1. Introduction
Conservation practices provide benefits for both the environment and the agricultural economy. Agriculture, however, remains a primary source of nonpoint source pollution. This has resulted in environmental degradation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems [1,2]. One of the most vital environmental functions of conservation best management practices (BMPs) on agricultural land is to help enhance and preserve important ecosystem services, such as preventing and reducing sources of nonpoint source pollution (e.g., soil erosion and nutrient run-off and leaching) [1,3,4], while improving soil health and enhancing agricultural productivity [5,6]. Conservation practices provide a mechanism for mitigating and managing environmental degradation across the agricultural landscape, particularly with issues related to sediment and nutrient runoff [7]. The goal of this study was to explore differences in perceptions between adopters and non-adopters of conservation practices about the benefits, costs, management, and impact of in-field conservation in crop production systems.
Conservation practices can provide economic benefits, which are generally tied to yield gains (i.e., increased productivity) and reductions in input costs [8]. For example, cover crops may help reduce fertilizer inputs due to increased biomass and soil fertility and may simultaneously result in an increase in farm revenue if the biomass produced can be sold or used as forage for livestock [9]. Some conservation practices can improve agricultural productivity and increase crop revenue and farm profitability via higher crop yields and value-added benefits, such as annual winter grazing. Practices that help reduce input usage (including pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, and labor) can result in lower variable costs. For example, variable rate application of inputs may result in a decrease in overall input usage, reducing production costs [10,11,12]. However, while conservation practices could potentially result in cost savings, the adoption of these practices could also increase overall crop production costs due to additional agronomic management needs and machinery and equipment requirements [13]. Costs associated with the adoption of conservation practices may include labor and management costs, higher pesticide costs, and investment in machinery and equipment. In addition, there is an opportunity cost associated with the time required for learning new management skills to adopt a conservation practice [14].
Agricultural producers will adopt a conservation practice if they perceive that the conservation practice will help them achieve their goals, which may include economic, social, and environmental goals [15]. Producers’ willingness to adopt conservation practices is influenced by their perceptions of the benefits and costs associated with the conservation practice being considered. Perceptions are defined as “the way an individual observes, understands, interprets, and evaluates a referent object, action, experience, individual policy, or outcome” [16] (p. 4). Prior literature has established the impact of farmers’ perceptions on the adoption of conservation practices. Ramsey et al. [17] examined the relationship between adoption and perceived yield risk of various in-field conservation practices, finding that perceptions (e.g., impact of soil fertility and risk) influence practice adoption. Reimer, Weinkauf, and Prokopy [18] found that adoption of conservation BMPs resulted from producers’ positive perceptions of the practice (e.g., reduced input usage, time-savings, environmental benefits), compatibility with their current production system, and observed benefits (e.g., trialing and observing others adopt and benefit from using the practice). Adrian, Norwood, and Mask [19] found that perceptions of net benefits, usefulness, and ease of use play a significant role in the adoption of precision agricultural technologies, such as variable-rate application of inputs. Arbuckle and Roesch-McNally [20] found that positive perceptions of the benefits of cover crops increased adoption. Clay et al. [21] found that management perceptions, such as time and labor requirements, significantly impacted cover crop adoption decisions by farmers in South Carolina. Bergtold et al. [8] and Singer, Nusser, and Alf [22] found that yield perceptions play a significant role in cover crop adoption and these perceptions are likely to differ between adopters and non-adopters.
Ervin and Ervin [23] argue that producers first identify if a conservation practice will satisfy a critical need and then proceed to consider adoption of the practice, which is heavily driven by perceptions about the practice. Perceptions play a critical role in assessing the benefits and viability of a conservation practice when considered by non-adopters [17,24]. Producers’ perceptions about a conservation practice can be influenced by experience, information, peers, and other factors, as well as being malleable over time [16]. A potential reason explaining non-adoption of a practice is a knowledge and perception gap existing between adopters and non-adopters. Often, these two groups have different perceptions about the benefits and costs associated with a practice. Church et al. [25] found that perceptions related to cover crop benefits diverged between adopters and non-adopters of cover crops in an Indiana watershed. Due to these gaps, research, promotional, and extension efforts focusing on increasing awareness and perceptions of benefits, usability, and risk management may increase conservation practice adoption [18,20,26]. Perceptions can evolve based on new acquired knowledge. Thus, providing proper nudges and disseminating science-based information (e.g., beneficial information about the practices) could be helpful in promoting the adoption of conservation practices. Understanding if perception gaps exist is also important to inform these education efforts [26,27,28]. Few studies in the literature have directly compared or measured the perception gaps between adopters and non-adopters of conservation practices in the U.S. For example, Ramsey et al. [17] examined differences between adopters’ and non-adopters’ perceived yield risk related to alternative in-field conservation practices, and Wang et al. [29] examined the differences in perceptions related to rotational grazing practices. By better understanding what specific perception gaps exist between adopters and non-adopters for specific conservation practices, research, education, and outreach efforts can then focus on these gaps and further identify factors that can help reduce these perception gaps, thereby improving adoption of these conservation practices and intensifying conservation efforts by agricultural producers across agricultural landscapes.
