Conservation intensification under risk: An assessment of adoption, additionality, and farmer preferences

Abstract

Conservation practices used on agricultural cropland can provide important ecosystem services. The United States relies largely on voluntary programs to incentivize adoption of conservation practices, but the success of these efforts relies on good program design. We use a choice experiment to evaluate farmers' willingness to adopt more intensive in‐field conservation practices (continuous no‐till, conservation crop rotation, cover crops, and variable rate application of inputs) using a nonlinear extended expected utility framework that incorporates risk under a conservation contract. We contribute to the literature by providing insights regarding producers' preference for incentive payment mechanism (federal program or carbon market) and the incentive payment needed to induce additionality and practice continuity. We find that although an additional payment might be needed to promote practice continuity among farmers who have previously adopted cover crops, in the case of continuous no‐till, adopters might be willing to forgo additional payment to continue benefiting from the use of this practice. Our results also revealed producers prefer conservation contracts accruing higher off‐farm environmental benefits and federally administered over carbon market programs. This is an important result given an increased public interest in climate change and new proposed carbon mitigation policies and private carbon market initiatives.

Persistence and disadoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the Mississippi Delta region

“…Most of the literature on agriculture conservation is focused on understanding farmers' decisions for adopting a conservation practice (Baumgart-Getz et al, 2012;Canessa et al, 2023;Daxini et al, 2018;Dewald et al, 2019;Han & Niles, 2023;Hyland et al, 2018;Pineiro et al, 2020;Prokopy et al, 2019;Thompson et al, 2021), incentives required to continue BMP adoption (Canales et al, 2024), and impact of conservation programs on BMP adoption (Chami et al, 2023;Claassen et al, 2018;Mezzatesta et al, 2013;Pathak et al, 2021;Wang et al, 2019). These studies showed that conservation practice adoption behavior and adoption intensity are associated with variables, including attitudes, costs, farm and farmer's characteristics, natural resources and ownership, and program participation along with estimates of the additionality of conservation payments, but have not considered the spatial extent of conservation practice adoption.…”

Are crop insurance discount programs for cover crops effective? Evidence from Iowa

“…One question that remains is whether a $5 per acre ($12.36 ha −1 ) payment would be enough to make a difference, because acres in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or the IDALS cover crop cost-share program are ineligible for ICIDP. For instance, it is possible that the payment rate from ICIDP would be sufficient to keep already cover cropped farmland in cover crops but not expand to new land (Canales et al, 2024). Crop insurance discount programs could quell concerns that crop insurance is an impediment to the adoption of cover crops and other conservation practices (Arbuckle & Roesch-McNally, 2015;Connor et al, 2022;Ifft & Jodlowski, 2024).…”