Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors influencing the adoption of riparian forest buffers in the Tuttle Creek Reservoir watershed of Kansas, USA

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Environmental benefits of riparian forest buffers (trees located along streams) are well documented, yet an understanding of factors influencing landowner adoption on properties adjacent to agricultural fields is limited. Reasons for adoption and non-adoption were examined using survey data collected from landowners in Kansas’ Tuttle Creek Reservoir watershed, an area of high concern for water quality and quantity. Survey questionnaires focused on four latent adoption factors: attitudes toward trees, economic motivation, knowledge of riparian forest buffer benefits, and perceptions of government-funded incentive programs. Responses were analyzed with Spearman’s correlation coefficient to determine whether relationships existed between landowner type and each latent adoption factor, Cronbach’s alpha for scale reliability, and the Mann–Whitney U test for differences between adopters and non-adopters. Significant differences between landowner types were revealed indicating that riparian forest buffers were not likely to be adopted if landowners had unfavorable attitudes toward trees, were motivated by economic factors, were unaware of riparian forest buffer benefits, or had negative perceptions of the current design of government payment programs for establishing trees in riparian areas. The following themes were identified for their potential to increase adoption: riparian forest buffers need to be perceived as profitable; opportunities exist for education; financial and technical resources represent major constraints to riparian forest buffer adoption; and there is an apparent need to create awareness of financial assistance programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahnstrom J, Hockert J, Bergea HL, Francis CA, Skelton P, Hallgren L (2009) Farmers and nature conservation: what is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renew Agric Food Syst 24(1):38–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle JG Jr, Valdivia C, Raedeke A, Green J, Rikoon JS (2009) Non-operator landowner interest in agroforestry practices in two Missouri watersheds. Agrofor Syst 75(1):73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong A, Stedman RC (2012) Landowner willingness to implement riparian buffers in a transitioning watershed. Landsc Urban Plan 105(3):211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri C, Valdivia C (2010) Recreational multifunctionality and its implications for agroforestry diffusion. Agrofor Syst 79(1):5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck W, Barden C, Maradiaga D, Neel J (2014) Delaware River watershed riparian forest assessment. Kansas State University, Kansas Forest Service. http://www.kansasforests.org/resources/resources_docs/Delaware%20River%20Watershed%20Riparian%20Forest%20Assessment.pdf

  • Beck W, Burchfield D, Dhungel K (2014) Spring River watershed riparian forest assessment. Kansas State University, Kansas Forest Service. http://www.kansasforests.org/streamside_forestry/streamside_docs/Spring%20River.pdf

  • Cable TT (2002) Beliefs of Kansas agricultural producers about riparian areas and wildlife conservation. Hum Dimens Wildl 7(2):141–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Conley TG, Udry CR (2010) Learning about a new technology: pineapple in Ghana. Am Econ Rev 100(1):35–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis RF (2012) Scale development: theory and applications, vol 26. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosskey MG (1998) Viewpoint: applying riparian buffers to Great Plains rangelands. J Range Manag 51:428–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosskey MG, Vidon P, Gurwick NP, Allan CJ, Duval TP, Lowrance R (2010) The role of riparian vegetation in protecting and improving chemical water quality in streams. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46(2):261–277

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dutcher DD, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Johnson J (2004) Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: a qualitative analysis. Soc Nat Resour 17(4):319–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field A (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding KS, Terry DJ, Masser BM, Bordia P, Hogg MA (2005) Explaining landholders’ decisions about riparian zone management: the role of behavioural, normative, and control beliefs. J Environ Manag 77(1):12–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding KS, Terry DJ, Masser BM, Hogg MA (2008) Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices. Br J Soc Psychol 47(1):23–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming RA (2004) An econometric analysis of the environmental benefits provided by the Conservation Reserve Program. J Agric Appl Econ 36(2):399–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer WA, Neppl T, Brooks K, Carlisle J (2000) Woody vegetation protects streambank stability during the 1993 flood in Central Kansas. J Soil Water Conserv 55(4):483–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kansas Department of Health and Environment (2000) A watershed conditions report for the state of Kansas, HUC 10270205 (Lower Big Blue) watershed. http://www.kdheks.gov/nps/wc_reports/10270205.pdf

