Many countries have invested billions of dollars in conservation efforts in agriculture to lessen the environmental harms that are generated by farming. Despite this substantial investment, voluntary and mandatory participation in agri-environment schemes has remained relatively low and delivered mixed conservation outcomes (Kuhfuss et al. 2016; Carlisle 2016; Ribaudo 2015, Gunningham & Sinclair 2005). Given farmers’ central role in land management and the extensive environmental changes caused by agriculture globally (Foley et al. 2005), understanding what motivates and mediates farmers’ adoption of conservation measures remains a crucial research need (De Loë et al. 2015).
Substantial research has already explored why farmers participate and demonstrated that voluntary adoption of conservation measures cannot be reduced to simple economic calculations, though financial benefits and costs remain important to decision-making (Selinske et al. 2017; Siebert et al. 2006; Pannel et al. 2006, Baumgart-Getz et al. 2012). More recent research has focused on how the social dynamics in farming communities shape norms around what constitutes good farming practices, how this mediates social standing within farming communities, and the ways in which norms and “good farmer” identities can lead to resistance to some types of on-farm conservation measures (McGuire et al. 2013; Burton & Paragahawewa 2011; Burton 2004). Yet, many conservation approaches rely on contracts between farmers and government and fail to account for these social dynamics (Burton & Paragahawewa 2011).
More research is needed to examine how such social dynamics and conservation priorities are heterogeneous based on farms’ business structures (e.g., smallholder, large family farm, or shareholder-owned agribusiness) (Villanueva et al. 2017) and environmental stewardship values (Prokopy 2011), spatial matching of conservation measures within farm boundaries and targeting geographically important areas for conservation (Zhang et al. 2016; Arbuckle 2013), and how different institutional arrangements that go beyond voluntary conservation contracts mediate farmer cooperation to address negative externalities arising from agriculture (Del Corso et al. 2017; Kuhfuss et al. 2016; Marshall 2009; Lubell 2004).
We invite both qualitative and quantitative contributions that explore:
• What motivates or constrains farmers’ participation in formal and informal conservation efforts;
• How different business structures, from smallholder to large family farm to corporate agribusinesses, shape decisionmaking and conservation outcomes;
• The ways in which different collective-action needs and efforts inform farmer priorities that support or undermine conservation aims;
• The role that institutional arrangements or policies, such as regulatory requirements, subsidies, or collaborative approaches, plays in mediating farmer participation and cooperation around conservation priorities; or
• How different types of agri-environmental measures (e.g., no-till, buffers, etc.) interact with farm production and on-farm biophysical factors to influence adoption or non-adoption.
Arbuckle Jr, J. G. 2013. Farmer Attitudes Toward Proactive Targeting of Agricultural Conservation Programs. Society and Natural Resources 26:625–641.
Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L., & Floress, K. (2012). Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: A meta-analysis of the adoption literature. Journal of Environmental Management, 96(1), 17-25.
Burton, R. J. F. 2004. Seeing through the “good farmer”s’ eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of “productivist” behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2):195–215.
Burton, R. J. F., and U. H. Paragahawewa. 2011. Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies 27:95–104.
Carlisle, L. 2016. Factors influencing farmer adoption of soil health practices in the United States: A narrative review. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 40 (6):583–613.
De Loë, R., D. Murray, and H. C. Simpson. 2015. Farmer perspectives on collaborative approaches for governance for water. Journal of Rural Studies 42:191–205.
Del Corso, J.-P., T. D. P. G. Nguyen, and C. Kephaliacos. 2017. Acceptance of a payment of ecosystem services scheme: The decisive influence of collective action. Environmental Values 26:177–202.
Foley, J. A., R. DeFries, G. P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin, M. T. Coe, G. C. Daily, H. K. Gibbs, J. H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E. A. Howard, C. J. Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J. A. Patz, I. C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, and P. K. Snyder. 2005. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 309:570–574.
Kuhfuss, L., R. Préget, S. Thoyer, and N. Hanley. 2016. Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: The role of a collective bonus. European Review of Agricultural Economics 43 (4):609–636.
Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (2005). Policy Instrument Choice and Diffuse Source Pollution. Journal of Environmental Law, 17(1), 51-81
Lubell, M. 2004. Collaborative Watershed Management: A View from the Grassroots. Russell Sage Foundation.
Marshall, G. R. 2009. Polycentricity, reciprocity, and farmer adoption of conservation practices under community-based governance. Ecological Economics 68:1507–1520.
McGuire, J., L. W. Morton, and A. D. Cast. 2013. Reconstructing the Good Farmer Identity: Shifts in Farmer Identities and Farm Management Practices to Improve Water Quality. Agriculture and Human Values 30:57–69.
Pannell, D. J., G. R. Marshall, N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay, and R. Wilkinson. 2006. Understanding and Promoting Adoption of Conservation Practices by Rural Landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46:1407–1424.
Ribaudo, M. 2015. The limits of voluntary conservation programs. Choices 30 (2):1–5.
Selinske, M. J., B. Cooke, N. Torabi, M. J. Hardy, A. T. Knight, and S. A. Bekessy. 2016. Locating financial incentives among diverse motivations for long-term private land conservation. Ecology and Society 22 (2):7.
Siebert, R., M. Toogood, and A. Knierim. 2006. Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis 46 (4):318–340.
Villanueva, A. J., M. Rodríguez-Entrena, M. Arriaza, and J. A. Gómez-Limón. 2017. Heterogeneity of farmers’ preferences towards agri-environmental schemes across different agricultural sub-systems. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60 (4):684–707.
Zhang, W., R. S. Wilson, E. Burnett, E. G. Irwin, and J. F. Martin. 2016. What motivates farmers to apply phosphorus at the “right” time? Survey evidence from the Western Lake Erie Basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research 42:1343–1356.
|Presenter||Landon Yoder*, Indiana University, Individual Decision-Making or Collective Action in Adopting On-Farm Conservation Practices: A Review of the Literature||20||8:00 AM|
|Presenter||Martin Delaroche*, Indiana University, The differential role of environmental policy and individual value changes in the adoption of conservation practices by large-scale soybean landowners in Mato Grosso, Brazil||20||8:20 AM|
|Presenter||Marion Daugeard*, Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle, The enforcement role of municipalities in farmer’s compliance with environmental restoration requirements: Reflections on Brazilian Amazon’s experiences||20||8:40 AM|
|Presenter||Peter Deadman*, University of Waterloo, Derek Robinson, University of Waterloo, Johanna Wandel, University of Waterloo, Liuyi Guo, University of Waterloo, Modelling the influence of land management decisions on phosphorus transport in an agricultural watershed||20||9:00 AM|
|Presenter||Swetha Peteru*, , The NGO, Farmers, and Resources||20||9:20 AM|
To access contact information login