Segmenting climate-smart agriculture practice adoption: a multidimensional typology of U.S. dairy producers

Dairy farming systems, of critical economic and nutritional importance, face mounting climate-related challenges that are expected to intensify without substantial adaptation and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. In response, the U.S. dairy sector has established an ambitious goal of achieving GHG neutrality by 2050, emphasizing climate-smart strategies related to animal, manure, and land management. To track progress toward this goal and highlight pathways forward, we conducted a national-level U.S. survey of climate-smart agricultural among dairy producers, identifying patterns of use, producer perceptions, and typologies of adoption behavior. Our results represent roughly one of every 27 dairy producers in the U.S., making this study one of the most comprehensive national assessments in the dairy sector to date. While prior research has often reduced adoption to a binary outcome, we extend a multidimensional adoption framework to the dairy sector, enabling a more nuanced analysis of producers’ decision-making. Using latent class analysis, we identified five distinct adopter segments: marginal, conventional, confinement, hybrid, and integrative, based on dairy producers’ adoption patterns. Marginal adopters exhibited low engagement and high disadoption rates, while integrative adopters demonstrated the highest adoption breadth and sophistication, combining infrastructure and land-based strategies. Hybrid adopters represented a well-rounded group with the longest practice duration, especially among grazing practices. Confinement and conventional adopters prioritized controlled-environment infrastructure but showed generally little engagement with grazing or costly manure technologies. Multinomial logistic regression indicated that program engagement, perceived practice efficacy, and climate beliefs significantly differentiated adopter segments. Integrative adopters were the only group significantly more likely to attribute climate change to human causes and to engage in organic or conservation programs. Confinement and conventional adopters were more likely to perceive adaptation practices as effective for welfare and profit, while hybrid and integrative adopters viewed grazing strategies as effective across cow welfare, profit and GHG outcomes. Compared to other adopter segments, marginal adopters were more likely to prioritize profit, animal welfare, and future generations, suggesting that values may play a role in adoption differentiation. We also found that perceived adoption barriers did not necessarily limit adoption, as even highly engaged adopters reported greater capacity and informational barriers than marginal adopters. Support services could address these challenges without assuming they are prohibitive to fostering climate-smart agriculture practices. Our work offers practical insights and a more nuanced understanding of dairy producers, reflecting diverse motivations, constraints and structural conditions that shape practice adoption across the dairy sector.