Thesis - Chapter 3 - Methodology

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

            A research project with the goal of fully measuring a community’s sustainability would be an exceedingly complex and difficult project to undertake, considering that viable and broadly agreed-upon measures of sustainability do not presently exist.  Also, any project endeavoring to engage in such a study would have to look at many different aspects of a community’s existence over a long duration.  Thus, I chose to look more closely at two aspects of Amish life that presumably affect the community’s sustainability: general ecological beliefs and agricultural practices, arguably the Amish community’s most visible and significant impact on the landscape.  The ecological beliefs being measured are so-called “‘primitive beliefs’ … about the nature of the Earth and humanity’s relationship with it” (Dunlap et al., 1992, p. 4).  These general beliefs are thought to be “causally antecedent” to more specific beliefs and intentions that lead to particular actions relating to the environment (Stern et al., 1995, p. 726).

Site Selection

            In order to assess whether the Old Order Amish practice more sustainable agriculture and/or have stronger ecological beliefs than their neighbors, a particular study area was chosen upon which to focus.  Kishacoquillas Valley (Kish Valley, for short), located in Mifflin County, Pa., is the home of an old and diverse Amish community.[1]  Kish Valley was first settled by Amish migrants in 1791, making it one of the oldest Amish communities in the United States (Kauffman, 1991).  Over the years, modernization, conversions, and differences in belief led to the formation of a number of new religious groups, both Mennonite and Amish.  Presently, three distinct groups of Old Order Amish reside in the valley, alongside a number of other Anabaptist groups, both Amish and Mennonite.

            The Kish Valley is part of the Ridge and Valley region of central Pennsylvania.  It is a discrete watershed of the Kishacoquillas Creek, itself a tributary of the Juniata River, all of which is part of the larger Susquehanna River Basin.  The valley lies between the parallel, northeast-running ridges of Jacks Mountain, on the northwest, and Stone Mountain, on the southeast.  The Kish Valley runs approximately 30 miles in length, and its width varies from two to five miles between ridges.  As such, the valley’s geography provides clear physical boundaries by which to define the present study area.

            Kish Valley’s physical separation from the “outside world” suits its plain inhabitants.  The ensuing social isolation allows the Amish of Kish Valley to live more private lives than, for instance, the Amish of Lancaster County, Pa., since Lancaster County is a highly suburbanized area and popular tourist destination.  Thus the Amish of Kish Valley are perhaps not too representative of all Amish communities.  However, in this era of rapid Amish growth and new settlement formation, one would be hard pressed to define any Amish community as the ultimate example of Amish life in the late 20th century.

Sample Development

Sample Group Selection Process

In order to test whether religion impacts one’s environmental beliefs and behaviors, I interviewed farmers in Kish Valley from each of four religious groups: Renno Church Amish, Nebraska Church Amish, Mennonite, and non-Amish/Mennonite (referred to here as the “English,” the Amish term for all English-speaking Americans).

            As mentioned above, the Kish Valley is home to a wide variety of Amish and Mennonite groups, including three Old Order Amish groups: the “Old Church,” or Byler Church, the “Old School,” or Nebraska Church, and the Renno Church.  Each group is identified most clearly by the color of the top of their buggies: the Byler Church drives yellow top buggies, the Nebraska Church drives white top buggies, and the Renno Church drives the more common black top buggies.  Other differences between these groups may be observed, notably the wearing of suspenders (Byler and Renno Church men wear only one suspender, Nebraska Church men wear none) but most are not readily apparent to the outsider.

            Some differences are crucial to this study, however.  The Nebraska Church is commonly thought to be one of the most conservative Amish groups in the country in terms of the church’s attitude towards change, new technology, and involvement with the outside world.  Indeed, in terms of agricultural technology, the Nebraska Church has resisted many changes that other Old Order groups have made over the years.  Nebraska farmers still milk by hand, cool milk with ice, use hay loaders or stationary hay balers, and refuse to own or use tractors in any form.  Thus, on a spectrum of the acceptance of modern technology by Old Order Amish, the Nebraska Church represents the low-technology end, which is why they were selected as one of the study groups. 

