IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i9p5513-d808456.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landowner Satisfaction with Conservation Programs in the Southern United States

Author

Listed:
  • Ram K. Adhikari

    (Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 9681, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA)

  • Robert K. Grala

    (Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 9681, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA)

  • Stephen C. Grado

    (Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 9681, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA)

  • Donald L. Grebner

    (Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 9681, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA)

  • Daniel R. Petrolia

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 5187, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA)

Abstract

Landowner satisfaction with conservation programs affects their participation decisions and subsequently effectiveness of these programs in improving environmental quality. This study determined the influence of landownership goals, environmental concerns, frequency of contacts with federal agencies, and socioeconomic factors on landowner satisfaction with available conservation programs in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and East Gulf Coastal Plain sub-geographies of the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative. A generalized ordered logit model for each conservation program was constructed to analyze factors influencing landowner satisfaction levels with these programs. Of the 14 federal conservation programs assessed, the top programs, based on a satisfaction level, included Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The size of agricultural land owned, landownership goals including profit-making and personal recreation, concerns about wildlife habitat losses, and frequent contacts with federal agencies were positively related to landowner satisfaction levels. Better strategies addressing landowner’s environmental concerns, communicating technical knowledge, clarifying contract terms, and supporting financial resource leveraging will help reach the enrolled and non-enrolled landowners to increase their participation in conservation efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Ram K. Adhikari & Robert K. Grala & Stephen C. Grado & Donald L. Grebner & Daniel R. Petrolia, 2022. "Landowner Satisfaction with Conservation Programs in the Southern United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5513-:d:808456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5513/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5513/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sweikert, Lily A. & Gigliotti, Larry M., 2019. "Evaluating the role of Farm Bill conservation program participation in conserving America’s grasslands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 392-399.
    2. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2002. "What Can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 402-435, June.
    3. Kang, Moon Jeong & Siry, Jacek P. & Colson, Gregory & Ferreira, Susana, 2019. "Do forest property characteristics reveal landowners' willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services contracts in southeast Georgia, U.S.?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 144-152.
    4. Welsh, Rick & Webb, Michaele E. & Langen, Tom A., 2018. "Factors affecting landowner enrollment in wetland restoration in northeastern New York State," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 679-685.
    5. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    6. Håbesland, Daniel E. & Kilgore, Michael A. & Becker, Dennis R. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Solberg, Birger & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Lindstad, Berit H., 2016. "Norwegian family forest owners' willingness to participate in carbon offset programs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 30-38.
    7. Randall G. Monger & Jordan F. Suter & Dale T. Manning & Joel P. Schneekloth, 2018. "Retiring Land to Save Water: Participation in Colorado’s Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 36-51.
    8. Ralph Bierlen & Lucas D. Parsch, 1996. "Tenant Satisfaction with Land Leases," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 18(3), pages 505-513.
    9. Johnson, Kris A. & Dalzell, Brent J. & Donahue, Marie & Gourevitch, Jesse & Johnson, Dennis L. & Karlovits, Greg S. & Keeler, Bonnie & Smith, Jason T., 2016. "Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 175-185.
    10. Nagubadi, Venkatarao & McNamara, Kevin T. & Hoover, William L. & Mills, Walter L., 1996. "Program Participation Behavior of Nonindustrial Forest Landowners: A Probit Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 323-336, December.
    11. Heesun Jang & Xiaodong Du, 2018. "An Empirical Structural Model of Productivity and Conservation Reserve Program Participation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 1-18.
    12. Adhikari, Ram K. & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Grebner, Donald L. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2021. "Landowner concerns related to availability of ecosystem services and environmental issues in the southern United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2019. "Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-85.
    14. Jenkins, W. Aaron & Murray, Brian C. & Kramer, Randall A. & Faulkner, Stephen P., 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1051-1061, March.
    15. Hellerstein, Daniel M., 2017. "The US Conservation Reserve Program: The evolution of an enrollment mechanism," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 601-610.
    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. Thapa, Bhawna & Chapagain, Binod P. & McMurry, Scott T. & Smith, Loren M. & Joshi, Omkar, 2024. "Understanding landowner participation in the Conservation Reserve Program in the U.S. High Plains region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    2. Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong, 2024. "Impact of cost share programs on conservation practice adoption: A new perspective," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343974, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Adhikari, Ram K. & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Grebner, Donald L. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2021. "Landowner concerns related to availability of ecosystem services and environmental issues in the southern United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Yang, Yi & Zhu, Yu & Zhao, Yiwen, 2024. "Improving farmers’ livelihoods through the eco-compensation of forest carbon sinks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. Gutierrez-Castillo, Ana & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael A., 2022. "Conservation easement landowners' willingness to accept for forest thinning and the impact of information," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    4. Bingjie Song & Guy M. Robinson & Douglas K. Bardsley, 2020. "Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-30, August.
    5. Shrestha, Anusha & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Roberts, Scott D. & Gordon, Jason S. & Adhikari, Ram K., 2021. "Nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to pay for prescribed burning to lower wildfire hazards," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    6. Thilo W. Glebe, 2022. "The influence of contract length on the performance of sequential conservation auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 739-764, March.
    7. Long, Kaisheng & Omrani, Hichem & Pijanowski, Bryan C., 2020. "Impact of local payments for ecosystem services on land use in a developed area of China: A qualitative analysis based on an integrated conceptual framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    8. Oladipo S. Obembe & Nathan P. Hendricks, 2022. "Marginal cost of carbon sequestration through forest afforestation of agricultural land in the southeastern United States," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(S1), pages 59-73, November.
    9. Graversgaard, Morten & Jacobsen, Brian H. & Hoffmann, Carl Christian & Dalgaard, Tommy & Odgaard, Mette Vestergaard & Kjaergaard, Charlotte & Powell, Neil & Strand, John A. & Feuerbach, Peter & Tonder, 2021. "Policies for wetlands implementation in Denmark and Sweden – historical lessons and emerging issues," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    10. Marc N. Conte & Robert Griffin, 2019. "Private Benefits of Conservation and Procurement Auction Performance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 759-790, July.
    11. Gutierrez, Ana L. & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael, 2020. "Conservation Easement Landowners’ WTA Compensation to Thin their Forest," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304551, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    13. Fluhrer, Svenja & Kraehnert, Kati, 2022. "Sitting in the same boat: Subjective well-being and social comparison after an extreme weather event," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Abel Brodeur, 2012. "Smoking, Income and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from Smoking Bans," Working Papers halshs-00664269, HAL.
    15. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    16. Carlo Borzaga & Ermanno Tortia, 2004. "Worker involvement in entrepreneurial nonprofit organizations. Toward a new assessment of workers' perceived satisfaction and fairness," Department of Economics Working Papers 0409, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    17. Roman A. Ohrenstein, 2007. "The Talmudic Doctrine of “The Benefit of a Pleasure”: Psychological Well‐Being in Talmudic Literature," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(4), pages 661-680, October.
    18. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    19. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    20. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, 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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5513-:d:808456. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.