actual

participants in the program, to their families, other individuals in extension, community

members, and producers or employees in the area of the educational program. Extension

agents usually use needs assessments to identify the needs of the stakeholders. Extension

agents can address questions such as what aspects of the community can be improved,

who is being affected by current problems or issues, and what resources are needed to

develop a particular program (Seevers et al. 1997). In this way, extension agents are not

only responsible for the development of educational programs, but also must take the

needs, thoughts, and interests of the community into account through advisory committee

consultations and needs assessments.

The first-line managers are the county extension directors (CEDs). They are

responsible for delivering educational programs in their area of specialization, providing

leadership in their county's extension system, and for maintaining responsibility for all

administrative and program matters in their county (UF/IFAS, 2005).









Community Food Security

The Evolution of Community Food Security

Community food security partially evolved out of the concept of food security.

Researchers first defined food security in the early 1970s as "the ability to meet aggregate

food needs in a consistent way" (Anderson & Cook, 1999, p. 142). This concept was a

response to several key factors associated with growing world hunger in the 1960s and

1970s. The first factor was the high population growth rates in many countries. The

global population increased by more than 2 billion between 1970 and 1995, increasing

the world's population to 5.7 billion. The population grew by about 80 million people per

year on average during this period, equivalent to the population of Germany in 1995

(Fritschel, Pandya-Lorch, & Rose, 1996, 3). The World Food Conference in 1974

responded to this increase in population by focusing on food production as a way to avert

increasing hunger and famine in the world (Anderson & Cook, 1999). They brought the

'right to food' concept to the forefront for both international and domestic development

when they proclaimed "every man, woman and child has the inalienable right to be free

from hunger and malnutrition in order to develop their physical and mental faculties"

(Foreign Agricultural Service, 1995, 2).

Changes in food production technology and goals were the second major factor that

drove the food security movement. In 1950, scientists began a concerted effort to

develop varieties of necessary crops such as corn and rice to combat world hunger

problems in developing countries in Asia and Latin America (Evenson & Gollin, 2003).

The media and others were referring to these efforts' success as the "Green Revolution"

by 1970. The Green Revolution included hybridized forms of wheat and other grains









that were resistant to disease and drought in order to increase food access and increase

per capital income for farmers in these areas (Environmental Literacy Council, 2005).

The increase in food production and a focus on vertical integration contributed to a

"food entitlement" or "food first" framework for food security. In other words, "assuring

short-term nutritional intake [was] the main objective" (Anderson & Cook, 1999, p. 142)

of the food security movement in 1980. The need for greater yields to meet demands and

the vertical integration of the food industry led to a 'more is the solution' mindset. The

development of the concept of food security in the 1970s and 1980s revolved around

individuals' rights to food. The measurement of food security in geographic regions or

countries as a "universal dimension of household and personal well-being" (Holben,

2002, p. 157) reinforced the 'food first' concept. The World Bank, an organization that

provides financial and other types of assistance to developing countries, became involved

in the food security movement in 1984. They identified food security as a vital issue for

developing countries and for lower socioeconomic strata in the United States. They

developed the most commonly accepted definition of food security today: "access by all

people at all times to enough food for an active healthy life" (Anderson & Cook, 1999, p.

142).

A reflection on the 1974 World Food Conference revealed that in the twenty years

that followed, food security efforts were successful in achieving their goals of decreasing

incidences of malnourishment and starvation around the world (Fritschel et al., 1996;

Evenson & Gollin, 2003). The United States government illustrated the national

influence of the food security movement by strengthening assistance programs such as

Women Infants Children (WIC) and Food Stamps. The government designed these









programs to assist unemployed, ill, or otherwise unable people in the United States in

obtaining food. However, the swift expansion of the world population coupled with the

time needed to match agricultural production with the growing need made for slow

progress in alleviating hunger in developing countries and the United States (Fritschel et

al., 1996; Evenson & Gollin, 2003). The food security movement suggested substantial

changes during these two decades. The World Bank and the World Food Conference

both envisioned a greater food supply to meet the needs of the population. However,

toward the end of the 1980s, they discovered that an adequate food supply did not ensure

adequate food access for hungry people (Anderson & Cook, 1999).

Although people agreed that world hunger was an issue, many groups had different

positions about how to address hunger. The food assistance programs and the increase in

food production in the world helped the targeted populations of the food security

movement. However, some food security methods there were unduly affecting other

groups of people. Vertical integration was putting smaller farms out of business. There

was also and increase in the use of fossil fuels for transportation and production purposes.

The demand for yields resulted in increased land use, pesticide use, and other

environmentally degrading effects (Gussow, 2001; Evenson & Gollin, 2003).

Holben (2002) revisited the concept of food security adding that access to food

"includes the ready availability of nutritionally adequate safe foods and the assured

ability to acquire them in socially acceptable ways" (p. 156). Proponents for CFS argued

that this concept was not broad enough to address the social and environmental issues

that were arising due to food security methods. Hamm and Bellows (2003) proposed a

definition of CFS that would become one of the most widely accepted. This definition is









"a situation in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable,

nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes community

self-reliance and social justice" (Hamm & Bellows, 2003, p. 37). Holben's (2002)

definition of food security incorporated the concepts of food access, nutritionally

adequate foods, and social acceptability. Hamm and Bellows (2003) expanded this

definition into the umbrella concept of CFS by modifying the concept of social

acceptability, and by adding the concepts of sustainable food systems, local food systems

(community self-reliance), and social justice. These additional components address the

environmental and social issues explained by Gussow (2001) and Evenson and Gollin

(2003). "Food security analysis evaluates the existence of resources, both community

and personal CFS analysis, however, can also extend beyond such basic questions as

adequacy of personal resources into an examination of the food system itself' (Gottlieb &

Fisher, 1996b, p. 24).

Defining Community Food Security

The evolution of CFS definitions consisted of inclusions and exclusions of

concepts, and metamorphoses of meanings. The process generated many other

definitions. While the definition proposed by Hamm and Bellows (2003) is the most

widely accepted, there are many others that researchers commonly refer to in current

literature. Table 2-1 illustrates the major definitions and their originators.

Table 2-1. Matrix of prevalent community food security definitions as of 2006.
Author Definition

Gottlieb and Fisher "food system-based issues of hunger, access, quality and
(1996a) availability as well as related questions of how food is grown,
processed, or 'manufactured,' and distributed" (p. 193)









Table 2-1. Continued.
Author Definition
Hamm and Bellows "a situation in which all community residents obtain a safe,
(2003) culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a
sustainable food system that maximizes community self-reliance
and social justice" (p. 37)

USDA (2004) "a prevention-oriented concept that supports the development and
enhancement of sustainable, community-based strategies to
improve access of low-income households to healthful nutritious
food supplies, to increase the self-reliance of communities in
providing for their own food needs, and to promote
comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition
issues" (T 1)

Cohen (2002) "concerns the underlying social, economic, and institutional
factors that affect the quantity and quality of available food and
its affordability or price relative to the sufficiency of financial
resources available to acquire it" (p. 3)

Pelletier, Kraak, "the ability of a community to ensure that all its member have
McCullum, Uusitalo, adequate access to healthful, acceptable food through
and Rich (1999) environmentally sustainable, economically viable, and socially
desirable production, processing, and distribution methods" (p.
401)

Many authors precede their definitions by stating that there is no one accepted

definition. The definition of CFS is in need of focus and delineation. Anderson and

Cook (1999) state "CFS as a concept suffers from loose definitions and absence of a

theoretical structure" (p. 142). They go on to say that CFS has the potential to "improve

the understanding of the barriers to food security at several levels of analysis, and help

policy makers and practitioners improve food security in a given area" (p. 142). There

are seven concepts that are common to most current definitions; these are all represented

in the Hamm and Bellows (2003) definition. The seven concepts are: food access, food

safety, nutrition, sustainable agriculture (food production), local food systems

(community food systems), culturally acceptable food and social justice. These are the









core seven concepts that occur most often, although some definitions of CFS do not

include some concepts or incorporate concepts not in this list.

As mentioned previously, Holben (2002) defines food access as "the ready

availability of nutritionally adequate safe foods and the assured ability to acquire them in

socially acceptable ways" (p. 156). Kantor (2001) supports this definition when she

states that food access includes the ability of a household to acquire enough food to

support life, health, and activity. One can determine the adequacy of food access through

such factors as the ability or inability to get to a supermarket or food retail store due to

the availability of transportation (Winne, n.d.).

The definition of food safety includes both the safety of foods being sold and the

knowledge of community members on how to safely prepare foods so as to avoid food

borne illness (Thomson et al., 2004).

Nutrition issues are "rates of diet-related health problems, including obesity and

diabetes as well as infant mortality, low-birth weight babies, and iron-deficient anemia"

(Winne, n.d., p. 1). The concept of nutrition also includes a balanced diet and access to

foods that are healthy and wholesome.

Sustainable agriculture refers to the provision of a more profitable income for

farmers and producers while promoting responsible environmental management and care

(CSREES, 2005b). Feenstra (2002) adds to this by saying that sustainable agriculture

"can be characterized as more environmentally sound, more economically viable for a

larger percentage of community members" (p. 100). The USDA's official definition of

sustainable agriculture is "an integrated system of plant and animal production practices

having site-specific application" (USDA, 2004).









Local or community food systems relate to the concept of sustainable agriculture.

These systems are collaborative efforts "to build more locally based, self-reliant food

economies one[s] in which sustainable food production, processing, distribution, and

consumption are integrated to enhance the economic, environmental, and social health of

a particular place" (University of California, 2002). Community self-reliance is integral

to the concept of local food systems because community residents are engaged in all

phases of planning, evaluation and implementation.

The concept of culturally acceptable foods refers to both the type of food consumed

and the manner in which the food was obtained. For example, in some cultures, it is

unacceptable to kill and eat animals such as cats and dogs. A major indicator for food

insecurity would be eating culturally unacceptable animals.

The concept of social justice has many definitions. Reisch (2002) illustrated the

elusive nature of this concept. He states social justice is often viewed as an alternative to

dominant or hierarchical forces, focusing on individual rights and egalitarianism. In the

context of CFS, social justice is "the injustice of hunger and food insecurity" as well as

"the adequacy of wages and working conditions for all those who earn their livelihoods

from the food system" (Winne, n.d., p. 2).

Defining Community

One must examine the concept of community when defining the concepts of CFS.

Almost all researchers reference the fact that there is no common definition for

community. It is a concept that holds many points of contention and disagreement for

researchers, sociologists, and community developers. Bell and Newby (1972) said, "In

considering the concept of community, the sociologist shares an occupational hazard with

the architect and the planner: the more he attempts to define it in his own terms, the more









elusively does the essence of it seem to escape him" (p. 21). The researchers go on to

explain that the basic confusion in defining the concept of community lies in a

differentiation between empirical description and normative prescription. In other words,

"what the concept involves has not proved to be too difficult to elaborate; attempts to

describe what it is, however, have proved impossible without making value judgments"

(Bell & Newby, 1972, p. 21). Other researchers have also documented the issues and

barriers in finding a common or agreed-upon definition for community (Wood & Judikis,

2002; Wilkinson, 1991; Rubin & Rubin, 2001). Obst, Smith, and Zinkiewicz (2002)

documented a 1995 literature review that found at least 94 definitions for the term

"community". This section will not attempt to provide an ultimate definition, but will

provide a brief overview of the most prominent, current ideas regarding community.