            It should be noted, however, that the Nebraska Church itself is divided into four distinct subgroups.  Differences between these subgroups range from the subtle (presence or absence of roof projections) to the great (cooling milk with ice versus diesel-powered bulk tanks).  The two progressive subgroups that allow bulk tanks and pick-up hay balers broke off of the two major subgroups within the last 15 years.  Although this variation would seem to warrant distinguishing among these subgroups in the sample development process, it was nearly impossible to identify which subgroup a family belonged to before actually visiting the farm.  Therefore, all four subgroups were included in the pool from which I drew the sample.  Since the majority of Nebraska farmers continue the traditional ways, however, this did not significantly affect the sample.

            The selection of the Renno Church as the other Amish study group was predicated on their being the larger of the two less conservative Old Order groups in the valley, as well as the most typical, in comparison with Amish communities elsewhere.  Unlike the Nebraska Church, Renno farmers accept more modern technologies such as diesel-powered milk coolers, pick-up hay balers, and the use of tractors around the barn.[2]  However, Renno farmers also milk by hand and refuse to use tractors in the field.

            Craumer (1979), in his study of the energy efficiency of Amish farming in Kish Valley, looked at the Renno Church and the Nebraska Church separately, since they represented two poles of openness to modern farming.  “The Rennos are more open to modern farming methods, and generally have adopted the most up to date methods which their Ordnung (church rules) permits,” he writes (Craumer, 1979, p. 283).  As for the Byler Church, he notes, “this group is not discernibly different agriculturally from the Rennos” (Craumer, 1977, p. 37).  In fact, in his study, he combines the Renno and Byler Churches as one study group, claiming that together they form a “distinct agricultural system” (p. 40).

            I had originally planned to sample only members of the Renno Church, rather than combining them with the Byler Church as Craumer did, in case any differences had arisen over the past 20 years.  In fact, such differences have arisen.  Between seven and 10 years ago, members of the Byler Church began to add bulk milk tanks to their dairy operations, switching from the traditional system of using milk cans for storage and transport.  About three years ago, some Byler Church dairy farmers began to use milking machines, rather than milk by hand as do all of the other Kish Valley Old Order Amish.  These two changes have allowed them to sell their milk as fluid Grade A, whereas other Kish Valley Amish still sell their milk as Grade B for processing (cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese, etc.).  With the larger amount of income that Grade A brings, Byler Church farmers also began to increase their dairy herds, up from 15-25 to 30-40.  While extremely progressive in terms of the Kish Valley, the Byler Church farmers who have accepted modern farming techniques are simply catching up to technology used by the Lancaster County Old Order Amish since the 1950s (mechanical milking machines) and the 1970s (bulk milk tanks) (Kraybill, 1989, p. 186).

            These major changes did not meet everyone’s approval, however.  One bishop in the Byler Church was concerned with and opposed to the rapid pace of change.  His disapproval resulted in the formation of a new church district, with those families who supported the bishop leaving the other two districts.  The new church district remains in close contact with the Renno Church, which also remains more traditional, having not yet accepted bulk milk tanks or milking machines.  However, I did not include the newly-formed district of the Byler Church in the Renno sample.

            If I would have been aware of this information before I began my research I may have decided to study the Byler Church farmers, since they represent a more liberal Amish position than the Renno Church.  However, the reality of numbers would have remained an important issue: the Renno Church includes seven church districts, 54 farmers, and 1,051 members of the community (including children, who are technically not church members), while the Byler Church (not counting the dissenting district) includes only two church districts, 15 farmers, and 270 members (also including children).  The total number of Byler Church farmers is smaller than the Renno Church sample, and the cumulative impact of the Byler Church farmers is clearly much smaller overall.  However, even though I did not specifically study the Byler Church farmers, the qualitative data that were gathered indicate that their agricultural practices are even more modern than the Renno Church.  I leave a more thorough assessment of the Byler Church to the next researcher.

            Mennonites in Kish Valley share a common origin with the Amish (as Anabaptist members of the radical Reformation in Europe) as well as a more recent common history (all Kish Valley Mennonite churches began as progressive developments of Amish church districts) (Kauffman, 1991).  Yet the non-plain Mennonites no longer practice the strict separation from the world as the Amish do, nor do they maintain group conformity through strict ethical codes such as the Amish Ordnung.  They both still claim connection to the same historical confessions of faith, the Schleitheim and Dordrecht Confessions (written in 1527 and 1632, respectively), as well as to the Martyrs’ Mirror, a book of great symbolic importance describing the faithfulness of the Anabaptist ancestors in the face of persecution.  Mennonites believe in the original tenets of Anabaptism (e.g. practicing nonresistance, avoiding the swearing of oaths, living simply, and serving others in the name of Jesus Christ) as do the Amish, but the gradual assimilation of non-plain Mennonites into the modern world over the past few decades has resulted in both a Nebraska Amish bishop and the Mifflin County Mapping Specialist expressing the sentiment, “There’s not much difference between the Mennonites and the Lutherans, is there?”  Thus, while Mennonites in Kish Valley consider themselves to be relatively close kin to the Amish (and in many cases, they truly are close kin), the outside world, and even the Amish, consider Mennonites to be more similar to Protestants than to the Amish.

