IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p11803-d919474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived Benefit and Cost Perception Gaps between Adopters and Non-Adopters of In-Field Conservation Practices of Agricultural Producers

Author

Listed:
  • Calder McCollum

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

  • Jason S. Bergtold

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

  • Jeffery Williams

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

  • Amer Al-Sudani

    (National Center for Alluvial Aquifer Research, Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776, USA)

  • Elizabeth Canales

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762, USA)

Abstract

Farmers’ willingness to adopt conservation practices is influenced by their perceptions of the practices. Differences in perceptions point toward potential educational and outreach strategies that may be employed to promote adoption. The purpose of this study was to assess perception gaps between adopters and non-adopters for continuous no-tillage, conservation crop rotations, cover crops, and variable-rate application of inputs. Using primary survey data from Kansas agricultural producers, we evaluated differences in perceptions regarding economic, agronomic, environmental, and management outcomes through descriptive statistic and mean separation tests. Practice adoption ranged from 29% for variable-rate application of inputs to 69% for conservation crop rotations. On average, adopters perceived increases in crop yields and net returns for each practice compared to non-adopters. Perceptions about other factors varied by practice, but perceived benefits tended to be higher for adopters. Similarly, perceived disadvantages from adoption (e.g., higher cost, increased management needs) tended to be lower among adopters. Overall, both adopters and non-adopters perceived environmental benefits from adopting conservation practices. Our findings point toward potential outreach strategies to promote conservation adoption, such as extension and outreach that share more relevant and localized economic information and build upon joint perceptions of environmental benefits of practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Calder McCollum & Jason S. Bergtold & Jeffery Williams & Amer Al-Sudani & Elizabeth Canales, 2022. "Perceived Benefit and Cost Perception Gaps between Adopters and Non-Adopters of In-Field Conservation Practices of Agricultural Producers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:11803-:d:919474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/11803/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/11803/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krishna P. Paudel & Nirmala Devkota & Ying Tan, 2016. "Best management practices adoption to mitigate non-point source pollution," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 8(4), pages 534-552, November.
    2. Graeme D. Ruxton, 2006. "The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student's t-test and the Mann--Whitney U test," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(4), pages 688-690, July.
    3. Schimmelpfennig, David, 2018. "Crop Production Costs, Profits, And Ecosystem Stewardship With Precision Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 81-103, February.
    4. Lucas Clay & Katharine Perkins & Marzieh Motallebi & Alejandro Plastina & Bhupinder Singh Farmaha, 2020. "The Perceived Benefits, Challenges, and Environmental Effects of Cover Crop Implementation in South Carolina," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Bergtold, Jason S. & Duffy, Patricia A. & Hite, Diane & Raper, Randy L., 2012. "Demographic and Management Factors Affecting the Adoption and Perceived Yield Benefit of Winter Cover Crops in the Southeast," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(01), pages 1-18, February.
    6. Greiner, Romy & Patterson, Louisa & Miller, Owen, 2009. "Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 86-104, February.
    7. Gabriel, José Luis & Garrido, Alberto & Quemada, Miguel, 2013. "Cover crops effect on farm benefits and nitrate leaching: Linking economic and environmental analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 23-32.
    8. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    9. Church, Sarah P. & Lu, Junyu & Ranjan, Pranay & Reimer, Adam P. & Prokopy, Linda S., 2020. "The role of systems thinking in cover crop adoption: Implications for conservation communication," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    10. Späti, Karin & Huber, Robert & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Benefits of Increasing Information Accuracy in Variable Rate Technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    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. Brooke McWherter & Kate Sherren, 2025. "Exploring mental systems within regenerative agriculture: systems thinking and rotational grazing adoption among Canadian livestock producers," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 42(1), pages 213-226, March.
    2. repec:ags:aaea22:335568 is not listed on IDEAS

    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. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    2. Lijing Gao & J. Arbuckle, 2022. "Examining farmers’ adoption of nutrient management best management practices: a social cognitive framework," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 535-553, June.
    3. Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Sieverding, Heidi L. & Rao, Xudong & Miao, Yuxin & Kumar, Sandeep & Redfearn, Daren & Nafchi, Ali, 2022. "Understanding farmer perceptions of precision agriculture profitability in the U.S. Midwest," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 322502, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Traxler, Emilia & Li, Tongzhe, "undated". "Agricultural Best Management Practices, A summary of adoption behaviour," Working Papers 305271, University of Guelph, Institute for the Advanced Study of Food and Agricultural Policy.
    5. J. Carl Ureta & Lucas Clay & Marzieh Motallebi & Joan Ureta, 2020. "Quantifying the Landscape’s Ecological Benefits—An Analysis of the Effect of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Garini, C.S. & Vanwindekens, F. & Scholberg, J.M.S. & Wezel, A. & Groot, J.C.J., 2017. "Drivers of adoption of agroecological practices for winegrowers and influence from policies in the province of Trento, Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 200-211.
    7. Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Sieverding, Heidi & Kumar, Sandeep & Miao, Yuxin & Rao, Xudong & Obembe, Oladipo & Mirzakhani Nafchi, Ali & Redfearn, Daren & Cheye, Stephen, 2023. "Understanding farmer views of precision agriculture profitability in the U.S. Midwest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. Tong, Jingyi & Bartalotti, Otavio C. & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Institutional Land Ownership and Conservation Practice Adoption in the US Midwest," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343808, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Ferrer, Stuart R.D. & Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb, 1997. "Factors affecting soil conservation decisions of KwaZulu-Natal commercial sugarcane farmers," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 36(4), pages 1-9, December.
    10. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias, 2012. "Revealed payments for biodiversity protection in Swedish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-62.
    11. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    12. Wang, H. Holly & Young, Douglas L. & Camara, Oumou M., 2000. "The Role Of Environmental Education In Predicting Adoption Of Wind Erosion Control Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Pagiola, Stefano & Rios, Ana R. & Arcenas, Agustin, 2008. "Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 299-325, June.
    14. Moojen, Fernanda Gomes & Ryschawy, Julie & dos Santos, Davi Teixeira & Barth Neto, Armindo & Vieira, Paulo Cardozo & Portella, Elisa & de Faccio Carvalho, Paulo César, 2022. "The farm coaching experience to support the transition to integrated crop–livestock systems: From gaming to action," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    15. Gary Lynne, 1984. "Commentary," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 1(3), pages 10-14, June.
    16. Syed Aflatun Kabir Hemel & Mohammad Kamrul Hasan & Md. Abdul Wadud & Rojina Akter & Nasima Akther Roshni & Md. Tariqul Islam & Afsana Yasmin & Keya Akter, 2022. "Improvement of Farmers’ Livelihood through Choi Jhal ( Piper chaba )-Based Agroforestry System: Instance from the Northern Region of Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, December.
    17. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    18. Willy, Daniel Kyalo & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2013. "Social influence and collective action effects on farm level soil conservation effort in rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 94-103.
    19. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application Of Tobit Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(01), pages 1-12, July.
    20. Mahadevan, Renuka, 2008. "The high price of sweetness: The twin challenges of efficiency and soil erosion in Fiji's sugar industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 468-477, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:11803-:d:919474. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.