IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v23y2021i1d10.1007_s10668-019-00572-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promoting sustainable agriculture: Iowa stakeholders’ perspectives on the US Farm Bill conservation programs

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel Medina

    (University of Brasilia)

  • Catherine Isley

    (Iowa State University)

  • J. Arbuckle

    (Iowa State University)

Abstract

Farmers perceive a tension between short-term profit and long-term sustainability, which can be bridged by external investments in conservation. In the USA, the Farm Bill plays an important role in providing this investment through conservation programs. Since the Farm Bill is influenced by various stakeholders, their perspectives tend to inform its programs and practices. We aim to understand influential stakeholders’ viewpoints on strengths and weaknesses of major conservation programs as a means for either incremental or transformative changes leading to policy improvements. Interviews were conducted with representatives from key stakeholder groups, including farmer and agribusiness groups, commodity groups, government agencies, and environmental NGOs. Results reveal that commodity group and agribusiness representatives maintain that current conservation programs have been effective at reducing soil erosion and proposing incremental changes to them. Specific issues include simplifying the conservation stewardship program, easing requirements attached to the environmental quality incentive program, avoiding excessive conservation reserve program payments to compete with tenant farmers for good agricultural lands, and preventing farmers from being out of compliance on highly erodible land. However, results also reveal that stakeholders now appear to be more concerned about water quality and nutrient management rather than soil erosion. Environmental NGOs and research groups present transformative ideas to address this issue. At the farm level, they promote both infrastructural improvements and conservation-conscious management practices. At the landscape level, many stakeholders recognize the need for holistic, scalable approaches to soil and water quality conservation. However, interviewed stakeholders unanimously foresee incremental, not transformative, changes to Farm Bill conservation programs and policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel Medina & Catherine Isley & J. Arbuckle, 2021. "Promoting sustainable agriculture: Iowa stakeholders’ perspectives on the US Farm Bill conservation programs," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 173-194, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00572-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-019-00572-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-019-00572-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-019-00572-5?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. Álvarez, X. & Valero, E. & Santos, R.M.B. & Varandas, S.G.P. & Sanches Fernandes, L.F. & Pacheco, F.A.L., 2017. "Anthropogenic nutrients and eutrophication in multiple land use watersheds: Best management practices and policies for the protection of water resources," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Toderi, Marco & Francioni, Matteo & Seddaiu, Giovanna & Roggero, Pier Paolo & Trozzo, Laura & D’Ottavio, Paride, 2017. "Bottom-up design process of agri-environmental measures at a landscape scale: Evidence from case studies on biodiversity conservation and water protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 295-305.
    3. McWilliam, Wendy & Balzarova, Michaela, 2017. "The role of dairy company policies in support of farm green infrastructure in the absence of government stewardship payments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 671-680.
    4. Bellemare, Marc F. & Carnes, Nicholas, 2015. "Why do members of congress support agricultural protection?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-34.
    5. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2014. "Conservation, the Farm Bill and U.S. Agri-Environmental Policy," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-6, September.
    6. Inman, Alex & Winter, Michael & Wheeler, Rebecca & Vrain, Emilie & Lovett, Andrew & Collins, Adrian & Jones, Iwan & Johnes, Penny & Cleasby, Will, 2018. "An exploration of individual, social and material factors influencing water pollution mitigation behaviours within the farming community," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 16-26.
    7. Catherine DeLong & Richard Cruse & John Wiener, 2015. "The Soil Degradation Paradox: Compromising Our Resources When We Need Them the Most," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, January.
    8. Qu, Mei & Liu, Guangzhe & Lin, Yin & Driedger, Erika & Peter, Zsuzsanna & Xu, Xiaoqian & Cao, Yang, 2017. "Experts’ perceptions of the sloping land conversion program in the Loess Plateau, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 204-210.
    9. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Hoppe, Robert A., 2017. "The Evolving Distribution of Payments From Commodity, Conservation, and Federal Crop Insurance Programs," Economic Information Bulletin 291932, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Sternweis, Laura & Arbuckle, J. Gordon, Jr., 2016. "2012 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll: Land Values," ISU General Staff Papers 201603231539481402, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Oliver Taherzadeh & Peter Howley, 2018. "No net loss of what, for whom?: stakeholder perspectives to Biodiversity Offsetting in England," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1807-1830, August.
    12. Hendricks, Nathan P. & Er, Emrah, 2018. "Changes in cropland area in the United States and the role of CRP," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 15-23.
    Full references (including those not matched with items 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. Simon R. Swaffield & Robert C. Corry & Paul Opdam & Wendy McWilliam & Jørgen Primdahl, 2019. "Connecting business with the agricultural landscape: business strategies for sustainable rural development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(7), pages 1357-1369, November.
    2. Muhammed Ernur Akıner & İlknur Akıner, 2021. "Water Quality Analysis of Drinking Water Resource Lake Sapanca and Suggestions for the Solution of the Pollution Problem in the Context of Sustainable Environment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Rachel M. Shellabarger & Rachel C. Voss & Monika Egerer & Shun-Nan Chiang, 2019. "Challenging the urban–rural dichotomy in agri-food systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(1), pages 91-103, March.
    5. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    6. Lark, Tyler J., 2020. "Protecting our prairies: Research and policy actions for conserving America’s grasslands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Thomas, Alban & Chakir, Raja, 2020. "Unintended consequences of environmental policies: the case of set-aside and agricultural intensification," TSE Working Papers 20-1066, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. Todd, Jessica E. & Whitt, Christine & Key, Nigel & Mandalay, Okkar, 2024. "An Overview of Farms Operated by Socially Disadvantaged, Women, and Limited Resource Farmers and Ranchers in the United States," Economic Information Bulletin 340512, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Sponagel, Christian & Bendel, Daniela & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Weber, Tobias Karl David & Gayler, Sebastian & Streck, Thilo & Bahrs, Enno, 2022. "Integrated assessment of regional approaches for biodiversity offsetting in urban-rural areas – A future based case study from Germany using arable land as an example," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    10. Okumah, Murat & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Chapman, Pippa J. & Novo, Paula & Cassidy, Rachel & Lyon, Christopher & Higgins, Alex & Doody, Donnacha, 2021. "The role of experiential learning in the adoption of best land management practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    11. Grilli, Gianluca & Curtis, John, 2021. "An evaluation of public initiatives to change behaviours that affect water quality," Papers WP696, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    12. Rong Zhao & Tianyu Jia & He Li, 2023. "Could the Sloping Land Conversion Program Promote Farmers’ Income in Rocky Desertification Areas?—Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, June.
    13. Bianca B. Barreto & Fernando P. Rivera & Blair M. McKenzie & Katharine Preedy & Yangminghao Liu & Lionel X. Dupuy & Elisângela Ribeiro & Roberto A. Braga, 2023. "Analysis of the Effect of Tilling and Crop Type on Soil Structure Using 3D Laser Profilometry," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-13, October.
    14. B. James Deaton & Chad Lawley & Karthik Nadella, 2018. "Renters, landlords, and farmland stewardship," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 521-531, July.
    15. Zeleke Asaye & Dong-Gill Kim & Fantaw Yimer & Katharina Prost & Oukula Obsa & Menfese Tadesse & Mersha Gebrehiwot & Nicolas Brüggemann, 2022. "Effects of Combined Application of Compost and Mineral Fertilizer on Soil Carbon and Nutrient Content, Yield, and Agronomic Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Maize-Potato Cropping Systems in Southern Ethiopi," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, May.
    16. Blundo-Canto, Genowefa & Bax, Vincent & Quintero, Marcela & Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Perez-Marulanda, Lisset, 2018. "The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 160-183.
    17. Yuanjie Deng & Wencong Cai & Mengyang Hou & Xiaolong Zhang & Shiyuan Xu & Nan Yao & Yajun Guo & Hua Li & Shunbo Yao, 2022. "How Eco-Efficiency Is the Forestry Ecological Restoration Program? The Case of the Sloping Land Conversion Program in the Loess Plateau, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, May.
    18. Clements, Jen & Lobley, Matt & Osborne, Juliet & Wills, Jane, 2021. "How can academic research on UK agri-environment schemes pivot to meet the addition of climate mitigation aims?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    19. Yuanming Xie & Zemeng Ma & Mingjie Fang & Weiguo Liu & Feiyan Yu & Jiajing Tian & Shuoxin Zhang & Yan Yan, 2023. "Analysis of Net Primary Productivity of Retired Farmlands in the Grain-for-Green Project in China from 2011 to 2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    20. Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Pratt, Bryan & Arnold, David, 2022. "Land Use Impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program: An Analysis of Rejected CRP Offers," 2023 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 6-8, 2023, New Orleans, Louisiana 316533, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00572-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.