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(1), 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. Wu, Linghui & Khanna, Madhu & Atallah, Shadi S., 2023. "Drivers and barriers to adopting a cover cropping technology among midwestern farmers," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335568, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322502, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Traxler, Emilia & Li, Tongzhe, 2020. "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.
    8. Asci, Serhat & Borisova, Tatiana & VanSickle, John J., 2015. "Role of economics in developing fertilizer best management practices," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 251-261.
    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. Kang, Wenjin & Tang, Ke & Wang, Ningli, 2023. "Financialization of commodity markets ten years later," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    11. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    12. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    13. Nagubadi, Venkatarao & McNamara, Kevin T. & Hoover, William L. & Mills, Walter L., Jr., 1996. "Program Participation Behvaior Of Nonindustrial Forest Landowners: A Probit Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Eric Britt Moore, 2023. "Challenges and Opportunities for Cover Crop Mediated Soil Water Use Efficiency Enhancements in Temperate Rain-Fed Cropping Systems: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, April.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Bishu, Kinfe & O'Reilly, Seamus & Lahiff, Edward & Steiner, Bodo, 2016. "Cattle farmers’ perceptions of risk and risk management strategies," MPRA Paper 74954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. 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.
    19. Kim Young Joo & Skibniewski Miroslaw J., 2020. "Unsuccessful bids: Coefficient of variation of bids as indicator of project risk," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 2193-2199, January.
    20. de Lauwere, Carolien & Slegers, Monique & Meeusen, Marieke, 2022. "The influence of behavioural factors and external conditions on Dutch farmers’ decision making in the transition towards circular agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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.