This section will provide the definitions referenced in terms of local food systems and

CFS and provide a working definition for this study. The section will cover the concepts

in four sections: Communitarianism, Psychological Sense of Community, Geographic

Community, and Community and CFS.

Communitarianism

Bell (1993) describes the communitarian approach by using the definition in The

Responsive Communitarian Platform: "A communitarian perspective recognizes both

individual human dignity and the social dimension of human existence" (p. 1). Etzioni

(1997) suggests that communitarians seek an agreement on the constitution of a good

society. The communitarian paradigm focuses less on what constitutes a community than

what constitutes a good community. He writes:

The communitarian paradigm ... applies the notion of the golden rule at the societal
level to characterize the good society as one that nourishes both social virtues and









individual rights. I argue that a good society requires a carefully maintained
equilibrium of order and autonomy, rather than the 'maximization' of either. (p. 4)

Communitarianism focuses on both the components and the whole that make up a

community. Bell (1993) asserts that communitarianism can be defined by looking at the

beliefs about the self, the methodological approach to political theory, and the stated

value of the community. Bell (1993) agrees with Etzioni and suggests that true

communitarianism sees individuals as social beings. He also suggests that

communitarians, therefore, can only approach political theory with an explanation of

shared interpretation regarding community. Finally, he suggests that the value of the

community is ultimately important because it is the community that defines the

individual, not the other way around (Bell, 1993).

Etzioni (1997) also identifies several components that make up the communitarian

paradigm and contrasts those components with the ones that make up libertarianism, a

perspective on the other side of the spectrum. In contrast to the libertarian perspective,

Etzioni (1997) argues that communitarians see people as inherent parts of a social

context, and not as free agents. It is impossible to view people as individuals apart from

society. This paradigm also addresses the fact that "community is a set of attributes, not

a concrete place" (Etzioni, 1997, p. 6). Etzioni argues that communities have common

needs, although they may have different attributes. The attributes will determine the

differences in the responses to those needs, but the needs remain universal among

communities.

The call for social order is another point that differentiates communitarianism

from libertarianism. Etzioni states, "Communitarians see a need for a social order that

contains a set of shared values to which individuals are taught that they are obligated ...









their starting point is a shared set of definitions of what is right versus what is wrong"

(Etzioni, 1997, p. 12). He argues that membership in a community that has these shared

values should be voluntary rather than forced, therefore reinforcing the meaningfulness of

the individual's commitment to the community and to all of the members of that

community. This shared set of values furthers the autonomous nature of

communitarianism, rather than a commitment to furthering morality or values.

Communitarians "limit the virtues the society favors to a core set of values while

legitimating differences on other normative matters" (Etzioni 1997, p. 17). However, the

autonomy in this model is somewhat limited. The autonomy articulated here is only

within the limits of the core shared values and works to balance the voices of those in

power versus those being ruled (Etzioni, 1997).

Communitarianism is admittedly on a definitive side of the spectrum and it has its

critics. Bell (1993) identifies the 'Left Neo-Kantian Liberal' framework as a theory that

opposes communitarianism. Specifically, where communitarians see individuals as parts

of the communities and societies they make up, liberals see people as struggling to be

individuals in spite of societal barriers. He illustrates this point when he wrote that

liberalism:

offered a defense of liberal freedoms so basic that they could not be overridden by
the good of society as a whole. The crucial move was to found liberalism on the
capacity (and responsibility) we have to exercise our Kantian moral powers of
shaping, pursuing, and revising (if need be) our own life plans, and to respect the
exercise of these same powers of self-determination on the part of other persons.
(Bell, 1993, p. 3)

Etzioni (1996) said that there is room for moderation in the communitarian paradigm

despite its extreme perspective. He suggested that there was a part of a person that fell

into the social category and a part of a person that fell into the individual category, as









described by Bell (1993). The person as an individual was the spring of creativity and

transformation within community. Individuality fulfilled the person on a fundamental

level. The person as a part of a community was the foundation for work toward the needs

of the community and for support for the social virtues within that community (Etzioni

1996). Etzioni (2000) put forth his own definition for community with these perspectives

in mind. He wrote:

Community is a combination of two elements: A) A web of affect-laden
relationships among a group of individuals, relationships that often crisscross and
reinforce one another (rather than one-on-one or chainlike individual relationships).
B) A measure of commitment to a set of shared values, norms, and meanings, and a
shared history and identity in short, to a particular culture. (p. 188)

Psychological Sense of Community

In the midst of the debate over what constitutes a community and what qualities

constitute a good community, there was a noted lack of measurability of these

characteristics in the scientific community. Sarason (1974) developed the theory of a

psychological sense of community and suggested that community was self-defined

through this sense. Sarason's research provided the basis for future theoretical

development by McMillan and Chavis (1986). They adapted Sarason's concept into the

definition, "a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to

one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members' needs will be met through

their commitment to be together." They argue that community is comprised of four basic

elements: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared

emotional connection. Most current researchers argue that this theory "provides the best

foundation upon which to build our understanding of communities" (Obst et al., 2002, p.

121). Obst and White (2005) state that the psychological sense of community is what

defines a quality or well-functioning community. They found that psychological sense of









community is strongly related to group identification and in-group ties (Obst and White,

2005).

Researchers have conducted many studies to examine psychological sense of

community in connection to geographic communities or communities of place. Obst et

al. (2002) examined psychological sense of community across rural, urban, and suburban

communities. Their findings supported the four dimensions of psychological sense of

community as described by McMillan and Chavis (1986), and found a fifth dimension

through factor analysis. Obst et al. (2002) found that "conscious identification" was also

a major indicator of psychological sense of community. This factor appeared to be more

important than geographic location.

Some researchers argue that the psychological sense of community does not allow

for the complexities that are inherent in communities, particularly those that are in an

urban context. Colombo, Mosso, and De Piccoli (2001) write that community has

historically been defined as homogeneous and harmonized. The researchers feel that

descriptions of community such as the one put forth by Etzioni (2000) do not paint a

realistic picture. The psychological sense of community and its instrument, the Sense of

Community Index (SCI) do not "take into account the dynamic and conflicting

components that may be present at the level of the local community, in particular, with

urban contexts" (Colombo et al., 2001, p. 462).

Geographic Community

Researchers have also examined community as a geographic location. Hirst (1980)

issued a proposal for a firmer theoretical framework for community as a geographic place

in order to further community development efforts. He utilized the term 'local social

system' defined as "a set of interrelated social institutions which exist within a









geographically defined locality" (Hirst, 1980, p. 54) for his proposal. This definition was

tentative, and the author suggested that more research be done in looking at the role of

location and community power, examining communities' geographic circumstances and

their effects on their community issues. Researchers interested in community in terms of

community development have responded to this proposal in recent years.

Organizers and researchers currently define communities geographically for the

purposes of sustainable community development. Rubin and Rubin (2001) write that

organizers can use the term 'community' to describe a geographical place in order to

employ strategies that allow people within those areas to work together to create a better

space. They describe community as a geographic place as "a neighborhood, perhaps a

large housing complex, or a park in which the homeless congregate. People living in this

place interact with each other, at least occasionally" (Rubin & Rubin, 2001, p. 97). The

definition of community proposed by communitarians and the geographic definition

utilized by community organizers clearly have little in common. Martin (2003) states,

"Proximity fosters common experiences of problems and thus common interests, but

location does not, in itself, make a community. Yet many scholars have argued that place

fosters a common identity, based on common experiences, interests, and values" (p. 730).

Scholars agree that the concept of "neighborhood" denotes places, whereas

"community" does not (Flora, 1998; Galster, 2001; Rubin and Rubin, 2001; Martin,

2003). Galster (2001) defines the concept of neighborhood as "the bundle of spatially

based attributes associated with clusters of residences, sometimes in conjunction with

other land uses" (p. 2112). These spatially based attributes are characteristics such as:

architectural quality, quality and type of roads, utilities, and sidewalks, demographics of









the population, environmental attributes, and local social network traits. One can

measure or observe these characteristics within a designated location, unlike those of less

place-based communities (Galster, 2001). These spatially-based attributes are significant

not only to those wanting to delineate neighborhoods, but also to community developers.

Martin (2003) found that "local communities constitute their territorial sphere as a

legitimate and meaningful site for activism" (p. 747). Curry and McGuire (2002) base

their argument on the assumption that community and geographic space are inherently

connected. They state that social groups of people look to develop communities as well

as provide stewardship of the land on which the community lives.

Community and Community Food Security

The concept of community is fundamental to CFS. However, there is no accepted

definition of this concept in CFS literature. "Local CFS projects distinguish themselves

by their attention to community infrastructure and their local food system approach to

achieving food security" (Hamm and Bellows, 2003, p. 38). Gillespie and Gillespie

(2000) discuss community as it relates to the food system in four different categories.

The first is the classical community. They describe this as a small grouping of people

who are dependent on one another for their needs. The members of this community

could readily identify other members and would share a common culture. They

distinguish the classical community from the community of place, or "geographic areas

where people live ... inhabitants may exhibit very few or none of the other properties

embodied in the classical sense of community" (Gillespie & Gillespie, 2001, 6). They

also identify communities of interest, where social groups congregate based on a shared

concern or issue. Finally, they discuss the modern community where people can live

independently of other community members due to access to imported or outside









resources that meet individual needs. In this community, people may not be able to

recognize all members of the community, and they are not aware of the sources or

producers of the products they consume.

While Gillespie and Gillespie (2000) discuss this last type of community as one

that warrants concern when talking about the food system, they do not identify one

description or definition of community in CFS terms. They describe their

conceptualization of a 'community food system.' They identify this concept as "part of

the larger food system that is geographically located in a community" (Gillespie &

Gillespie, 2001, 8). They depict the community food system as being a self-reliant

system that is controlled by local community members. The products of this type of food

system should be accessible by all residents. The products should also be healthy, safe to

consume, and their production should contribute to the sustainability of the environment

and of the community in which the food system is located. The system should be able to

function in the face of disturbances, environmental or weather challenges, and in times of

economic insecurity. The system should also promote the food security of all community

members.

Gillespie and Gillespie (2001) said that the attributes that make a community food

system functional or effective are subjective in the case of each community. Hamm and

Bellows (2003) concur with this when they write, "The term 'community' in CFS

promotes highly differentiated understandings that vary according to the geographic

environs (size, location, environmental quality, etc), the local political economy and the

demographic identity of those defining food security" (p. 38). It is not just the physical

manifestation of community and the food system that is of importance, but also the action









and efforts of the community to address and meet community members' needs (Bellows

& Hamm, 2003).

Community Food Security and the Cooperative Extension Service

As mentioned in Chapter One, extension has long had a distinct relationship with

the food system in the United States. "The long desired outcome for extension educators

and their communities is to build community consensus and to develop a common vision

for a sustainable food system" (Thomson, et al., 2004, p. 201). Extension educators have

a patent role in working with their communities in building and shaping an effective food

system through educational programming and stakeholder interaction. The concept of

CFS deals with many aspects of the food system and with community involvement in the

food system. Florida Cooperative Extension Service works with both the 11 National

Focus Areas of USDA-CSREES and with the statewide goals for Florida for 2004-2007.

