Farmer Participation in U.S. Farm Bill Conservation Programs

Abstract

Conservation policy in agricultural systems in the United States relies primarily on voluntary action by farmers. Federal conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, offer incentives, both financial and technical, to farmers in exchange for adoption of conservation practices. Understanding motivations for (as well as barriers to) participation in voluntary programs is important for the design of future policy and effective outreach. While a significant literature has explored motivations and barriers to conservation practice adoption and participation in single programs, few studies in the U.S. context have explored general participation by farmers in one place and time. A mixed-methods research approach was utilized to explore farmer participation in all U.S. Farm Bill programs in Indiana. Current and past program engagement was high, with nearly half of survey respondents reporting participation in at least one program. Most participants had experience with the Conservation Reserve Program, with much lower participation rates in other programs. Most interview participants who had experience in programs were motivated by the environmental benefits of practices, with incentives primarily serving to reduce the financial and technical barriers to practice adoption. The current policy arrangement, which offers multiple policy approaches to conservation, offers farmers with different needs and motivations a menu of options. However, evidence suggests that the complexity of the system may be a barrier that prevents participation by farmers with scarce time or resources. Outreach efforts should focus on increasing awareness of program options, while future policy must balance flexibility of programs with complexity.

Navigating the Socio-Bio-Geo-Chemistry and Engineering of Nitrogen Management in Two Illinois Tile-Drained Watersheds

“…For the Upper Salt Fork, 90 completed surveys were returned out of 284 surveys sent, minus 13 returned for ineligibility and 1 undeliverable address, yielding a 33.3% response rate. Although limiting in terms of representation, these rates are higher than similar recent studies (e.g., 21.9%, as reported by Reimer and Prokopy [2013]). Comparisons were made with agricultural census statistics for the two counties and the state of Illinois (Table 1).…”

“…The lack of consistent findings across projects, time, or geographic study areas indicates that context likely matters when trying to understand farmers' motivations. Additionally, recent literature on agricultural conservation has focused largely on participation in conservation programs and combines inquiry on soil erosion with nutrient runoff and water quality (Arbuckle, 2013;Reimer and Prokopy, 2013), making it difficult to parse perspectives on water quality and nutrients from other more traditional farm conservation issues. Rural Iowa farmers and residents saw the benefits of conservation for water quality but rarely prioritized them or saw them as compatible with farming objectives or constraints (Atwell et al, 2009a(Atwell et al, , 2009b.…”

Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts

“…It is also worth highlighting the social cobenefits that accrue to participating farms and regional communities (Greiner and Stanley, 2013). However, as experiences elsewhere have shown, they need to be part of a policy bundle to ensure participation of farmers with different property situations, cost structures, and needs and motivations (Reimer and Prokopy, 2014). In particular, information and extension efforts should focus on increasing awareness of biodiversity and grazing impacts, thus changing attitudes relating to biodiversity, increasing acceptance of AES and Note: SE = standard error, ***, **, * denotes significance at 1%, 5%, 10% levels.…”

“…There have been reports of widespread 'cultural' resistance by farmers to participation in AES (Burton et al, 2008;Defrancesco et al, 2008) while research into AES participation across Europe found that conservation orientation was equally as important as financial motivation (Wilson and Hart, 2000). Personal factors include values, attitudes, motivations and perceptions and various social-psychological models and theories have been developed to explore and explain their influence on farmer behaviour (Beedell and Rehman, 2000;Burton, 2004;Greiner and Gregg, 2011;Johansson et al, 2013;Reimer and Prokopy, 2014).…”

Fragmented water quality governance: Constraints to spatial targeting for nutrient reduction in a Midwestern USA watershed

“…In the Yahara Watershed, funding and programmatic constraints affected opportunities for spatial targeting. Reimer and Prokopy (2014) found that the complexity of the USDA incentives system may be a barrier that prevents participation by farmers with scarce time or resources. They suggested outreach efforts to increase awareness of program options, and future policy that balances program flexibility with complexity.…”