The purpose of this study was to assess the gap in perceptions between adopters and non-adopters of agricultural conservation practices in Kansas. We examined producers’ self-reported perceived benefits and costs for four intensive in-field conservation practices, including continuous no-tillage, conservation crop rotations, cover crops, and variable-rate application of inputs, using primary survey data. Perceptions examined include agricultural producers’ perceptions of weed pressure, insect and disease pressures, soil erosion, soil fertility, management intensity, time managing crop, off-site environmental impact, crop yields, production costs, and net returns. We hypothesized that there would be a significant gap between adopters and non-adopters for each of the conservation practices examined and that this gap would vary by practice. By identifying specific perception gaps between adopters and non-adopters, we can help tailor and guide outreach, extension, and educational efforts toward specific nudges and identify education priorities to help promote additional adoption of conservation practices by producers who have not yet adopted.
The results from this study shed light regarding the perception gaps between adopters and non-adopters of continuous no-tillage, conservation crop rotations, cover crops, and variable-rate application of inputs. Overall, gaps in perceptions about the benefits and costs associated with conservation practices differed by practice. Perceptions about economic aspects, such as net returns, production costs, and crop yields, showed the largest gap between adopters and non-adopters. Perception gaps about net returns were present for all the conservation practices examined. Strategies to help close these gaps should focus on improving the dissemination of economic information and tailored education efforts to meet the needs of non-adopters.
Our study contributes to the literature in two significant ways. First, we examine perception gaps for four different intensive conservation practices and provide insights that can help promote adoption and increase conservation efforts across the agricultural landscape. Second, our study examined a myriad of different perceptions beyond the limited number of perceptions often examined in the literature (e.g., net revenue, yield). Through a more extensive look at perceptions for different economic, agronomic, and environmental outcomes associated with conservation adoption at one time, our research can help provide more targeted guidance for education and extension efforts.
2. Conservation Practice Background
We examined perceptions about four in-field intensive conservation practices: continuous no-tillage, conservation crop rotations, cover crops, and variable-rate application of inputs.
Continuous No-Tillage (CNT): The goal of CNT is to leave the soil surface on fields relatively undisturbed by tillage operations over the entire year. As a continuous cycle, this practice is intensively maintained on the same acreage for multiple crops in rotation over time [30]. Benefits associated with continuous no-tillage are centered around soil health, with an increase in soil organic matter, reduction of water and wind erosion, and reduction of soil loss due to runoff. Retention of residue on the soil surface helps to conserve moisture, while reductions in nutrient runoff enhance environmental stewardship of the land [31,32,33,34]. Potential costs associated with CNT include increased management time and expertise for the cropping system, as well as an increased reliance on herbicides for weed control and additional insect inhibitors. These costs may be offset by long-term benefits to soil health, increased productivity, and reductions in production costs over time due to less passes across the field [35].
Conservation Crop Rotation (CCR): According to the NRCS, conservation crop rotations are planned sequences of crops on a particular field that help meet a number of conservation goals [36]. Common rotational crops in Kansas include (but are not limited to) wheat, sorghum, soybeans, and corn. For our study, a conservation crop rotation was defined to include at least three different unrelated crops in a planned sequence, including high-residue crops, legumes, and grasses, amongst other options. Benefits such as reduced need for tillage and mitigation of diseases, pests, and weeds are associated with conservation crop rotations. Increased soil fertility, reductions in nutrient leaching, and increased carbon sequestration, which improves soil health and productivity, are additional benefits of CCR [37,38,39,40]. Costs associated with crop rotation depend on the type of crops present in the rotation being considered. However, planting costs and increased time spent managing this rotation could be offset by a decrease in herbicide and pesticides due to a general decline in weed, insect, and disease pressure.
Cover Crops (CCs): Cover crops are crops planted to reduce soil erosion and promote better soil quality in the intermittent periods between cash crops. Various crops are used, including brassica varieties, small grains, legumes, grasses, and mixtures of crop varieties [22]. Cover crops provide a living, seasonal soil cover that delivers several on-farm benefits, including a reduction in soil erosion and nutrient runoff; improvements in soil health and productivity; non-chemical weed, pest, and disease management; pollinator attraction; and potential reductions in fertilizer and herbicide use [13,41,42]. Cover crops can increase production costs due to additional labor, management, establishment, and termination costs and may result in short-term yield risks [8,17,21]. However, cover crops may provide value-added opportunities as a source of biomass for livestock feed and bioenergy production and potential for winter annual grazing [13].
Variable-Rate Application (VRA) of Inputs: Variable-rate application of inputs can be viewed as a conservation practice in that the usage of this precision agriculture practice may reduce the application of inputs lowering the potential runoff or leaching of fertilizer or other input into water bodies. VRA of inputs is employed to “apply nutrients to fit variations in site specific conditions found within fields” [43] (para. 1). From a conservation perspective, the practice should aim to reduce input usage, such as fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, in concert with other conservation practices, on lands that are susceptible to runoff into more environmentally sensitive areas. Another benefit of VRA is the increased efficiency of input application potentially helping to reduce production costs. Using detailed spatial field-level information, producers can precisely determine needed input levels and impacts on crop yields and more accurately apply variable rates of nutrients and other inputs [43,44]. Potential costs include data collection, machinery investment, increased management expertise and time, and custom services (if used). The potential reduction in applied inputs associated with VRA may benefit the producer in the longer run [10,11].
