[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v81y2019icp360-370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crop advisers as conservation intermediaries: Perceptions and policy implications for relying on nontraditional partners to increase U.S. farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation practices

Author

Listed:
  • Eanes, Francis R.
  • Singh, Ajay S.
  • Bulla, Brian R.
  • Ranjan, Pranay
  • Fales, Mary
  • Wickerham, Benjamin
  • Doran, Patrick J.
  • Prokopy, Linda S.
Abstract
Federal agricultural land use policies in the United States aimed at protecting soil health and water quality typically rely on persuading individual farmers to voluntarily adopt conservation practices. An expanding body of literature suggests that private sector intermediaries, such as crop advisers, are increasingly trusted sources of information for farmers about conservation practices and thus may be persuasive actors in the conservation-adoption realm. While previous studies have explored farmers’ perceptions of crop advisers facilitating conservation practice adoption and participating in conservation programs in agricultural landscapes, little research to date has explored crop advisers’ perceptions of this role, and few agricultural land use policies have explicitly included crop advisers as conservation partners. This study fills a critical void in the literature by evaluating the Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation Partnership Program, an innovative agricultural policy that relies on crop advisers to recruit farmers into the program and assist them with the adoption of conservation practices. Through a survey and interviews with crop advisers in the Saginaw Bay watershed in Michigan, USA, we explore crop advisers’ perceptions of their role in the program and of delivering conservation information to farmers. We found that crop advisers have positive attitudes towards land/water resources and conservation practices, believe they have an important intermediary role to play in facilitating conservation practice adoption, and believe their supervisors are supportive of them promoting conservation. However, difficulties in collaboration and communication between the private and governmental sectors – resulting from perceived differences, operational differences, and territoriality – present a key barrier to crop advisers increasing their intermediary role in the promotion and implementation of federal conservation programs. Future research and policy initiatives should explore how to address public-private territoriality and whether crop advisers should be incentivized to deliver information about conservation practices and/or assist in enrolling farmers in federal conservation programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Eanes, Francis R. & Singh, Ajay S. & Bulla, Brian R. & Ranjan, Pranay & Fales, Mary & Wickerham, Benjamin & Doran, Patrick J. & Prokopy, Linda S., 2019. "Crop advisers as conservation intermediaries: Perceptions and policy implications for relying on nontraditional partners to increase U.S. farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 360-370.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:360-370
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718310238
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.054?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaron Thompson & Adam Reimer & Linda Prokopy, 2015. "Farmers’ views of the environment: the influence of competing attitude frames on landscape conservation efforts," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(3), pages 385-399, September.
    2. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    3. Glenn Sheriff, 2005. "Efficient Waste? Why Farmers Over-Apply Nutrients and the Implications for Policy Design," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(4), pages 542-557.
    4. Adam Reimer & Aaron Thompson & Linda Prokopy, 2012. "The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 29-40, March.
    5. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    6. Keith O. Fuglie & Catherine A. Kascak, 2001. "Adoption and Diffusion of Natural-Resource-Conserving Agricultural Technology," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 386-403.
    7. Catherine L. Kling, 2011. "Economic Incentives to Improve Water Quality in Agricultural Landscapes: Some New Variations on Old Ideas," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 297-309.
    8. Wang, Sun Ling, 2014. "Cooperative Extension System: Trends and Economic Impacts on U.S. Agriculture," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8.
    9. Wolf, Steven & Just, David & Zilberman, David, 2001. "Between data and decisions: the organization of agricultural economic information systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 121-141, January.
    10. Läpple, Doris & Rensburg, Tom Van, 2011. "Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1406-1414, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ajay S. Singh & Francis Eanes & Linda S. Prokopy, 2020. "Climate change uncertainty among American farmers: an examination of multi-dimensional uncertainty and attitudes towards agricultural adaptation to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1047-1064, October.
    2. Che, Yuyuan & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., 2023. "Will adoption occur if a practice is win-win for profit and the environment? An application to a rancher's grazing practice choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    3. Qianchun Dai & Kequn Cheng, 2022. "What Drives the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies? An Extension of TAM in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Zakir Hussain & Limei Deng & Xuan Wang & Rongyang Cui & Gangcai Liu, 2022. "A Review of Farmland Soil Health Assessment Methods: Current Status and a Novel Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Faridi, Amir Ali & Kavoosi-Kalashami, Mohammad & Bilali, Hamid El, 2020. "Attitude components affecting adoption of soil and water conservation measures by paddy farmers in Rasht County, Northern Iran," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Mao, Hui & Zhou, Li & Ying, RuiYao & Pan, Dan, 2021. "Time Preferences and green agricultural technology adoption: Field evidence from rice farmers in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Paige Seitz & Robert Strong & Steve Hague & Theresa P. Murphrey, 2022. "Evaluating Agricultural Extension Agent’s Sustainable Cotton Land Production Competencies: Subject Matter Discrepancies Restricting Farmers’ Information Adoption," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tingting Liu & Randall J. F. Bruins & Matthew T. Heberling, 2018. "Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Best Management Practices: A Review and Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-26, February.
    2. David Weisberger & Melissa Ann Ray & Nicholas T. Basinger & Jennifer Jo Thompson, 2024. "Chemical, ecological, other? Identifying weed management typologies within industrialized cropping systems in Georgia (U.S.)," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(3), pages 935-953, September.
    3. Wood, Liza & Lubell, Mark & Rudnick, Jessica & Khalsa, Sat Darshan S. & Sears, Molly & Brown, Patrick H., 2022. "Mandatory information-based policy tools facilitate California farmers’ learning about nitrogen management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Konrad, Maria Theresia & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Elofsson, Katarina, 2019. "Drivers of Farmers' Investments in Nutrient Abatement Technologies in Five Baltic Sea Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 91-100.
    5. Veldstra, Michael D. & Alexander, Corinne E. & Marshall, Maria I., 2014. "To certify or not to certify? Separating the organic production and certification decisions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P2), pages 429-436.
    6. Waters, James, 2013. "The influence of information sources on inter- and intra-firm diffusion: evidence from UK farming," MPRA Paper 50955, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Izak B. Foster & Trevor McIntyre & Natalie S. Haussmann, 2019. "Understanding the relationship between farmers and burrowing mammals on South African farms: are burrowers friends or foes?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 719-731, December.
    8. Chai, Yuan & J. Pannell, David & G. Pardey, Philip, 2023. "Nudging farmers to reduce water pollution from nitrogen fertilizer," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Jean McGuire & Lois Morton & Alicia Cast, 2013. "Reconstructing the good farmer identity: shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(1), pages 57-69, March.
    10. Chai, Yuan & Pannell, David J. & Pardey, Philip G., 2022. "Reducing Water Pollution from Nitrogen Fertilizer: Revisiting Insights from Production Economics," Staff Papers 320519, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    11. Aaron Thompson & Adam Reimer & Linda Prokopy, 2015. "Farmers’ views of the environment: the influence of competing attitude frames on landscape conservation efforts," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(3), pages 385-399, September.
    12. Matthew Houser, 2022. "Does adopting a nitrogen best management practice reduce nitrogen fertilizer rates?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 79-94, March.
    13. Dru Montri & Kimberly Chung & Bridget Behe, 2021. "Farmer perspectives on farmers markets in low-income urban areas: a case study in three Michigan cities," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 1-14, February.
    14. Claassen, Roger & Duquette, Eric & Horowitz, John & Kohei, Ueda, 2014. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation and Regulatory Offset Programs," Economic Research Report 180414, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    15. Kurkalova, Lyubov A., 2014. "On optimal placement of best management practices in agricultural watersheds," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169768, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Petr Matous, 2023. "Male and stale? Questioning the role of “opinion leaders” in agricultural programs," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 1205-1220, September.
    17. Fielke, Simon & Taylor, Bruce & Jakku, Emma, 2020. "Digitalisation of agricultural knowledge and advice networks: A state-of-the-art review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Nadia Adnan & Shahrina Md Nordin, 2021. "How COVID 19 effect Malaysian paddy industry? Adoption of green fertilizer a potential resolution," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 8089-8129, June.
    19. Cuong Le Van & Nguyen To The, 2019. "Farmers’ adoption of organic production," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 33-59, February.
    20. Greiner, Romy & Miller, Owen & Patterson, Louisa, 2008. "The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6002, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:360-370. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.