Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Normative Influences on Farmers’ Intentions to Practice Conservation Without Compensation

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Non-source nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous) from agriculture have created a massive hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. This zone contains no oxygen and is devoid of life. US Department of Agriculture programs provide direct payments to farmers to encourage adoption of practices that reduce nutrient pollution. Paying farmers to change behavior, however, is expensive. Personal and social norms may serve to reduce these payment costs by motivating farmers to take action without external reward. This study explored relationships between three normative concepts (awareness of consequences (AC), ascription of responsibility (AR), subjective norms (SN)) and Illinois farmers’ intention to continue participation in conservation without financial compensation. Data were obtained from a mailed questionnaire. Only farmers who were currently being paid to participate in a conservation program were included in the analysis (n = 551). Using norm activation theory and the theory of reasoned action, we hypothesized that SN would be positively related to AC, AR, and conservation intentions without compensation. We also predicted that AC would be positively related to AR, and that AC and AR would be positively related to conservation intentions. All hypotheses were supported. Both personal norms (AC, AR) and social norms (subjective norms) were related to intentions to continue conservation without pay. Behavioral interventions that activate norms may help facilitate conservation without payments. As applied in this study, activating personal and social norms may serve to reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture that is flowing into the Gulf of Mexico and resulting in the hypoxic zone.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Podsakoff et al. (2003) proposed the Harman single factor test as one approach for examining common method bias. This test is based on a principal components exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of all original questionnaire items being examined, without rotation and with the number of factors fixed to one. If this single factor EFA explains < 50% of the variance, method bias is generally not considered to be a problem. Applied to the items in this article, the single factor explained 41% of the variance. This approach, when coupled with the CFA and Cronbach reliability analysis results presented here (e.g., factor loadings, fit indices, reliability coefficients), suggests that common method bias was generally absent.

  2. The indirect effect estimate is unstandardized and was estimated using the maximum likelihood method. The Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-squared, and bootstrapping procedure are not compatible as both are means of obtaining adjusted standard error estimates.

References

  • Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock H (2009) Assuming personal responsibility for improving the environment: moving toward a new environmental norm. Harv Environ Law Rev 33:117

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP, Phillips LW (1982) Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic construal. Admin Sci Quart 27:459–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 27:14–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates B, Quick B, Kloss A (2009) Antecedents of intention to help mitigate wildfire: implications for campaigns promoting wildfire mitigation to the general public in the wildland-urban interface. Saf Sci 47:374–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobinac A (2019) Mitigating hypothetical bias in willingness to pay studies: post-estimation uncertainty and anchoring on irrelevant information. Eur J Health Econ 20:75–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles S (2008) Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine the moral sentiments: evidence from economic experiments. Science 320(5883):1605–1609

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles S, Polania-Reyes S (2012) Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements? J Econ Lit 50(2):368–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratt C (1999) The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior. Environ Behav 31:630–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm JM, Eisenhauer BW, Krannich RS (2006) Community attachments as predictors of local environmental concern. Am Behav Sci 50(2):142–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bright AD, Manfredo MJ, Fishbein M, Bath A (1993) Application of the theory of reasoned action to the National Park Service’s controlled burn policy. J Leis Res 25(3):263–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New York, NY

  • Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (Eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, p 136–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne B (1998) Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Cernat A (2015) The impact of mixing modes on reliability in longitudinal studies. Soc Met Res 44(3):427–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou CP, Bentler PM (1995) Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle RH (Ed) Structural equation modeling. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advan Exp Soc Psych 24:201–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB, Trost MR (1998) Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert D, Fiske S, Lindzey G (eds.) The Handbook of social psychology, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, p 151–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayer AA, Lutter SH, Sesser K, Hickey CM, Gardali T (2018) Private landowner conservation behavior following participation in voluntary incentive programs: recommendations for facilitate behavioral persistence. Conserv Lett 11(2):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Young R (1993) Changing behavior and making it stick: the conceptualization and management of conservation behavior. Environ Behav 25(3):485–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Young R (2000) New ways to promote pro-environmental behavior: expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. J Soc Issues 56:509–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 4th edn. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Echeverria JD (2005) Regulating versus paying landowners to protect the environment. J Land Res Environ Law 26:46

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Working Group (EWG) (2017) Farm subsidy database. https://farm.ewg.org/subsidyprimer.php

