Synthesizing Conservation Motivations and Barriers: What Have We Learned from Qualitative Studies of Farmers’ Behaviors in the United States?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Qualitative articles by year published.

Table 1. Barrier and motivation subcategories (number of studies).

Barriers and motivations	Number of studies
Subcategories	Barrier	Motivation	Predominantly discussed as:
Economic factors (n = 37)	26	30	Both
Farm management (n = 32)	28	19	Barrier
Social norms (n = 25)	14	18	Both
Farmer characteristics (n = 24)	7	22	Motivation
Government programs (n = 23)	16	19	Both
Farm characteristics (n = 23)	14	16	Both
Practice (n = 22)	17	10	Barrier
Environmental awareness (n = 21)	4	17	Motivation
Distrust/trust in information sources (n = 19)	6	17	Motivation
Risk (n = 17)	12	5	Barrier
Land tenure (n = 10)	10	4	Barrier

Table 2. Economic factors (n = 37 studies): child-categories (number of studies).

Economic factors	Number of studies
Child-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Cost (n = 22)	15	15
Yield (n = 16)	9	11
General economic loss/benefits (n = 16)	4	13
Commodity markets (n = 15)	9	7
Profitability (n = 13)	8	8
Labor (n = 9)	3	6
Market demand (n = 5)	3	3
Land value (n = 4)	3	1

Table 3. Farm management (n = 32 studies): child-categories (number of studies).

Farm management	Number of studies
Child-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Compatibility (n = 20)	17	9
Management effort (n = 19)	17	5
Status quo (n = 11)	11	1
Timing (n = 8)	8	0
Change in farmable acreage (n = 6)	5	2
Livestock system integration (n = 5)	0	5
Systems thinking (n = 4)	0	4

Table 4. Social norms (n = 25 studies): child-categories (number of studies).

Social norms	Number of studies
Child-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Subjective norms (n = 14)	8	8
Trust/distrust, community (n = 7)	2	6
Neighbors (n = 7)	3	5
Leadership present (n = 6)	0	6
Blame shifting (n = 4)	4	0

Table 5. Farmer characteristics (n = 24 studies): child and grandchild-categories (number of studies).

Farmer characteristics	Number of studies
Child and grandchild-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Farmer type (n = 6)	3	4
Farmer identity (n = 22)	4	21
Steward (low, high) (n = 16)	1	16
Innovator (n = 6)	0	6
Financially motivated (n = 3)	2	1
Amish (n = 1)	1	1
Agrarian (n = 1)	0	1

Table 6. Government programs (n = 23 studies): child-categories (number of studies).

Government programs	Number of studies
Child-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Cost-share (n = 15)	4	15
Application processes requirements (n = 11)	10	1
Eligibility (n = 9)	9	0
Flexibility (n = 9)	7	3
Technical assistance (n = 4)	0	4
Distrust/trust (n = 5)	5	0

Table 7. Farm characteristics (n = 23 studies): child and grandchild-categories (number of studies).

Farm characteristics	Number of studies
Child and grandchild-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Farm/land quality (n = 18)	10	13
Vulnerable (n = 7)	0	7
Marginal land (n = 6)	1	5
Open ditches, absent (n = 3)	2	1
No issues (n = 4)	4	0
Flat land (n = 3)	3	0

Table 8. Practice – perceptions of conservation practice(s) (n = 22 studies): child-categories (number of studies).

Practice	Number of studies
Child-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Current/prior use of practice (n = 8)	3	7
Lack of time (n = 5)	5	0
Current/prior use of other practice (n = 4)	2	3

Table 9. Environmental awareness (n = 21 studies): child-categories (number of studies).

Environmental awareness	Number of studies
Child-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Environmental concern (n = 10)	1	9
Knowledge, programs/practice (n = 6)	2	4
Knowledge, environmental (n = 6)	3	3

Table 10. Distrust/trust in information sources (n = 19 studies): child-categories (number of studies).

Distrust/trust in information	Number of studies
Child-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Farmer (n = 7)	0	7
University extension (n = 8)	4	5
Conservation agency (n = 8)	3	7
Watershed group (n = 4)	0	4
General (n = 4)	1	4

Table 11. Risk (n = 17 studies): child-categories (number of studies).

Risk	Number of studies
Child-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Uncertainty (n = 11)	11	0
Reduced risk (n = 4)	0	4

Table 12. Land tenure (n = 10 studies): child-categories (number of studies).

Land tenure	Number of studies
Child-categories	Barrier	Motivation
Leased land (n = 9)	9	2
Landlord (n = 8)	6	3

Table 13. Benefits (n = 32 studies): child-categories.

Benefits	Number of studies
Child-categories	Motivation
Erosion reduction	19
On-farm, general	12
Soil health	12
Off-farm, general	11
Habitat	9
Water quality improvement	9
Future generations	6
Aesthetics	4
Livestock health	4

Appendix 1. Overview of relevant qualitative studies analyzed.

Author(s) & year	Data collection approach	Qualitative method(s) used	Number of farmers in the study (qual. only)	Type of CPP(s)
Adebiyi, Schmitt, and Snapp (2016)	Qualitative	Interviews	11	Perennial wheat
Arbuckle and Roesch-McNally (2015)	Mixed	Interviews	20	Cover crops
Armstrong and Stedman (2012)	Qualitative	Interviews	17	Riparian buffer strips
Atwell, Schulte, and Westphal (2009)	Qualitative	Interviews	23	Perennial vegetation
Bautista, Waller, and Roanhorse (2010)	Mixed	Open-ended survey questions	21	Government program
Bossange et al. (2016)	Mixed	Interviews	7	Conservation tillage
Brodt et al. (2009)	Mixed	Open-ended survey questions	22	Hedgerows and other biodiversity enhancing features
Brummel and Nelson (2014)	Qualitative	Interviews	48	Rotational grazing
Campbell, Koontz, and Bonnell (2011)	Mixed	Interviews	5	Many
Christianson et al. (2014)	Mixed	Focus group (FG)	1 FG with 11 farmers	Many
Church and Prokopy (2017)	Qualitative	Interviews	12	Many
David et al. (2015)	Mixed	Interviews	Not specified	Many
Druschke (2013)	Qualitative	Ethnographic interviews	Not specified	Conservation practices
Enloe, Schulte, and Tyndall (2017)	Qualitative	Interviews	14	Conservation practices
Foley (2013)	Qualitative	Interviews	29	Conservation practices
Grover and Gruver (2017)	Qualitative	Interviews	33	Sustainable agriculture
Gutwein and Goldstein (2013)	Qualitative	Interviews	16	Payment for ecosystem services
Harden et al. ( 2013)	Qualitative	Focus group & interviews	Not specified	Phosphorus reducing conservation practices
Kalcic et al. (2014)	Qualitative	Interviews	10	Many
Kalcic et al. (2015)	Qualitative	Interviews	12	Many
Kennedy, Burbach, and Sliwinski (2016)	Qualitative	Interviews	13	Grassland management
King, Baker, and Tomlinson (2017)	Qualitative	Interviews	42	Many
Krajewski (2017)	Mixed	Open-ended survey questions	97	Many
Logsdon et al. (2015)	Mixed	Interviews	14	Conservation practices
Lubell, Hillis, and Hoffman (2011)	Mixed	Interviews	16	Many
Mattia, Lovell, and Davis (2016)	Mixed	2 focus groups	Not specified	Multifunctional perennial cropping systems
McCann et al. (1997)	Mixed	Open-ended survey questions	25	Conservation practices
McGuire, Morton, and Cast (2013)	Mixed	Interviews and participant observation	9; observations not specified	Many
Miller, Chin, and Zook (2012)	Mixed	Interviews	1	Cover crops
Moore, Parker, and Weaver (2008)	Mixed	Interviews and participant observation	Not specified	Conservation practices
Motallebi et al. (2016)	Mixed	Open-ended survey questions	90	Willingness to adopt riparian buffers in order to generate and sell credits under water quality trading programs
Mountjoy (1996)	Mixed	Ethnographic field observations	Not specified	Conservation practices
Ohde (2011)	Qualitative	Interviews	4	Conservation practices
Olson and Davenport (2017)	Qualitative	Interviews	30	Many
Osmond et al. (2015)	Mixed	Interviews	33	Many
Pape and Prokopy (2017)	Mixed	Interviews	20	Many
Perez (2015)	Mixed	Interviews	60	Nutrient management
Rebecca and Linda (2015)	Mixed	Interviews	15	Many
Reimer, Thompson, and Prokopy (2012)	Qualitative	Interviews	32	Conservation practices
Reimer, Weinkauf, and Prokopy (2012)	Qualitative	Interviews	45	Many
Reimer and Prokopy (2014)	Mixed	Interviews	20	Government programs
Roesch-McNally et al. 2017	Qualitative	4 focus groups	29	Cover crops
Roesch-McNally, Arbuckle, and Tyndall (2018)*	Qualitative	Interviews	159	Conservation practices
Stuart (2009)	Mixed	Interviews	43	Conservation practices
Stuart, Schewe, and McDermott (2014)	Mixed	Interviews and 4 focus groups	40; FG participation range 5-8 farmers	Nutrient management
Ulrich-Schad, Brock, and Prokopy (2017)	Mixed	Interviews	35	Many
Vollmer-Sanders, Wolf, and Batie (2011)	Mixed	Open-ended survey questions	29	Government program
Woods et al. (2014)	Qualitative	Interviews	Not specified	Conservation practices
Xie (2014)	Mixed	Open-ended survey questions	79	Many

