IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v115y2022ics0264837722000291.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservation behavior over time: Examining a Midwestern farmer sample

Author

Listed:
  • Beetstra, Margaret A.
  • Wilson, Robyn S.
  • Doidge, Mary

Abstract

Conservation practices are heavily promoted in agriculture, yet adoption rates remain low and relatively stagnant. We conducted a panel study of reported farmer subsurface placement and cover crop adoption in the Western Lake Erie Basin to assess (1) if reported adoption is changing over time, and (2) what is driving this change. Our results indicate that similar numbers of farmers are adding (~12%) and discontinuing use of (~14%) these practices. We find no evidence that prior intention increases the likelihood of future practice use, suggesting that intentions do not necessarily translate into behavior. We also examined self-efficacy (i.e., perceived control) and response efficacy (i.e., beliefs about practice effectiveness) but find limited evidence that these are changing over time and increasing adoption. The results suggest that increases in critical conservation practice adoption is not occurring, potentially because farmer efficacy, which might build stronger intentions and lead to change over time, is not increasing.

Suggested Citation

  • Beetstra, Margaret A. & Wilson, Robyn S. & Doidge, Mary, 2022. "Conservation behavior over time: Examining a Midwestern farmer sample," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:115:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722000291
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722000291
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106002?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claassen, Roger, 2019. "No-till and Strip-till Are Widely Adopted but Often Used in Rotation With Other Tillage Practices," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 0(02), March.
    2. Tingting Liu & Randall J. F. Bruins & Matthew T. Heberling, 2018. "Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Best Management Practices: A Review and Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-26, February.
    3. Zhang, Wendong & Wilson, Robyn S. & Burnett, Elizabeth & Irwin, Elena G. & Martin, Jay F., 2016. "What motivates farmers to apply phosphorus at the “right” time? Survey evidence from the Western Lake Erie Basin," ISU General Staff Papers 201608040700001588, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    5. Lynne, Gary D. & Franklin Casey, C. & Hodges, Alan & Rahmani, Mohammed, 1995. "Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 581-598, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Devon Johnson & Maya Almaraz & Jessica Rudnick & Lauren E. Parker & Steven M. Ostoja & Sat Darshan S. Khalsa, 2023. "Farmer Adoption of Climate-Smart Practices Is Driven by Farm Characteristics, Information Sources, and Practice Benefits and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-12, May.
    2. Han, Guang & Niles, Meredith T., 2023. "An adoption spectrum for sustainable agriculture practices: A new framework applied to cover crop adoption," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    3. Guang Han & Meredith T. Niles, 2023. "Interested but Uncertain: Carbon Markets and Data Sharing among U.S. Crop Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    4. repec:ags:aaea22:335568 is not listed 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. Daxini, Amar & Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2019. "Understanding farmers’ intentions to follow a nutrient management plan using the theory of planned behaviour," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 428-437.
    2. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    4. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    5. Boon, L.N. & Brière, M. & Rigot, S., 2018. "Regulation and pension fund risk-taking," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 23-41.
    6. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    7. Silvia Jordan & Corinna Treisch, 2010. "The perception of tax concessions in retirement savings decisions," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 2(3), pages 157-184, October.
    8. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    9. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    10. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2014. "Reciprocity and resistance to comprehensive reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 411-428, September.
    11. Paolo E. Giordani & Nadia Rocha & Michele Ruta, 2012. "Food Prices and the Multiplier Effect of Export Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 3783, CESifo.
    12. Costa-Font, Joan & Vilaplana-Prieto, Cristina, 2022. "Health shocks and housing downsizing: How persistent is ‘ageing in place’?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 490-508.
    13. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    14. Guy Barokas, 2021. "Dynamic choice under familiarity-based attention," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(4), pages 703-720, November.
    15. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    16. Jidong Zhou, 2011. "Reference Dependence and Market Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 1073-1097, December.
    17. Robin Gregory & Howard Kunreuther & Doug Easterling & Ken Richards, 1991. "Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 667-675, December.
    18. Anna Fielder & Riina Vuorikari & Nuria Rodriguez-Priego & Yves Punie, 2016. "Background Review for Developing the Digital Competence Framework for Consumers: A snapshot of hot-button issues and recent literature," JRC Research Reports JRC103332, Joint Research Centre.
    19. Jae‐Do Song, 2023. "Excessive banking preference in emissions trading," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 448-458, January.
    20. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:115:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722000291. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.