Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 29–40 | Cite as

The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption

  • Adam P. Reimer
  • Aaron W. Thompson
  • Linda S. Prokopy


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.


Environmental attitudes Conservation practice BMP Adoption Stewardship On-farm benefits Off-farm benefits 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgart-Getz, A. 2010. Why do farmers maintain best management practices? PhD dissertation, Purdue University, Indiana, USA.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton, R.J.F. 2004. Reconceptualising the “behavioral approach” in agricultural studies: A socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 20: 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duram, L. 1999. Factors in organic farmers’ decision making: Diversity, challenge, and obstacles. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14: 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ECWMP (Eagle Creek Watershed Management Plan). 2005. Accessed 29 April 2008.
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fulkerson, G. 2006. Reality and representations: How Americans think about agriculture. PhD dissertation, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaiser, F.G., S. Wölfing, and U. Fuhrer. 1999. Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knowler, D., and B. Bradshaw. 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32: 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landis, J.R., and G.G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lockeretz, W. 1990. What have we learned about who conserves soil? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45: 517–523.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maybery, D., L. Crase, and C. Gullifer. 2005. Categorizing farming values as economic, conservation, and lifestyle. Journal of Economic Psychology 26: 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ragin, C.C. 1994. Constructing social research. California: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stemler, S. 2001. An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 7(71).
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vandermeer, John. 1995. The ecological basis of alternative agriculture. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 26: 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam P. Reimer
    • 1
  • Aaron W. Thompson
    • 2
  • Linda S. Prokopy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Natural ResourcesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.College of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Wisconsin-Stevens PointStevens PointUSA

Personalised recommendations