Attempts to understand farmer conservation behavior based on quantitative socio-demographic, attitude, and awareness variables have been largely inconclusive. In order to understand fully how farmers are making conservation decisions, 32 in-depth interviews were conducted in the Eagle Creek watershed in central Indiana. Coding for environmental attitudes and practice adoption revealed several dominant themes, representing multi-dimensional aspects of environmental attitudes. Farmers who were motivated by off-farm environmental benefits and those who identified responsibilities to others (stewardship) were most likely to adopt conservation (...) practices. Those farmers who focused on the farm as business and were most concerned about profitability were less likely to adopt practices. The notion of environmental stewardship in particular was found to be much more complex than the way it is traditionally measured in quantitative studies. The interplay between on-farm and off-farm benefits to practice adoption is an issue that quantitative studies largely do not address. This study seeks to increase understanding of farmers’ environmental attitudes and the connections to conservation behavior. (shrink)

Agriculture is a major cause of non-point source water pollution in the Midwest. Excessive nitrate, phosphorous, and sediment levels degrade the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico. In this research we ask, to what extent can citizen involvement help solve the problem of non-point source pollution. Does connecting farmers to farmers and to other community members make a difference in moving beyond the status quo? To answer these questions we examine the satisfaction level of Iowa farmers and landowners with their (...) current conservation measures as a proxy for willingness to change. A survey of 360 conservation minded farmers obtained from a random sample of 75 HUC (Hydrologic Unit Code) 12 Iowa watersheds reveals that 27% of the variance among farmers’ perception of adequacy of their conservation practices is explained by a combination of beliefs about the seriousness of water pollution, personal, civic, and expert connections. The more farmers talk with other farmers the more likely they are satisfied with their conservation efforts. However, the more frequently farmers talk to friends and neighbors that don’t farm, the more likely they are to not be satisfied with their conservation efforts. Further, the more social organizations farmers belong to—e.g., more non-farmers they interact with in a group setting—the more likely they are to be dissatisfied with their level of effort being adequate to protect local water bodies. These findings suggest the personal and civic connections among farmers and communities are important in explaining perceptions of how adequate conservation measures are. These perceptions have implications for farmers’ willingness to go beyond current actions and more actively engage in solving local watershed problems and explain why they may not currently be engaged in additional actions. (shrink)

Amongst the environmental and social externalities generated by Australian agriculture are a number of risks both to the health and safety of communities living near sites of agricultural production, and to the end consumers of agricultural products. Responses to these potential risks – and to problems of environmental sustainability more generally – have included a number of programs to variously: define “best-practice” for particular industries; implement “Quality Assurance” procedures; and encourage the formation of self-help community “Landcare” groups. Taken together, these (...) programs appear to deal comprehensively with both the social and environmental risks associated with agricultural production and products. However, these programs may also be interpreted as strategies that actually encourage the further intensification of agriculture, while attempting to reassure consumers that their food is safe and that farmers are doing “all they can” to protect the environment. Investigation of the Australian cotton and beef industries illustrates a number of strategies that have become evident between farmers, agri-science agencies, and the retail sector to manage these risks and define good farming practices in ways that satisfy their own perceived interests. Contrary to the image, therefore, of “green consumption” that is emerging as an integrated concern for “clean” (and thereby “healthy”) and sustainably produced foods, it appears that mainstream agricultural industries have bifurcated these concerns in ways that distract attention from production and processing methods, leaving conflict over on-farm production methods a characteristic only of those industries believed to have direct health impacts on nearby communities. (shrink)