            Including non-plain Mennonites in this study as a separate group is meant to demonstrate the impact of one particular aspect of religion that may have an effect in motivating sustainability – namely, the ethical code embodied in the Ordnung.  The Ordnung, which modern Mennonites lack, guides Amish community members in their behavior.  The rules in the Ordnung are meant to maintain and perpetuate the unity of the Amish community.  In contrast, modern church communities, including Mennonites, are hesitant to challenge the rights of the individual or to set up any rigid rules to which church members must adhere.  Without the clear code of rules and system of enforcement, Mennonite church members adopt more of the outside world’s practices and behaviors, and look less like the Amish.  Thus any observed differences between the Amish and Mennonite groups in this study may be explained, at least in part, by the presence or absence of the Ordnung, a significant cultural component of religious practice, rather than by differences in religious beliefs, per se.  This will be discussed further in Chapter V.

            The final group in the study are “English” farmers.  This group will serve as the experimental control, since they are the group most representative of modern American society.  Sharing a common geography, social setting, and occupation with the Amish and Mennonites, the English sample’s main differences, as a group, are religious and ethnic.  While most of the English who originally settled in Kish Valley are of Scotch-Irish descent (and the Amish and Mennonites are Swiss-German), not all of the present “English” group would necessarily be of the same ethnicity.  Also, hundreds of years of living in the United States has transferred much of the ethnic identification of these descendants of European immigrants from their former homelands to a general American identity.

Developing the Random Sample

To randomly sample Kish Valley farmers from the four groups noted above, I first needed to develop the larger pools from which to choose.  Using the boundaries of Kish Valley as a guide, I censused all agricultural land between Jacks and Stone mountains.  The study area encompassed five townships in two counties, from Brady Township in Huntingdon County at the far southwest end of the valley down through Menno, Union, Brown, and Armagh Townships in Mifflin County.  Using tax parcel information, I developed an initial list of all owners of agricultural parcels by township.  Next, with the aid of Mennonite church directories, a local Old Order Amish directory, and informants familiar with local farmers, I began to determine whether each parcel was being actively farmed and, if so, the actual farm operator of each parcel and his or her church affiliation.  Phone directories also proved helpful in determining which landowners had telephones and thus were unlikely to be Amish (since they disallow phones in the home), and in providing the addresses of those landowners.  Landowners not in the phone book who also had a surname found in the local Amish community were initially presumed to be Amish.  Finally, I double-checked the information against a mapped census of Amish farms that had been performed the previous summer by an intern in the Mifflin County Mapping Specialist’s office, and finalized the lists of active farmers by religious group.  I then transferred this information to parcel maps for a visual display of the distribution of Kish Valley farmers by religious group; the maps were also useful in helping me locate each potential subject.

            For each of the four groups selected for study (Renno Church Amish, Nebraska Church Amish, Mennonite, and English), I developed an alphabetical list of all the farmers in the group and assigned each farmer a number.  Using the spreadsheet program Paradox, I randomly selected 30 to 50 numbers for each group.  From the first 20 numbers for each group, I developed a list of corresponding subjects to contact and interview.  If any of the subjects either were not farming or were unwilling to participate in the study, the extra numbers were used to select replacements.

            As Figure 2 shows, the distribution of the sample farms was well dispersed geographically.  The Mennonite and Renno Church Amish farms lie predominantly in Menno and Union Townships, while most English farms are found in Brown and Armagh Townships.  The Nebraska Church Amish farms in the sample are found solely in Brown and Armagh Townships.  A few Renno Church Amish live in Brown Township and a few Nebraska Church Amish live in Union Township (none of whom were interviewed), but for the most part there is very little geographical overlap between these two groups.

Questionnaire Development

Agricultural Practices

            For the measurement of ecological behavior, I wanted to study the general overall agricultural practices of Amish farmers rather than only focusing on one specific agricultural impact such as soil fertility or water pollution.  To this end I used a questionnaire that was produced by a group of researchers at St. Lawrence University for a study of Amish farmers in New York (Blake et al., 1997).  The researchers assessed farm size, diversity (crop types, animals on the farm), soil fertility (crop rotation and fertilizers), pest control (herbicides and insecticides), and connection to the larger world (sources of agricultural information and products marketed).  The primary goal of their research was to see whether Amish farming exemplified “ecological agriculture” or whether it was becoming more like the modern agribusiness model.  By using the same questionnaire, the two studies can be easily compared.  A comparison of two Amish settlements, one very young (New York) and one quite old (Kish Valley), could add important knowledge to the overall study of modern Amish farming.  The complete agricultural questionnaire is in Appendix A.

            The items included in the questionnaire are meant to assess the sample groups’ adherence to ecological agriculture, which “ultimately attempts to achieve a diverse, healthy, and productive ecosystem in which biological processes and cycles dominate” (Blake et al., 1997, p. 143).  Beus and Dunlap (1990) prefer the term “alternative agriculture” to describe a variety of farming styles (including organic, sustainable, and ecological agriculture) that share both a common critique of “conventional agriculture” and an underlying philosophy of independence, decentralization, community, harmony with nature, diversity, and restraint (see Table 1 in Beus and Dunlap, 1990, pp. 598-599). In follow-up research studying female alternative farmers, Chiappe and Flora (1998) added the elements of quality family life and spirituality to those listed in the Beus and Dunlap paradigm.  The “alternative agriculture” paradigm will be consulted initially in assessing the results of this questionnaire.  Since this paradigm involves many items and is somewhat difficult to operationalize, however, Gardner et al.’s (1995) “operational measures of agricultural sustainability” will serve as a guide as well (p. 58).  These measures are based on three key principles: reduction of synthetic chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, and energy), use of “positive practices” (crop diversity and rotations, and livestock diversity), and personal “commitment to the values and goals of increased sustainability” (rather than temporary adoption of sustainable practices for economic reasons, for example) (Gardner et al., 1995, p. 65).  The first two principles are directly measured by the selected questionnaire, while the “commitment” item is measured more indirectly in the present study.

General Ecological Beliefs: New Environmental Paradigm Scale

            In order to measure general ecological beliefs, I decided to use an existing survey rather than develop my own questionnaire.  The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale, developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978), is a 12-statement survey that asks respondents to agree or disagree with each statement using a four point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree, Mildly Disagree, Mildly Agree, Strongly Agree).[3]  The scale assesses general ecological beliefs regarding the human-nature relationship, rather than awareness of specific contemporary environmental issues.

            The NEP scale is reputedly “the most frequently used measure of public environmental concern” over the past 20 years (Stern et al., 1995, p. 724).  Approximately 30 studies have used the NEP scale to compare the environmental attitudes of different groups: environmentalists and the general public in Washington state (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978), farmers and urbanites in Iowa (Albrecht et al., 1982), citizens of different countries (Estonia, Latvia, and Sweden; United States and Japan; United States and Canada) (Gooch, 1995; Pierce et al., 1987; Steger et al., 1989), ethnic groups (African-Americans and Latinos) and Whites (Caron, 1989; Noe and Snow, 1990a), and the same population after adverse environmental experiences (drought, water shortages) (Arcury and Christianson, 1990).  Additionally, the scale is often cross-tested with other measures of environmental behavior (e.g. recycling, writing letters on policy issues, willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly food) to see whether the NEP is able to predict positive ecological behavior.  The scale has been tested thoroughly for reliability and dimensionality (Albrecht et al., 1982; Geller and Lasley, 1985; Noe and Snow, 1990b), and has been analyzed by respondent characteristics to see whether education, income, or gender, for example, influence one’s NEP responses (Tarrant and Cordell, 1997).

            Although it is 20 years old, the original NEP continues to be used in contemporary studies, with some updating at times, particularly in terms of inclusive language.  However, the creators of the original NEP have reworked the scale into the New Ecological Paradigm scale, both to update the original and to improve on some of its noted weaknesses (Dunlap et al., 1992).  The new scale consists of 15 statements, six of which are taken almost directly from the original scale.  The new scale is improved over the original in a number of ways: its statements are more balanced in the direction of item wording (whether agreeing or disagreeing with a statement measures a pro-environment attitude) and its content has been updated and broadened (Dunlap et al., 1992, p. 5).  Despite these improvements, the new NEP has yet to be published, although the scale and the study which inaugurated its use were originally presented to the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society in 1992.  Since the new NEP is therefore difficult to locate, nearly all NEP-related studies from 1992 to the present use statements from the original NEP scale. Thus, for the present data to be comparable to other studies using the NEP scale, I thought it best to use the whole of the original version, despite its age and its weaknesses. However, since the new NEP scale included some intriguing new items, I added five of its statements at the end of the original NEP survey (items #6, #8, #10, #14, and #15 from the new NEP).  See Appendix B for both versions of the NEP scale.

Open-Ended Questions

            While the NEP scale purports to measure general ecological beliefs, some researchers have pointed out its cultural foundations in U.S. academia and wondered whether it would validly measure general ecological beliefs in non- or non-typical U.S. cultures (Young, 1998).  Specifically in terms of the Amish, I was concerned that the NEP scale’s assumption of “worldly” knowledge and a certain level of education would leave it unable to fully assess the ecological beliefs of the Amish.  Therefore, I included some open-ended questions that focused on stewardship of the land.  Since it is asserted by some researchers that the Amish believe the maintenance of soil fertility has religious implications (e.g., Place, 1993; Schwieder and Schwieder, 1975), I wanted to test this idea within this particular Amish community.  After realizing that many Amish farmers, for whom English is a second language, did not know the term “stewardship,” I began to ask whether they thought they had a responsibility to take care of the land.  If they agreed, I asked them why they feel that responsibility, or where they think the responsibility comes from.  Finally, I asked them how they carry out that responsibility, or what are some ways they try to take care of the land.

            Also, many non-Amish people know that the Amish live and farm differently from the rest of American society.  But do they know why?  Broad sociological answers that supposedly speak for everyone are unsatisfying.  I wanted to know why the Amish people themselves think they live and farm the way they do, so I asked them this as well.

Interview Process

            The Amish, as a rule, do not keep telephones in their homes.  Therefore, once I had developed a list of farmers to interview, I had to go house to house, trying to find the farmers at home and preferably not out in their fields baling hay.  If the farmer was home, I introduced myself, stated my purpose, and requested an interview.  At times the farmer would agree to be interviewed immediately.  Other times the farmer would set up an appointment.  Most common, however, was a rather vague response stating that he might be willing later on if he’s not too busy.  A considerable number of Amish farmers declined to participate in the study; this was not surprising considering the Amish community’s general attitude of suspicion towards outsiders and its negative attitude towards higher education.  Of 36 Renno Church farmers who were approached about an interview, 20 agreed, for a response rate of 59 percent.  These 20 farmers represent 37 percent of the 54 total Renno Church farmers in Kish Valley.  The response rate for the Nebraska Church was a bit lower – 48 percent, or 16 interviews out of 33 contacted – which also was expected since this group is generally considered to be more resistant to involvement with the outside world.  The 16 farmers interviewed represent 23 percent of the approximately 70 full-time Nebraska Church farmers in Kish Valley.

            Members of both groups were often friendly and willing to talk informally about the farming life, but a number of farmers balked when the prospect of a more official-seeming interview was proposed.  One Renno Church farmer, who was perfectly willing to share about his farming practices to an interested individual, declined when he realized that the information was being gathered for a project that might lead to publicity for his people. Another farmer, this one from the Nebraska Church, expressed annoyance at the idea of giving information to one more researcher without receiving any benefits for his time.

            Members of the Nebraska Church, who were the most resistant overall to participation in the study, appeared to be less busy than were the other farmers.  This coincides with the preliminary research that indicates their farming style is less intensive than those of the other groups.  In fact, it was quite common that Nebraska Church farmers, when approached, would either refuse to participate outright or agree to be interviewed on the spot.  This ability and/or willingness to take time upon the researcher’s random visitation indicates at least a certain flexibility of schedule, if not a lesser degree of busyness.  In contrast, members of the Renno Church often professed busyness as one hindrance to setting up an interview.  While busyness may have simply been a preferred excuse (and/or a passive way of refusing participation), my difficulty in finding Renno Church farmers at home and out of the field supported these verbal assertions.

            Overall, while the response rate was lower than I would have liked (and lower than that noted in other studies of the Amish), the range of data received from those who participated does not appear to indicate that the sample was being biased in a particular direction (wealthier, larger farms, younger farmers, etc.).  Some of the hesitancy to participate in the interviews may have come from an event that had recently brought widespread and unpleasant attention to Amish people all across the United States.  In June, two young Amish men in Lancaster County (who were not yet church members) were arrested for dealing cocaine to other Amish youth.  This event had occurred only a few weeks before my arrival in Pennsylvania; articles, editorials, and cartoons were still appearing in many newspapers in the region.  The general sense of uneasiness this brought to the Amish may have helped make them even more reticent and suspicious of outsiders.

            Another phenomenon regarding the Nebraska Church farmers that added to my difficulty in contacting potential subjects was the fact that many families living on small farms were not actively farming them.  A growing trend among the Nebraska Church is for the men to work at small lumber mills and/or pallet shops that have sprung up all over Kish Valley.  Since the Nebraska Church limits farming technology quite severely, farmers find it increasingly difficult to make a sufficient income.  The men have realized that they can make much more money working full time at a small lumber mill, and this is leading to a major occupational shift within the Nebraska Church.  Of the 48 Nebraska Church farmsteads I visited, 14 of them were being farmed on the side by men who worked full-time off the farm.  Few of these sold milk or other farm products.  What this bodes for the future of the Nebraska Church is unclear, but many church members and outsiders alike are concerned that major changes loom very near.

            The process of interviewing the Mennonite and English subjects, who own telephones, was considerably easier.  I called a potential subject, explained my research, and set up an interview – held at the subject’s home – for a later date.  While some non-Amish farmers were so busy that finding them in the house was a challenge, the use of telephone technology definitely eased the process of interviewing these groups.  Ease of contact, combined with the subjects’ greater openness to outsiders, led to response rates of 91 percent (20 of 22 contacted) for both the Mennonites and English.  These samples make up 47 percent of the 43 total Mennonite farmers in the valley, and 57 percent of the 35 total English farmers in the valley.

            Administering the agricultural practices questionnaire led to some initial difficulties among all groups in terms of identifying specific fertilizers and pesticides used.  A local soil service/fertilizer business performs much of the custom spraying for valley farmers, so the specifics of spray content and amount are not always known.

            Finally, four items relevant to the interview process should be noted.  First, the focus of the study on religion and sustainability was made clear to all subjects.  Thus any mention of religion in relation to stewardship or agriculture practices may have been at least partially influenced by the subject’s desire to effect a certain outcome in the results.  Second, researchers of the Amish will sometimes consult with local bishops before attempting to interview members of their districts.  I decided not to do this, since I was not sure precisely which local bishops to contact, and since a rejection by an Amish leader would be a virtual death knell for any further research in that community.  Going straight to individual Amish farmers seemed to be easier and have a reasonable chance of success, but perhaps the “official approval” of local bishops would have improved the final response rate.  Third, I almost always mentioned my own heritage and connections to the local Mennonite community (grandparents, landlords) in an attempt to persuade potential subjects to trust me and agree to an interview.  This tack was somewhat successful with the Renno Church Amish, and quite successful with the Mennonites.  However, it did not appear to have an effect with the Nebraska Church Amish.  Finally, my research (and photo) was featured in an article on the front page of the local weekly newspaper, the County Observer.  This prepared some local farmers to anticipate being contacted for an interview.  For the Amish, it appeared to have a slight net positive effect, with a number of them noting with interest that I was the “man with the picture in the paper.”[4]  However, for at least one Amish farmer, the article raised the possibility of further publicity, which led him to reject a scheduled interview.

---

[1] Kishacoquillas Valley is also commonly referred to as “Big Valley.”

[2] Tractors are only acceptable with steel or hard rubber wheels, however.  Amish leaders think that inflatable tires would make tractors too comfortable, tempting farmers to use them more often than is absolutely necessary.

[3] In addition, I recorded any comments that accompanied the requested responses.  These comments often provided insights on the formation and justification of ecological beliefs.

[4] The photo didn’t necessarily endear me to the Amish, since they reject photos of people as “graven images,” or idols.  Yet it allowed them to visually associate their visitor with the article from the paper.  Besides, the Amish don’t expect non-Amish people to share their beliefs, nor do they hold non-Amish to the same standards to which they hold each other.