  • Fang WT, Ng E, Zhan YS (2018) Determinants of pro-environmental behavior among young and older farmers in Taiwan. Sustainability 10:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Floress K, Jalon Garcia S, Church SP, Babin N, Ulrich-Schad JD, Prokopy LS (2017) Toward a theory of farmer conservation attitudes: dual interests and willingness to take action to protect water quality. J Environ Psychol 53:73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox J (1991) Regression diagnostics. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freyfogle ET (2007) On private property: finding common ground on the ownership of land. Beacon Press, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V (2008) A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J Consum Res 35:472–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V, Cialdini RB (2007) Invoking social norms—a social psychology perspective on improving hotels’ Linen-Reuse programs. Cornell Hotel Restaur Admin Q 48:145–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grasmick HG, Bursik Jr RJ, Kinsey KA (1991) Shame and embarrassment as deterrents to noncompliance with the law: The case of an antilittering campaign. Environ Behav 23:233–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

  • Harland P, Staats H, Wilke HAM (2007) Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: questions derived from norm-activation theory. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 29(4):323–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein TA (1972) The land ethic realized: Some social psychological explanations for changing environmental attitudes. J Soc Issues 28:79–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6(1):1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illinois (2014) State of Illinois Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Budget Fact Sheet. Office of the Governor, Pat Quinn, http://www2.illinois.gov/gov/budget/documents/budget%20book/fy%202015%20budget%20book/fy%202015%20agency%20budget%20fact%20sheets.pdf

  • Illinois EPA (2015) Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy. http://www.epa.illinois.gov/Assets/iepa/water-quality/watershed-management/nlrs/nlrs-final-revised-083115.pdf

  • Illinois Department of Agriculture (2019) Facts about Illinois agriculture. Illinois Department of Agriculture, Springfield, IL. https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/agr/About/Pages/Facts-About-Illinois-Agriculture.aspx

  • Kaiser F, Hubner G, Bogner FX (2005) Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 35(10):2150–2170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y, Dykema J, Stevenson J, Black P, Moberg DP (2019) Straightlining: overview of measurement, comparison of indicators, and effects in mail-web mixed mode surveys. Soc Sci Comp Rev 37(2):214–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling CI (2001) Economic incentives to improve water quality in agricultural landscapes: some new variations on old ideas. Am J Agric Econ 93(2):297–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landon AC, Kyle GT, Kaiser RA (2016) Predicting compliance with an information-based residential outdoor water conservation program. J Hydrol 536:26–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landon AC, Kyle GT, Kaiser RA (2017) An augmented norm activation model: the case of residential outdoor water use. Soc Nat Resour 30(8):903–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landon AC, Woosnam KM, Boley BB (2018) Modeling the psychological antecedents to tourists’ pro-sustainable behaviors: An application of the value-belief-norm model. J Sustain Tour 6(6):957–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landon AC, Woodward RT, Kyle GT, Kasier RA (2018) Evaluating the efficacy of an information-based residential outdoor water conservation program. J Clean Prod 195:56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold A (1949) A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder JR, Murphy TH, Briers GE (2001) Handling nonresponse in social science research. J Agric Educ 42(4):43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning M (2009) The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Br J Soc Psychol 48:649–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh HW, Hocevar D (1985) Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: first and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psych Bull 97:562–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastrangelo ME, Gavin MC, Laterra P, Linklater WL, Milfont TL (2014) Psycho‐social factors influencing forest conservation intentions on the agricultural frontier. Conserv Lett 7(2):103–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijboom FLB, Stafleu FR (2016) Farming ethics in practice: from freedom to professional moral autonomy for farmers. Agric Hum Values 33(2):403–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezzatesta M, Newburn DA, Woodward RT (2013) Additionality and the adoption of farm conservation practices. Land Econ 89(4):722–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec RM, Champine V, Vaske JJ, Mertens A (2020) Does the impact of norms vary by type of norm and type of conservation behavior? A meta-analysis. Soc Nat Resour. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1729912

  • Nolan JM (2017) Environmental policies can buttress conservation norms. Soc Nat Resour 30(2):228–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S (2003) Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Okuman M, Marin-Ortega J, Novo P (2018) Effects of awareness on farmers’ compliance with diffuse pollution mitigation measures: a conditional process modelling. Land Use Pol 76:36–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osmond DL, Hoag DL, Luloff AE, Meals DW, Neas K (2015) Farmers’ use of nutrient management: Lessons from watershed case studies. J Environ Qual 44:382–390

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S, Lee J, Podsakoff N (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhananga AK, Davenport MA (2015) Landowner motivations for civic engagement in water resource protection. J Am Waters Resour Assoc 51(6):1600–1612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhananga AK, Davenport MA, Fulton DC, Maruyama GM, Current D (2017) An integrated moral obligation model for landowner conservation norms. Soc Nat Resour 30(2):212–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prager K, Posthumus H (2010) Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ adoption of soil conservation practices in Europe. p. 1-21 In: Napier TL (ed) Human dimensions soil and water conservation, Nova Science Publications, Inc., United Kingdom, p. 388

  • 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 63:300–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy LS, Towery D, Babin N (2014) Adoption of agricultural conservation practices: insights from research and practice. Purdue University Extension FNR-488-W, West Layaette, Indiana