Qualitative only denotes that the number reported here are for study participants from whom qualitative data was collected.

CPP: conservation practices and programs

The phrase conservation practices are used when the author(s) did not specify a conservation practice.

The phrase “many” is used when the study includes more than one conservation practice.

*Denotes study was published online in 2017.

Appendix 2. Coding framework

Code	Definition
Benefit	Motivated to adopt due to on or off farm benefits
Aesthetics	Includes discussions surrounding how a practice looks; described in positive terms
Erosion reduction	Practice is discussed as reducing on-farm erosion issues. Includes soil stabilization
Future generations	Practice discussed as helping to preserve farmland for future generations (usually referred to as family members)
Habitat	Practice increases wildlife habitat. Includes beneficial organisms like predatory insects
Livestock health	Code for improved livestock health benefit that motivates adoption
Off-farm, general	Includes environmental benefits. Do not code for water quality improvement. Includes public good. Use this code if the benefits are on-farm but cannot be captured in a more specific code
On-farm, general	Use this code if the benefits are on-farm but cannot be captured in a more specific code
Water quality improvement	Practice is specifically discussed as improving water
Economic factors	Barriers or motivations related to economics (e.g., costs, profit reduced, etc.)
Commodity markets	Pricing of crops and availability of markets for particular crops. Describes long-term thinking beyond short-term high commodity markets (e.g., sustainability of income over time)
Cost	Includes input costs (e.g., fertilizer, seeds, etc.). Includes reduction/increase in overall cropping costs. Includes high cost of the alternative practice (e.g., increasing cost of fertilizer)
General economic benefits	General discussions about broad economic benefits and issues. Code if the discussion is not specific enough to have a more detailed code
Labor	Issues or opportunities regarding farm labor (e.g., need more labor, labor reduced)
Land value	Issues or opportunities surrounding high/low cost of land. Includes intent to sell land for development
Market demand	Includes buyer requirements and/or consumer demand
Profitability	Issues or opportunities for profitability of land and farm operations (e.g., increased/decreased overall farm operation profitability)
Yield	Discussions surrounding yield due to practice adoption. Includes yield losses, increases, and can include yield staying constant (rather than declining)
Environmental awareness	Barriers or motivations related to concern or awareness of environmental issues
Environmental concern	Motivated to adopt because of environmental concerns
Knowledge, environmental	Knowledge of the environment/environmental issues acts as a motivation or barrier to adoption
Knowledge, program/practice	Practice or program would increase public/farmer/rancher awareness of conservation/ecosystem services
Farm characteristics	Barriers or motivations related to farm characteristics (e.g., topography, soil quality, etc.)
Farm quality/land characteristics	Issues and opportunities due to farm characteristics and farm quality
Flat land	Flat land typically discussed as a barrier to adoption of certain practices
Marginal land	Issues and opportunities for practice adoption due to less productive land
No issues	Land has no issues, thus practice adoption is not necessary
Open ditches absent	Land has no open ditches, thus practice adoption is not necessary
Vulnerable	Land is discussed in a variety of ways as being vulnerable (e.g., droughty and ponding)
Farm management	Barriers or motivations related to farm management (e.g., compatible with goals/operations, time savings, etc.)
Change in farmable acreage	Typically discussed as a barrier due to the perception that practice adoption will remove acreage from production
Compatibility	Includes compatibility and incompatibility with farm operations, goals, priorities, physical features, and business attributes. Includes issues or opportunities surrounding equipment
Livestock system integration	Issues and opportunities of practice adoption when livestock is part of the farm operation
Management effort	Includes discussions surrounding management effort increasing or decreasing. Includes time management. Indicates intensity of farm management acting as a barrier for a given DV
Status quo	Includes current level of conservation used, as well as conventional (no conservation) used