3. Data and Methods
3.1. Survey
Data for this paper were obtained from a survey administered at 20 different workshops with farmers across the state of Kansas (in the cities of Colby, Dodge City, Great Bend, Hays, Hiawatha, Manhattan, Parsons, Pratt, Topeka, and Wellington) in 2013 and 2014 (see Figure S1 in the Supplementary Materials). The survey sample was obtained from the membership database of the Kansas Farm Management Association. A total of 1513 farmers were contacted by email or phone, inviting them to attend one of the 20 workshops held across the state. A total of 432 farmers responded, indicating interest in attending the workshops, but only 248 were able to attend. This yielded a 30% response rate to the invitation and a 17% response rate for attendance. Farmers were compensated for their time and expenses for travel with a USD 125 stipend. Of the completed responses, up to 242 famers answered questions related to the study in this paper, with some questions having less than 242 answers depending on the relevance to the farmer. The survey and research was reviewed and approved by the IRB committee at Kansas State University.
The farmer workshops engaged farmers about intensification of conservation practices on-farm. Many of the farmers had already adopted some form of conservation, from no-tillage to crop rotations, in their operations. At the workshops, farmers were provided information about more intensive conservation practices (continuous no-tillage, conservation crop rotation, cover crops, and variable-rate application of inputs). During the workshop, farmers participated in a focus group and completed choice experiments and a survey. Data for this paper were derived from the survey, which contained questions about conservation practice adoption, practice perceptions, farm characteristics, and farmer demographics. Average farm size for farmers in our sample was 2545 acres, average age was 57 years old, and average gross farm sales was between USD 400,000 and 599,000. Comparing this to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, on average, these farms were larger, farm operators were slightly younger, and sales were slightly higher than those reported in the census [45]. Thus, our respondent sample represented small to large commercial farms, excluding hobby and retired farmers.
For the data presented in this study, the survey asked questions about adoption of continuous no-tillage, conservation crop rotations, cover crops, and variable-rate application of inputs for the farm and by crop. In addition, we asked each farmer about their perceptions of each selected conservation practice along agronomic, soil health, management, environmental, and economic dimensions. For each practice, we focused on 10 dimensions, which are presented in the example question for cover crops in Figure 1. The same dimensions were asked of adopters and non-adopters for each of the conservation practices examined in the study.
3.2. Statistical Analysis
We developed descriptive statistics for adoption of continuous no-tillage, conservation crop rotation, cover crops, and variable-rate application of inputs for all respondents and by crop. In addition, we estimated descriptive statistics (frequencies) for perceptions about each conservation-practice by practice in Kansas for adopters and non-adopters. We tested differences in perception between adopters and non-adopters via mean separation tests using t-tests, assuming unequal variances between adopter and non-adopter samples [46]. Mean estimates and p-values for the mean separation tests are provided in figures in each result section. The means are based on three possible responses to the effects of conservation practices: 1 for a “Lower” response; 2 for a “No Change “response; and 3 for a “Higher “response. p-values of less than 0.10 were used to indicate statistically significant differences in the mean responses. In this case, the difference in perception was found to be statistically different.
4. Results
Given the variability in perceptions across practices, the results are presented by conservation practice. It should be emphasized that the results represent the perceptions of agricultural producers within Kansas and the surrounding area and may differ in other geographic locations. Numerical results for the figures presented in this section are provided in Supplementary Materials (Tables S1–S16, Figure S1).
4.1. Continuous No-Tillage (CNT)
Of the 248 members in attendance, 242 responded to survey questions about adoption of this practice, with 63% indicating they had adopted continuous no-tillage and 37% indicating they had not. The average percent of cropland devoted to this practice was 84%, with 99 of the 152 no-tillage adopters farming 100% of their crop acreage in no-tillage. Only 35 (23%) of the continuous no-tillage users received cost-share or an incentive payment for adopting no-tillage. These producers received cost-share primarily from the Conservation Stewardship (CSP) Program, followed by the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Of interest too is that, on average non-adopters had 500 acres less in crop acreage and were 10 percent more likely to perceive a labor shortage and be highly risk-averse compared to adopters.
Figure 2 indicates that adoption of continuous no-tillage varied by crop, from 48% for sorghum to 69% for wheat. A majority of adopters reported a perceived increase in crop yield for corn (59%), soybean (62%), wheat (44%), and grain sorghum (75%), while a small percentage of adopters (4% to 14%) reported a decrease in yields, with wheat having the largest percentage at 14%. Approximately 21–41% reported no change in yield depending upon the crop.
Figure 3 shows the perceived changes in different factors associated with continuous no-tillage by adopters, while Figure 4 provides the same information for non-adopters. A large majority of adopters (98%) and non-adopters (81%) perceived that CNT reduces soil erosion, with less agreement on the benefit of CNT on soil fertility. Sixty-eight percent of adopters perceived that CNT reduces weed pressure and 79% of adopters perceived no change or lower pressure from insects and diseases. Forty-nine and sixty-three percent of non-adopters perceived that CNT results in higher weed and insect/disease pressures, respectively. From a management perspective, a majority of adopters perceived that CNT increases management intensity (69%) and increases the time for managing the crop (39%), which was similar to the perceptions of non-adopters. From an economic perspective, adopters perceived an overall increase in crop yields (69%), relative reduction in production costs (though not as large 42%), and an increase in net returns (73%). This was in contrast to non-adopters, the majority of whom perceived that CNT results in no change in crop yields (43%), an increase in crop production costs (42%), and no change in net returns (44%). For off-site environmental benefits, 72% of adopters (compared to 53% of non-adopters) believed that off-site environmental impacts were higher with the adoption of CNT. Greater off-site environmental impacts might be associated with perceptions of reduced soil erosion, nutrient leaching, and carbon emissions.
