Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Farmer Participation in U.S. Farm Bill Conservation Programs

Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

Conservation policy in agricultural systems in the United States relies primarily on voluntary action by farmers. Federal conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, offer incentives, both financial and technical, to farmers in exchange for adoption of conservation practices. Understanding motivations for (as well as barriers to) participation in voluntary programs is important for the design of future policy and effective outreach. While a significant literature has explored motivations and barriers to conservation practice adoption and participation in single programs, few studies in the U.S. context have explored general participation by farmers in one place and time. A mixed-methods research approach was utilized to explore farmer participation in all U.S. Farm Bill programs in Indiana. Current and past program engagement was high, with nearly half of survey respondents reporting participation in at least one program. Most participants had experience with the Conservation Reserve Program, with much lower participation rates in other programs. Most interview participants who had experience in programs were motivated by the environmental benefits of practices, with incentives primarily serving to reduce the financial and technical barriers to practice adoption. The current policy arrangement, which offers multiple policy approaches to conservation, offers farmers with different needs and motivations a menu of options. However, evidence suggests that the complexity of the system may be a barrier that prevents participation by farmers with scarce time or resources. Outreach efforts should focus on increasing awareness of program options, while future policy must balance flexibility of programs with complexity.

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

References

  • Agrawal GD (1999) Diffuse agricultural water pollution in India. Water Sci and Tech 39(3):33–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle JG, Lasley P, Ferrell J (2011) Iowa farm and rural life poll: 2011 summary report. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, PM 3016

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong A, Ling EJ, Stedman R, Kleinman P (2011) Adoption of the conservation reserve enhancement program in the New York City watershed: the role of farmer attitudes. J Soil Water Conserv 66(5):337–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgart-Getz A, Prokopy LS, Floress K (2012) Why farmers adopt best management practices in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J Environ Manag 96(1):17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black TR (1999) Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: an integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

  • Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res in Psych 3:77–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claassen R (2003) Emphasis shifts in U.S. agri-environmental policy. Amber Waves, USDA Economic Research Service

  • Claassen R, Hansen L, Peters M, Breneman V, Weinberg M, Cattaneo A, Feather P, Gadsby D, Hellerstein D, Hopkins J, Johnston P, Morehart M, Smith M (2001) Agri-environmental policy at the crossroads: guideposts on a changing landscape. Agricultural Economic Report Number 794

  • Cocklin C, Mautner N, Dibden J (2007) Public policy, private landowners: perspectives on policy mechanisms for sustainable land management. J Environ Manag 85:986–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson EA, David MB, Galloway JN, Goodale CL, Haeuber R, Harrison JA, Howarth RW, Jaynes DB, Lowrance RR, Nolan BT, Peel JL, Pinder RW, Porter E, Snyder CS, Townsend AR, Ward MH (2012) Excess nitrogen in the U.S. environment: trends, risks, and solutions. Issues in Ecology, Report Number 15, Winter 2012

  • Davies BB, Hodge ID (2006) Farmers’ preferences for new environmental policy instruments: determining the acceptability of cross compliance for biodiversity benefits. J Agric Econ 57(3):393–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2009) Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowd BM, Press D, Los Huertos M (2008) Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution policy: the case of California’s central coast. Agric Eco Environ 128:151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont DP (2009) Cost-sharing incentive programs for source water protection: the Grand River’s Rural Water Quality Program. Can J Agric Econ 58(4):481–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson DL, Ryan RL, De Young R (2002) Woodlots in the rural landscape: landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case study. Landsc Urban Plan 58:101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esseks JD, Kraft SE (1988) Why eligible landowners did not participate in the first four sign-ups of the Conservation Reserve Program. J Soil Water Conserv 43(3):251–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer JR, Chancellor C, Fischer BC (2011) Motivations for using conservation easements as a land protection mechanism: a mixed methods analysis. Nat Areas J 31(1):80–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2010) Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. Taylor and Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Floress K, Prokopy LS, Allred SB (2011) It’s who you know: social capital, social networks, and watershed groups. Soc Nat Resour 24(9):871–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks J (2003) Revised agri-environment policy objectives: implications for scheme design. J Environ Plan Manag 46(3):443–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie J, Kim S, Paudel K (2007) Why don’t producers adopt best management practices? an analysis of the beef cattle industry. Agric Econ 36:89–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner R, Gregg D (2011) Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy 28:257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isik M, Yang W (2004) An analysis of the effects of uncertainty and irreversibility on farmer participation in the Conservation Reserve Program. J Agric Resour Econ 29(2):242–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasper County SWCD (soil and water conservation district) (2011) Upper Iroquois Watershed Initiative (UIWI). http://www.jaspercountyswcd.org/uiwiplan/. Accessed May 24, 2012

  • Kabii T, Horwitz P (2006) A review of landholder motivations and determinants for participation in conservation covenanting programmes. Environ Conserv 33(1):11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klöckner CA (2013) A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behavior—a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Chang. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014. Accessed 22 Aug 2013

  • Knowler D, Bradshaw B (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32:25–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konyar K, Osborn CT (1990) A national-level economic analysis of Conservation Reserve Program participation: a discrete choice approach. J Agric Econ Res 42(1):5–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsching PF, Stofferahn CW, Nowak PJ, Wagener DJ (1983) Adopter characteristics and adoption patterns of minimum tillage: implications for soil conservation programs. J Soil Water Conserv 38(5):428–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft SE, Lant C, Gillman K (1996) WQIP: an assessment of its chances for acceptance by farmers. J Soil Water Conserv 51(6):494–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert D, Shaible GD, Johansson R, Daberkow S (2006) Working-land conservation structures: evidence on program and non-program participants. American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) national meeting

  • Lambert DM, Sullivan P, Claassen R, Foreman L (2007) Profiles of US farm households adopting conservation-compatible practices. Land Use Policy 24:72–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latacz-Lohmann U, Hodge I (2003) European agri-environmental policy for the 21st century. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 47(1):123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockeretz W (1990) What have we learned about who conserves soil? J Soil Water Conserv 45:517–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus TT, Kraft SE (2003) Enrolling conservation buffers in the CRP. Land Use Policy 20:73–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maybery D, Crase L, Gullifer C (2005) Categorising farming values as economic, conservation and lifestyle. J Econ Psych 26:59–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Cocklin C (2011a) Participation in biodiversity conservation: motivations and barriers of Australian landholders. J Rural Stud 27:331–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Cocklin C (2011b) A landholder-based approach to the design of private-land conservation programs. Conserv Biol 25(3):493–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris C (2004) Networks of agri-environmental policy implementation: a case study of England’s countryside Stewardship scheme. Land Use Policy 21(2):177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris C, Potter C (1995) Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. J Rural Stud 11(1):51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse JM (2003) Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In: Taskakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton LW, Weng CY (2009) Getting to better water quality outcomes: the promise and challenge of the citizen effect. Agric Hum Values 26:83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napier TL (2001) Soil and water conservation behaviors in the upper Mississippi River Basin. J Soil Water Conserv 56(4):279–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Napier TL (2009) Grain scarcity: a new era of conservation policies and programs. J Soil Water Conserv 64(1):7A–10A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novotny V (1999) Diffuse pollution from agriculture—a worldwide outlook. Water Sci Tech 39(3):1–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak P (1987) The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Soc 52(2):208–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak P (2009) Lessons learned: conservation, conservationists, and the 2008 flood in the US Midwest. J Soil Water Conserv 64(6):172A–174A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyaupane NP, Gillespie JM (2011) Louisiana crawfish farmer adoption of best management practices. J Soil Water Conserv 66(1):61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olenick KL, Kreuter UP, Conner JR (2005) Texas landowner perceptions regarding ecosystem services and cost-sharing land management programs. Ecol Econ 53:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust J Exp Agric 46:1407–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks PJ, Schorr JP (1997) Sustaining open space benefits in the Northeast: an evaluation of the Conservation Reserve Program. J Environ Econ Manag 32(1):85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry R (1998) Agricultural phosphorus and water quality: a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency perspective. J Environ Qual 27:258–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Potter C (1998) Against the Grain: Agri-environmental reform in the United States and the European Union

  • Prager K, Posthumus H (2010) Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ adoption of conservation practices in Europe. In: Napier TL (ed) Human Dimensions of Soil and Water Conservation. Nova Science Pub. Inc, Hauppauge

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy LS (2011) Agricultural human dimensions research: the role of qualitative research methods. J Soil Water Conserv 66(1):9A–12A

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Wiseman WJ (2001) Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. J Environ Qual 30:320–329

    Article  CAS  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 AP, Gramig B, Prokopy LS (2013) Farmers and conservation programs: explaining differences in Environmental Quality Incentives Program applications between states. J Soil Water Conserv 68(2):110–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson GP, Swinton SM (2005) Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Front Ecol Environ 3(1):38–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruttan VW (1996) What happened to technology adoption–diffusion research? Sociol Rural 36(1):51–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schertz LP, Doering OC III (1999) The making of the 1996 farm act. Iowa State University Press, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH, Howard JA (1981) A normative decision-making model of altruism. In: Rushton JP, Sorrentino RM (eds) Altruism and helping behavior. Lawerence Erlbaum, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner JA, Lewis KA, Bardon KS, Tucker P, Catt JA, Chambers BJ (1997) An overview of the environmental impact of agriculture in the U.K. J Environ Manag 50:111–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorice MG, Kreuter UP, Wilcox BP, Fox WE III (2012a) Classifying land-ownership motivations in central, Texas, USA: a first-step in understanding drivers of large-scale land cover change. J Arid Environ 80:56–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorice MG, Conner RJ, Kreuter UP, Wilkins RN (2012b) Centrality of the ranching lifestyle and attitudes toward a voluntary incentive program to protect endangered species. Rangel Ecol Manag 65(2):144–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56(3):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6(2):81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs M (2010) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress. 7-5700

  • Tilman D (1999) Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96(11):5995–6000

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth R, Schindler D, Schlesinger WH, Simberloff D, Swackhamer D (2009) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292:281–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2009) National water quality inventory: 2004 report to congress. EPA/841-R-08-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington D.C. 20460

  • USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) (2009) 2007 U.S. Census of agriculture: United States Summary and State Data. Volume 1, Part 51. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf. Accessed March 2010

  • USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) (2011) Budget summary and annual performance plan. www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY12budsum.pdf. Accessed October 2011

  • USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) (2012) FY 2011 EQIP total acres treated, contracts, dollars obligated. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/financial/eqip/?cid=stelprdb1046218. Accessed 24 May 2013

  • Vanslembrouck I, Van Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W (2002) Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. J Agric Econ 53(3):489–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitale JD, Goodsey C, Edwards J, Taylor R (2011) The adoption of conservation tillage practices in Oklahoma: findings from a producer survey. J Soil Water Conserv 66(4):250–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wauters E, Beilders C, Poesen J, Govers G, Mathijs E (2010) Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: an examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Policy 27:86–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GA, Hart K (2001) Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: towards conservation-oriented thinking? Sociol Rural 41(2):254–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wossink GAA, van Wenum JH (2003) Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation. Eur Rev Agric Econ 30(4):461–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Drs. Otto Doering, Leigh Raymond, and Benjamin Gramig of Purdue University and three anonymous reviewers for providing feedback on this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, 3700 E. Gull Lake Dr., Hickory Corners, MI, 49060, USA

    Adam P. Reimer

  2. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 195 Marsteller St., West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Linda S. Prokopy

Authors
  1. Adam P. Reimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda S. Prokopy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam P. Reimer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reimer, A.P., Prokopy, L.S. Farmer Participation in U.S. Farm Bill Conservation Programs. Environmental Management 53, 318–332 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0184-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0184-8

Keywords

search

Navigation