Each of these statewide goals has an underlying focus area team. These are presented as

the overarching statewide goal and the underlying focus area teams in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2. Florida statewide goals and underlying focus area teams, 2005.
Florida Statewide Goals Associated Focus Area Teams
FT* la: Agricultural Profitability and the Sustainable Use of
Goal 1: To enhance and Environmental Resources
maintain agricultural FT lb: Awareness of Agriculture's Importance to an
and food systems Economy That Ranges From Local to Global
FT Ic: Processing, Distribution, Safety and Security of Food
Systems
FT Id: Plant, Animal, and Human Protection
FT le: Safety for Agricultural Operations and Equipment

Goal 2: To maintain and FT 2a: Water Resources
enhance Florida's FT 2b: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Freshwater and
environment Terrestrial Natural Resources and Ecosystems
FT 2c: Environmental Education
FT 2d: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Coastal and
Marine Natural Resources and Ecosystems
*FT=focus area team (PDEC, 2005b)









Table 2-2. Continued.
Florida Statewide Goals
Goal 3: To develop
responsible and
productive youth
through 4-H and other
youth programs


Goal 4: To create and
maintain Florida
friendly landscapes: The
smart way to grow

Goal 5: To assist
individuals and families
to achieve economic
well-being and life
quality


Goal 6: Healthy
Communities




Goal 7: To promote
professional
development activities
designed to enhance
organizational efficiency
and effectiveness


Associated Focus Area Teams
FT 3a: Life Skills Developed In Youth Through Subject
Matter Experiences
FT 3b: Organizational Strategies and Learning Environments
to Support Youth Programs
FT 3c: Volunteer Development and Systems to Support
Youth


FT 4a:
FT 4b:
FT 4c:


Commercial Horticulture/Urban Forestry Services
Residential Landscapes
Florida Yards and Neighborhoods (FYN)


FT* 5a: Personal and Family Well-Being
FT 5b: Financial Management and Economic Well-being
FT 5c: Nutrition Food Safety And Health
FT 5d: Housing and Environment
FT 5e: Nonprofit Organizations, Leadership and Volunteer
Development

FT 6a: Addressing the Urban/Rural Interface
FT 6b: Broad-Based Citizen Participation and Active
Communities
FT 6c: Economic Diversity
FT 6d: Community Preparedness

FT 7a: Program Development, Implementation and
Evaluation
FT 7b: Faculty Orientation and Training
FT 7c: Effective Communication and Technology Use
FT 7d: Personal and Organizational Health
FT 7e: Administration and Leadership


*FT=focus area team (PDEC, 2005b)

There are areas of association between the seven main concepts of CFS and the

established foci of Cooperative Extension. Many of these focus areas, both on the

national and state level, correspond with the seven concepts of CFS. Table 2-3 illustrates

the relationships between these concepts. The first column contains the CFS concept and

the second column contains the national and state focus areas that address that concept.









Table 2-3. Corresponding community food security concepts and extension focus areas,


Florida, 2006
CFS Key USDA-CSREES National
Concept Focus Area and Relevant
Focus Area Concepts

Food Food Nutrition and Health
Access Hunger and food security


Food Safety


Food Nutrition and Health
Food safety


Nutrition Food Nutrition and Health
Nutrition
Obesity/healthy weight


Sustainable
Agriculture
(food
production)







Local Food
Systems
(community
food
systems)


Agricultural Systems
Organic agriculture
Small farms
Sustainable agriculture
Natural Resources and
Environment
Environmental and
resource economics
Sustainable development

Economics and Commerce
Public policy
Small and home based
businesses
Family, Youth &
Communities
Rural and community
development


Florida Statewide Goals
and Focus Area Teams


Goal 5: To Assist Individuals and Families
Achieve Economic Well-Being and Life
Quality
Goal 1: To Enhance and Maintain
Agricultural and Food Systems
FT* lb: Awareness of agriculture's
importance to an economy that ranges from
local to global

Goal 1: To enhance and Maintain
Agricultural and Food Systems
FT Ic: Processing, distribution, safety and
security of food systems

Goal 5: To Assist Individuals and Families
Achieve Economic Well-Being and Life
Quality
FT 5b: Nutrition, food safety, and health

Goal 1: To Enhance and Maintain
Agricultural and Food Systems
FT lb: Awareness of agriculture's
importance to an economy that ranges from
local to global
Goal 2: To Maintain and Enhance Florida's
Environment
FT 2a: Water resources
FT 2c: Environmental Education

Goal 5: To Assist Individuals and Families
Achieve Economic Well-Being and Life
Quality
Goal 6: Healthy Communities


*FT=focus area team, national focus areas are in italics









Table 2-3. Continued.
CFS Key USDA-CSREES National Florida Statewide Goals
Concept Focus Area and Relevant and Focus Area Teams
Focus Area Concepts

Culturally Food Nutrition and Health Goal 5: To Assist Individuals and Families
Acceptable Hunger and food security Achieve Economic Well-Being and Life
Food Quality
FT 5c: Nutrition, food safety, and health
Goal 1: To Enhance and Maintain
Agricultural and Food Systems
FT Ic: Processing, distribution, safety
and security of food systems

Social None None
Justice
*FT=focus area team, national focus areas are in italics

Extension Programs and Food-Access Issues

The concepts of CFS are in both the national focus areas and Florida's statewide

goals and focus area teams, with the exception of social justice. These areas are also

evident in extension programs and studies throughout the United States. For example,

Greer and Poling (2001) discuss a program called the Expanded Food and Nutrition

Education Program (EFNEP) and its impact on local food security. The USDA funds the

EFNEP program and state extension services manage it (Greer & Poling, 2001). The

program helps low-income families deal with nutrition and food insecurity issues. The

mission of this program is to "provide communities with an effective, research supported,

nutrition education program that enables limited resource families and youth to acquire

nutrition behaviors contributing to quality health and wellness" (EFNEP/IFAS, 2004,

3).

Greer and Poling (2001) designed a study to "examine the relationship between

food insecurity and participation in nutrition education classes and the relationship









between food insecurity and overall health status" (p. 3) in Tennessee. The purpose of

the study was to establish the impact of an extension program on hunger and nutrition

issues, two of the concepts inherent to CFS. The sample in this study consisted of an

intervention group that was enrolled in the EFNEP program and had taken two or more

lessons, and a non-intervention group in which subjects were eligible for EFNEP lessons,

but had taken one or no lessons. Each respondent filled out the Bickel's (2000)18-item

household food security questionnaire. This questionnaire is also known as the Food

Security Core Survey Module (Holben, 2002). The study's results suggested that

participation in the extension-based EFNEP program showed an increase in household

food security among the study's subjects (Greer & Poling, 2002). The results also

indicated that people with less food security are more likely to have issues associated

with poor health than those with more food security (Greer & Poling, 2002). Subjects

who had completed the program were more likely to have food at the end of the month

and were more likely to have higher intake levels of vitamins and minerals (Greer &

Poling, 2002). The authors conclude the paper by suggesting that there is a "need for

multi-session nutrition education for low-income households, focusing on basic nutrition,

food shopping, and cooking skills. The impacts of such programs can be increased food

security for participants, better health, and more efficient use of food resources" (Greer &

Poling, 2002, p. 9).

The Family Living Program, offered through University of Wisconsin Cooperative

Extension, is another example of extension's direct involvement in hunger and food-

access issues. Row (2005) started a series of papers called Hunger Close to Home,

published through the Extension service in Wisconsin. The purpose of this series was to









educate community members and state residents of hunger, food insecurity, and risk

factors in their area. Row (2005) points out that "relative to other states, Wisconsin

households have become more food insecure and hungry. People are also seeking more

food assistance" (p. 2). Food Stamp, or Food Share, participation in Wisconsin has

increased more than anywhere else in the United States (Row, 2005). University of

Wisconsin Cooperative Extension responded to these food access and hunger issues by

offering publications such as the Hunger Close to Home series and by offering the

Wisconsin Nutrition Education Program (WNEP) to families and individuals (Row,

2002). Specifically, "UW-Extension conducts research to better understand the extent of

food insecurity and hunger in Wisconsin, and the characteristics of food insecure

households" (p. 3). University of Wisconsin Extension Service designed and evaluated

the programs that address the hunger and food insecurity issues in the state in order to

meet the needs of the community.

These examples illustrate extension programs that focus on food access and

nutrition and the impact they can have on community participants and their families.

These programs incorporate the CFS concepts of food access and nutrition. The

programs also incorporate the national focus area, Food, Nutrition, and Health. The

programs fall under Florida's goal area of assisting individuals and families in achieving

economic well-being and life quality. The focus area team under that goal area is

Nutrition, Food Safety, and Health. Currently, Florida has 12 counties participating in

EFNEP (EFNEP/IFAS, 2004).

Extension Program and Food-Safety Issues

Extension programs also address food-safety issues and food safety education.

Gentry-Van Laanen and Nies (1995) conducted an evaluation of extension food safety









programs in Texas. Researchers requested participant lists of Texans who had attended a

food safety program in the previous two years to identify their population. Gentry-Van

Laanen and Nies (1995) identified eligible programs as "those utilizing a group meeting

or result demonstration format to teach safe food handling or food preservation practices

to adults" (T 8). The researchers developed 16-question interview forms based on content

material such as lesson plans, activity sheets or fact sheets (Gentry-Van Laanen & Nies,

1995). The interviews were in a pre-test / post-test format, wherein program participants

were given the same questions before and after the program. They conducted a follow-up

interview via telephone up to 10 weeks after the program.

Gentry-Van Laanen and Nies (1995) found that specific food handling and food

safety behaviors showed statistically significant shifts toward desired behaviors. "In

addition, almost one half of the participants identified publications or programs provided

by the Extension Service as their main source of food safety information" (Gentry-Van

Laanen & Nies, 1995, 14). The researchers found that the extension service in Texas

met a definitive food-related need in the community that was not addressed by other

agencies. The results suggested that the programs attempting to address the needs were

successful in their efforts. The study addressed the current local concerns about

foodborne illness and its costs. The researchers suggested that educational efforts on the

part of the extension service should be continued, and possibly directed toward certain

members of the community (Gentry-Van Laanen & Nies, 1995).

An extension website offered food safety knowledge for Penn State Cooperative

Extension agents. The site was a response to an extension agent questionnaire that

indicated extension agents wanted more support from specialists in food science in the









areas of home food preservation and food safety (LaBorde, 2003). Researchers

conducted a study to determine the extent to which extension agents used the site for food

safety information, the effect the site had on extension agents' level of knowledge the

extension agents had regarding food safety, and changes in behavior or attitude toward

the Internet as a result of using the site (LaBorde, 2003). The researchers sent an

electronic questionnaire to 72 Cooperative Extension agents who subscribed to a mailing

list that focused on food safety information (LaBorde, 2003). The results suggested that

"the web site has been successful because it has responded to a specific request from

Cooperative Extension agents for rapid and easy access to food safety and home food

preservation information" (LaBorde, 2003, 21). In addition, the web site increased

extension agent awareness of research, activities, and education in the Department of

Food Science at Penn State University (LaBorde, 2003). The web site served as a way to

provide extension agents with information pertinent to addressing community members'

food-safety issues, concerns, and questions.

Both the Texas food safety program evaluation and the web site dedicated to food

safety through Penn State illustrate extension's furthered involvement with food safety,

an essential concept to CFS. These examples showed extension agents' need for

organizational support. This organizational support could be accessible information, the

availability of specialist support, or accessible evaluative data for extension agents

engaging in educational programs that focus on food-safety issues. These programs

reflect a concentration on the national focus area of Food Nutrition and Health. Programs

such as these in Florida show a focus on the goal area of enhancing and maintaining









agricultural and food systems. The focus area team within that goal area would be

Processing, Distribution, Safety and Security of Food Systems.

