The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Attempts to understand farmer conservation behavior based on quantitative socio-demographic, attitude, and awareness variables have been largely inconclusive. In order to understand fully how farmers are making conservation decisions, 32 in-depth interviews were conducted in the Eagle Creek watershed in central Indiana. Coding for environmental attitudes and practice adoption revealed several dominant themes, representing multi-dimensional aspects of environmental attitudes. Farmers who were motivated by off-farm environmental benefits and those who identified responsibilities to others (stewardship) were most likely to adopt conservation practices. Those farmers who focused on the farm as business and were most concerned about profitability were less likely to adopt practices. The notion of environmental stewardship in particular was found to be much more complex than the way it is traditionally measured in quantitative studies. The interplay between on-farm and off-farm benefits to practice adoption is an issue that quantitative studies largely do not address. This study seeks to increase understanding of farmers’ environmental attitudes and the connections to conservation behavior.
- Ahnström, J., J. Höckert, H.L. Bergeå, C.A. Francis, P. Skelton, and L. Hallgren. 2008. Farmers and nature conservation: What is known about attitudes, context factors, and actions affecting conservation? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24(1): 38–47. CrossRef
- Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control: From cognition to behavior, eds. J. Kuhl, and J. Beckmann, 11–39. Berlin: Springer.
- Baumgart-Getz, A. 2010. Why do farmers maintain best management practices? PhD dissertation, Purdue University, Indiana, USA.
- Beedell, J.D.C., and T. Rehman. 1999. Explaining farmers’ conservation behavior: Why do farmers behave the way they do? Journal of Environmental Management 57: 165–176. CrossRef
- Bohnet, I., C. Potter, and E. Simmons. 2003. Landscape change in the multi-functional countryside: A biographical analysis of farmer decision-making in the English High Weald. Landscape Research 28(4): 349–364. CrossRef
- Burton, R.J.F. 2004. Reconceptualising the “behavioral approach” in agricultural studies: A socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 20: 359–371. CrossRef
- Burton, R.J.F., and G.A. Wilson. 2006. Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualizations of agricultural agency: Towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? Journal of Rural Studies 22(1): 95–115. CrossRef
- Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 37–46. CrossRef
- Davies, B.B., and I.D. Hodge. 2006. Farmers’ preferences for new environmental policy instruments: Determining the acceptability of cross compliance for biodiversity benefits. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(3): 393–414. CrossRef
- Duram, L. 1999. Factors in organic farmers’ decision making: Diversity, challenge, and obstacles. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14: 2–10. CrossRef
- ECWMP (Eagle Creek Watershed Management Plan). 2005. http://www.cees.iupui.edu/research/Water_Resources/Eagle_Creek_Watershed_Alliance/Reports/ecw_management_plan.htm. Accessed 29 April 2008.
- Fairweather, J.R., and H.R. Campbell. 2003. Environmental beliefs and farm practices of New Zealand farmers: Contrasting pathways to sustainability. Agriculture and Human Values 20: 287–300. CrossRef
- Fulkerson, G. 2006. Reality and representations: How Americans think about agriculture. PhD dissertation, North Carolina State University.
- Greiner, R., and D. Gregg. 2011. Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy 28(1): 257–265. CrossRef
- Hruschka, D.J., D. Schwartz, D.C. St John, E. Picone-Decaro, R.A. Jenkins, and J.W. Carey. 2004. Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods 16(3): 307–331. CrossRef
- Kaiser, F.G., S. Wölfing, and U. Fuhrer. 1999. Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 1–19. CrossRef
- Knowler, D., and B. Bradshaw. 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32: 25–48. CrossRef
- Landis, J.R., and G.G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. CrossRef
- Lockeretz, W. 1990. What have we learned about who conserves soil? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45: 517–523.
- Lynne, G.D., J.S. Shonkwiler, and R.R. Leandor. 1988. Attitudes and farmer conservation behavior. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(1): 12–19. CrossRef
- Maybery, D., L. Crase, and C. Gullifer. 2005. Categorizing farming values as economic, conservation, and lifestyle. Journal of Economic Psychology 26: 59–72. CrossRef
- McCann, E., S. Sullivan, D. Erickson, and R. De Young. 1997. Environmental awareness, economic orientation, and farming practices: A comparison of organic and conventional farmers. Environmental Management 21(5): 747–758. CrossRef
- Morris, C., and C. Potter. 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: Farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 11(1): 51–63. CrossRef
- Napier, T.L. 2001. Soil and water conservation behaviors in the upper Mississippi River Basin. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 56(4): 279–285.
- Nowak, P., S. Bowen, and P.E. Cabot. 2006. Disproportionality as a framework for linking social and biophysical systems. Society and Natural Resources 19: 153–173. CrossRef
- Prokopy, L.S., K. Floress, D. Klotthor-Weinkauf, and A. Baumgart-Getz. 2008. Determinants of agricultural BMP adoption: Evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(5): 300–311. CrossRef
- Ragin, C.C. 1994. Constructing social research. California: Pine Forge Press.
- Schneider, M.L., and C.A. Francis. 2006. Ethics of land use in Nebraska: Farmer and consumer opinions in Washington County. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 28(4): 81–104. CrossRef
- Stemler, S. 2001. An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 7(71). http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17.
- Sullivan, S., E. McCann, R. De Young, and D. Erickson. 1996. Farmers’ attitudes about farming and the environment: A survey of conventional and organic farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9(2): 123–143. CrossRef
- Traore, N., R. Landry, and N. Amara. 1998. On-farm adoption of conservation practices: The role of farm and farmer characteristics, perceptions, and health hazards. Land Economics 74(1): 114–127. CrossRef
- Vandermeer, John. 1995. The ecological basis of alternative agriculture. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 26: 201–224. CrossRef
- Wegener, D.T., and L.R. Fabrigar. 2004. Constructing and evaluating quantitative measures for social psychological research: Conceptual challenges and methodological solutions. In The SAGE handbook of methods in social psychology, eds. C. Sansone, C.C.C. Morf, and A.T. Panter, 145–172. New York: Sage.
- The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption
Agriculture and Human Values
Volume 29, Issue 1 , pp 29-40
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Environmental attitudes
- Conservation practice
- On-farm benefits
- Off-farm benefits
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 195 Marsteller St., West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
- 2. College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, WI, 54481, USA