Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 1487–1506 | Cite as

Does stewardship program participation influence Canadian farmer engagement in biodiversity-friendly farming practices?

  • Kate Goodale
  • Yoko Yoshida
  • Karen Beazley
  • Kate Sherren
Original Paper

Abstract

Biodiversity and farming are inextricably linked. Naturally occurring biodiversity supports the ecosystem services that are indispensable for agricultural production. Although the intensification of farming during the twentieth century has resulted in increased yields, this has often been at the expense of biodiversity. At present, farm biodiversity conservation efforts are largely confined to voluntary programs. This research project examined the relationship between pro-biodiversity attitudes, participation in a voluntary stewardship program, and engagement in biodiversity-friendly farming activities among farmers in Nova Scotia, Canada. This investigation was completed through a quantitative survey measuring respondents’ attitudes toward, knowledge of, and management of biodiversity. Significant links were found between program participation and increased engagement in two out of six biodiversity-friendly activities the program promotes: (1) modified harvest, such as changes to mowing equipment, timing, pattern or height to reduce animal mortality; and (2) riparian management, such as buffers and fencing. Engagement in other practices could not be traced to program participation. Pro-biodiversity attitudes, however, were linked to some of these other activities, but not linked to the increased uptake of riparian management or modified harvest. The instruction given to participants about riparian and harvest activities was much more detailed and site-specific than instructions for the activities that were linked to pro-biodiversity attitude, however. This suggests that the quantity and quality of instruction provided to stewardship program participants may have an impact on their uptake of conservation activities.

Keywords

Agriculture agroecosystem Environmental values Attitude Farmer behaviour Voluntary adoption 

Supplementary material

10531_2015_872_MOESM1_ESM.doc (180 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 180 kb)