Extension Programs and Nutrition Issues

Many extension educational programs focus on nutrition. Texas Agricultural

Extension Service offers an educational program that addresses nutrition choices of those

who receive food stamps. The program is called The Food Stamp Nutrition Education

Program or FSNEP, but for marketing purposes in Texas the program is delivered as the

Better Living for Texans program (BLT) (Anding, Fletcher, Van Laanen, & Supak,

2001). The Texas Agricultural Extension Service designed the BLT program to address a

community food-related issue identified by the USDA in 1999. A nation-wide survey

found that, while the national average of food-insecure households was 9.7% in 1999,

Texas had a higher-than-average total of 12.9% of households that were food insecure

(Anding et al., 2001). A major objective of the BLT program was to provide "education

and guidance in the area of food resource management to prevent food insecurity"

(Anding et al., 2001, 18).

Anding et al. (2001) performed an evaluation in order to determine the

effectiveness of the program. They conducted a telephone-based survey targeted toward

participants in the BLT program. The evaluation results indicated that the program was

successful in its efforts to influence food selection, food safety knowledge, and food

resource management among participants. The researchers predicted that changes in

these behaviors would have long term health effects. The researchers based this

projection on the assumption that "increased consumption of fruits and vegetables and

decreased consumption of dietary fat are thought to promote good health and prevent

disease" (Anding et al., 2001, 15). Overall, the study found the program to successfully









address the established need for education in nutrition, food management, and food safety

and reduce community dependency on local food banks and emergency food reserves

(Anding et al., 2001). This program, like others, focused on one core concept of CFS, but

incorporated several others in its educational curricula.

Extension Programs and Local Food Systems

Thompson et al. (2003) made the argument that extension should promote a focus

on local food systems. They conducted a survey of all Pennsylvania Extension agents.

The goal of the study was to "determine perspectives of extension educators relative to

local food system issues and programming in Pennsylvania" (Thomson et al., 2003, p.

201). The researchers measured four main variable categories to achieve this goal. The

first variable was respondents' attitudes regarding local food system issues. The

researchers measured these attitudes with a Likert scale. The second category of

variables consisted of extension agents' perspectives on support or barriers to local food

system programming. The third category of variables measured extension agents'

responses to the involvement of local organizations in local food systems programming.

Finally, the fourth category consisted of respondents' demographic characteristics. The

researchers collected this data from extension agents using a web-based instrument.

The researchers found that extension agents felt that the most support for local food

systems programming came from their CEDs, while the least came from local residents.

They also found that extension agents felt that the top three barriers to participating in

local food systems programming were: lack of organizational resources; the

programming did not fit in with their programmatic responsibilities; or, that they did not

have enough knowledge. The researchers concluded that while extension agents found

most local food system issues important, they did not feel that this alone was enough to









determine programming for a community. In other words, the researchers suggested that

the community must demonstrate a need and the extension agents must feel the topic is

important in order to achieve effective programming for a community. Finally, the

researchers suggested that interdepartmental collaboration and partnerships with outside

organizations can strengthen community support for local food system programming. In

this way, the researchers suggested that Pennsylvania Extension educators focus on an

important facet of CFS: local or community food systems.

Thomson, Abel and Maretski (2001) state that many of the community issues on

which extension bases its programs stem from the capacity of the community's local food

system. Sharp, Imerman, and Peters (2002) write that community based agriculture

programs such as Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) can help extension "bring

people together through food production and contribute to the emergence of stronger

communities" (T 31).

All of the components of CFS are interrelated in different ways, as implied in the

Hamm and Bellows (2003) CFS definition. "Hunger. Economic development. Job

creation. Farmland and open space preservation. Proper nutrition of children and adults"

(Thomson et al., 2001, T 1). These are all issues that are related to local food systems.

Thomson, Abel, and Maretski (2001) wrote about a program called Edible Connections

and describe how it relates to the Extension Service in Pennsylvania. The program is

designed to "initiate conversation and to take action on critical food issues ... to generate

changes at both an individual and a community level" (Thomson et al., 2001, T 5). The

researchers suggest that this type of program can work to bolster extension programs in

all areas that deal with food or aspects of the food system. In addition, programs such as









Edible Connections can help extension educators in establishing collaborations and

partnerships with community members and community based organizations to develop

action plans to address local food system issues (Thomson et al., 2001).

The authors illustrate the potential relationship between Cooperative Extension and

local CFS efforts. The Community Food Security Initiative of 1999 encourages the

collaborations between "the USDA and other federal agencies, nonprofit organizations,

states, and municipalities" (Thomson et al., 2001, 19). They also identify the

relationship between the seven action areas named in the initiative and the 11 national

focus areas developed by the USDA. Specifically, the authors point out the fact that

programs such as Edible Connections can bridge the relationship between Cooperative

Extension and CFS efforts by helping "extension educators address food insecurity issues

in a community by making it possible to identify potential collaborators and activities

(Thomson et al., 2001, 21).

Extension Programs and Sustainable Agriculture

Cooperative Extension also focuses on sustainable agriculture and food production,

another core concept of CFS. In North Carolina, researchers conducted a study to assess

Extension professionals' perceptions of sustainable agriculture (Minarovic & Mueller,

2000). They distributed a questionnaire to professionals that were identified as having a

focus in agriculture. The study found that the majority of respondents felt that North

Carolina Cooperative Extension Service had a "strong commitment to sustainable

agriculture" (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000, 14). In addition, the researchers found that

respondents "were interested in working on collaborative projects with members from

other disciplines" (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000, 25). However, Extension professionals

reported that they felt that these collaborations were not supported by administration.









Fifty-seven percent agreed that there were institutional barriers to engaging in

interdisciplinary or collaborative research in sustainable agriculture (Minarovic &

Mueller, 2000). More than 75% of respondents also reported that they felt there was not

enough organizational support for grassroots involvement in agriculture programs and

research (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000). While the respondents felt interested in

participating in sustainable agriculture research and programming, they reported some

institutional barriers to engaging in these activities in a way that allowed for

interdisciplinary collaboration or for local involvement at a meaningful level.

Extension Program and Culturally Acceptable Food

Cooperative Extension has recently been focusing more of its attention on

programs that reach more diverse audiences (Hassel, 2004). Hassel (2004) suggests that

extension agents must incorporate diverse audiences' previous knowledge, ways of

learning, and ways of knowing while designing educational programs. Fishman, Pearson,

and Reicks (1999) acknowledged these variables when designing their study intended to

gather nutrition and food information from the children of migrant farm workers. They

began by observing the behaviors and current knowledge of the children in order to

design culturally appropriate interview questions. The researchers stated, "A richer

understanding of their world and needs would increase the service community's

effectiveness in providing nutrition programming" (Fishman et al., 1999, 7). The

researchers thought that a better understanding of local knowledge and culture would not

only benefit their study, but would also lend itself to more successful educational

programming through extension. The researchers go on to recommend that extension

agents use foods found in the households of migrant farm workers when teaching

children about nutrition. They also state, "Nutrition educators need to understand









traditional food and health customs to provide culturally relevant nutrition education"

(Fishman et al., 1999, 19).

Hoover, Cooper, Tamplin, Osmond, and Edgell (1996) also recognized the need for

culturally aware extension education programs for diverse audiences. While designing

their study, they wrote, "As the Cooperative Extension Service continues to meet the

needs of an increasingly diverse and multicultural client group, it is important that

educational materials both written and verbal be made available to those individuals in

their primary language" (Hoover et al., 1996, 7). Hoover et al. (1996) emphasize the

need for extension agents to make educational programs accessible, usable, and relevant

to diverse audiences.

Extension Programs and Social Justice

The concept of social justice is not found in the USDA's 11 national focus areas, or

Florida's statewide goals, although it is a possible area for expansion for extension agents

in the United States. Kelsey (2002) writes about the role of Cooperative Extension in

delivering educational programs dealing with civic engagement and democracy. Kelsey

(2002) argues that Cooperative Extension must incorporate social engagement, civil

associations, and democracy-building into its educational curricula in order to fulfill its

mission. Checkoway (2001) writes, "Communities in a diverse democratic society

require citizens who understand their own social identities, communicate with those who

are different from themselves, and build bridges across a common cause" (Checkoway,

2001, p. 129). Both Checkoway (2001) and Kelsey (2002) argue that land-grant

universities and Cooperative Extension have a vital role in developing a community sense

of social and civic engagement.









Theoretical Framework for the Study

The Development of the Theory of Planned Behavior

The theory of planned behavior is a fusion of two other major social psychological

theories. The first of these theories is the theory of reasoned action. Ajzen and Fishbein

played a major role in developing this theory to understand and be able to predict human

behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). According to the theory of reasoned action,

researchers can use two major factors to predict a human's intention to perform a

behavior. The first factor is the individual's attitude toward a particular behavior. Ajzen

and Fishbein (1980) describe this as "the person's positive or negative evaluation of the

behavior" (p. 7). The subjective norm is the second factor affecting an individual's

behavior. This factor refers to the weight of social influence regarding a decision to

perform a behavior. In other words, if an individual perceives that a behavior is not

socially acceptable or is not encouraged, the individual will be less likely to perform the

behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Both of these factors are effective predictors of the

individual's level of intention to perform the behavior. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) write,

"Our theory assumes that the relative importance of these factors depends in part on the

intention under investigation. For some intentions, attitudinal considerations may be

more important than normative considerations" (p. 6).

Researchers have used the theory of reasoned action to predict such behaviors as

those regarding weight loss programs, smoking cessation, and family planning behaviors

(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Research found that the theory only explained the decision-

making process in settings where the level of volitional control was high. In other cases,

it did not explain the entire process (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 1996).









The theory of self-efficacy is the second psychosocial theory that led to the

development of the theory of planned behavior. This theory suggests that people are

more likely to perform a behavior if they think they can do it successfully. Bandura

(1997) stated that "self-efficacy, or a belief in one's personal capabilities, regulates

human functioning in four major ways" (T 1). The first way is cognitive. People with a

high sense of self-efficacy are more likely to set elevated goals for themselves (Bandura,

1997). The second way is motivational. An individual's level of motivation to perform

the behavior is higher if they believe that the intended behavior is achievable. The third

way is mood or affect. An individual's level of self-efficacy can regulate their emotional

state because it influences the ways they perceive risks, manage stress and anxiety, and

deal with upsetting thoughts (Bandura, 1997). The fourth way is social. People with a

low level of self-efficacy can work to reduce their own social support, while people with

a high level of self-efficacy tend to attract social support (Bandura, 1997). Researchers

have successfully applied this theory in cases of overcoming obstacles, social modeling,

social persuasion, and reducing stress levels and occurrences of depression (Bandura,

1997).

Ajzen (1991) incorporated the concepts of the theory of reasoned action with the

theory of self-efficacy to develop the theory of planned behavior. The theory of planned

behavior compensated for the inadequacies of the theory of reasoned action. Similarly to

the theory of reasoned action, the theory of planned behavior centered on the intention of

an individual to perform a behavior. The theory also incorporated the attitude toward the

behavior and the subjective norms detailed in the theory of reasoned action. Ajzen

(1991) incorporated the theory of self-efficacy by adding the concept of perceived









behavioral control and its affect on the individual's intention to perform the behavior.

