A meta-analysis of agricultural conservation intentions, behaviors, and practices: Insights from 35 years of quantitative literature in the United States.

Conservation practices (CPs) are integral to maintaining the long-term viability of agro-ecological systems. Because farming systems and farmers' values and attitudes are heterogeneous, factors that consistently predict conservation behaviors remain elusive. Moreover, heterogeneity is present among studies regarding the type of CPs examined, and whether behavioral intentions or actual behaviors were measured. This study considers the characteristics of each CP, and whether a given study measured behavioral intention or actual behavior, to better understand farmers' adoption of CPs. We reviewed and analyzed 35 years (1982-2017) of quantitative conservation adoption literature in the United States. We categorized CPs based on their primary purpose, the type of benefit they provide, and whether they are operational or structural. We also examined the following five CPs: conservation tillage, buffers or borders, soil testing, grassed waterways, and cover crops. In our behavioral intention and actual behavior analysis, we found that attitudinal factors predicted both conservation intention and action (actual behavior), whereas current or previous use of practices only influenced actions, not stated conservation intentions. In our analysis focusing on CP characteristics, we found that having specific knowledge about and positive attitudes toward the CP, adoption of other CPs, seeking and using information, larger farm size, and vulnerable land predicted actual adoption across nearly all CP categorizations. Nuances emerge when comparing predictors of CPs that share a particular characteristic. For example, we found farm characteristics to be comparatively more important in predicting adoption of soil management CPs than nutrient and livestock management CPs, and farmers' stewardship identity to be more important for permanent practices than operational practices.

Understanding scientists' communication challenges at the intersection of climate and agriculture.

In the United States, a public debate remains about the existence and effects of anthropogenic climate change. This skepticism is present in the agricultural sector, rendering climate science communication challenging. Due to the polarization of climate change issues and the concurrent need for agricultural adaptation, we sought to examine how scientists communicate in this sector. A survey, administered to climate scientists and pertinent U.S. federal agency staff (response rate = 43%), was conducted to examine perspectives on communicating with five agricultural stakeholder groups: agribusinesses, crop advisors, general public, producers, and policymakers. We focused on three aspects of the communication process with these stakeholders to evaluate if scientists, as messengers, were following best practices-communicator training, knowledge of stakeholder, and terminology use. We found scientists valued communication training; however, the majority had not attended formal training. Scientists had different views on climate change than producers and crop advisors but understood their perspective and were deliberate with their communication with different audiences. This suggests stakeholder knowledge and terminology use do not hinder communication between scientist and stakeholder. We also highlight three communication challenges present across stakeholder groups-stakeholder knowledge, timescale, and scientific uncertainty-and others that were specific to each stakeholder group. Future research should support scientists by identifying and resolving barriers to training and effective communication strategies for each stakeholder group that addresses these challenges.

Do scientists have a responsibility to provide climate change expertise to mitigation and adaptation strategies? Perspectives from climate professionals.

Although the scientific community has reached a consensus that anthropogenic climate change is a severe and pressing issue, climate change remains a contentious debate with the United States public. Through a survey (N = 273), we explored climate professionals' perspectives on their role and responsibility to promote climate change adaptation/mitigation strategies related to agroecosystems. They believed that climate professionals have a social responsibility to provide scientific input to both policymakers and the public. There was strong agreement that media, political, and public support is necessary for development, and near unanimous agreement for implementation, of climate change mitigation/adaptation strategies. This study highlights the climate professionals' perceptions of their responsibility to provide scientific input, but also demonstrates that they believe the responsibility does not rest solely on their shoulders. Further research should explore scientists' perceptions of their and others' policy roles and scientists' interactions with different influencers of adaptation/mitigation policy.

Explaining the use of online agricultural decision support tools with weather or climate information in the Midwestern United States.

Agricultural decision support tools (DSTs) with weather or climate information can provide useful information to help stakeholders make operational farming decisions and adapt to increasingly variable weather or climate in the context of climate change. However, many of these DSTs are still not fully utilized. Understanding the use of DSTs can help identify strategies to promote their usage to more end-users. This study surveyed farmers (n = 2,633) and advisors (n = 2,719) across 12 states in the Midwest to draw comparisons on their usage of DSTs and factors influencing the usage. The advisors are more likely to take advantage of free and publicly available sources than farmers. Advisors are also more likely to agree on the usefulness of DSTs, feel social pressure to use DSTs, be concerned and perceive risks from variable weather, believe in climate change, and show positive attitudes towards climate change adaptation than farmers. Concerns about weather or climate, descriptive social norms, greater farm size, and general propensity to adopt a new technology are positively associated with higher adoption rate of DSTs for both farmers and advisors. Higher level of perceived behavioral control to deal with weather-related risks, injunctive social norms, gender (male), and age are positively associated with higher adoption rate of DSTs for only advisors. Positive adaptation attitude towards climate change and higher education level are positively associated with higher adoption rate of DSTs for only farmers. Unlike advisors, age is negatively associated with higher adoption rate of DSTs for farmers. Implications of our findings include DST educators leveraging social networks and reinforcing social norms to promote usage among current non-users, building up both farmers' and advisors' confidence and knowledge in using DSTs, understanding the role of advisors as "change agents" to promote DST usage among farmers, and connecting networks of "innovators" and "early adopters." With more and more DSTs developed, future scholarship can draw upon our findings to understand how to encourage DSTs adoption among current non-users and extend to other regions.

