IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nddaae/267904.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Landowner Conservation Attitudes and Behaviors in the Prairie Pothole Region

Author

Listed:
  • Cheryl J. Wachenheim
  • John Devney

Abstract

Long-term and widespread wetlands conservation within agricultural working lands remains tenable. There exists a need to identify alternative options for incentivizing wetland maintenance on private property. The objective of this research is to facilitate development of viable options by developing an understanding of how landowners view conservation, including that specifically targeted towards maintenance of wetlands, and what influences their decision regarding conservation program participation. Landowners in the five-state Prairie Pothole Region were surveyed. Most landowners supported use of incentives for wetlands conservation. Fewer supported the options of incentivized regulation, easements, and regulation. Landowners identified contract attributes including payment level and guaranteed source of income as important in their decision-making regarding conservation program participation. Effect of program participation on soil quality and erosion control were also considered important. Other program attribute and external effect factors were of moderate importance, and impact on neighboring properties was not considered important. Revealed decision criteria differed between groups defined by operation as including livestock, residence as on-farm, gender, previous or current participation in the Conservation Reserve Program, and support of various policy options for wetlands conservation. Attitudinal questions revealed that landowners in general agreed that they should be consulted on wetlands programs, promoting healthy ecosystems is a landowner’s responsibility, and landowners have the right to decide land use, should be compensated for land use choices that benefit the environment, including for maintenance of wetlands, and should be able to farm wetlands. They agreed that wetlands are important for wildlife and their conservation is important, although agreement that it is important to protect wetlands on private and public lands and especially that small wetlands benefit their operations tended toward neutral. Landowners were neutral on whether current conservation programs are effective and there should be regulations to control the conversion of naturally-occurring wetlands on agricultural land. Landowners with a CRP contract history were more supportive of the role of and need to protect wetlands, and had a lower level of agreement that decisions on land use are their right and that landowners should be able to farm their wetlands than those without. Members of general and crop-specific farm organizations were more strongly in agreement with landowners’ rights than non-members and less supportive of the role of wetlands and the need and policy tools to protect them. Members of Farmers Union and three crop commodity organizations also more strongly agreed that farmers should receive compensation when land use choices benefit the environment than non-members. Alternatively, conservation organization member agreement was higher than that of non-members that small wetlands benefit their operations, that it is important to protect wetlands, and that conservation of wetlands is important, and was lower for statements reflecting landowner rights.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheryl J. Wachenheim & John Devney, 2018. "Landowner Conservation Attitudes and Behaviors in the Prairie Pothole Region," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 267904, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:nddaae:267904
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.267904
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/267904/files/AAE781.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/267904/files/AAE781.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.267904?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger Claassen & Eric N. Duquette & David J. Smith, 2018. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 19-35.
    2. Ribaudo, Marc, 2015. "The Limits of Voluntary Conservation Programs," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-5.
    3. Adam Reimer & Aaron Thompson & Linda Prokopy, 2012. "The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 29-40, March.
    4. Claassen, Roger & Duquette, Eric & Horowitz, John & Kohei, Ueda, 2014. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation and Regulatory Offset Programs," Economic Research Report 180414, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Lesch, William C. & Wachenheim, Cheryl J., 2014. "Factors Influencing Conservation Practice Adoption in Agriculture: A Review of the Literature," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 164828, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    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. Matthew Houser, 2022. "Does adopting a nitrogen best management practice reduce nitrogen fertilizer rates?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 79-94, March.
    2. Glauber, Joseph W. & Effland, Anne, 2016. "United States agricultural policy: Its evolution and impact:," IFPRI discussion papers 1543, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard, 2015. "Nutrient Assimilation Services for Water Quality Credit Trading Programs," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-33, Resources for the Future.
    4. Claassen, Roger & Bowman, Maria & Breneman, Vince & Wade, Tara & Williams, Ryan & Fooks, Jacob & Hansen, LeRoy & Iovanna, Rich & Loesch, Chuck, 2017. "Conservation Compliance: How Farmer Incentives Are Changing in the Crop Insurance Era," Economic Research Report 261814, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Pates, Nicholas J. & Hendricks, Nathan P., 2016. "Additionality in Payments for Environmental Service Contracts with Technology Diffusion," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236066, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Wade, Tara & Claassen, Roger & Wallander, Steven, 2015. "Conservation-Practice Adoption Rates Vary Widely by Crop and Region," Economic Information Bulletin 262111, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Rees, Gwen & Stephenson, Kurt & Taylor, Daniel B., 2015. "The Impact of Transaction Costs and Differential BMP Adoption Rates on the Cost of Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution in Virginia," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196834, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Wan, Xiaolan & Howard, Gregory & Zhang, Wendong, 2022. "Enrollment Restrictions and the Adoption of Conservation Practices in the U.S. Corn Belt," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322793, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Nicholas J Pates & Nathan P Hendricks, 2020. "Additionality from Payments for Environmental Services with Technology Diffusion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 281-299, January.
    10. Pannell, David J. & Pardey, Philip G. & Hurley, Terrence M., 2020. "Private Incentives for Sustainable Agriculture: Principals and Evidence for Sustainable Agricultural Change," Working Papers 304700, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    11. Marc N. Conte & Robert Griffin, 2019. "Private Benefits of Conservation and Procurement Auction Performance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 759-790, July.
    12. Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Wallander, Steven, 2020. "Conservation Practice Adoption and On-field Resource Concerns," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304563, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Erik Nelson & Virginia Matzek, 2016. "Carbon Credits Compete Poorly With Agricultural Commodities In An Optimized Model Of Land Use In Northern California," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 1-24, November.
    14. Dru Montri & Kimberly Chung & Bridget Behe, 2021. "Farmer perspectives on farmers markets in low-income urban areas: a case study in three Michigan cities," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Kristina Beethem & Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt & Jennifer Lai & Tian Guo, 2023. "Navigating the information landscape: public and private information source access by midwest farmers," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 1117-1135, September.
    17. Yoder, Landon & Roy Chowdhury, Rinku, 2018. "Tracing social capital: How stakeholder group interactions shape agricultural water quality restoration in the Florida Everglades," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 354-361.
    18. Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong, 2024. "Impact of cost share programs on conservation practice adoption: A new perspective," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343974, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Patrick Baur, 2020. "When farmers are pulled in too many directions: comparing institutional drivers of food safety and environmental sustainability in California agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1175-1194, December.
    20. Ribaudo, Marc & Savage, Jeffrey, 2014. "Controlling non-additional credits from nutrient management in water quality trading programs through eligibility baseline stringency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 233-239.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Farm Management; Land Economics/Use;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:nddaae:267904. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dandsus.html .

    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.