This concept fuses the self-efficacy beliefs of an individual with their perceptions of

control. Perceived behavioral control is a blending of one's perceptions of the likelihood

they will successfully perform a behavior with their perceptions of the amount of

external, social control regarding the behavior. "According to the theory of planned

behavior, perceived behavioral control, together with behavioral intention, can be used

directly to predict behavioral achievement" (Ajzen, 1991, p. 184).

Ajzen (2001) differentiates perceived behavioral control from both self-efficacy

and from locus of control. He describes perceived behavioral control as the degree of

control an individual believes he has over a particular behavior. In contrast, self-efficacy

is the degree to which an individual believes he or she can accomplish a behavior

successfully. He describes perceived behavioral control also as "the extent to which they

have the requisite resources and believe they can overcome whatever obstacles they may

encounter" (Ajzen, 2002, p. 677). Perceived behavioral control is different than locus of

control because locus of control is categorized into internal or external sources, whereas

perceived behavioral control does not identify the source of control.

Accurate prediction requires the presence of several conditions since the theory of

planned behavior states that the performance of a behavior is a result of both intentions

and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). "First, the measures of intention and of

perceived behavioral control must correspond to or be compatible with the behavioral

that is to be predicted" (Ajzen, 1991, p. 185). The researcher must measure the intention

and the perceived behavioral control of the exact behavior, not a generalization of the

behavior. "The second condition for accurate prediction is that intentions and perceived









behavioral control must remain stable in the interval between their assessment and

observation of the behavior" (Ajzen, 1991, p. 185). The prediction will no longer be

accurate if the variables that are measured are allowed to fluctuate. The third condition is

that perceived behavioral control should reflect the actual levels of existing control as

realistically as possible.

Applications of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Health Contexts

There are several main applications for the theory of planned behavior. Godin and

Kok (1996) reviewed the application of the theory of planned behavior to health-related

behaviors. They included 56 studies that examined behaviors in one or more of the

following categories: addictive, clinical or screening, diving, eating, exercising,

HIV/AIDS, and oral hygiene. They found that the theory was generally effective in

explaining the intentions of individuals to perform the health-related behavior observed

in the study. The combination of the individuals' attitude toward the behavior, the

subjective norms, and the perceived behavioral control successfully predicted the

individual's intention to perform the specific health-related behavior. The theory's

effectiveness in predicting the actual behaviors, however, varied between categories

(Godin & Kok, 1996). For example, the researchers found that "the R2 was quite low for

clinical and screening behaviors, whereas much higher values were observed for

addictive and HIV/AIDS-related behavioral categories" (Godin & Kok, 1996, p. 93-94).

They draw on the supposition that the failure of the individual to perform the behavior

may be a result of the intervention of environmental factors or personal barriers during

the steps taken to accomplish the behavior.

Other research has presented different results. Albarracin, Johnson, Fishbein, and

Muellereile (2001) examined the use of both the theory of reasoned action and the theory









of planned behavior in the context of condom use using a meta-analysis. The researchers

chose only studies that included condom use, a measure of condom use behavior or the

intention to use a condom, measures of attitudinal and normative factors, measures of

perceived behavioral control (in the case of the utilization of the theory of planned

behavior in the study) and the presence of meaningful statistics (Albarracin et al., 2001).

The results of their meta-analysis indicated that both "the theories of reasoned action and

planned behavior are highly successful predictors of condom use" (Albarracin et al.,

2001, p. 155).

This finding contrasts with the findings in the Godin and Kok (1996) meta-analysis.

The results in the Albarracin et al. (2001) study suggested that the theory of planned

behavior predicted both intentions and behavior. They found that "people are more likely

to use condoms if they have previously formed the corresponding intentions. These

intentions to use condoms appear to derive from attitudes, subjective norms, and

perceived behavioral control" (Albarracin et al., 2001, p. 155). The authors conclude that

changing the intentions to use condoms will ultimately work to decrease the incidences of

HIV/AIDS in the world.

Norman, Conner, and Bell (1999) examined the theory of planned behavior in the

context of smoking cessation. They looked at a sample of 84 individuals who were

currently smokers and who attended health promotion clinics. The researchers gave the

respondents questionnaires that measured the primary components of the theory of

planned behavior, past attempts to quit smoking, and perceived susceptibility (Norman et

al., 1999). Through regression analyses, the researchers produced results that were in

concordance with the observations of Godin and Kok (1996) in terms of addictive









behaviors. Norman et al. (1999) suggested that the theory of planned behavior was

"highly predictive of smokers' intentions to quit, explaining almost 50% of the variance

in behavioral intentions" (Norman et al., 1999, p. 92). They also found that the perceived

behavioral control was the most important predictor of intention. In terms of behavior,

the researchers found the theory to effectively predict the smokers' attempts to quit

smoking over the six months that followed the completion of the questionnaires. The

intention, rather than the perceived behavioral control, surfaced as the most significant

predictor of the actual performance of the behavior (Norman et al., 1999). However, the

theory was unable to predict the success or lack of success for a cessation attempt. In

summary, this study found that the theory of planned behavior contains some of the

necessary variables for determining behavior, but does not encompass all of them

(Norman et al, 1999).

Sheeran, Conner, and Norman (2001) also examined the theory of planned behavior

in a health context. They looked specifically at patterns of change in health behaviors

resulting from a health screening. The researchers distributed a questionnaire to 407

respondents who have never before had a health screening. Similarly to the study

conducted by Norman et al. (1999), Sheeran et al. (2001) measured the constructs of the

theory of planned behavior in terms of attending health screenings. The researchers

found that the respondents' intentions and the perceived behavioral control were

important predictors, but explained a smaller proportion of variance in behaviors in

comparison to other studies. They argued that this was because the respondents had

never before attended a health screening, and therefore, may have had less stable

intentions regarding their performance. This instability would have indicated a weaker









relationship between intentions and behavior (Sheeran et al., 2001). The study indicated

a major weakness in the application of the theory of planned behavior. The researchers

note: "Although the theory of planned behavior predicted attendance versus

nonattendance, and frequency of attendance, at a health screening, this model could not

discriminate among participants who consistently attended, those who delayed attending,

and those who did not maintain attendance" (Sheeran et al., 2001). The researchers

suggested the inclusion of additional predicting elements to account for the specific

variance in this application.

Applications of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Technological Contexts

Researchers have also used the theory of planned behavior to a lesser extent in the

context of adoption of technologies. Mathieson (1991) conducted a study that compared

the use of the theory of planned behavior with the use of the technology acceptance

model in the context of technology adoption. He explains that the technology acceptance

model is designed to explicate behaviors regarding computer usage. Both models

attempt to predict individuals' behaviors, but there are implicit differences between the

two. The first difference is in the degree of generality. Ajzen constructed the theory of

planned behavior to allow for different beliefs in different contexts, whereas the

technology acceptance model "assumes that beliefs about usefulness and ease of use are

always the primary determinants of use decisions" (Mathieson, 1991, p. 178). In other

words, the theory of planned behavior allows for a lack of generalizability in the beliefs

regarding a behavior, but the technology acceptance model does not. The second

difference is that, while the theory of planned behavior includes social variables such as

social norms, the technology acceptance model does not (Mathieson, 1991). The

argument is that social norms are not independent of the outcome in the context of the









adoption of technology, so they need not be included in the technology acceptance

model. The third difference is in the treatment of behavioral control. Mathieson (1991)

states that the technology acceptance model only incorporates the ease of use of a

computer technology, while the theory of planned behavior incorporates both internal and

external forces and barriers in its perceived behavioral control.

Mathieson's (1991) research focused on the adoption and use of information

systems within organizations using both the theory of planned behavior and the

technology acceptance model. He selected a sample of college students who were taking

an introductory computer class for credit. The researcher gave the respondents

questionnaires via one of two computer programs designed by Mathieson. The first

computer program delivered a questionnaire based on the technology acceptance model

and the second computer program delivered a questionnaire based on the theory of

planned behavior.

Mathieson (1991) found that both the technology acceptance model and the theory

of planned behavior worked to explain the variance in intentions to use information

systems. In addition, the results suggested that the technology acceptance model

explained more of the variance than did the theory of planned behavior, but not to the

extent where the researcher was confident in asserting that one model was better than the

other (Mathieson, 1991). The results indicated that the perceived behavioral control

element of the theory of planned behavior worked to provide more specific information

regarding beliefs, attitudes, and perceived barriers of the respondents. The technology

acceptance model provided information only on respondents' perceptions about the ease

of use of the program. Mathieson (1991) points out that there have been specific









instruments developed for the technology acceptance model whereas the instrument of

measurement for the theory of planned behavior has to be constructed for each specific

instance. In summary, the theory of planned behavior provided equitable explanation of

variance and more specific information than the technology acceptance model in the

context of technology-adoption. However, the technology acceptance model was easier

to apply (Mathieson, 1991).

Lynne, Casey, Hodges, and Rahmani (1995) used the theory of planned behavior in

the context of the adoption of water saving technology by Florida strawberry farmers.

The researchers selected a stratified random sample of Florida's strawberry producer

population. The researchers then conducted personal interviews with each producer in

the sample. They found that perceived behavioral control was an important predictor for

an individual's adoption of the water saving technology. The researchers suggested the

ability of perceived behavioral control to explain behavioral variance was in part due to

the producers' familiarity with the technology (Lynne et al., 1995). Sheeran et al. (2001)

later found supporting results. The researchers suggest that their findings support the

construct validity of the theory of planned behavior in the context of technology adoption

decisions.

Efficacy and Generalizability of the Theory of Planned Behavior

Armitage and Conner (2001) performed a meta-analysis of applications of the

theory of planned behavior in order to determine the overall efficacy of the theory of

planned behavior. The researchers looked at 185 independent studies that sought to

measure the constructs in the theory of planned behavior. The researchers did the studies

in numerous contexts. In accordance with the results of the meta-analysis done by Godin

and Kok (1996), Armitage and Conner (2001) found that studies overall indicated that the









theory of planned behavior worked well to predict the intention to perform a behavior.

They found that the theory explained 39% of the variance in intention (Armitage and

Conner, 2001). Their findings also compare positively with previous meta-analyses in

that they found that the theory of planned behavior worked to explain 27% of the

variance in behavior. The perceived behavioral control construct was found to

"contribute uniquely to the prediction of behaviour, demonstrating the efficacy of the

[theory of planned behavior] construct" (Armitage & Conner, 2001, p. 486). However,

they also found that the theory was more effective in predicting self-reported behavior

than it was in predicting behavior that was observed. Armitage and Conner (2001)

concluded that the theory of planned behavior was an effective predictor of both intention

and behavior in a wide variety of contexts. They also concluded that the perceived

behavioral control construct could also act as an independent predictor in several

different situations.

The Use of the Theory of Planned Behavior in This Study

This study did not aim to measure the constructs of the theory of planned behavior

directly. Rather, the theory provided the lens through which the findings of the study

were examined. This study attempted to provide a description of Florida Extension

agents' attitudes toward engaging in programs that focus on different aspects of CFS by

measuring their level of interest in these types of programs. The study also examined the

subjective norms by asking in what CFS-focused programs they are currently or have

previously been involved. Finally, the study attempted to describe the levels of perceived

behavioral control by describing both the level of organizational support the extension

agents feel they are currently receiving to engage in programs that focus on CFS and how









much organizational support they would be interested in for participating in these types

of programs.

Summary

This chapter provided the groundwork for research on community food security

and the Cooperative Extension System in the state of Florida. The chapter explained the

historical and developmental framework for current extension systems, both on a national

and a state level. The chapter also provided evidence that the goals of current extension

systems are compatible with the elements of community food security. Finally, this

chapter explained the theoretical framework for this study.














CHAPTER 3
THE RESEARCH PROTOCOL

Introduction

This study described the knowledge and perceptions of Florida Extension agents

regarding community food security in their respective counties as well as their

perceptions of organizational support levels for engaging in community food security-

focused programming. This chapter provides an overview of the research design used for

the study. This chapter will also describe the methods and instrumentation used for data

collection, the participants in the study, and the data collection procedures. The chapter

is organized by the study's six objectives and their respective sub-objectives. The

objectives are as follows:

* Objective 1: To identify Florida Extension agents' levels of knowledge regarding
community food security

o Objective la: To describe Florida Extension agents' levels of knowledge
regarding community food security

o Objective lb: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida
Extension agents based on demographic characteristics

* Objective 2: To identify Florida Extension agents' perceptions of community food
security in their respective counties

o Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
community food security in their respective counties

o Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
community food security based on demographic characteristics

* Objective 3: To identify Florida Extension agents' perceptions of organizational
levels of support for participation in community food security-focused programs









o Objective 3a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
organizational levels of support for participation in community food
security-focused programs

o Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of
organizational levels of support for participation in community food
security-focused programs

* Objective 4: To identify Florida Extension agents' levels of interest in receiving
different dimensions of organizational support for participation in community food
security-focused programs

o Objective 4a: To describe Florida Extension agents' levels of interest in
receiving different dimensions of organizational support for participation
in community food security-focused programs

o Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents' interest levels in
organizational dimensions of support based on demographic
characteristics

* Objective 5: To identify and describe Florida Extension agents' current levels of
participation in community food security-focused programs

* Objective 6: To identify and describe associations between dependent variables

Research Design

The study "The Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behaviors of Florida Extension

Agents Regarding Community Food Security" is a descriptive study that takes the form

of a single-method survey research design as defined by Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh

(2002). The researcher used a web-based, questionnaire instrument as a census survey to

collect data from all Florida Extension agents.

Subjects

The study's population consisted of a census of all Florida Extension agents,

including extension agents classified as county extension directors. The researcher

obtained the list of current extension personnel as the most recent personnel listing at the









time of the data collection. The population was N=324 for extension agents, including

county extension directors.

Instrumentation

The researcher developed a questionnaire instrument that consisted of four main

components: a standardized knowledge test, a Likert scale, a set of five indices, and a

section with demographic questions (Appendix A). The purpose of this questionnaire

was to identify information relevant to the six objectives of this study. The researcher

submitted the instrument to the University of Florida's Institutional Review Board and

they approved it (Appendix B).

Objective 1: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Levels of Knowledge Regarding
Community Food Security

Objective la: To describe Florida Extension agents' levels of knowledge regarding
community food security

The researcher used a standardized knowledge test to achieve the first objective and

sub-objective for this study. The purpose of the knowledge test in this instrument was to

measure the amount of knowledge respondents have regarding CFS as a concept. The

researcher sent emails to a panel of 11 experts consisting of faculty members and other

significant researchers or practitioners in the field of CFS. The researcher selected these

experts by identifying major organizations or research studies in the field of CFS. The

eleven people selected were the most prominent names found in CFS-related research and

conceptual papers. The researcher asked the experts to respond to the emails with their

perceptions of concepts that are essential to CFS. Six experts responded to the emails.

A priori, the researcher set a minimum level of 80% of responses for a concept to be

included. This process ensured the content validity of the instrument as described by









DeVellis (1991). Table 3-1 illustrates the seven concepts that occurred in over 80% of

the responses.

Table 3-1. Panel of expert responses of community food security concepts, Florida, 2005
Concept Percentage of Responses

Food Access 100
Social Justice 83
Locally Based Food Systems 100
Sustainability 83
Safe Food 100
Culture 83
Nutrition 83

The researcher developed the standardized knowledge test by composing questions

regarding the definition, the essential concepts, and applications of CFS, based on the

seven concepts as provided by the panel of experts. The researcher developed the

questions using the steps suggested by Shultz and Whitney (2005). The researcher used

Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives to construct the knowledge test. Bloom

divided this taxonomy into six categories, each increasing in complexity: knowledge,

comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Seddon, 1978; Shultz &

Whitney, 2005). The questions ranged from the cognitive levels of knowledge,

comprehension, and application. The researcher chose to offer constructed-response

questions formatted as true/false and multiple-choice. The majority of the questions in

the standardized test were knowledge-based, some comprehension-based, and two

questions that were application-based.

The researcher sent the questions to a panel of 32 experts in the field of sustainable

agriculture, as suggested by Shultz and Whitney (2005). These experts were state

sustainable agriculture coordinators in the southern region for Sustainable Agriculture

Research and Education (SARE). The researcher decided a priori that those questions that









were unanimously answered either correctly or incorrectly were to be discarded. There

were a total of 12 responses from the panel of experts. The test was left with 10

questions after the researcher removed all questions answered correctly or incorrectly by

all 12 experts.

Objective Ib: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida Extension
agents based on demographic characteristics

In order to be able to compare knowledge levels among extension agent groups, the

questionnaire prompted respondents to provide their demographic characteristics. The

questions asked for such information as gender, rank within extension, whether or not

they were a county extension director, their program focus, and the extension region in

which they worked. This categorization of respondents provided the basis for the

comparison of knowledge scores among groups.

Objective 2: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Perceptions of Community
Food Security in Their Respective Counties

Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of community food
security in their respective counties

The researcher used two question types to address the second objective in this

study. The first question type was a Likert scale. The purpose of the Likert scale in this

instrument was to measure respondents' perceptions of CFS in the county in which they

worked. "When a Likert scale is used, the item is presented as a declarative sentence,

followed by response options that indicate varying degrees of agreement with or

endorsement of the statement" (DeVellis, 1991, p. 68). Although CFS is composed of

several concepts, the goal of the Likert-scale in this instrument was to address CFS as a

single construct. DeVellis (1991) states that the measurement of a general construct is

legitimate if it meets the needs of the researcher. The researcher decided to design a new









scale because there were no pre-existing scales that measure attitudes regarding CFS.

There was also no CFS theory to guide the development of a scale on this topic. The

researcher conducted the scale to reflect the essential concepts of CFS gleaned from the

responses from the panel of experts. DeVellis (1991) stated that, in the absence of an

extant theoretical framework, "a well-formulated definition of the phenomenon they wish

to measure" (p. 52) can be sufficient.

The researcher developed a list of 139 statements that were reflective of all seven

concepts in the panel's responses. Henerson, Morris, and Fitz-Gibbon (1987) state that it

is best to begin with a large pool of statements that includes a range of opinions, from

strongly negative to strongly positive. DeVellis (1991) suggests that the researcher

develop the items to reflect the intended construct of the scale. The researcher worded

the statements to reflect different aspects of CFS. Some were redundant expressions of

similar or identical thoughts. "By using multiple and seemingly redundant items, the

content that is common to the items will summate across items, while their irrelevant

idiosyncrasies will cancel out" (DeVellis, 1991, p. 56). The statements were written to

have a fairly equal balance between strongly negative statements, mildly negative

statements, mildly positive statements, and strongly positive statements. DeVellis (1991)

suggests that positive and negative wording can prevent respondents from having an

agreement bias.

The researcher then randomized the statements and gave them to a panel of 20

judges, as recommended by Henerson et al. (1987). The panel of judges consisted of 20

student volunteers at the University of Florida. The judges rated the statements on a scale

of one to seven, where one indicated the statement was very weak and seven indicated the









statement was very strong. One respondent in the group of 20 judges had clearly

reversed the scaling for the responses, indicating low numbers where all others had

indicated high numbers and high numbers where all other respondents had indicated low

numbers. The researcher removed this response from the panel of judges, leaving 19

usable questionnaires.

The researcher recorded the items so they were all reflecting a positive attitude. The

researcher ran a reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha to measure internal

consistency in responses. This statistic "measures the internal consistency of a set of

indicators, ranging from zero (no internal consistency) to unity (perfect internal

consistency)" (Knoke, Bohrnstedt, & Mee, 2002). There were four respondents who had

missed one question each. For the purposes of this test, the researcher decided that it

would be acceptable to fill in the mode response for that question. This was necessary to

ensure the four respondents would be included in the analysis. The researcher ran the

reliability analysis several times. During the first round of analyses, the researcher

eliminated statements if they had a Cronbach's alpha of below .60. The adjustment of the

statements reflected a balance between weak and strong, and between negative and

positive. The second analysis eliminated all statements that fell below .50. This process

effectively eliminated all statements that related to "culturally acceptable foods." After

the tests, there were 54 statements that collectively had an even distribution between

strong and weak, negative and positive, and had a Cronbach's alpha of at least .5.

The researcher sent the statements and the knowledge test questions to the panel of

32 SARE state coordinators. The statements had a five point Likert-like scale where one

indicated strongly disagree, three indicated neutral, and five indicated strongly agree.









There were 12 responses from this panel of experts. The researcher followed the steps

suggested by Henerson et al. (1987) to select the statements for the Likert scale. The

researcher performed independent sample t-tests on each statement to discriminate

between opinions. Each of the 12 respondents received summative scores for their

responses after the researcher recorded the statements to reflect a positive attitude. The

researcher compared the top ranking 25% of statements to the bottom ranking 25% and

vice versa. The researcher then chose 15 statements with p-value pair scores of under

.03. The statements remained fairly equal in number of strongly positive, positive,

negative and strongly negative. This process eliminated all statements that related to

"social justice." Two of the 15 statements were oriented around food access and were

deemed to not have worked as well. These were also discarded. The remaining 13

statements comprised the Likert scale. The 13 remaining statements reflected five of the

seven essential components of CFS: food access, food safety, nutrition, sustainable

agriculture, and local food systems.

The researcher used a supplementary index to provide additional insight into the

perceptions of respondents regarding CFS in their counties. This index was the second

question type used to achieve the second objective in this study. The purpose of the

supplementary index in this case was to describe the respondent's perceptions of the

relevance of specific components of CFS in their counties. The researcher decided to

construct the index so that it reflected only the five components of CFS represented in the

Likert scale. The index only referred to the concepts in the Likert scale because the

researcher designed the index to provide additional insight into the measurements of the

scale. The researcher designed a set of statements followed by a scalar set of response









options. The questionnaire prompted respondents to indicate the level of relevance they

perceived in their counties for each of the five facets of CFS. A four-point scale followed

each question, where one corresponded with not at all relevant and four corresponded

with very relevant.

Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of community food
security based on demographic characteristics

The researcher used the demographic characteristics described above to compare

the scores derived for each respondent's answers to the Likert scale. The demographic

characteristics also provided a comparison for respondents' perceptions of the relevance

of individual components of CFS. The researcher used the combination of these two

comparisons to fulfill the second sub-objective for this study.

Objective 3: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Perceptions of Organizational
Levels of Support for Participation in Community Food Security-Focused
Programs

Objective 3a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of organizational
levels of support for participation in community food security-focused programs

The questionnaire presented respondents with a series of five questions regarding

the level of organizational support the respondents were currently receiving in order to

participate in CFS-focused programs. Each question asks about support regarding

programs that focus on a different aspect of CFS. The respondents indicated the level of

support on a four-point scale, where one corresponds with no support and four

corresponds with a great deal of support.









Objective 3b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of organizational
levels of support for participation in community food security-focused programs

The researcher used the demographic characteristics to compare respondents'

perceptions of organizational support levels among extension agents grouped by

characteristics.

Objective 4: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Levels of Interest in Receiving
Different Dimensions of Organizational Support for Participation in Community
Food Security-Focused Programs

Objective 4a: To identify Florida Extension agents' levels of interest in receiving
different dimensions of organizational support for participation in community
food security-focused programs

The researcher used a series of five indices to describe the types of support

respondents would like to receive for educational programming that addresses the CFS

component. The researcher measured the levels of interest in the support on a four-point

scale, where one indicated not at all interested and four indicated very interested. There

were six dimensions of organizational support in the index: professional development

opportunities, time, financial support, the availability of specialist support,

acknowledgement in performance appraisals, and an established curriculum. The

researcher developed these dimensions of organizational support with an extension

professional with an extensive background in extension education and educational

programs.

Objective 4b: To compare Florida Extension agents' interest levels in organizational
dimensions of support based on demographic characteristics

The researcher used the demographic characteristics to compare respondents'

interest levels by extension agent characteristics. The researcher examined each

dimension of organizational support separately, based on respondent demographic

characteristics.









Objective 5: To Identify and Describe Florida Extension Agents' Current Levels of
Participation in Community Food Security-Focused Programs

The questionnaire prompted respondents to indicate in which types of CFS-focused

programs they had participated in the last year. The question was in a 'select all that

apply' format. The types of programs foci listed were:

* Food-access issues
* Food-safety issues
* Nutrition issues
* Sustainable agriculture issues
* Cultural aspects of the food system
* Social justice issues
* Local food system issues
* None of the above

Respondents were able to check each of the program types in which they had

participated in the last year.

Respondent Data Collection

The researcher used a web-based program called Zoomerang to distribute the

questionnaire to the respondents. The researcher chose this method because of its low

cost, dynamic interaction possibilities, uncomplicated distribution, and ease of return for

recipients. These aspects outweighed the limitations of this method, as discussed by

Dillman (2000): respondents may not have a computer, respondents may not have

internet access, and respondents may not feel confident enough in their abilities to work

on a computer to take an internet questionnaire. The researcher decided that most

extension agents would have access to a computer and internet connection at their place

of work.

The researcher conducted a pilot test with the final draft of the instrument. Ary et

al. (2002) stated that pilot studies can "help the researcher to decide whether the study is









feasible and whether it is worthwhile to continue. It provides an opportunity to assess the

appropriateness and practicality of the research methodology" (p. 111). The researcher

sent a link to the instrument in an email. The respondents for the pilot test consisted of

eight extension agents from Cornell Cooperative Extension in New York and 15

extension agents from Pennsylvania Extension. The researcher made minimal changes to

the instrument based on the feedback of the pilot study participants.

The researcher performed the data collection procedures as suggested by Dillman

(2000). The first step in the data collection process was a pre-notice postcard. The

researcher sent the postcard to the study's population through the mail. The postcard

notified the recipients that they would receive a questionnaire via email in the next few

days. The researcher hand-addressed the postcards for each recipient. The postcards had

the same textual information typed onto each card. The postcard also contained the

researcher's and Dr. Nick Place's (supervisor) signatures and contact information for

questions. The goal of the postcard was to notify the recipients that they were going to

receive an email with a web-link to the questionnaire and to encourage them to

participate. The goal was also to prevent recipients from deleting the email without

looking at the content (Appendix C).

The researcher emailed the questionnaire to the population one week after the

postcard. The researcher grouped the emails by county, so the only recipients' names in

the emails were coworkers in the same county. The email explained how to link to the

questionnaire and provided the researcher's contact information for questions or technical

issues (Appendix D). The researcher sent out a reminder email with the link and contact

information one week after the initial email had been sent. The researcher only sent the









reminder email to those who had not yet responded to the questionnaire (Appendix E).

Finally, the researcher sent a third email to remaining non-respondents one and a half

weeks after the second email. The researcher addressed the third email by county, like

the second email. This email used the names of the recipients in the greeting of the

message. It also contained the link to the questionnaire and the researchers' contact

information (Appendix F).

Data Analysis Procedures

The researcher analyzed the first objective using a point scale designated for each

knowledge-based question a priori. The researcher assigned one point for each question

that was knowledge-based, two points for each question that was understanding-based,

and three points for each question that was application-based. The exception to this was

with the question that had a 'select all that apply' format. There were seven correct

answers possible. Respondents scored one point if they selected between one and three

of the correct answers. They scored three points if they selected between four and seven

of the correct answers. The resulting score range was zero points for all incorrect

answers to 19 points for all completely correct answers.

The researcher analyzed the second objective using a summated scale score since

the Likert scale was designed to measure a single construct. A summated scale score is

achieved by summing the responses for the Likert scale for each respondent. The

researcher summed the scores after recoding the directionality of each corresponding

statement for uniformity. The researcher calculated the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for

the scale in order to determine the reliability and internal consistency of the scale.

Reliability is defined as "the extent to which different operationalizations of the same

concept produce consistent results" (Knoke et al., 2004, p. 13). A scale is reliable if the









alpha score is .70 or higher (Sweet & Grace-Martin, 2003). In addition, the researcher

used correlations to describe relationships between the variables in the first and second

objectives. The analyses included Pearson's correlations, one-way ANOVA, and t-tests.

The researcher analyzed the questions relating to the second and third objectives

using scores obtained through a summary of mean responses to questions focused on

similar constructs. The researcher sorted the questions into the categories 'relevance of

CFS in county' and 'current levels of organizational support.' The researcher calculated

basic descriptive statistics to fulfill the descriptive nature of these two objectives. The

researcher then used independent t-tests and ANOVAs to compare means between

extension agent groups. This fulfilled the sub-objectives for each of these main

objectives.

The researcher calculated a summary of mean responses to questions regarding

personal interest in receiving each of the six dimensions of organizational support. Basic

descriptive statistics described extension agents' interest levels as a population and by

demographic group. This fulfilled the fourth objective for this study. The researcher

used independent t-tests and ANOVAs to compare groups interest level means for each

dimension of organizational support. This fulfilled the second sub-objective for the

fourth objective.

The researcher addressed the fifth objective for this study by describing

participation or non-participation in the CFS-focused groups using basic descriptive

statistics. The researcher provided more insight in the participation by using chi-square

tests to identify associations between participation in the different types of programs and

extension agent characteristics.









Finally, the researcher addressed the sixth objective in this study by calculating

Pearson correlation coefficients and performing additional independent t-tests to explore

correlations and relationships between the dependent variables in this study.

Nonresponse Error

Dillman (2000) describes nonresponse error as the possibility that those who do not

respond to a survey or do not provide usable responses differ from those who do respond

and provide usable responses. Lindner, Murphy, and Briers (2001) cite five generally

accepted, possible procedures for addressing nonresponse error. These are: "ignore

nonrespondents, compare respondents to population, compare respondents to non-

respondents, [and] compare early respondents to late respondents" (Lindner et al., 2001,

p. 44). For the purposes of this study, the researcher decided it would be appropriate to

utilize the fourth of these recommended procedures and compare the early to the late

respondents in this study. In order to avoid a threat to the external validity of this study,

the researcher used extrapolation methods. These methods assume that late responders

are similar to nonresponders (Lindner et al., 2001). For the purpose of this study, the

researcher defined 'late responders' as those who responded to the last wave of reminder

emails and 'early responders' as those who responded to the first wave of emails, as

suggested by Lindner et al. (2001). Ninety-six respondents completed questionnaires

after the first wave email, an additional 41 respondents completed questionnaires after the

second wave email, and 64 respondents completed questionnaires after the third wave

email. The researcher divided the respondents into two groups of 30 for comparison

purposes.

The researcher first used independent t-tests to compare the late responders with the

early responders on variables of interest. Specifically, the researcher examined the









groups in terms of knowledge score means and summated scale scores for the Likert scale

in the survey. The t-tests failed to provide evidence that the groups differed in their

means in either case (a=.05). Second, the researcher examined the early and late

respondents in terms of characteristics. The researcher used the chi-square statistical

significance test to determine whether the early and late respondents were different in

terms of gender, rank, CED status, time spent with their current county, district, or

program focus. In each case, the chi-square statistic did not provide evidence of an

association with one group or the other. In light of these results, the researcher felt

confident in the external validity of this study.

Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the construction of each component of the

instrument used in this study. The chapter also explained how the instrument served to

describe or measure each of the six objectives for this study. In addition, the chapter

served to explain how the respondents were selected, contacted, and how the instrument

was distributed to them. Finally, this chapter served to address how the researcher

planned for data analysis for each component of the questionnaire, as well as how the

researcher accounted for nonresponse error in this study. The following chapter will

serve to provide specific information on data analysis procedures and results. These

results will be discussed in Chapter Four.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Although there are many possibilities for extension programs and collaboration

with other organizations, Florida Extension employs methods such as needs assessments

and extension agent professional development to utilize its resources in the best, most

effective way possible. It is for this reason that it is important to discover and describe

Florida Extension agents' knowledge of possible areas for collaboration, their perceptions

of community needs, and their perceptions of organizational support to address those

needs. The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge and perceptions of

Florida Extension agents regarding community food security. This chapter provides the

comprehensive results of the study in order to describe Florida Extension agents'

knowledge and perceptions of CFS. The chapter presents the results within the six study

objectives.

Population

The researcher collected demographic characteristics from the extension agents in

Florida to provide a portrait of the population. The researcher sent the questionnaire to

324 Florida Extension agents. A total of 201 respondents successfully completed and

submitted the online questionnaire, for a response rate of 62%. This group and their

demographic characteristics are in Table 4-1. Of these respondents, 66% were female

and 34% were male. The questionnaire prompted respondents to report their rank as an

extension agent and whether or not they were also a county extension director (CED).

The largest group reported having the rank of Agent I (33% of all respondents), while the









second largest group reported having the rank of Agent IV (28% of all respondents).

Five respondents indicated that they had a rank other than the four ranks offered as

answer options. Nineteen percent of respondents indicated that they were currently a

CED in their county.

The questionnaire also prompted respondents to indicate both the amount of time

they have spent with their current county and the time they have spent with extension

overall. The researcher eliminated the question asking about time spent overall for data

analysis purposes, since in most cases the respondents indicated the same option for time

with current county and time spent overall. The researcher used the question regarding

the time they have spent with their current county in data analysis. The largest of these

groups reported that they have been with extension in their current county for two to five

years (37% of all respondents). The next largest group reported that they had been with

their county for more than 15 years (24% of all respondents).

Finally, the questionnaire prompted respondents to indicate their program focus and

the county in which they served. Twenty-eight percent of respondents indicated that their

program focus was agriculture. No respondents indicated that their program focus was

energy and two respondents indicated that their program focus was community

development. The researcher combined these two groups with the group that indicated

'other' for their program focus for data analysis purposes. This group constituted 7.5%

of all respondents. Similarly, the researcher also reduced reported counties into the five

districts in which they are categorized. The researcher created a sixth category for those

who reported working more than one district's counties. This final category was 3% of

the population.









Table 4-1. Demographic profile of Florida Extension agent respondents, Florida, 2006.
Characteristic Frequency Percent

Gender
Male 68 33.8
Female 133 66.2

Rank
Agent I 67 33.3
Agent II 47 23.4
Agent III 27 13.4
Agent IV 55 27.4
Other 5 2.5

CED 38 18.9

Time with Current County
Less than one year 23 11.4
2-5 years 74 36.8
6-10 years 42 20.9
11-15 years 13 6.5
More than 15 years 49 24.4

Program Focus
Agriculture 57 28.4
Natural Resources 5 2.5
Urban Horticulture 31 15.4
Family & Consumer 44 21.9
Sciences
4-H 40 19.9
Sea grant 9 4.5
Other 15 7.5

District
Northwest 39 19.4
Northeast 39 19.4
Central 45 22.4
South Central 44 21.9
South 28 13.9
More than one District 6 3.0









Objectives

Objective 1: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Levels of Knowledge Regarding
Community Food Security

Objective la: To describe Florida Extension agents' level of knowledge regarding
community food security

The questionnaire included a standardized knowledge test to determine Florida

Extension agents' knowledge levels of CFS, as determined by a panel of experts. The

level of difficulty of questions served as the basis for the scoring system. The score

range was zero points if none were correct, to 19 points if all questions were answered

completely correctly. No respondents received a zero for none correct or a score of 19

for perfect responses. The score range for the population was between 1 and 17 points.

The overall population had a mean score of 9.49 with a standard deviation of 3.38. The

scores are reported by population and by demographic group in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2. Florida Extension agents' knowledge scores* descriptive statistics, Florida,
2006.
Group n Mean S.D. Range
Min Max

Overall Population 201 9.49 3.38 1.00 17.00

Gender
Male 68 9.05 3.23 3.00 17.00
Female 133 9.73 3.44 1.00 16.00

Rank
Agent I 67 10.04 3.43 4.00 17.00
Agent II 47 9.74 3.43 1.00 16.00
Agent III 27 9.48 3.20 4.00 15.00
Agent IV 55 8.56 3.26 2.00 16.00
Other 5 9.80 3.77 4.00 14.00

CED
Yes 38 8.66 3.51 3.00 15.00
No 163 9.68 3.33 1.00 17.00
*Scores on a scale of zero points for all incorrect to 19 points for all perfect responses









Table 4-2. Continued.
Group n Mean S.D. Range
Min Max
Time in Current County
< 1 year 23 10.00 2.69 5.00 15.00
2-5 years 74 10.62 3.42 4.00 17.00
6-10 years 42 8.50 3.14 1.00 15.00
11-15 years 13 7.54 2.60 4.00 13.00
> 15 years 49 8.90 3.46 2.00 16.00

Program Focus
Agriculture 57 9.70 3.18 4.00 17.00
Natural Resources 5 10.00 4.06 4.00 15.00
Urban Horticulture 31 9.93 2.73 4.00 15.00
Family & Consumer 44 9.43 3.26 1.00 14.00
Sciences
4-H 40 9.26 3.80 3.00 16.00
Sea Grant 9 9.11 5.13 3.00 16.00
Other 15 8.66 3.50 4.00 15.00

District
Northwest 39 9.82 3.16 4.00 15.00
Northeast 39 11.36 3.06 4.00 17.00
Central 45 8.24 2.96 1.00 14.00
South Central 44 8.68 3.42 2.00 15.00
South 28 9.78 3.69 4.00 16.00
>1 District 6 9.00 3.10 3.00 12.00
*Scores on a scale of zero points for all incorrect to 19 points for all perfect responses

Objective Ib: To compare knowledge levels among groups of Florida Extension
agents based on demographic characteristics

The researcher compared the knowledge score means of extension agent groups

using one-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests. The researcher used

histograms for the knowledge scores to check for normal distribution before performing

the ANOVA and t-tests. The researcher performed Levene's homogeneity of variance to

meet the assumption of equality of variance for ANOVA. In addition, the researcher

assumed that the groups being compared were independent.









The ANOVA comparing knowledge scores showed that there was evidence of a

statistically significant difference among districts (P=.001; a=.05). The researcher

calculated Eta2 to show that district accounted for 10.6% of the variance in knowledge

scores among Florida Extension agents (Table 4-3). In addition, the Duncan post hoc test

identified differences in subset groups. The test revealed two homogeneous subsets at the

.05 level. The first group consisted of the Northwest, Central, South Central, and South

Districts. The second homogenous subset consisted of The Northwest, Northeast and

South Districts.

Table 4-3. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agent knowledge scores by
district, Florida, 2006.
Source df SS MS Eta2 F P

Between 5 242.930 48.59 4.64 .001
Within 195 2041.289 10.46
Totals 200 2284.216 .106

The ANOVA comparing mean knowledge scores between the groups reporting

their time spent in their current county showed evidence of significance at the .05 level

(P=.001). The Eta2 showed that the extension agents' reported time spent with their

current county accounted for about 9% of the variance in knowledge scores (Table 4-4).

In this case, the Duncan post hoc test revealed three separate homogeneous subset groups

at the .05 level. The first group consisted of those who had spent 6-10 years with their

current county, those who had spent 11-15 years with their current county, and those who

had spent more than 15 years with their current county. The second subset included those

who had spent less than one year, those who had spent 6-10 years and those who had

spent more than 15 years with their current county. The third subset included those who









had spend less than one year, those who had spent 2-5 years and those who had spent

more than 15 years with their current county.

Table 4-4. One-way analysis of variance of Florida Extension agents' knowledge scores
by time spent in current county, Florida, 2006.
Source df SS MS Eta2 F P

Between 4 208.593 52.15 4.92 .001
Within 196 2075.626 10.59
Totals 200 2284.219 .091

Objective 2: To Identify Florida Extension Agents' Perceptions of Community Food
Security in Their Respective Counties

Objective 2a: To describe Florida Extension agents' perceptions of community food
security in their respective counties

The researcher generated two scores to describe Florida Extension agents'

perceptions about CFS. The first was a summated score derived from the Likert scale.

The scale consisted of both negatively and positively phrased statements. Each statement

had answer options that were presented on a scale of one to five, where one indicated

strongly disagree and five indicated strongly agree. The researcher recorded the items so

they all were positive. Once the responses were recorded, the researcher performed a

reliability analysis using the 13 items on the scale. The Cronbach's alpha for the scale

was .545. If one were to remove the second, eighth, eleventh, and thirteenth items from

the scale, there would be nine items remaining with a Cronbach's alpha of .617.

The researcher gave each respondent a summated score by summing their

responses. The scores could range from 13, which would indicate all strongly negative

responses and 65 which would indicate all strongly positive responses. There was an

overall mean score of 37.38 with a standard deviation of 5.00. No respondents had a

summated score of 13 or 65. The minimum score was 24 and the maximum score was 48

(Table 4-5).









Table 4-5. Florida Extension agents' community food security Likert summated scores*,
Florida, 2006.
Group n Mean S.D. Range
Min Max

Overall Population 201 37.38 5.00 24.00 48.00

Gender
Male 68 38.53 5.16 25.00 48.00
Female 133 36.79 4.83 24.00 47.00

Rank
Agent I 67 36.61 5.02 24.00 46.00
Agent II 47 37.87 5.40 28.00 48.00
Agent III 27 37.78 3.77 33.00 45.00
Agent IV 55 37.56 5.16 25.00 47.00
Other 5 38.80 5.72 34.00 45.00

CED 38 38.34 4.21 29.00 46.00
Non-CED 163 37.15 5.16 24.00 48.00

Time in Current County
< 1 year 23 37.49 4.31 28.00 45.00
2-5 years 74 36.97 5.34 24.00 47.00
6-10 years 42 37.54 4.69 27.00 48.00
11-15 years 13 38.23 4.76 32.00 48.00
> 15 years 49 37.57 5.25 25.00 47.00

Program Focus
Agriculture 57 38.54 4.64 28.00 48.00
Natural Resources 5 33.20 2.95 29.00 37.00
Urban Horticulture 31 38.06 4.93 24.00 46.00
Family& Consumer 44 36.50 4.90 25.00 45.00
4-H 40 36.10 4.91 26.00 46.00
Sea Grant 9 36.44 5.57 26.00 45.00
Other 15 39.47 5.78 30.00 48.00

District
Northwest 39 38.79 4.40 27.00 47.00
Northeast 39 37.90 4.49 26.00 45.00
Central 45 35.84 5.60 26.00 48.00
South Central 44 37.23 5.03 25.00 47.00
South 28 37.53 5.25 24.00 48.00
>1 District 6 36.67 4.46 33.00 45.00
*Likert summated scales measured on a scale of 13 (strongly negative attitudes) to 65
(strongly positive attitude) regarding community food security in respondents' counties.









The second method for describing Florida Extension agents' perceptions of CFS in

their counties was a series of indices. Each index prompted the respondent to indicate the

level of relevance or irrelevance of each of five dimensions of CFS in their counties.

These dimensions were the same as those represented in the Likert scale: food access,

food safety, nutrition, sustainable agriculture, and local food systems. Each dimension

had a corresponding four point scale where one indicated not at all relevant and four

indicated very relevant. The researcher calculated each respondent's mean response to

each of these questions to reduce the data to one score that was representative of their

perceptions of the relevance or irrelevance of CFS issues in their county (Table 4-6). The

general population had a mean response of 3.053 with a standard deviation of .573.

Table 4-6. Florida Extension agents' mean response for questions regarding the
relevance of community food security in their counties, Florida, 2006.
Group n Mean* S.D.

Overall Population 201 3.053 .573

Gender
Male 68 2.882 .639
Female 133 3.141 .516

Rank
Agent I 67 3.044 .504
Agent II 47 3.076 .523
Agent III 27 3.185 .576
Agent IV 55 2.978 .680
Other 5 3.080 .657

CED
Yes 38 3.057 .659
No 163 3.052 .553
*Response options were 1 not at all relevant, 2 a little relevant, 3 somewhat relevant, and
4 very relevant.









Table 4-6. Continued.
Group n Mean* S.D.
Time in Current County
< year 23 3.130 .437
2-5 years 74 3.089 .547
6-10 years 42 3.061 .540
11-15 years 13 3.092 .646
> 15 years 49 2.946 .673

Program Focus
Agriculture 57 2.950 .587
Natural resources 5 2.720 .521
Urban horticulture 31 3.032 .529
Family & Consumer 44 3.304 .468
Sciences
4-H 40 3.005 .539
Sea Grant 9 2.622 .674
Other 15 3.240 .669

District
Northwest 39 3.031 .590
Northeast 39 3.051 .546
Central 45 3.037 .624
South Central 44 3.072 .518
South 28 3.121 .574
>1 District 6 2.900 .787
*Response options were 1 not at all relevant, 2 a little relevant, 3 somewhat relevant, and
4 very relevant.

Objective 2b: To compare Florida Extension agents' perceptions of community food
security in their county based on demographic characteristics

The researcher compared the Likert summated scores of Extension agent groups

using one-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests. The researcher used

histograms for the summated scores to check for normal distribution before performing

the ANOVA and t-tests. The researcher performed Levene's homogeneity of variance

test to meet the assumption of equality of variance for ANOVA. In addition, the

researcher assumed that the groups being compared were independent.