The test results in Figure 5 indicate that non-adopters thought weed and insect/disease pressures (2.2 and 2.5) would be significantly higher than adopters (1.5 and 2.1). Less pronounced, but still statistically significant, were the differences for soil erosion and soil fertility, which non-adopters perceived as being higher and lower, respectively, than adopters. There were no significant differences, on average, when examining management aspects. There were relative differences with respect to economic aspects, including crop yields, which non-adopters perceived as being lower, and production costs, which non-adopters perceived as being higher. Of interest is that non-adopters (2.0) perceived that net returns would not benefit them nearly as much as adopters (2.7) did. The difference was statistically significant at p < 0.01.
4.2. Conservation Crop Rotation (CCR)
Of the 248 members who attended the workshops, 233 responded to the questions about conservation crop rotations. Of those responses, 161 (69%) indicated they had adopted the practice and 72 (31%) indicated they had not adopted the practice. The average percent of cropland devoted to this practice was 84% based on 150 responses. Only 22 of the 161 (14%) who had adopted CCR received cost-shares or an incentive payment for adopting the practice. When considering other farm demographics, non-adopters had more rented acreage (10% greater on average) and had the perception that labor was in short-supply (5% greater on average) when compared to adopters.
Figure 6 shows adoption of conservation crop rotation by crop and adopters’ crop yield perceptions. The figure indicates that 70% of respondents producing wheat adopted CCR, while only 41% of grain sorghum producers adopted the practice. Over half of the respondents adopted CCR in corn production systems (56%), while slightly more adopted the practice in soybean production systems (64%). The majority of adopters reported an increase in yields from adoption of CCR in all four crops, including corn (66%), soybeans (67%), wheat (53%), and sorghum (75%). A small percentage of respondents reported a decrease in crop yields, with wheat showing the greatest decrease at 11%. Approximately 22% to 37% of respondents reported no change in yields depending upon the crop.
Figure 7 shows the perceived changes in different factors associated with conservation crop rotation by adopters, while Figure 8 provides the same information for non-adopters. As with CNT, a majority of adopters (76%) and non-adopters (73%) perceived that CCR reduces soil erosion, with less agreement on the benefit of CCR to soil fertility. On average, adopters perceived CCR as increasing soil fertility (56%), while non-adopters perceived no change in soil fertility from using the practice (53%). Both adopters and non-adopters perceived that use of CCR would reduce weed, insect, and disease pressures, with relatively more adopters perceiving a positive benefit. From a management perspective, a majority of adopters and non-adopters perceived that CCR results in no change in or increases management intensity and time spent managing the crop. Interestingly, 38% of adopters perceived that adoption of CCR would reduce the time spent managing the crop. From an economic perspective, adopters perceived an overall increase in crop yields (71%), a relative reduction in production costs (though not as large 42%), and an increase in net returns (70%). This was in contrast to non-adopters, the majority of whom perceived that CNT results in no change in crop yields (539%), no change or increase in crop production costs (45% and 41%, respectively), and no change in net returns (60%). For off-site environmental benefits, 58% of adopters (compared to 46% of non-adopters) believed that the off-site environmental impact was higher with CCR adoption. It is important to note that approximately 30% of survey respondents did not respond to each question, potentially indicating little knowledge about the effects of CCR.
The test results in Figure 9 indicate that non-adopters thought that insect and disease pressures (1.8) would be higher compared to adopters (1.5). With respect to crop management, non-adopters (2.2) perceived that it would take more time to manage the crop than adopters (1.9) on average. As with CNT, we found relative differences with respect to economic aspects, including crop yields, which non-adopters perceived as lower, and production costs, which non-adopters perceived as higher. With respect to net returns, adopters (2.7) perceived a greater benefit in terms of net returns from adopting CCR than non-adopters (2.1). The difference was statistically significant at p < 0.01.
4.3. Cover Crops (CCs)
Of the 248 members attending the conservation workshops, 236 responded to the questions related to cover crops. Of the respondents, 91 (39%) indicated they had adopted CCs and 145 (61%) indicated they had not. The average percent of cropland devoted to CC use by adopters was 28%. Only 20 of the 91 adopters (22%) received cost-shares or an incentive payment for adopting a cover crop. When comparing farm demographics between adopters and non-adopters of cover crops, non-adopters more often worked off-farm (20% greater), were smaller in size (by about 400 acres on average), and were more often highly risk averse.
Figure 10 shows adoption of cover crops by crop and perceived yield benefit by crop for adopters. The figure indicates that 23% of respondents adopted cover crops on soybean cropland, while only 20% of respondents adopted cover crops on land planted with corn. Approximately 9% and 13% of respondents adopted use of CC on grain sorghum and wheat cropland, respectively. An increase in yield was attributed to the adoption of CCs by adopters using CCs with corn (48%), wheat (41%), soybean (36%), and grain sorghum (50%) cropping systems. Approximately 31% to 44% of adopters reported no change in crop yields and 10% to 27% reported a decrease in crop yields.
Figure 11 examines the perceived changes in different factors associated with cover crops by adopters, while Figure 12 provides the same information for non-adopters. A majority of adopters (95%) and non-adopters (92%) perceived that CCs reduce soil erosion, while 68% of adopters and 57% of non-adopters perceived that CCs improve soil fertility. Both adopters and non-adopters perceived that CCs reduce weed pressure, but only 43% of adopters and 33% of non-adopters perceived that CCs reduce insect and disease pressures, with a majority perceiving no change or increased pressure. From a management perspective, both adopters and non-adopters perceived that CCs increased management intensity and time spent managing crops. With regard to economic outcomes, adopters perceived an overall increase in crop yields (53%), while the majority of non-adopters perceived no change in crop yields (49%). More than 80% of both adopters and non-adopters perceived an increase in crop production costs from adoption of CCs. Ninety-two percent of non-adopters perceived no change in (49%) or lower (43%) net returns from using CCs, while 73% of adopters perceived no change in (37%) or higher (36%) net returns from adopting CCs. For off-site environmental benefits, 74% of adopters (compared to 62% of non-adopters) believed that the off-site environmental impact was higher with the adoption of CCs.
Mean perceptions of adopters and non-adopters of CCs were compared using a mean separation test. Mean estimates and p-values for the mean separation test are provided in Figure 13. Results indicated that more non-adopters thought that insect and disease pressures (2.0) would be higher under CC than adopters (1.7). There was no statistically significant difference with respect to the management aspects of CCs between adopters and non-adopters. With regard to crop yields, non-adopters perceived yields to be lower compared to adopters. With respect to net returns, adopters (2.1) perceived a slightly higher benefit on average from adopting CCs than non-adopters (1.9).
4.4. Variable-Rate Application (VRA) of Inputs
Of the 248 workshops attendees, 235 responded to the questions about VRA, with 68 (29%) indicating they had adopted VRA and 167 (71%) indicating they had not adopted this practice. The average percent of cropland devoted to this practice was 62% when adopted. Only 7 (10%) of the adopters received cost-shares or an incentive payment for adopting VRA. When comparing other farm demographics, non-adopters had more rental land, were smaller in size (by about 900 acres on average), and were often more highly risk averse compared to adopters of VRA.
Figure 14 shows adoption of VRA by crop and the perceived yield benefits by crop for adopters. Results indicated that 24% of respondents adopted the practice on their corn acreage, 19% on their soybean acreage, 15% on their wheat acreage, and 9% on their sorghum acreage. Most adopters reported a perceived increase in yield for all crops, including corn (62%), soybeans (61%), wheat (50%), and grain sorghum (56%). Approximately 39% to 50% reported no effect on yield depending upon the crop, with no respondents indicating a yield decrease.
Figure 15 shows the perceived changes in different factors associated with VRA by adopters, while Figure 16 provides the same information for non-adopters. A large majority of adopters (82%) and non-adopters (77%) perceived that VRA has no impact on soil erosion, but 74% of adopters and 63% of non-adopters perceived that VRA would improve soil fertility. Both adopters and non-adopters mostly perceived that VRA would not change weed, insect, and disease pressure. From a management perspective, most adopters and non-adopters perceived that VRA would increase management intensity (66% for adopters and 78% for non-adopters) and time spent managing the crop (51% for adopters and 78% for non-adopters). From an economic perspective, adopters perceived an overall increase in crop yields (74%) and an increase in net returns (84%). For adopters, most felt that production costs would not change, while 34% indicated they would be lower and 27% indicated they would be higher. For non-adopters, the majority perceived that VRA would result in higher crop yields (63%), higher production costs (58%), and higher net returns (53%). For off-site environmental benefits, approximately 50% of adopters and non-adopters perceived that off-site environmental impact was higher with the adoption of VRA. Approximately one-third of non-adopters did not respond to the questions concerning VRA effects, which may have been the result of a lack of knowledge about the effects of this practice.
Mean perceptions of adopters and non-adopters of VRA were compared using a mean separation test. Mean estimates and p-values for the mean separation test are provided in Figure 17. The results indicated that, on average, there were no significant differences in the mean responses by adopters and non-adopters for many of the perceived aspects of VRA. Non-adopters did perceive a slightly higher management intensity and time spent managing the crop than adopters. The largest differences occurred with respect to economic perceptions. Non-adopters (2.4) perceived a greater increase in production costs when compared to adopters (1.9). With respect to net returns, adopters (2.8) perceived a slightly higher benefit on average from adopting VRA than non-adopters (2.5). Both differences were significant at p < 0.01.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
The important role of perceptions in shaping producers’ adoption decisions and use of conservation practices has been documented in the literature. However, a holistic assessment of producers’ perceptions, particularly differences between adopters and non-adopters, is needed to help improve the adoption of conservation efforts on the ground and provide needed guidance for education, outreach, and extension efforts. In this light, we examined the perception gap between adopters and non-adopters for continuous no-tillage, conservation crop rotations, cover crops, and variable-rate application of inputs. We examined perceptions about ten different outcomes, including environmental/agronomic aspects (weed pressure, insect and disease pressure, soil erosion, soil fertility), management aspects (management intensity and time managing a crop), and economic aspects (crop yield, production costs, and net returns).
We found that perception gaps exist for each of the conservation practices examined, supporting our hypothesis at the outset. The most consistent result was a perception gap about net returns for all the conservation practices, which was often one of the largest and most significant gaps exhibited across the different perceptions examined. On average, more adopters perceived yield and net return benefits compared to non-adopters. Our results across all four conservation practices support the previous literature claiming net returns to be a common significant factor in the adoption of conservation practices. Other economic aspects, such as perceptions about impacts on crop yields and production costs, often exhibited perception gaps between adopters and non-adopters. For VRA, the perception gap related to production costs was the largest across the practices examined. Interestingly, a conservation practice with relatively small perception gaps between adopters and non-adopters was cover crops, which had a lower adoption rate compared to both CNT and CCR, especially in the Midwest [13,22].
Some potential for building on the perception differences to promote adoption exists, even though a perception gap exists. For example, for VRA, even though a perception gap for net returns between adopters and non-adopters existed, on average, non-adopters seemed to perceive some potential net returns from adopting this practice. Adopters simply attributed greater net returns to adoption than non-adopters. Similarly, for continuous no-tillage, a perception gap existed between adopters and non-adopters about soil erosion, but non-adopters still, on average, saw the potential benefit of reducing soil erosion using continuous no-tillage. The importance of identifying perception gaps that can be lessened to improve adoption of conservation practices across agricultural landscapes is further strengthened by the strong role such conservation practices play in mitigation of and adaption to climate change, as well as in meeting sustainable development goals in developing countries, given the vital role soil ecosystems play in enhancing food security and providing for the livelihood of households dependent on agriculture [47,48,49].
5.1. Policy and Outreach Implications
The importance of identifying common perception gaps across multiple conservation practices lies in the more efficient allocation of resources, education, and extension efforts to better explain the outcomes from the use of in-field conservation practices on agricultural working lands. The information and results presented in this paper are important to help provide improved education on the outcomes, benefits, and costs of conservation practices. The results point to several strategies for promoting adoption. First, understanding the differing perceptions of adopters and non-adopters could be utilized to help increase program participation in programs designed to intensify conservation practice adoption, such as the Conservation Stewardship Program, by targeting key knowledge gaps and needs [17]. Providing crop-share assistance or monetary incentives may help alleviate adverse perceptions about net returns and help engage non-adopters to intensify conservation efforts on their farms. Second, the results indicate significant gaps in perceptions due to practice adoption. The identified perception gaps may point to outcome uncertainty under conservation systems and/or lack of knowledge. Our findings can help identify research gaps and inform outreach programs to promote adoption. Given the significance of perception gaps related to economic aspects (e.g., net returns, production costs, and crop yields), research projects could be strengthened by including an economic research component to evaluate the profitability of competing production systems at a local level and develop decision tools that allow farmers to evaluate the impact of conservation systems on their farms to help alleviate non-adopters’ concerns. Third, given that our study examines a wide range of perceptions across multiple conservation practices and crops, it provides a means for outreach, extension, and other personnel to better target efforts for education to answer needed questions and improve conservation on the ground. For example, for variable-rate application of inputs, extension efforts should target information and educational initiatives for producers at field days and workshops and through educational materials geared toward management intensity and profitability topics. Extension and outreach education programs should share additional information to address these perception gaps by leveraging on-farm conservation practice trial data, focusing on the economic aspects of the practice, such as crop yields, production costs, and net returns.
5.2. Limitations and Future Research
Geographical generalization of the results may be limited as producers across the U.S. and other regions face different agronomic and economic conditions, which will shape their perceptions of the practices examined. However, our findings provide useful insights about perception gaps that may exist in these regions. The results are further bounded by the four crops our study considered, which may not apply to other regions. Nevertheless, the study is useful as a comprehensive look across multiple crops, conservation practices, and perceptions. Finally, given the cross-sectional nature of the data collected, the study only provides a snapshot of the perceptions of producers at a given point in time. Future research should be directed towards a focus on the driving role of the social context, values and beliefs, information sources, producer behavior, the role of institutions and policy, farm and management characteristics, and other factors influencing the perceptions of both adopters and non-adopters. Research efforts could be directed at understanding farmers’ perceptions of economic outcomes and how these perceptions are shaped and impacted by different information sources, education, observation, practice trialing, and adoption.
Conceptualization, C.M. and J.S.B.; Methodology C.M., J.S.B. and J.W.; Formal Analysis: C.M., J.S.B. and J.W.; Investigation: J.S.B., J.W. and E.C.; Data Curation: J.S.B., J.W. and E.C.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation: C.M., J.S.B., J.W. and A.A.-S.; Writing—Review and Editing: C.M., J.S.B., J.W., A.A.-S. and E.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) at Kansas State University (proposal number 5687, approved on 27 December 2010).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to confidentiality requirements as part of the IRB protocol and the presence of information that may compromise the privacy of research participants.
We are grateful to all who participated in our various field activities. We remain responsible for any remaining errors.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Adoption of continuous no-tillage by crop and adopters’ perceived yield change.
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Mean responses of adopters and non-adopters for perceptions of continuous no-tillage and p-values for mean separation tests between adopters and non-adopters.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Adoption of conservation crop rotations by crop and adopters’ perceived yield change.
Enlarge this image.Figure 9. Mean responses of adopters and non-adopters for perceptions of conservation crop rotation and p-values for mean separation tests between adopters and non-adopters.
Enlarge this image.Figure 13. Mean response of adopters and non-adopters for perceptions of cover crops and p-values for mean separation tests between adopters and non-adopters.
Enlarge this image.Figure 14. Adoption of variable-rate application of inputs by crop and adopters’ perceived yield change (there were no responses of yield decrease from adopters of this practice).
Enlarge this image.Figure 15. Adopters’ perceptions about aspects of variable-rate application of inputs.
Enlarge this image.Figure 16. Non-adopters’ perceptions about aspects of variable-rate application of inputs.
Enlarge this image.Figure 17. Mean response of adopters and non-adopters for perceptions of variable-rate application of inputs and p-values for mean separation tests between adopters and non-adopters.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Jain, C.K.; Singh, S. Best management practices for agricultural nonpoint source pollution: Policy interventions and way forward. World Water Policy; 2019; 5, pp. 207-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wwp2.12015]
2. Ongley, E.D. Control of Water Pollution from Agriculture; Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1996; Volume 55.
3. Zhang, T.; Yang, Y.; Ni, J.; Xie, D. Best management practices for agricultural non-point source pollution in a small watershed based on the AnnAGNPS model. Soil Use Manag.; 2020; 36, pp. 45-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sum.12535]
4. Pokhrel, B.K.; Paudel, K.P. Assessing the efficiency of alternative best management practices to reduce nonpoint source pollution in a rural watershed located in Louisiana, USA. Water; 2019; 11, 1714. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w11081714]
5. Tosakana, N.S.; Van Tassell, L.W.; Wulfhorst, J.D.; Boll, J.; Mahler, R.; Brooks, E.S.; Kane, S. Determinants of the adoption of conservation practices by farmers in the Northwest wheat and range region. J. Soil Water Conserv.; 2010; 65, pp. 404-412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2489/jswc.65.6.404]
6. Paudel, K.P.; Devkota, N.; Tan, Y. Best management practices adoption to mitigate non-point source pollution: A conditional frailty model. China Agric. Econ. Rev.; 2016; 8, pp. 534-552. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CAER-02-2015-0020]
7. Shields, F.D.; Pearce, C.W. Control of agricultural nonpoint source pollution by natural wetland management. J. Environ. Sci. Eng.; 2010; 4, pp. 62-70.
8. Bergtold, J.S.; Duffy, P.A.; Hite, D.; Raper, R.L. Demographic and management factors affecting the adoption and perceived yield benefit of winter cover crops in the Southeast. J. Agric. Appl. Econ.; 2012; 44, pp. 99-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800000195]
9. Gabriel, J.L.; Garrido, A.; Quemada, M. Cover crop effect on farm benefits and nitrate leaching: Linking economic and environmental analysis. Agric. Syst.; 2013; 121, pp. 23-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.06.004]
10. Jat, R.D.; Jat, H.S.; Nanwal, R.K.; Yadav, A.K.; Bana, A.; Choudhary, K.M.; Kakralirya, S.K.; Sutaliya, J.M.; Sapkota, T.K.; Jat, M.L. Conservation agriculture and precision nutrient management practices in maize-wheat system: Effects on crop and water productivity and profitability. Field Crops Res.; 2018; 222, pp. 111-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.03.025]
11. Sawyer, J.E. Concepts of variable rate technology with considerations for fertilized application. J. Prod. Agric.; 1994; 7, pp. 195-201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jpa1994.0195]
12. Schimmelpfennig, D. Crop production costs, profits, and ecosystem stewardship with precision agriculture. J. Agric. Appl. Econ.; 2018; 50, pp. 81-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/aae.2017.23]
13. Bergtold, J.S.; Ramsey, S.; Maddy, L.; Williams, J.R. A review of economic considerations for cover crops as a conservation practice. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.; 2019; 34, pp. 62-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000278]
14. Llewellyn, R.S. Informational quality and effectiveness for more rapid adoption decisions by farmers. Field Crops Res.; 2007; 104, pp. 148-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.03.022]
15. Greiner, R.; Patterson, L.; Miller, O. Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agric. Syst.; 2009; 99, pp. 86-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2008.10.003]
16. Bennet, N.J. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol.; 2016; 30, pp. 582-592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12681] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26801337]
17. Ramsey, S.M.; Bergtold, J.S.; Canales, E.; Williams, J.R. Effects of farmers’ yield-risk perceptions on conservation practice adoption in Kansas. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.; 2019; 44, pp. 380-403.
18. Reimer, A.P.; Weinkauf, D.K.; Prokopy, L.S. The influence of perceptions of practice characteristics: An examination of agricultural best management practice adoption in two Indiana watersheds. J. Rural Stud.; 2012; 28, pp. 118-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.09.005]
19. Adrian, A.M.; Norwood, S.H.; Mask, P.L. Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Comput. Electron. Agric.; 2005; 48, pp. 256-371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2005.04.004]
20. Arbuckle, J.G., Jr.; Roesch-McNally, G. Cover crop adoption in Iowa: The role of perceived practice characteristics. J. Soil Water Conserv.; 2015; 70, pp. 418-429. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2489/jswc.70.6.418]
21. Clay, L.; Perkins, K.; Motallebi, M.; Plastina, A.; Farmaha, B.S. The perceived benefits, challenges, and environmental effects of cover crop implementation in South Carolina. Agriculture; 2020; 10, 372. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10090372]
22. Singer, J.W.; Nusser, S.M.; Alf, C.J. Are cover crops being used in the US Corn Belt?. J. Soil Water Conserv.; 2007; 62, pp. 353-358.
23. Ervin, C.A.; Ervin, D.E. Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: Hypotheses, evidence, and policy implications. Land Econ.; 1982; 58, pp. 277-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3145937]
24. Bergtold, J.S.; Caldas, M.M.; Ramsey, S.M.; Sanderson, M.R.; Granco, G.; Mather, M.E. The gap between experts, farmers and non-farmers on perceived environmental vulnerability and the influence of values and beliefs. J. Environ. Manag.; 2022; 316, 115186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115186] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35561495]
25. Church, S.P.; Lu, J.; Ranjan, P.; Reimer, A.P.; Prokopy, L.S. The role of systems thinking in cover crop adoption: Implications for conservation communication. Land Use Policy; 2020; 94, 104508. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104508]
26. Llewellyn, R.S. Identifying and targeting adoption drivers. Changing Land Management: Adoption of New Practices by Rural Landholders; Pannell, D.; Vanclay, F. CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2011; pp. 87-94.