Lessons learned from using a decision-support tool for precision placement of conservation practices in six agricultural watersheds in the US midwest.

While conservation of natural resources on agricultural landscapes has been a priority for public agencies for more than 80 years, the ability of conservation planners to place conservation practices for enhanced environmental benefits remains elusive. To increase both adoption of conservation practices and efficient use of conservation funding, conservation planners are turning to decision support tools (DSTs), such as the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF). However, less is known about how DSTs facilitate a whole-landscape approach to conservation planning, and the strategies that are employed by conservation planners to engage with producers using new GIS-enabled planning technologies. With the goal of contributing to both the policy and practice of precision conservation, we present findings from semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted with 21 conservation professionals in six watersheds in the US Midwest. Results suggest that the ACPF encourages conservation professionals to think at a watershed scale, supports their approach to conservation planning, and helps them in watershed planning and stakeholder engagement. Results also highlight the importance of conservation professionals employing a suite of strategies, such as being mindful of the scale of producer engagement (i.e., single farm vs community based) and accounting for producers' personalities, to create 'enabling conditions' for producer engagement when adopting a precision approach to conservation. Policy recommendations for precision conservation technologies include the need to streamline and expedite the process of conservation delivery, and that DSTs are a means to an end, but not a universal remedy, because conservation planning is most effective when localized interactions of rural landscapes and social dynamics are considered in an adaptive approach.

Public perception towards river and water conservation practices: Opportunities for implementing urban stormwater management practices.

The effectiveness of urban stormwater management practices (SMPs) on local water quality is dependent on adoption rates reaching a critical mass. While numerous studies have measured the effectiveness of practices on controlling water quantity and improving water quality, few have focused on the perspective of the public. The purpose of this study was to identify individuals' perceptions of urban SMPs implementation in the public and private realms, and how longitudinal perceptions about the local river could inform future water resource management. Through the lens of environmental behavior theories, we performed statistical analyses on four surveys - 2006, 2009, 2014 and 2016 - administered to urban residents in the Wabash River watershed in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Our findings show that residents' water quality awareness and sense of personal responsibility increase over the ten years studied. In particular, rain garden adopters have higher appreciation of the Wabash River and care about how the river functions than other SMP adopters and non-adopters. In terms of urban SMP adoption, results indicate that residents are supportive of integrating rain barrels and rain gardens into public spaces. Perceptions of SMP benefits related to functional benefits, rather than environmental benefits, are prevalent when considering implementing SMPs on personal property. In addition, respondents support reducing stormwater charges for adopters of such practices on private property. Although cognitive barriers exist in those who have yet to adopt the practices, including concerns about SMP effectiveness, maintenance, aesthetics, and risk of bugs and insects, adopters are less likely to perceive such barriers. This research suggests that making resources (i.e., skills, knowledge, equipment, funding) more accessible to the public is essential, but not sufficient to encourage pro-environmental behaviors. Promoting public involvement in watershed activities, increasing their awareness about how urban SMPs function, and emphasizing the functional benefits of practices can be effective in motivating adoption.

Midwestern US Farmers Perceive Crop Advisers as Conduits of Information on Agricultural Conservation Practices.

Nonpoint source pollution from agricultural land uses continues to pose one of the most significant threats to water quality in the US, with measurable impacts across local, regional, and national scales. The impact and the influence of targeted conservation efforts are directly related to the degree to which farmers are familiar with and trust the entities providing the information and/or outreach. Recent research suggests that farmers consistently rank independent and retail-affiliated crop advisers as among the most trusted and influential sources for agronomic information, but little is understood about whether farmers are willing to receive advice from crop advisers on the use of practices that conserve soil and water, and, if so, whether crop advisers will be perceived as influential. We present survey data from farmers (n = 1461) in Michigan's Saginaw Bay (Lake Huron) watershed to explore these questions. Results suggest that farmers view crop advisers as trustworthy sources of information about conservation, and influential on management practices that have large conservation implications. We discuss these results, along with perceived barriers and opportunities to crop advisers partnering with traditional conservation agencies to enhance the impact of voluntary conservation programs.

More food, low pollution (mo fo lo Po): a grand challenge for the 21st century.

Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer has been a double-edged sword, greatly improving human nutrition during the 20th century but also posing major human health and environmental challenges for the 21st century. In August 2013, about 160 agronomists, scientists, extension agents, crop advisors, economists, social scientists, farmers, representatives of regulatory agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other agricultural experts gathered to discuss the vexing challenge of how to produce more food to nourish a growing population while minimizing pollution to the environment. This collection of 14 papers authored by conference participants provides a much needed analysis of the many technical, economic, and social impediments to improving nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) in crop and animal production systems. These papers demonstrate that the goals of producing more food with low pollution (Mo Fo Lo Po) will not be achieved by technological developments alone but will also require policies that recognize the economic and social factors affecting farmer decision-making. Take-home lessons from this extraordinary interdisciplinary effort include the need (i) to develop partnerships among private and public sectors to demonstrate the most current, economically feasible, best management NUE practices at local and regional scales; (ii) to improve continuing education to private sector retailers and crop advisers; (iii) to tie nutrient management to performance-based indicators on the farm and in the downwind and downstream environment; and (iv) to restore investments in research, education, extension, and human resources that are essential for developing the interdisciplinary knowledge and innovative skills needed to achieve agricultural sustainability goals.

Farmers and Climate Change: A Cross-National Comparison of Beliefs and Risk Perceptions in High-Income Countries.

Climate change has serious implications for the agricultural industry-both in terms of the need to adapt to a changing climate and to modify practices to mitigate for the impacts of climate change. In high-income countries where farming tends to be very intensive and large scale, it is important to understand farmers' beliefs and concerns about climate change in order to develop appropriate policies and communication strategies. Looking across six study sites-Scotland, Midwestern United States, California, Australia, and two locations in New Zealand-this paper finds that over half of farmers in each location believe that climate change is occurring. However, there is a wide range of beliefs regarding the anthropogenic nature of climate change; only in Australia do a majority of farmers believe that climate change is anthropogenic. In all locations, a majority of farmers believe that climate change is not a threat to local agriculture. The different policy contexts and existing impacts from climate change are discussed as possible reasons for the variation in beliefs. This study compared varying surveys from the different locations and concludes that survey research on farmers and climate change in diverse locations should strive to include common questions to facilitate comparisons.

Farmer participation in U.S. Farm Bill conservation programs.

Conservation policy in agricultural systems in the United States relies primarily on voluntary action by farmers. Federal conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, offer incentives, both financial and technical, to farmers in exchange for adoption of conservation practices. Understanding motivations for (as well as barriers to) participation in voluntary programs is important for the design of future policy and effective outreach. While a significant literature has explored motivations and barriers to conservation practice adoption and participation in single programs, few studies in the U.S. context have explored general participation by farmers in one place and time. A mixed-methods research approach was utilized to explore farmer participation in all U.S. Farm Bill programs in Indiana. Current and past program engagement was high, with nearly half of survey respondents reporting participation in at least one program. Most participants had experience with the Conservation Reserve Program, with much lower participation rates in other programs. Most interview participants who had experience in programs were motivated by the environmental benefits of practices, with incentives primarily serving to reduce the financial and technical barriers to practice adoption. The current policy arrangement, which offers multiple policy approaches to conservation, offers farmers with different needs and motivations a menu of options. However, evidence suggests that the complexity of the system may be a barrier that prevents participation by farmers with scarce time or resources. Outreach efforts should focus on increasing awareness of program options, while future policy must balance flexibility of programs with complexity.

Environmental attitudes and drift reduction behavior among commercial pesticide applicators in a U.S. agricultural landscape.

Pesticide drift is a significant environmental problem in rural regions, and can result in losses to certain non-target crops and livestock, water and air pollution, and threats to human health. While state agencies seek to control the harmful effects of pesticides through licensing and certificate programs, the adoption rates of drift-reducing practices by commercial applicators remain highly variable. In order to effectively target outreach efforts to commercial applicators, managers need to better understand current use patterns and the motivations behind the adoption and non-adoption of preferred practices. Using a web and mail survey, this study explored environmental attitudes, awareness and concern for pesticide drift, and current practice adoption for drift reduction by commercial pesticide applicators in Indiana. Researchers surveyed three distinct applicator types: industrial weed management (utility right-of-way), agriculture, and aerial (which are mostly spraying in an agricultural setting). Overall, applicators exhibited positive environmental attitudes, but low concern for pesticide drift in the geographic areas where they operate. Adoption rates for several drift reduction technologies were high, particularly for equipment and spray modifications such as low-drift spray nozzles (88%) and increased spray droplet size (92%). Applicators were less familiar with specialty equipment (such as band sprayers, 13% adoption rate) and methods for identifying sensitive sites such as bee colonies and organic crops. Among the three groups, industrial weed management applicators had the lowest adoption rates. Applicators were motivated to adopt drift-reduction practices by the desire to be a good neighbor and a desire to be a good land steward. There is potential for use of more innovative, voluntary approaches to raise awareness of sites sensitive to pesticide drift in rural landscapes.