Farmer engagement using a precision approach to watershed-scale conservation planning: What do we know?

Abstract

Farmer engagement is an integral component of conservation planning, with increased emphasis on precision placement of conservation practices. Conservation planners are increasingly turning to tools like the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF)-a decision support tool (DST) that provides a menu-driven approach to conservation planning. Scholarship on human dimensions of precision conservation, also known as conservation targeting, has either examined farmers' general attitudes toward targeting, or when farmers are active participants in generating targeted practice options. However, less is known about farmers' perceptions of targeting when they receive targeted conservation options for fields they farm. With the goal of filling this knowledge gap, we present findings from semistructured in-depth interviews conducted with farmers in four watersheds in the US Midwest. Results suggest that farmers are receptive toward conservation options for their farms. Several factors influenced farmers' receptiveness toward site-specific conservation targeting, such as farmers having autonomy in the targeting process, and perceiving that the process had benefits such as field-scale validation of their natural resource concerns and its potential to encourage watershed thinking. Results also highlight the potential of conservation targeting in motivating conservation behavior. Recommendations for future conservation targeting include being mindful of the scale of the map and the amount of information presented, having boots on the ground, and engaging farmers one-on-one to motivate conservation behavior.

Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework: Watershed applications, research opportunities, and training resources

“…Conservationists influence these relationships in the way they present ACPF outputs. Ranjan et al (2020) explore in detail how the process and medium of discussing precision conservation options affect how farmers receive conservation targeting efforts.…”

Measurements of landscape capacity for water detention and wetland restoration practices can inform watershed planning goals and implementation strategies

“…Publicly available USDA data on soil survey and crop cover are summarized at field scale, providing watershed databases (Tomer et al 2017) that are analyzed together with high-resolution (2 to 3 m grid) digital elevation models (DEMs) to identify placement options for a variety of in-field, edge-of-field, and riparian practices that can reduce runoff and improve water quality (Porter et al 2018). Conservation options are specific enough for planners to engage landowners in visualizing future conservation scenarios on their farms (Ranjan et al 2020), and the ACPF is being used in an increasing number of watersheds. Conservation planning field staff have used ACPF results in watershed planning and producer engagement in several Minnesota watersheds (Dakota County SWCD 2016).…”

The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework: Opportunities and challenges in the eastern United States

“…Initial attempts have sought to apply the ACPF to the eastern United States, including to HUC‐12 (12‐digit scale hydrologic unit) watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay region (Chesapeake Conservancy, 2021). The ACPF has attracted attention from traditional conservation planners, watershed managers, program strategists, and researchers alike (Ranjan et al, 2020; Rundhaug et al, 2018). Its rule‐based targeting of practices leverages newly available geospatial data to rapidly and precisely depict conservation options not provided by traditional planning approaches (Figure 1).…”