27. Haggerman, S.; Satterfield, T.; Nawaz, S.; St-Laurent, G.P.; Kozak, R.; Gregory, R. Social comfort zones for transformative conservation decisions in a changing climate. Conserv. Biol.; 2021; 35, pp. 1932-1943. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13759]
28. Niemiec, R.; Berl, R.E.W.; Gonzalez, M.; Teel, T.; Salerno, J.; Breck, S.; Camara, C.; Collins, M.; Schultz, C.; Hoag, D. Rapid changes in public perceptions toward a conservation initiative. Conserv. Sci. Pract.; 2022; 4, e12632. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12632]
29. Wang, T.; Jin, H.; Kreuter, U.; Feng, H.; Hennessy, D.A.; Teague, R.; Che, Y. Challenges for rotational grazing practice: Views from non-adopters across the Great Plains, USA. J. Environ. Manag.; 2020; 256, 109941. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109941]
30. USDA, National Resources Conservation Service. Residue and Tillage Management, No-Till. 2013; Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?cid=nrcs144p2_027119 (accessed on 1 July 2022).
31. Campbell, C.A.; Selles, F.; Lafond, G.P.; Zentner, R.P. Adopting zero tillage management: Impact on soil C and N under long-term crop rotations in a thin black Chernozem. Can. J. Sci.; 2001; 81, pp. 139-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4141/S00-035]
32. Choudary, S.; Pramanick, B.; Maitra, S.; Kumar, B. Tillage practices for enhancing crop productivity under dryland conditions. Just Agric.; 2021; 1, pp. 206-212.
33. Hati, K.M.; Jha, P.; Dalal, R.C.; Jayaraman, S.; Dang, Y.P.; Kopittke, P.M.; Kirchhof, G.; Menzies, N.W. 50 years of continuous no-tillage, stubble retention and nitrogen fertilization enhanced macro-aggregate formation and stabilisation in a Vertisoil. Soil Tillage Res.; 2021; 214, 105163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105163]
34. Mestelan, S.; Smeck, N.; Sprunger, C.; Dyck, A.; Dick, W. Four Decades of Continuously Applied Tillage and No-Tillage on Soil Properties and Soil Morphology. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ.; 2021; 4, e20195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20195]
35. Kaval, P. The profitability of alternative cropping systems: A review of the literature. J. Sustain. Agric.; 2004; 23, pp. 47-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v23n03_06]
36. USDA, National Resources Conservation Service. Conservation Crop Rotation. 2013; Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ny/technical/cp/?cid=nrcs144p2_027118 (accessed on 1 July 2022).
37. Koropeckyj-Cox, L.; Christianson, R.D.; Yuan, Y. Effectiveness of conservation crop rotation for water pollutant reduction from agricultural areas. Trans. ASABE; 2021; 64, pp. 691-704. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13031/trans.14017] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35950102]
38. West, T.O.; Post, W.M. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.; 2002; 66, pp. 1930-1946. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2002.1930]
39. Cathcart, R.J.; Topinka, A.K.; Kharbanda, P.; Lange, R.; Yang, R.-C.; Hall, L.M. Rotation length, canola variety, and herbicide resistance system affect weed populations and yield. Weed Sci.; 2006; 54, pp. 726-734. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-05-041R1.1]
40. Karlen, D.L.; Hurley, E.G.; Andrews, S.S.; Cambardella, C.A.; Meek, D.W.; Duffy, M.D.; Mallarino, A.P. Crop rotation effects in soil quality at three northern corn/soybean belt locations. Agron. J.; 2006; 98, pp. 484-495. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0098]
41. O’Connell, S.; Grossman, J.M.; Hoyt, G.D.; Shi, W.; Bowen, S.; Marticorena, D.C.; Fager, K.L.; Creamer, N.G. A survey of cover crop practices and perceptions of sustainable farmers in North Carolina and the surrounding region. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.; 2015; 30, pp. 550-562. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170514000398]
42. Zhou, Z.V.; Larson, J.A.; Sykes, V.R.; Ashworth, A.J.; Allen, F.L. Long-term conservation agricultural effects on corn profitability in west Tennessee. Crop Sci.; 2022; 62, pp. 1348-1359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20727]
43. USDA, National Resources Conservation Service. Water Quality Enhancement Activity-WQL11-Precision Application Technology to Apply Nutrients. WQL11. 2015; Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/download/?cid=nrcseprd328947&ext=pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022).
44. Späti, K.; Huber, R.; Finger, R. Benefits of increasing information accuracy in variable rate technologies. Ecol. Econ.; 2021; 185, 107047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107047]
45. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2017 Census of Agriculture. 2019; Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
46. Ruxton, G.D. The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student’s t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Behav. Ecol.; 2006; 17, pp. 688-690. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ark016]
47. Yin, C.; Zhao, W.; Pereira, P. Soil conservation service underpins sustainable development goals. Glob. Ecol. Conserv.; 2022; 33, e01974. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01974]
48. Wagena, M.B.; Easton, Z.M. Agricultural conservation practices can help mitigate the impact of climate change. Sci. Total Environ.; 2018; 635, pp. 132-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.110] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29660717]
49. Delgado, J.A.; Groffman, P.M.; Nearing, M.A.; Goddard, T.; Reicosky, D.; Lal, R.; Kitchen, N.R.; Rice, C.W.; Towery, D.; Salon, P. Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change. J. Soil Water Conserv.; 2011; 66, pp. 118A-129A. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.