  • Rabotyagov SS, Kling CL, Gassman PW, Rabalais NN, Turner RE (2014) Economics of dead zones: causes, impacts, policy challenges, and a model of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Environ Econ Pol 8:58–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabotyagov SS, Campbell T, Jha M, Gassman PW, Arnold J, Kurkalova L, Secchi S, Feng H, Kling CL (2010) Least-cost control of agricultural nutrient contributions to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Ecol Appl 20:1542–1555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsdell CP, Sorice MG, Dwyer AM (2016) Using financial incentives to motivate conservation of an at-risk species on private lands. Environ Conserv 43(1):34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raykov T (1997) Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Appl Psychol Meas 21(2):173–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond C, Brown G, Robinson G (2011) The influence of place attachment and moral normative concerns on the conservation of native vegetation: a test of two behavioral models. J Environ Psychol 31:323–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer AP, Prokopy LS (2014) Farmer participation in US Farm Bill conservation programs. Environ Manag 53:318–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl JB (2007) The background principles of natural capital and ecosystem services—did “Lucas” open Pandora’s box? J Land Use Environ Law 22:525–547

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundquist S, Cox C (2015) Iowa’s low hanging fruit: Stream buffer rule = cleaner water, little cost. http://www.ewg.org/research/iowas-low-hanging-fruit#.Wam7vk3rtaQ

  • Schepers J, Wetzels M (2007) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norms and moderation effects. Inf Manag 40:90–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (1968) Awareness of consequences and the influence of moral norms on interpersonal behavior. Sociometry 31:355–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (1973) Normative explanations of helping behavior: a critique, proposal, and empirical test. J Exp Soc Psychol 9:349–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 10:221–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz PW (2011) Conservation means behavior. Conserv Biol 25(6):1080–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortle JS, Horan RD (2001) The economics of non-point pollution control. J Econ Surv 15(3):255–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorice MG, Conner JR (2010) Predicting private landowner intentions to enroll in an incentives program to protect endangered species. Hum Dimens Wildl 15(2):77–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steil M (2017) Minnesota farmers say Dayton plan to curb runoff is laced with problems. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/01/13/minnesota-farmers-say-dayton-pollution-runoff-plan-too-costly

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs M (2014) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): status and issues. Congr Res Serv Rep. 42783:24

    Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J (1996) Recycling and morality: a critical review of the literature. Environ Behav 28:536–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson AW, Reimer A, Prokopy LS (2015) Farmers’ views of the environment: the influence of competing attitude frames on landscape conservation efforts. Agric Hum Values 32(3):385–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418(6898):671–677

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Trumbo CW, O’Keefe GJ (2007) Intention to conserve water: environmental values, reasoned action, and information effects across time. Soc Nat Res 18(6):573–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RE, Rabalais NN, Scavia D, McLsaac GF (2007) Corn belt landscapes and hypoxia of the Gulf of Mexico. In: Nassaur JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D eds. From the Corn Belt to the Gulf: Ecological and societal implications of alternative agricultural future. RFF Press, Baltimore, MD, p 10–27

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2014) Conservation Reserve Program Report. US Department of Agriculture. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/augupdate14.pdf

  • USDA Farm Services Agency (2017) Conservation Reserve Program. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/

  • USC 33 1251 (1972) Federal Water Pollution Act Amendments of 1972. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

  • Van Riper CJ, Kyle GT (2014) Understanding the internal processes of behavioral engagement in a national park: a latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory. J Environ Psychol 53:145–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vugt M (1998) The psychology of social dilemmas. Psychology 6:289–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ (2019) Survey research and analysis, 2nd edn. Sagamore-Venture Publishing LLC, Urbana, Ill

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ, Whittaker D (2004) Normative approaches to natural resources. In: Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Bruyere BL, Field DR, Brown P (Eds.) Society and natural resources: a summary of knowledge. Modern Litho, Jefferson, MO, p 283–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ, Jacobs MH, Espinosa TK (2015) Carbon footprint mitigation on vacation: a norm activation model. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 11:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by US Department of the Interior (US Fish & Wildlife Service) Grant 11676851. The questionnaire was approved by the University of Illinois Internal Review Board (IRB number 10236). The authors would like to Samantha Pallazza for her assistance on the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA

    Jerry J. Vaske

  2. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Saint Paul, MN, USA

    Adam C. Landon

  3. University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA

    Craig A. Miller

Authors
  1. Jerry J. Vaske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam C. Landon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Craig A. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jerry J. Vaske.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vaske, J.J., Landon, A.C. & Miller, C.A. Normative Influences on Farmers’ Intentions to Practice Conservation Without Compensation. Environmental Management 66, 191–201 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01306-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01306-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation