Developing Farmer Typologies to Inform Conservation Outreach in Agricultural Landscapes.

Authors: Suraj Upadhaya*, Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, J Gordon Arbuckle, Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Lisa A. Schulte, Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University
Topics: United States, Environment, Sustainability Science
Keywords: Biodiversity Conservation, Soil and Water Conservation, Multivariate Analysis, Corn Belt, Agricultural Production
Session Type: Virtual Paper
Day: 4/9/2021
Start / End Time: 8:00 AM / 9:15 AM
Room: Virtual 13
Presentation Link: Open in New Window
Presentation File: No File Uploaded


Understanding factors that motivate conservation behavior among farmers is crucial to addressing societal, soil, water, and wildlife conservation goals. Farmers employ soil conservation practices to maintain agricultural productivity while minimizing ecological impacts in the long-term. The majority of the conservation programs are voluntary in nature and some farmers are more willing and/or able to implement conservation practices than others. To inform the development of more effective conservation outreach and incentive programs, we created a farmer typology using data from three waves (2015, 2016, 2018) of a longitudinal survey of 358 farmers from Iowa, a highly productive agricultural state in the U.S. Midwest. Using multivariate analysis we employed 26 summated scale variables measuring largely unobservable and latent constructs related to conservation, including awareness, attitudes, beliefs, and perceived motivations and barriers to practice adoption. Through this analysis, we identified four types of farmers-Conservationists, Deliberative, Productivists, and Traditionalists—based on the salient characteristics of each group. “Conservationist” farmers scored highest on measures of stewardship motivations and identity. “Deliberative” farmers appeared to be favorably disposed toward conservation, but also seem to consider agronomic and economic impediments more than other groups. “Productivist” farmers had the highest scores on profit motivation and emphasis on input use. “Traditionalist” farmers reported being heavily influenced by family members and scored highest on social and regulatory influence on conservation motivations. Detailed understanding of patterns of difference between groups can contribute to developing targeted messages for specific subgroups, potentially resulting in higher adoption of voluntary conservation programs in Iowa and beyond.

Abstract Information

This abstract is already part of a session. View the session here.

To access contact information login