Systems thinking	Discussions surrounding farm operations and various practices as an integrated system
Timing	Issues and opportunities surrounding changes in timing due to practice adoption. Includes seeding and harvesting. Includes delay in receiving test results
Farmer characteristics	Barriers or motivations related to farmer characteristics (e.g., education, identity, etc.)
Farmer identity	Discussions surrounding a farmer's identity -- written in terms that are about a farmer's farm philosophy or way of being in the world
Agrarian	Enjoys farming and the challenges associated with it; also passionate about farming and the farm itself
Amish	Farmer is Amish and practices they use are influenced by their beliefs
Financially motivated	Discusses farm operations through financial lens. Includes farm as business
Innovator	Farmer is continually seeking to learn new things and/or experiment with new ideas as part of farm operations
Steward (low, high)	Includes discussions about careful and responsible management of land, especially to allow productivity of the land over time
Government programs	Barriers or motivations related to government programs (e.g., eligibility, paperwork, etc.)
Application process/requirements	Includes excessive regulation and burdensome requirements and program-specific paperwork. Code for long timeline associated with government programs acting as a barrier. Code for lack of equipment that can help meet the high standards set under government programs
Cost-share	Not only is the cost-share available, the availability is advertised so the word gets out. Code for themes other than when lack of cost-share is a barrier. For example, Cost-share, payment was not enough to cover the loss of productive land, or cost-share stops. Cost-share available and a lack of cost-share
Distrust/trust	Trust and distrust in the government in general and government programs
Eligibility	Discussions surrounding eligibility of a farmer's land for government programs
Flexibility	Discussions surrounding flexibility or lack of flexibility in government programs
Technical assistance	Issues and opportunities surrounding technical assistance for conservation practices
Land tenure	Barriers or motivations related to whether land is owned or leased
Landlord	Includes lack of understanding of the benefits of the practice. Includes terms of lease acting as a barrier
Leased land	Includes lack of control over leased land. Includes a lack of leased land
Practice – perceptions of conservation practice(s)	Barriers or motivations that are related to the DV or other conservation practice
Current/prior use of practice	Code for an existing conservation practice/program acting as a barrier to adopt the practice (DV) – specific to the practice in question
Current/prior use of other practice	Code for an existing conservation practice/program acting as a barrier to adopt the practice (DV) – use of a different practice than the one in question
Lack of time	Perceptions that farmer does not have enough time to implement/manage the practice.
Risk	Barriers or motivations related to perceptions of risk related to the practice
Reduced	Risk is or would be reduced if practice were adopted
Uncertainty	Uncertainty surrounding risks associated with practice adoption. Includes risk aversion acting as a barrier to adoption
Social norms	Barriers or motivations related to individual and community norms
Blame shifting	Farmers discuss other stakeholder groups as responsible for soil and water issues, thus they do not have a responsibility/need to adopt the practice
Leadership present	Leaders in the community acting as motivations/barriers to adoption (e.g., leading by example)
Neighbors	Neighbors have had success or failure from practice adoption
Subjective norms	Accepted practices and farming operations in the community acts as a motivation or barrier to practice adoption
Trust/distrust, community	Trust/distrust within the community acts as a motivation or barrier to practice adoption
Trust/distrust of information sources	Barriers or motivations related to trust/distrust of various sources of information. Code for specific entities below
Conservation agency	Code for trust/distrust in information received from conservation agency staff
University extension	Code for trust/distrust in information received from university extension personnel
Farmer	Code for trust/distrust in information received from farmers
General	Code for trust/distrust in information received, when the information source is not specified
Watershed group	Code for trust/distrust in information received from watershed group

Adebiyi, J., L. Schmitt, and S. Snapp. 2016. Understanding perennial wheat adoption as a transformative technology: Evidence from the literature and farmers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 31(2):101–10. doi:10.1017/S1742170515000150.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arbuckle, J. G., and G. Roesch-McNally. 2015. Cover crop adoption in Iowa: The role of perceived practice characteristics. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 70(6):418–29. doi:10.2489/jswc.70.6.418.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Armstrong, A., and R. C. Stedman. 2012. Riparian landowner efficacy in an urbanizing watershed. Society and Natural Resources 25(11):1193–203. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.663066.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Atwell, R. C., L. A. Schulte, and L. M. Westphal. 2009. Linking resilience theory and diffusion of innovations theory to understand the potential for perennials in the U.S. corn belt. Ecology and Society 14(1):30. doi:10.5751/ES-02787-140130.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bautista, E., P. Waller, and A. Roanhorse. 2010. Evaluation of the best management practices agricultural water conservation program. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Water Resources.

 Google Scholar

Bossange, A. V., K. M. Knudson, A. Shrestha, R. Harben, and P. Mitchell. 2016. The potential for conservation tillage adoption in the San Joaquin Valley, California: A qualitative study of farmer perspectives and opportunities for extension. PLoS One 11(12):e0167612. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167612.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brodt, S., K. Klonsky, L. Jackson, S. B. Brush, and S. Smukler. 2009. Factors affecting adoption of hedgerows and other biodiversity-enhancing features on farms in California, USA. Agroforestry Systems 76(1):195–206. doi:10.1007/s10457-008-9168-8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brummel, R. F., and K. C. Nelson. 2014. Does multifunctionality matter to US farmers? Farmer motivations and conceptions of multifunctionality in dairy systems. Journal of Environmental Management 146:451–62. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.034.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Campbell, J. T., T. M. Koontz, and J. E. Bonnell. 2011. Does collaboration promote grass-roots behavior change? Farmer adoption of best management practices in two watersheds. Society & Natural Resources 24(11):1127–41. doi:10.1080/08941920.2010.512358.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Christianson, L., T. Knoot, D. Larsen, J. Tyndall, and M. Helmers. 2014. Adoption potential of nitrate mitigation practices: An ecosystem services approach. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 12(4):407–24. doi:10.1080/14735903.2013.835604.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Church, S., and L. S. Prokopy. 2017. The influence of social criteria in mobilizing watershed conservation efforts: A case study of a successful watershed in the Midwestern U.S. Land Use Policy 61:353–67. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.030.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

David, M. B., C. G. Flint, L. E. Gentry, M. K. Dolan, G. F. Czapar, R. A. Cooke, and T. Lavaire. 2015. Navigating the socio-bio-geo-chemistry and engineering of nitrogen management in two Illinois tile-drained watersheds. Journal of Environment Quality 44(2):368–81. doi:10.2134/jeq2014.01.0036.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Druschke, C. G. 2013. Watershed as common-place: Communicating for conservation at the watershed scale. Environmental Communication 7(1):80–96. doi:10.1080/17524032.2012.749295.

 Google Scholar

Enloe, S. K., L. A. Schulte, and J. C. Tyndall. 2017. Public–private partnerships working beyond scale challenges toward water quality improvements from private lands. Environmental Management 60(4):574–87. doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0905-5.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grover, S., and J. Gruver. 2017. Slow to change’: Farmers’ perceptions of place-based barriers to sustainable agriculture. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 32(6):511–23. doi:10.1017/S1742170516000442.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gutwein, M., and J. H. Goldstein. 2013. Integrating conservation and financial objectives on private rangelands in Northern Colorado: Rancher and practitioner perceptions. Rangeland Ecology and Management 66(3):330–8. doi:10.2111/REM-D-11-00206.1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kalcic, M., L. Prokopy, J. Frankenberger, and I. Chaubey. 2014. An in-depth examination of farmers’ perceptions of targeting conservation practices. Environmental Management 54(4):795–813. doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0342-7.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kennedy, S. M., M. E. Burbach, and M. S. Sliwinski. 2016. Sustainable grassland management: An exploratory study of progressive ranchers in Nebraska. Sustainable Agriculture Research 5(2):103. doi:10.5539/sar.v5n2p103.

 Google Scholar

King, A. E. H., L. M. Baker, and P. J. Tomlinson. 2017. Community-based grazing marketing: Barriers and benefits related to the adoption of best management practices in grazing systems. Journal of Applied Communications 101(1):5. doi:10.4148/1051-0834.1013.

 Google Scholar

Logsdon, R. A., M. M. Kalcic, E. M. Trybula, I. Chaubey, and J. R. Frankenberger. 2015. Ecosystem services and Indiana agriculture: Farmers and conservationists perceptions. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 11(3):264–82. doi:10.1080/21513732.2014.998711.

 Google Scholar

Lubell, M., V. Hillis, and M. Hoffman. 2011. Innovation, cooperation , and the perceived benefits and costs of sustainable agriculture practices. Ecology and Society 16(4):23.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mattia, C. M., S. T. Lovell, and A. Davis. 2016. Identifying barriers and motivators for adoption of multifunctional perennial cropping systems by landowners in the upper Sangamon river watershed, Illinois. Agroforestry Systems 92:1155–69. doi:10.1007/s10457-016-0053-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McCann, E., S. Sullivan, D. Erickson, and R. De Young. 1997. Environmental awareness, economic orientation, and farming practices: A comparison of organic and conventional farmers. Environmental Management 21(5):747–58. doi:10.1007/s002679900064.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McGuire, J., L. W. Morton, and A. D. Cast. 2013. Reconstructing the good farmer identity: Shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agriculture and Human Values 30(1):57–69. doi:10.1007/s10460-012-9381-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miller, L., J. Chin, and K. Zook. 2012. Policy opportunities to increase cover crop adoption on North Carolina farms. PhD thesis, Duke University.

 Google Scholar

Moore, R. H., J. S. Parker, and M. Weaver. 2008. Agricultural sustainability, water pollution, and governmental regulations: Lessons from the sugar creek farmers in Ohio. Culture & Agriculture 30(1–2):3–16. doi:10.1111/j.1556-486X.2008.00003.x.

 Google Scholar

Motallebi, M., C. O’Connell, D. L. Hoag, and D. L. Osmond. 2016. Role of conservation adoption premiums on participation in water quality trading programs. Water 8(6):245–13. doi:10.3390/w8060245.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mountjoy, D. C. 1996. Ethnic diversity and the patterned adoption of soil conservation in the strawberry hills of Monterey, California. Society and Natural Resources 9(4):339–57. doi:10.1080/08941929609380979.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ohde, N. R. 2011. Ephemeral gullies and ecosystems services: Social and biophysical factors. PhD thesis, Iowa State University.

 Google Scholar

Olson, B., and M. A. Davenport. 2017. An inductive model of farmer conservation decision making for nitrogen management. Landscape Journal 36(1):59–73. doi:10.3368/lj.36.1.59.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Osmond, D. L., D. L. K. Hoag, A. E. Luloff, D. W. Meals, and K. Neas. 2015. Farmers’ use of nutrient management: Lessons from watershed case studies. Journal of Environment Quality 44(2):382–90. doi:10.2134/jeq2014.02.0091.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pape, A., and L. S. Prokopy. 2017. Delivering on the potential of formal farmer networks: Insights from Indiana. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 72(5):463–70. doi:10.2489/jswc.72.5.463.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rebecca, P. H., and P. Linda. 2015. Improving environmental management on small-scale farms: Perspectives of extension educators and horse farm operators. Environmental Management 55(1):31–42. doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0376-x.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reimer, A. P., A. W. Thompson, and L. S. Prokopy. 2012. The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: Implications for conservation adoption. Agriculture and Human Values 29(1):29–40. doi:10.1007/s10460-011-9308-z.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reimer, A. P., D. K. Weinkauf, and L. S. Prokopy. 2012. The influence of perceptions of practice characteristics: An examination of agricultural best management practice adoption in two Indiana watersheds. Journal of Rural Studies 28(1):118–28. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.09.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reimer, A. P., and L. S. Prokopy. 2014. Farmer participation in U.S. farm bill conservation programs. Environmental Management 53(2):318–32. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0184-8.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roesch-McNally, G. E., A. D. Basche, J. G. Arbuckle, J. C. Tyndall, F. E. Miguez, T. Bowman, and R. Clay. 2017. The trouble with cover crops: Farmers’ experiences with overcoming barriers to adoption. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 33 :322–33. doi:10.1017/S1742170517000096.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roesch-McNally, G., J. G. Arbuckle, and J. C. Tyndall. 2018. Soil as social-ecological feedback: Examining the ‘ethic’ of soil stewardship among corn belt farmers. Rural Sociology 83(1):145–73. doi:10.1111/ruso.12167.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stuart, D. 2009. Constrained choice and ethical dilemmas in land management: Environmental quality and food safety in California agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22(1):53–71. doi:10.1007/s10806-008-9129-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stuart, D., R. L. Schewe, and M. McDermott. 2014. Reducing nitrogen fertilizer application as a climate change mitigation strategy: Understanding farmer decision-making and potential barriers to change in the US. Land Use Policy 36:210–8. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.011.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ulrich-Schad, J. D., C. Brock, and L. S. Prokopy. 2017. A comparison of awareness, attitudes, and usage of water quality conservation practices between Amish and Non-Amish farmers. Society and Society & Natural Resources 30(12):1476–90. doi:10.1080/08941920.2017.1364457.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vollmer-Sanders, C., C. Wolf, and S. S. Batie. 2011. Financial and environmental consequences of a voluntary farm environmental assurance program in Michigan. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 66(2):122–31. doi:10.2489/jswc.66.2.122.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Woods, B. R., A. E. Luloff, D. Osmond, and D. Hoag. 2014. Toward a synthesis: Lessons from thirteen cropland watershed-scale studies. Society and Natural Resources 27(4):341–57. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.861551.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xie, Y. 2014. Watershed modeling, farm tenancy and adoption of conservation measures to facilitate water quality trading in the upper Scioto Watershed, Ohio. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

 Google Scholar