Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature

Abstract

This is a comprehensive review of all published, quantitative studies focused on adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States between 1982 and 2017. This review finds that, taken as a whole, few independent variables have a consistent statistically significant relationship with adoption. Analyses showed that variables positively associated with adoption include the farmer self-identifying primarily as stewardship motivated or otherwise nonfinancially motivated, environmental attitudes, a positive attitude toward the particular program or practice, previous adoption of other conservation practices, seeking and using information, awareness of programs or practices, vulnerable land, greater farm size, higher levels of income and formal education, engaging in marketing arrangements, and positive yield impact expected. Some variables often thought to be important, such as land tenure, did not emerge as consistently important in this cross-study review. Other variables, such as farmers' sense of place, training, presence of institutional conditions supporting adoption, and the role of collective decision making are not measured in enough studies to draw conclusions but potentially have a relationship with adoption decisions. Implications for how to promote conservation adoption and directions for future research are discussed. Because positive attitudes and awareness of conservation programs or practices are positive predictors of adoption, practitioners should share benefits of specific practices and programs and leverage existing practice adoption. Further work to explore relationships between conservation adoption and the role of farmer identity, nuances of land tenure, and the influence of structural factors is needed. Moreover, we suggest that future research should focus on the impact of different messages and avenues of reaching farmers in order to continue to inform conservation practices. Future research should consider both individual and institutional factors that facilitate and constrain adoption.

Economic analysis of adopting no‐till and cover crops in irrigated cotton production under risk

“…Compared to the above results of lint yields, this indicates that cover crops help reduce the risk in income variability. Our finding also suggests the effects of NT may vary, depending on the cropping systems or other farm practices (Fox, Weersink, Sarwar, Duff, & Deen, ; Marcillo & Miguez, ; Prokopy et al., ).…”

“…The conventional tillage had higher costs of fuel and labor. This indicates that cost savings on no‐till may promote growers to use more conservation tillage, while an increase in production cost may be a barrier for cover crop adoption (Prokopy et al., ; Ranjan et al., ).…”

“…To motivate farmers to adopt conservation practices, the perceived uncertainty needs to be outweighed by the expected gains (Bergtold, Duffy, Hite, & Raper, ). A comparative evaluation of the potential gains from adopting conservation practices, such as no‐till (NT) and cover crops, can better help producers make informed farm management decisions (Prokopy et al., ).…”

“…The advantages of adopting NT and cover crops include retaining crop residues on the soil surface, increasing soil organic matter and nutrients, improving water holding capacity, reducing water evaporation, and mitigating soil erosion (Cates & Jackson, ; Dabney, Delgado, & Reeves, ; Daryanto, Fu, Wang, Jacinthe, & Zhao, ; Snapp et al., ; Triplett & Dick, ). Studies have reviewed the adoption of NT in the United States (Prokopy et al., ; Ranjan, Church, Floress, & Prokopy, ) and concluded that NT resulted in improvements in soil properties, greater cropping intensity, and higher crop productivity (Hansen, Allen, Baumhardt, & Lyon, ; Wallace et al., ). Agronomic and economic influences of cover crop adoption have been evaluated in studies of different cropping systems (Lewis et al., ; Schomberg et al., ; Zhou, Larson, Boyer, Roberts, & Tyler, ).…”

“…However, limited research has evaluated the economic benefits and producers’ risk preference for alternative tillage and cover crop systems for irrigated cotton production in Texas (Prokopy et al., ). Varner, Epplin, and Strickland () compared the profitability of NT and conventional tillage (CT) for cotton, grain sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L.), and wheat ( Triticum asestivum L.) in Southwest Oklahoma, and they concluded that the net returns were slightly greater for NT than CT for wheat, while there was no difference for the other cropping systems.…”