  • Kansas Department of Health and Environment (2001) A watershed conditions report for the state of Kansas, HUC 10270207 (Lower Little Blue) watershed. http://www.kdheks.gov/nps/wc_reports/10270207.pdf

  • Kansas Department of Health and Environment (2014) 2014 303(d) list of all impaired/potentially impaired waters. http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/2014/2014_303_d_Long.pdf

  • Kansas Water Authority (2010) Reservoir roadmap, volume III. http://www.kwo.org/reservoirs/ReservoirRoadmap/Rpt_Reservoir_Roadmap_Volume_III_KLR.pdf

  • Kansas Water Office (2012) Tuttle Creek Lake, reservoir information sheet. http://www.kwo.org/reservoirs/ReservoirFactSheets/Rpt_TuttleCreek_2011.pdf

  • Kansas Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (2010) Tuttle Creek Lake watershed restoration and protection strategy. http://www.kswraps.org/files/attachments/tuttle_plansummary.pdf

  • Koontz TM (2001) Money Talks-but to whom? Financial versus nonmonetary motivations in land use decisions. Soc Nat Resour 14(1):51–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee KH, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (2003) Sediment and nutrient removal in an established multi-species riparian buffer. J Soil Water Conserv 58(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Little RJ (1988) A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. J Am Stat Assoc 83(404):1198–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinty MM, Swisher ME, Alavalapati J (2008) Agroforestry adoption and maintenance: self-efficacy, attitudes and socio-economic factors. Agrofor Syst 73(2):99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight PE, McKnight KM, Sidani S, Figueredo AJ (2007) Missing data: a gentle introduction. The Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff J (2006) Stated willingness to pay as hypothetical behaviour: can attitudes tell us more? J Environ Plan Manag 49(2):209–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser WK, Hansen MH, Atchison RL, Butler BJ, Crocker SJ, Domke G, Kurtz CM, Lister A, Miles PD, Nelson MD, Piva RJ, Woodall CW (2013) Kansas’ Forests 2010 (Resour. Bull. NRS-85). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Munshi K (2004) Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution. J Dev Econ 73(1):185–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Kosek SE, Corry RC (2001) Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(6):1439–1443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resources Conservation Service (2007) Kansas forestry technical note KS-10. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ks/people/employees/?cid=nrcs142p2_033374

  • Natural Resources Conservation Service (2009) Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Version 2. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_042678.pdf

  • Perry-Hill R, Prokopy LS (2014) Comparing different types of rural landowners: implications for conservation practice adoption. J Soil Water Conserv 69(3):266–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell A (2011). Tuttle Creek watershed streambank erosion assessment. Kansas Water Office. http://www.kwo.org/projects_programs/Steambank_Assessments/rpt_Draft2_TuttleCreek_SBAssessment_041911_ap.pdf

  • Prokopy LS, Floress K, Klotthor-Weinkauf D, Baumgart-Getz A (2008) Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. J Soil Water Conserv 63(5):300–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raedeke AH, Green JJ, Hodge SS, Valdivia C (2003) Farmers, the practice of farming and the future of agroforestry: an application of Bourdieu’s concepts of field and habitus. Rural Sociol 68(1):64–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer AP, Thompson AW, Prokopy LS (2012) The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption. Agric Hum Values 29(1):29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer A, Thompson A, Prokopy LS, Arbuckle JG, Genskow K, Jackson-Smith D, Lynne G, McCann L, Morton LW, Nowak P (2014) People, place, behavior, and context: a research agenda for expanding our understanding of what motivates farmers’ conservation behaviors. J Soil Water Conserv 69(2):57A–61A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg S, Margerum RD (2008) Landowner motivations for watershed restoration: lessons from five watersheds. J Environ Plan Manag 51(4):477–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin DB (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys, vol 81. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan RL, Erickson DL, De Young R (2003) Farmers’ motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. J Environ Plan Manag 46(1):19–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz RC, Colletti JP, Isenhart TM, Simpkins WW, Mize CW, Thompson ML (1995) Design and placement of a multi-species riparian buffer strip system. Agrofor Syst 29(3):201–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz RC, Isenhart TM, Simpkins WW, Colletti JP (2004) Riparian forest buffers in agroecosystems–lessons learned from the Bear Creek Watershed, central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 61(1):35–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz RC, Isenhart TM, Colletti JP, Simpkins WW, Udawatta RP, Schultz PL (2009) Riparian and upland buffer practices. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice, 2nd edn. ASA, Madison, pp 163–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Secchi S, Tyndall J, Schulte LA, Asbjornsen H (2008) Raising the stakes: high crop prices and conservation. J Soil Water Conserv 63(3):68A–73A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton DP, Wilke RA, Franti TG, Josiah SJ (2009) Farmlink: promoting conservation buffers farmer-to-farmer. Agrofor Syst 75(1):83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelton P, Josiah SJ, King JW, Brandle JR, Helmers GA, Francis CA (2005) Adoption of riparian forest buffers on private lands in Nebraska, USA. Small-Scale Econ Manag Policy 4(2):185–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith CM, Peterson JM, Leatherman JC (2007) Attitudes of Great Plains producers about best management practices, conservation programs, and water quality. J Soil Water Conserv 62(5):97A–103A

    Google Scholar 

  • Trozzo KE, Munsell JF, Chamberlain JL (2014) Landowner interest in multifunctional agroforestry Riparian buffers. Agrofor Syst 88(4):619–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udawatta RP, Garrett HE, Kallenbach R (2011) Agroforestry buffers for nonpoint source pollution reductions from agricultural watersheds. J Environ Qual 40(3):800–806

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Valdivia C, Barbieri C, Gold MA (2012) Between forestry and farming: policy and environmental implications of the barriers to agroforestry adoption. Can J Agric Econ 60(2):155–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ (2008) Survey research and analysis: applications in parks, recreation, and human dimensions. Venture Publishing Inc., State College

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsch DJ (1991) Riparian forest buffers: function and design for protection and enhancement of water resources. NA-PR-07-91. USDA Forest Service, Radnor

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR, Clark PM, Balch PG (2004) Streambank stabilization: an economic analysis from the landowner’s perspective. J Soil Water Conserv 59(6):252–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaimes GN, Schultz RC, Isenhart TM (2006) Riparian land uses and precipitation influences on stream bank erosion in central Iowa. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42(1):83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanna MP, Rempel JK (1988) Attitudes: a new look at an old concept. In: Bar-Tel D, Kruglanski AW (eds) The social psychology of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 315–334

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Kansas Forest Service and the Watershed Management Section of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for providing financial support for this project (Grant #2013-3041). Appreciation also goes to the local natural resource personnel who assisted with development and promotion of the survey, and to the landowners who were willing to let their opinions be known. The opinions presented in this manuscript are solely the authors’ and do not aim to represent the views of other organizations. Contribution no. 17-138-J from the Kansas Agricultur

al Experiment Station.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kansas Forest Service, 3705 Miller Parkway, Ste B, Manhattan, KS, 66503, USA

    Thad K. Rhodes

  2. Department of Forestry, University of Missouri, 203 ABNR, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Francisco X. Aguilar

  3. The Center for Agroforestry, University of Missouri, 203 ABNR Forestry, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Shibu Jose & Michael Gold

Authors
  1. Thad K. Rhodes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francisco X. Aguilar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shibu Jose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Gold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thad K. Rhodes.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Research conducted by this study received approval from the Institutional Review Boards at the University of Missouri (Project #1207631) and Kansas State University (Proposal #1207631) prior to survey administration. All survey recipients were notified that participation in this study was voluntary and that responses would be kept confidential.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rhodes, T.K., Aguilar, F.X., Jose, S. et al. Factors influencing the adoption of riparian forest buffers in the Tuttle Creek Reservoir watershed of Kansas, USA. Agroforest Syst 92, 739–757 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0045-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0045-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation