Abstract
Watershed managers have largely embraced targeting of agricultural conservation as a way to manage strategically non-point source pollution from agricultural lands. However, while targeting of particular watersheds is not uncommon, targeting farms and fields within a specific watershed has lagged. In this work, we employed a qualitative approach, using farmer interviews in west-central Indiana to better understand their views on targeting. Interviews focused on adoption of conservation practices on farmers’ lands and identified their views on targeting, disproportionality, and monetary incentives. Results show consistent support for the targeting approach, despite dramatic differences in farmers’ views of land stewardship, in their views about disproportionality of water quality impacts, and in their trust in conservation programming. While the theoretical concept of targeting was palatable to all participants, many raised concerns about its practical implementation, pointing to the need for flexibility when applying targeting solutions and revealing misgivings about the government agencies that perform targeting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahnstrom J, Hockert J, Bergea HL, Francis CA, Skelton P, Hallgren L (2008) Farmers and nature conservation: what is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renew Agric Food Syst 24(1):38–47
Arbuckle JG (2013a) Farmer attitudes toward proactive targeting of agricultural conservation programs. Soc Nat Resour 26(6):625–641
Arbuckle JG (2013b) Farmer support for extending conservation compliance beyond soil erosion: evidence from Iowa. J Soil Water Conserv 68(2):99–109
Claassen R (2007) Emphasis shifts in U.S. conservation policy. Amber Waves, Perspectives on Food and Farm Policy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1vh5dg3r/http:/ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/May07SpecialIssue/Features/Emphasis.htm. Accessed 19 Sept 2013
Conley DJ, Paerl HW, Howarth RW, Boesch DF, Seitzinger SP, Havens KE, Lancelot C, Likens GE (2009) Controlling eutrophication: nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 323(5917):1014–1015
Corbin J, Strauss A (1990) Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Newbury Park
Crumpton WG (2001) Using wetlands for water quality improvement in agricultural watersheds; the importance of a watershed scale approach. Water Sci Technol 44(11–12):559–564
Diebel MW, Maxted JT, Nowak PJ, Vander Zanden MJ (2008) Landscape planning for agricultural nonpoint source pollution reduction I: a geographical allocation framework. Environ Manage 42:789–802
Diebel MW, Maxted JT, Robertson DM, Han S, Vander Zanden MJ (2009) Landscape planning for agricultural nonpoint source pollution reduction III: assessing phosphorus and sediment reduction potential. Environ Manage 43:69–83
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
Greiner R, Patterson L, Miller O (2009) Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agric Syst 99:86–104
Heathwaite AL, Quinn PF, Hewett CJM (2005) Modelling and managing critical source areas of diffuse pollution from agricultural land using flow connectivity simulation. J Hydrol 304:446–461
Hession WC, Shanholtz VO (1988) A geographic information system for targeting nonpoint-source agricultural pollution. J Soil Water Conserv 43(3):264–266
Kaplowitz MD, Hoehn JP (2001) Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecol Econ 36:237–247
Maringanti C, Chaubey I, Arabi M, Engel B (2011) Application of a multi-objective optimization method to provide least cost alternatives for NPS pollution control. Environ Manage 48:448–461
Mason M (2010) Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Qual Soc Res 11(3):Art 8
Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power AG, Swift MJ (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277(5325):504–509
McGuire J, Morton LW, Cast AD (2013) Reconstructing the good farmer identity: shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agric Hum Values 30:57–69
Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
National Elevation Dataset. One-third arc second resolution. http://ned.usgs.gov/. Accessed 1 June 2012
Nowak P, Bowen S, Cabot PE (2006) Disproportionality as a framework for linking social and biophysical systems. Soci Nat Resour 19(2):153–173
NVivo qualitative data analysis software (2010) QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 9
Prokopy LS (2011) Agricultural human dimensions research: the role of qualitative research methods. J Soil Water Conserv 66(1):9A–12A
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
Reimer AP, Thompson AW, Prokopy LS (2012a) The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption. Agric Hum Values. doi:10.1007/s10460-011-9308-z
Reimer AP, Weinkauf DK, Prokopy LS (2012b) The influence of perceptions of practice characteristics: an examination of agricultural best management practice adoption in two Indiana watersheds. J Rural Stud 28:118–128
Ryan R, Erickson DL, De Young R (2003) Farmers’ motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. J Environ Plan Manage 46(1):19–37
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed 26 Sept 2013
Tomer MD, Porter SA, James DE, Boomer KM, Kostel JA, Mclellan E (2013) Combining precision conservation technologies into a flexible framework to facilitate agricultural watershed planning. J Soil Water Conserv 68(5):113A–120A
Tuppad P, Douglas-Mankin KR, McVay KA (2010) Strategic targeting of cropland management using watershed modeling. Agric Eng Int 12(3):12–24
USDA NRCS (2013) Mississippi River Basin Initiative Progress Report for FY 2012. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1167406.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2014
USDA NASS (2014) 2012 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data. Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 51, AC-12-A-51. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2014
Acknowledgments
Primary funding for this work came from a USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant. This work was also partially funded by the University of Michigan Graham Sustainability Institute and by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (administered by USEPA) through a NOAA-GLERL SOAR Project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kalcic, M., Prokopy, L., Frankenberger, J. et al. An In-depth Examination of Farmers’ Perceptions of Targeting Conservation Practices. Environmental Management 54, 795–813 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0342-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0342-7