References

  1. Agresti A, Finlay B (2009) Statistical methods for the social sciences, 4th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahnström J, Höckert J, Bergeå 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. doi:10.1017/S1742170508002391 Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec 50:179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altieri MA (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00028-6 Google Scholar
  5. Anderson RL (2007) Managing weeds with a dualistic approach of prevention and control: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. doi:10.1051/agro:2006027 Google Scholar
  6. Ball BC, Bingham I, Rees RM, Watson CA, Litterick A (2005) The role of crop rotations in determining soil structure and crop growth conditions. Can J Soil Sci 85:557–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balmford A, Green R, Phalan B (2012) What conservationists need to know about farming. Philos Trans R Soc B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0515 Google Scholar
  8. Beedell J, Rehman T (2000) Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. J Rural Stud. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00043-1 Google Scholar
  9. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T (2004) Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7451.1312 Google Scholar
  10. Brown MW (1999) Applying principles of community ecology to pest management in orchards. Agric Ecosyst Environ 73:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Snoo GR, Herzon I, Staats H et al (2013) Toward effective nature conservation on farmland: making farmers matter. Conserv Lett. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00296.x Google Scholar
  12. Dietz T, Stern PC, Guagnano GA (1998) Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environ Behav 30:450–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Environics Research Group (2006) National Survey of Farmers and Ranchers. Ecological Goods and Services, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  14. Fielke SJ, Bardsley DK (2014) The importance of farmer education in South Australia. Land Use Policy. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.006 Google Scholar
  15. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (1999) Office of the Legislative Counsel, Nova Scotia House of Assembly. Retrieved from http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/freedom.htm
  16. Gehlbach H, Brinkworth ME (2011) Measure twice, cut down error: a process for enhancing the validity of survey scales. Rev Gen Psychol. doi:10.1037/a0025704 Google Scholar
  17. Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science. doi:10.1126/science.1106049 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herzon I, Mikk M (2007) Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. J Nat Conserv. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2006.08.001 Google Scholar
  20. Jamieson TS, Stratton GW, Gordon R, Madani A (2002) Phosphorus absorption characteristics of a constructed wetland soil receiving dairy farm wastewater. Can J Soil Sci. doi:10.4141/S01-042 Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy EH, Beckley TM, McFarlane BL, Nadeau S (2009) Why we don’t “walk the talk”: understanding the environmental values/behaviour Gap in Canada. Res Hum Ecol 16(2):151–160Google Scholar
  22. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res. doi:10.1080/1350462022014540 Google Scholar
  23. Lokhorst AM, Staats H, van Dijk J, van Dijk E, de Snoo G (2011) What’s in it for Me? Motivational differences between farmers’ subsidised and non-subsidised conservation practices. Appl Psychol. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00438.x Google Scholar
  24. Lowrance R, Dabney S, Schultz R (2002) Improving water and soil quality with conservation buffers. J Soil Water Conserv 57:36–43Google Scholar
  25. Lynne GD, Shonkwiler JS, Rola LR (1988) Attitudes behavior and conservation. J Agric Econ 70:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manning AD, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Scattered trees are keystone structures—implications for conservation. Biol Conserv. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.023 Google Scholar
  27. McDavid J, Hawthorn L (2006) Program evaluation and performance measurement: an introduction to practice. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  28. McLaughlin A, Mineau P (1995) The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agric Ecosyst Environ. doi:10.1016/0167-8809(95)00609-V Google Scholar
  29. Merckx T, Feber RE, Riordan P, Townsend MC, Bourn NAD, Parsons MS, Macdonald DW (2009) Optimizing the biodiversity gain from agri-environment schemes. Agric Ecosyst Environ. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2009.01.006 Google Scholar
  30. Mills A, Adl MS (2006) The effects of land use intensification on soil biodiversity in the pasture. Can J Plant Sci 86:1339–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mobley C, Vagias WM, DeWard SL (2009) Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior: the influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environ Behav. doi:10.1177/0013916508325002 Google Scholar
  32. Moonen A, Barberi P (2008) Functional biodiversity: an agroecosystem approach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127(1–2):7–21. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nocera JJ, Parsons GJ, Milton GR, Fredeen AH (2005) Compatibility of delayed cutting regime with bird breeding and hay nutritional quality. Agric Ecosyst Environ. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2004.11.001 Google Scholar
  34. 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. doi:10.1071/EA05037 Google Scholar
  35. Phalan B, Balmford A, Green RE, Scharlemann JPW (2011) Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.008 Google Scholar
  36. Plummer R, Spiers A, Summer R (2008) The contributions of stewardship to managing agro-ecosystem environments. J Sustain Agric. doi:10.1300/J064v31n03_06 Google Scholar
  37. Quartuch MR, Beckley TM (2014) Carrots and sticks: New Brunswick and Maine forest landowner perceptions toward incentives and regulations. Environ Manag. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0200-z Google Scholar
  38. Raykov T, Marcoulides GA (2011) Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Schirmer J (2009) Ethical issues in the use of multiple survey reminders. J Acad Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10805-009-9072-5 Google Scholar
  40. Schirmer J, Dovers S, Clayton H (2012) Informing conservation policy design through an examination of landholder preferences: a case study of scattered tree conservation in Australia. Biol Conserv. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.014 Google Scholar
  41. Segerson K, Miceli TJ (1998) Voluntary environmental agreements: good or bad news for environmental protection? J Environ Econ Manag 36:109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sharpley AN, McDowell RW, Kleinman PJA (2001) Phosphorus loss from land to water: integrating agricultural and environmental management. Plant Soil 237:287–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith LA, Chow-Fraser P (2010) Impacts of adjacent land use and isolation on marsh bird communities. Environ Manag. doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9475-5 Google Scholar
  44. StataCorp (2011) Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
  45. Statistics Canada (2011) Census of Agriculture, Farm and Farm Operator Data (p. catalogue no. 95–640–XWE)Google Scholar
  46. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA (1998) A brief inventory of values. Educ Psychol Meas. doi:10.1177/0013164498058006008
  47. Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC et al (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068 Google Scholar
  48. Vickery JA, Feber RE, Fuller RJ (2009) Arable field margins managed for biodiversity conservation: a review of food resource provision for farmland birds. Agric Ecosyst Environ. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2009.05.012 Google Scholar
  49. Wilson GA, Hart K (2000) Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environ Plan A. doi:10.1068/a3311 Google Scholar
  50. Wilson GA, Hart K (2001) Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: towards conservation-oriented thinking? Sociol Ruralis. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00181 Google Scholar
  51. Yiridoe EK, Atari D, Gordon R, Smale S (2010) Factors influencing participation in the Nova Scotia Environmental Farm Plan Program. Land Use Policy. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.02.006 Google Scholar
  52. Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate Goodale
    • 1
  • Yoko Yoshida
    • 2
  • Karen Beazley
    • 1
  • Kate Sherren
    • 1
  1. 1.School for Resource and Environmental StudiesDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Department of Sociology and Social AnthropologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations