LAND DEGRADATION & REHABILITATION, VOL. 3, 1-14 (1992)

ADOPTION OF SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS IN ONTARIO, CANADA

B. SMIT* AND J. SMITHERST *Department of Geography, College of Social Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, NIG 2 WI, Canada

?Land Evaluation Group, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N I G 2 WI, Canada

ABSTRACT Soil degradation threatens environmental quality and sustainable food production. As a result of efforts to promote soil conservation, farmers in Canada are thought to be reasonably aware of both the importance of conservation and the existence of remedial and preventive practices. Despite this, the adoption of Conservation practices has been less than overwhelming. Forces other than awareness and positive attitude seem to be constraining many land managers from employing available conservation methods. This paper presents the findings from an empirical investigation of the use of soil conservation practices and barriers to their adoption in the southwestern region of Ontario, Canada. The analysis is set in the context of literature on technology adoption. A scheme for measuring farm-level conservation effort is developed, and barriers to adoption are derived from an analysis of a range of independent physical, personal, and economic factors, and from the obstacles or constraints identified by producers themselves. Key barriers relate to economic pressures, the complexity and compatibility of practices, and perceptions regarding the actual need for practices. The findings have relevance for the design of public policies and programs, notably the importance of supplying information on farm-level implications of conservation methods and the need for a stable economic environment for agriculture to allow longer-term planning.

KEY WORDS Promotion of soil conservation Attitudes to conservation Technology transfer Farm-level conservation Ontario Canada

INTRODUCTION

Canadian agriculture is highly mechanized, capitalized and specialized, and has achieved substantial increases in production over recent decades (Dumanski, et al., 1986). However, it is now generally accepted that such productivity gains in the agricultural sector of Canada, as well as many other developed countries, have occurred at the expense of environmental quality and soil fertility, thus threatening the sustainability of agricultural systems (Boardman, 1988; Crosson and Stout, 1983; Sparrow, 1984).

Environmental degradation and its implications for long-term food production have served as a common theme in the analysis of agricultural sustainability (Brklacich, et al., 1989). It is widely recognized that sustainable agriculture implies more than the preservation of the resource base, and includes also the maintenance of viable economic and social environments (Barbier, 1987; Brklacich, et al., 1991 ; Douglass, 1984). Excessive soil erosion can threaten environmental quality, economic viability and community well- being.

Concern over soil and water resources has prompted the development of numerous technological advancements in cropping and tillage practices, and in the management of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. These new technologies, combined with the resurrection of some traditional farming methods, provide the means for using agricultural lands in ways which minimize resource degradation.

However, the availability of effective soil conservation technology is of little value to the individual or society unless it is applied. As a consequence there is considerable interest in identifying and evaluating the factors which drive, or obstruct, the technology transfer process -in this case, the adoption of remedial and preventive measures to address soil and water degradation resulting from commercial agriculture.

Technology transfer has been examined from various viewpoints. Many scholars of innovation diffusion have shown the importance of awareness in the adoption process, suggesting that the implementation of new

0898-58 12/92/01OOO1- 14$07.OO 0 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 11 July 1991 Revised 10 October 1991

2 B. SMIT AND J. SMITHERS

technologies requires information, demonstration and the fostering of positive attitudes (Brown, 1980; Gasson, 1973; Jolly, et al., 1985). Recent research suggests that many farmers in North America are sympathetic to the conservation cause, and are generally aware of both the existence of soil erosion and the methods recommended for its control (Swanson, et al., 1986; Wall, et al., 1985). Despite this widespread awareness, the adoption of conservation technology has not been widespread in Ontario, and land-degrading practices continue (Coleman and Roberts, 1987; Wall, et al., 1985). Evidently, factors other than attitude and awareness influence farmers’ soil conservation behaviour. Knowledge of these factors enhances the prospects for achieving desired levels of soil conservation effort on agricultural land.

The purpose of this paper is to identify barriers to conservation in agricultural land use, and to assess prospects for their removal. Established concepts relating to innovation adoption and farmer behaviour are applied to try and better comprehend land management practices. This paper reviews the field of innovation adoption, in the context of soil conservation technologies. Following this it describes an empirical investigation of the use of soil conservation practices and the barriers to their more widespread adoption among farmers in Ontario, Canada. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings for research and policy. While the paper focuses largely on the North American experience in farm-level soil conservation, it is set in the context of adoption research generally.

ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS

There are several approaches to the study of the adoption and diffusion of technological innovations, particularly in agriculture. Historically, researchers have attempted to examine the relationship between farmers and their practices in order to understand how agricultural innovations are adopted by individuals and diffused among groups (Jones, 1967). Personal, social and situational characteristics of farmers have been considered to be key determinants of behaviour (Ilbery, 1985). The interaction of available information and appropriate personal and situational attributes is believed to result in positive attitudes toward the innovation, leading to adoption (Lionberger, 1960; Rogers, 1962). The influence of such factors on the use or non-use of conservation technologies has been examined empirically, particularly in the United States (e.g. Carlson and Dillman, 1986: Norris and Batie, 1987).

Beyond the study of potential adopters as determinants of diffusion, the nature of the innovation itself has also been considered. Rogers (1962) has suggested that five attributes of the innovation influence the rate of adoption. These are its relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, divisibility and communicability. In addition to these specific attributes, Jolly, et al. (1985) offer a four-part classification for agricultural innovations relating to the degree and nature of benefits derived. In this scheme, innovations are judged as being directly superior, indirectly superior, directly inferior, or indirectly inferior - based on the presence or absence of attendant benefits and the identity of the beneficiary (i.e. the individual or society). Finally, the characteristics of innovations have also been considered by Brown (1981) in the context of diffusion agencies or change agents. It is suggested that innovations are either infrastructure constrained or infrastructure independent; the latter tending toward randomness of occurrence, reflecting more the socio-economic characteristics of potential adopters.

Given the traditional importance of information and attitude in the adoption process, many policy makers and program managers interested in the promotion of conservation technologies in farming have built programs around education, extension and demonstration. Conventional wisdom suggests that farmers, once aware of the need for and benefits of conservation practices, will be motivated to act. However, some researchers have observed that, in the case of conservation technologies, information and attitude do not necessarily govern behaviour (Butte1 and Swanson, 1986; Napier and Forster, 1982; Nowak, 1984).

While awareness of erosion and available remedial measures is generally thought to be quite high among Canadian farmers, they may be aware of the wrong things relating to soil conservation (Ervin and Ervin, 1982). For example, from an adoption perspective, it matters little if farmers are keenly aware of the seriousness of soil and water degradation generally if they fail to recognize problems which exist on their own farms. Even when soil problems are recognized, it has been found that some farmers greatly overestimate their own conservation effort (Dickey, et al., 1987; Korsching and Nowak, 1983).

SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES 3

The measurement of conservation effort itself is a challenge for researchers. Some studies have simply counted practices, which assumes that all conservation practices are of equal value. Other examinations of the adoption of conservation technology have focused on specific practices, most often tillage. While appropriate tillage is undoubtedly an important conservation technology, it is questionable whether results pertaining to tillage can be extrapolated to other practices. For example, factors which significantly influence the adoption of various reduced tillage systems have been shown to differ from those related to other practices which are less profitable (Nowak, 1987). Other studies report that farmers tend to be innovative with respect to either commercial innovations or environmental innovations, but not both (Pampel and Van Es, 1977). It has been suggested that conservation technology becomes a commercially-viable innovation when farmers begin to experience yield reduction associated with uncontrolled soil erosion (Hooks, et al., 1983). Under these conditions, soil erosion represents an on-site cost, and consequently the monetary value of the technology is increased.

This brief review introduces the basics of most sociological and economic research on farm-level adoption, and establishes the broad approach employed in the empirical sections which follow. An important requirement for such research is the development of an operational definition of level of conservation effort, noting that a variety of practices are available. Further, the literature suggests a conceptual model of farm- level adoption, wherein the practicing of soil conservation is seen as a function of: physical attributes of the farm, characteristics of the farm business and personal and perceptual qualities of farm operators. The nature and characteristics of the innovation are also relevant to rates of adoption. This work at the farm-scale is being augmented by macro-level research into the institutional, economic and sociological forces which may enhance or obstruct adoption of conservation practices (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1983; Manning, 1988). To allow for the identification of the role of these external forces, an open-ended approach should be included in the research design (Sheskin, 1985).

AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

A rating scheme for the measurement of overall conservation effort at the farm-level is developed, based on the use (or non-use) of specific practices. The analysis of variations in conservation use tests hypotheses about the influence of farm and farmer attributes. The study also elicits information directly from farmers on the barriers to adoption and prospects for their removal.'

The primary data were collected from practicing farmers in the southwestern region of Ontario, where the most serious impacts of soil erosion are concentrated; these include potential yield reduction and pollution of rivers and lakes through soil and nutrient losses (Sparrow, 1984). This region has a range of topographical conditions, soil types, agricultural activities and management practices. To capture a representative selection of each of these attributes, the Counties of Kent and Oxford were selected as the study area (see Figure 1).

Oxford County has more undulating topography and coarser textured soils than Kent. In both Counties agriculture is the predominant land use, with each having almost 2000 farms with sales greater than Cdn$25 OOO~OO (OMAF, 1990). Cash-crop farming (notably corn and soybeans) predominates, particularly in Kent, but livestock (dairy, hogs, beef) and mixed farms (with wheat and grain) are also well represented.

The principal data sources for this study were a mail questionnaire and follow-up telephone interviews with respondents, conducted in the summer and autumn of 1988. A random sample of practicing farmers was derived from Crop Stabilization Program records and from county assessment rolls. Potential participants were informed of the study via a preliminary mailing and were subsequently sent the study questionnaire. The questionnaire related to characteristics of farmers and farm business, farmers' awareness and use of conservation practices, reasons for the use of practices and perceived barriers to adoption.

Completed questionnaires were received from 176 respondents, a response rate of 37 per cent, more than adequate for this type of survey (Sheskin, 1985). Nevertheless, the representativeness of the sample was tested in two ways, First, the distributions of selected farm attributes for the respondents were compared with the comparable distributions from the County Censuses (and found to be not significantly different). Second, 45 randomly selected non-respondents were interviewed by telephone. Comparison of data on conservation use between the original respondents and the contacted non-respondents showed no statistically significant

4 B. SMlT AND J . SMlTHERS

"/ I S. W. O N T A R I O

Detroit

7 OXFORD Buffalo on, ,*IT\,

Toronto

Lake Chtcvio

f KENT COUNTY Luu'y' ' _-

Windsor

Lake Erie

N

0 80 -I

krn

1

Figure 1. Study area

differences between the two groups. These tests suggest that the sample is adequately representative. Subsequent analyses are based on the pooled (mail and telephone) samples, totalling 221 respondents (46 per cent response rate), with roughly half from each County.

The selection of conservation practices was guided by relevant literature on conservation technologies, findings from recent research in Ontario (Coleman and Roberts, 1987; Dickinson, et al., 1987; Wall, et al., 1985), and a pretest. The practices specified in this study were:

1. Conservation tillage (chisel-plough, soil-saver, ridge-till, etc.), 2. Modified moldboard-plough (increased residue), 3. Use of forage and/or small grains in rotation, 4. Covercrop, 5. Ploughdown crop, 6. Bufferstrips, 7. Grassed waterways, 8. Windbreaks, 9. Drop inlets,

10. Tile outlet protection, and 1 1. Other (including manure/fertilizer management).

These soil conservation practices include both structural measures and management practices which have been found to be effective in the control of soil and nutrient loss from cropland in southwestern Ontario.

SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES 5

MEASUREMENT O F CONSERVATION EFFORT

The nature and extent of conservation practices is summarized in Table I. The most frequently reported soil conservation practice in the study area was the use of a crop rotation involving small grains or forage. It should be noted that in many cases the areas devoted to forage in rotation were comparatively small in relation to that in rowcrops and small grains, thus reducing soil conservation benefits somewhat. Other cropping practices such as the use of a ploughdown (e.g. red clover) and covercrop were also reported by significant numbers of respondents.

The use of specially designed conservation tillage equipment was reported by nearly 40 per cent of responding farmers, with a similar number indicating that they had modified the traditional moldboard- plough to reduce residue burial. In addition to these production practices, farmers also reported the use of structural measures such as bufferstrips or windbreaks, although these measures were generally less widely used.

Conservation tillage has been promoted extensively throughout the study area as an effective means of controlling soil loss from cropland. Among those farmers using a conservation tillage system, over 70 per cent had adopted this practice in the last five years. Conversely, only 17 per cent of respondents reporting the use of a crop rotation indicated that they had adopted this practice since 1983. Evidently, for many farmers, crop rotation which includes forage and small grains is a long standing element of the management system rather than a recent addition for soil conservation purposes.

The frequency of use of various conservation practices is broadly similar between the two Counties. However, interesting differences do exist with respect to the use of conservation tillage and drainage-related practices. Conservation tillage was more widely used in Kent County, where the growing of continuous row crops is most prevalent. Practices related to artificial drainage were also more commonly used in Kent County, where the soils are predominantly level, fine textured, and poorly drained.

An aggregate measure of conservation effort was sought, based on the use of specific practices. It is generally held that the most effective and important soil conservation practices in the study area involve conservation tillage and crop rotation (Dickinson, et a/., 1987). The structure of the rating scheme recognized

Table I. Use of conservation practices

practice* % use by all % use by Kent % use by Oxford % recent respondents respondents respondents adopterst

conservation 39 48 27 72

modified 40 47 30 40 tilt age

moldboard- plough

crop rotation 73 68 79 17 covercrop 38 38 36 32 ploughdown 47 52 37 21

crop bufferstrips 9 8 10 38 grassed 24 15 36 36

windbreaks 33 40 21 29

tile outlet 39 46 27 22

other (manure/ 14 13 16 36

waterways

drop inlets 19 28 6 45

protection

fertilizer management)

Note: * Mean number of practices-Kent = 4.0, Oxford = 3.3. t % of users in both Counties who have adopted only in last five years.

6 B. SMlT AND J. SMITHERS

Table 11. Levels of conservation practice

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 total

x, of respondents 28 25 33 14 100 number of respondents 62 55 74 30 221

the importance of these practices and also assigned a soil conservation value to other practices, thereby recognizing the increased soil conservation benefits of some practices over others. Respondents were assigned to one of the four ‘Levels’ of conversation effort based on the number and type of practices used:

Level 1 -have adopted both a conservation tillage and conservation cropping system, as well as any number

Level 2 -have adopted one of either: conservation tillage or crop rotation, and three or more other

Level 3 -have adopted one of either: conservation tillage or crop rotation, but less than three other

Level 4 -have not adopted either conservation tillage or a crop rotation.

There is a considerable range in the degree of conservation effort among farmers (see Table 11). A small proportion of farmers use neither conservation tillage nor crop rotation. More than half the respondents have adopted both key practices (Level 1) or one of these and three or more others (Level 2).

Although the scheme for classifying overall conservation practice captures the importance of both the type and number of practices used, it is not ideal. The measurement of conservation effort could be strengthened appreciably with information regarding the extent or manner in which specific practices were used. The collection of such detailed information was not feasible in this study. Nonetheless, the method provides an explicit and useful means of assessing relative soil conservation effort.

of other conservation practices.

conservation practices.

practices.

VARIATIONS IN CONSERVATION PRACTICE

One approach to identifying barriers to adoption involves testing for attributes of farms and farmers which are associated with variations in conservation practice (Ilbery, 1985). Three dependent variables are utilized in the analysis: the first is the overall measure of conservation effort; the second and third focus specifically on the use or non-use of the key practices of conservation tillage and crop rotation, respectively. The exogenous variables selected for this analysis comprise a range of farm, farmer, and farm business characteristics which have been shown or hypothesized in the literature to be associated with the use of soil conservation practices. The following sections explore the relationships between conservation use and the attributes of farms, farmers and farm businesses. The non-parametric, chi-square statistic is used to test for association between each pair of variables. This robust statistical test is appropriate because the dependent variables, and most of the independent variables, are measured on ordinal or nominal scales. Those variables measured on interval or ratio scales are transformed to the ordinal level to facilitate consistent comparisons.

Farm characteristics Farm size has been found to be positively related to the adoption of agricultural innovations, including

conservation practices (Epplin and Tice, 1986; Jones, 1967). Higher levels of conservation practice adoption are expected on larger farms, as operators should have more flexibility in their decision making, greater access to discretionary resources, more opportunity to use new practices on a trial basis and more ability to deal with risk (Nowak, 1987).

Few studies have examined the influence of farm type on the adoption of conservation practices, although increased rates of soil degradation have been attributed to an expansion of cash-crop farming, suggesting a greater need for conservation measures on these farms. However, Swanson, et al. (1986) found that grain

SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES 7

(cash-crop) farmers were less likely to adopt conservation practices than were farmers operating an integrated crop/livestock-based enterprise. For the purposes of this analysis, farms were classified as cash crop or ‘other’.

Farmers who operate on land which is inherently more susceptible to erosion problems are thought to have a greater propensity to adopt conservation practices (Ervin and Ervin, 1982; Nowak, 1987). In this study a measure of potential soil erodibility is estimated using an application of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; Shelton, et al., 1984). Information on slope, soil type and cropping practices was provided by respondents, and, as information on slope length (LS) was not available from the data set, a regional average of 100 feet was used in the calculations. The soil erodibility values generated were on a ratio scale. They were subsequently collapsed into three ordinal classes, so as not to overestimate the accuracy of the measure, and for consistency with other variables.

Finally, the role of awareness or perception in the adoption of innovations is well established (Brown, 1981 ; Green and Heffernan, 1987), particularly as a necessary precondition to the adoption of conservation practices (Swanson, et al., 1986). Farmers in this study were asked to indicate whether they had observed evidence of erosion on their farms. They also reported on the existence of non-erosional soil problems such as compaction, lack of waterholding capacity, lack of organic matter, poor soil structure and loss of fertility.

The analysis revealed that the level of Conservation effort was positively associated with three of the five farm characteristics tested (see Table 111). More intensive conservation effort was found on larger farms, on those where erosion had been reported, and on those where other forms of soil degradation existed. The use of conservation tillage was found to be significantly associated with farm size and the existence of other soil problems. The use of a crop rotation was associated only with farm type: crop rotation was employed more frequently on farms which were not cash-crop operations. Most of these farms were livestock-based operations where forage and small grains in rotation often represent a necessary and integral component of the management system.

Table 111. Factors related to conservation use’

attribute conservation conservation crop effort tillage rotation

farm characteristics: farm size farm type potential erodibility past erosion other soil problems

farmer characteristics: age education inter-generational membership in organizations concern over soil erosion concern over water quality

farm business characteristics: tenure equity level off-farm income gross farm sales

0.41 * (larger) 0.15 0.21 0.26* (exist) 0.26* (exist)

0.32* (middle) 0.19 0.16 0.26* (yes) 0.27* (yes) 0.14

0.20 0.20 0.2 1 0.36* (higher)

0.36* (larger) 0.10 0.17 0.11 0.24* (exist)

0.10 0-18 0.04 0.20* (yes) 0.27* (yes) 0.04

0.26* (rents) 0.09 0.07 0.27* (higher)

0.16

0.13 0.03 0.05

0.23* (livestock)

0.10 0.1 1 0.06 0.17* (yes) 0.07 0.09

0.02 0.13 0,13* (lower) 0.25* (higher)

Note: Values shown are coefficient of contingency indicating the strength of association. * Denotes significant at 95% confidence level using chi-square statistic. ( ) Indicates nature of significant associations e.g. higher conservation practice use associated

with (larger) farms, etc.

8 B. SMlT AND J . SMITHERS

Contrary to expectations, the potential erodibility of farmland was not significantly related to the adoption of conservation practices. While this result may be attributable to the lack of precision in the measurement of potential erodibility, it may also suggest that the physical need for practices is a poor predictor of adoption.

Farmer characteristics A number of studies suggest a negative relationship between the age of farmers and the adoption of

conservation practices (Culver and Seecharan, 1986; Green and Heffernan, 1987). It is generally held that higher levels of education are positively associated with innovativeness, or the propensity to adopt new practices (Hartman and Brown, 1970; Nowak, 1987).

The expectation that a family member will one day take over the farm business provides a motivation for the adoption of conservation technologies beyond that of economic advantage. An intergenerational expectation or aspiration effectively lengthens the planning horizon over which possible investments in the farm operation are evaluated (Carlson and Dillman, 1983). In this study, respondents were asked whether or not they were hopeful that a member of their family would take over their farm at some future date. Similarly, involvement in farm organizations serves as an indicator of progressiveness or dynamism, and has been identified as a determinant of adoption in both the general adoption/diffusion literature, and that which relates to the adoption of conservation practices (Carlson and Dillman, 1986).

The final two personal characteristics included in the analysis relate to the role of attitude or beliefs on soil Conservation decisions. Considerable research has examined the influence of attitudes on conservation behaviour (Napier and Forster, 1982; De Young, 1986). Much of this relates to farmers’ environmental ethic or land stewardship orientations. Surveyed farmers were presented with a list of widely differing agricultural issues and asked to identify those which were most important to them. Possible choices included the realignment of trading arrangements, product pricing systems, urban expansion and climate change, and the decline of family farming. Those farmers who included soil erosion and/or water quality among their choices were considered to possess a significant interest in these issues relative to other possible concerns, and thus a predisposition toward soil conservation involvement.

Of the six farmer characteristics included in the analysis, three were found to be significantly related to conservation use: age, membership in farm organizations and the identification of soil erosion as a serious agricultural issue (see Table 111).

Age is related to the overall conservation effort, but not to adoption of either conservation tillage or crop rotation. The greatest activity in the use of conservation practices was displayed by middle-aged farmers who were both well established in their farming careers, and still anticipating a number of years in farming, thus possessing both the ability and inclination to make investments in the farm business.

Involvement in farm organizations was positively related to all three of the dependent variables. However, in many cases, those farmers reporting the use of a forage-based crop rotation were members of a producers’ association rather than an organization with specific soil stewardship objectives. This again suggests that, for some farmers, the soil conservation benefits of crop rotation are incidental rather than planned.

Finally, concern regarding soil erosion as an agricultural issue, with its on-farm implications for productivity and sustainability was found to be related to the adoption of conservation practices, while concern regarding water quality ~ an off-farm problem - was not similarly associated. These results seem to suggest that, for farmers in this study, off-farm concerns do not provide an impetus for the adoption of soil conservation practices equal to that provided by on-farm concerns. This apparent distinction merits further investigation in view of its obvious policy implications.

Farm business ihracteristics Studies of the effect of tenure on the adoption of innovations have generally held that renters of farmland

are less likely to invest in soil conservation measures because of a lack of commitment to maintaining the long-term productivity of the soil (Ervin, 1986; Lionberger, 1960; Norris and Batie, 1987). However, there is also evidence to suggest that this relationship may not exist, or at least may be a poor predictor of conservation effort (Lee, 1983; Banks, et al., 1983).

SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES 9

Debt (or equity) level is popularly perceived as an economic factor affecting erosion control decisions. Operators with low equity are often compelled by economic necessity to maximize returns from land through the use of row crops and with little investment in conservation practices (Culver and Seecharan, 1986; Ervin and Ervin, 1982).

Some studies have argued that off-farm income provides increased discretionary income for investment in conservation practices; while others have suggested that it reflects the need for supplemental income and the likelihood that less time is being devoted to the operation of the farm business, and less prospect for the adoption of new technologies (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1983; Nowak, 1987; Taylor and Miller, 1978). Finally, higher economic returns are consistently shown to be associated with increased use of agricultural innovations generally (Hartman and Brown, 1970), and conservation practices in particular (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1983; Ervin and Ervin, 1982). The suggested reasons for this are an increase in available levels of discretionary income and an ability to forego profits in the short term in the interest of long-term sustainability. In this study, gross farm sales serve as a crude indicator of relative income.

The analysis of farm business characteristics revealed that only gross farm sales was related to all three dependent variables, while land tenure was related to the use of conservation tillage, and off-farm income to the use of crop rotation (see Table 111). Interestingly, farmers with some rented land were found to be more involved in conservation than were farmers without rented land. It should be noted that farmers who rented land tended to be the larger operators, so the association of tenure with increased conservation may be reflecting the influence of the scale of farm operations. Off-farm income was negatively related to the use of a crop rotation, suggesting that farm operators with competing demands on time from off-farm employment tend not to opt for integrated crop-livestock systems which require the use of forage and small grains.

Discussion on attributes and adoption The analysis of farm and farmer characteristics suggest conditions which appear to encourage adoption of

conservation practices. Involvement in soil conservation seems to be greatest among established active farmers (middle-aged on larger farms who are members of agricultural organizations), who perceive soil degradation to be a problem generally and on their own farms. These results point to the interdependent roles of economics, information and attitude in determining conservation effort.

Individuals in the mid-stage of their farming careers typically operate larger units. This group may possess a greater ability and willingness to make longer-term investments in the farm operation and to seek information relating to new practices. Operators of larger units tended to be active in farm organizations, which represent an important source of information on agricultural issues and technologies.

It is quite possible that enhanced information sharing associated with membership in farmer organizations contributes to heightened awareness of the broad consequences of soil degradation, and hence to a more critical assessment of on-farm conditions. The analysis showed not only a relationship between organization membership and concern over soil degradation, but also an association between conservation effort and general awareness (and on-farm recognition) of degradation concerns.

The finding that the independent measure of soil erodibility was not significantly related to conservation effort suggests that the belief that one’s land is susceptible, and the ability to absorb the costs of conservation practices, more strongly influence conservation decision-making than does the physical need for action.

The results from this part of the study imply that adoption of conservation practices requires a combination of conditions relating to economic viability, long-term planning horizon, knowledge of options and implications, and favourable attitude toward soil stewardship.

FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS

While the preceding analysis provides a basis for suggesting barriers to adoption, an alternative approach is to simply ask farmers why they do, or do not, employ soil conservation practices. This section reports on such an analysis addressing both perceived barriers to adoption and the prospects for overcoming these barriers.

10 B. SMlT AND J. SMITHERS

Table IV. Obstacles overcome by adopters ~ ~~~

obstacle number of respondents ~ ~~~~

no obstacles 49 37 complexity of practices 31 28 start-up costs 36 27 lack of technical assistance 20 15 hard to change 15 1 1 slow return on investment 13 10

NOW: One hundred and thirty-four respondents identified obstacles which they had overcome in their adoption of one or more practices. Respondents may note more than one obstacle.

Stated barriers to adoption The responses provided by both adopters (see Table IV) and non-adopters of conservation practices (see

Table V) identified a range of barriers to their more widespread use. These stated barriers relate to financial, technical, farm structure, institutional and human factors which constrain many farmers from adopting conservation practices. Barriers relating to economics and technology seem to be most influential.

Financial factors limit adoption in several ways. Economic constraints range from intense pressures to maximize short-run profit as a survival strategy, through difficulties with discretionary income for capital investments, to judgments about the economic advantage (or lack of advantage) associated with the use of conservation practices.

Technological limits relate to both the adequacy of the technology, and its applicability or utility in site- specific cases. For example, many farmers complained that reduced tillage systems are inappropriate on fine- textured soils. Whether or not this concern is well-founded, when held, it effectively precludes the use of the practice. In general it appears that doubts concerning both the need for, and practicality of, conservation practices act as barriers to changing fundamental aspects of the management system such as tillage and cropping practices.

Beyond the effectiveness of conservation techniques, the adoption of some practices is influenced by farm structure or farm type. The nature of the farm business appears to limit the feasibility of certain management practices, such as the use of forage in rotation on cash-crop farms.

Prospects fur ouercominy barriers In order to increase the adoption of conservation practices it is necessary both to identify barriers to their

use and to ascertain the means by which these obstacles might be overcome. However, the removal of

Table V. Reasons for non-adoption

reason ~

number 2, of respondents

inadequacy of technology not 'worth the cost' initial investment not compatible with system economic survival concerns not able to participate in

government program other no use for forage

18 17 13 12 8 8

30 28 22 20 13 13

8 5

13 8

~ ~ ~~

Note: Sixty respondents gave reasons for their non-adoption of at least one conservation practice. Respondents may have indi- cated more than one barrier.

SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES 11

Table VI. Conditions necessary for adoption

condition number % of respondents

proof of effectiveness higher product prices financial incentives technical assistance proof of need rental opportunity other guaranteed income during

experimentation

50 47 43 27 23 23 16 9

34 32 30 18 16 16 11

5

Note: N = 147. Respondents may have indicated more than one condition.

impediments will only increase adoption if there exists a basic interest, among farmers, in using conservation practices.

Respondents were asked, in open-ended fashion, for the conditions or actions which would make it possible for them to use conservation practices not currently employed. Based on a content analysis, answers were placed in broad categories capturing the essence of the responses (see Table VI).

The most frequently-noted condition for adoption was proof that recommended technologies were efficient and cost effective. Many farmers indicated that selected conservation practices, most notably reduced tillage, were not used because they were not well suited to their farm. Major concerns related to weed control, manure management and the expectation of decreased yield. Respondents indicated that the most serious constraint was the concern relating to yield reduction with the use of reduced tillage systems on fine- textured soils.

Farmers also observed that higher product prices would enable them to begin or increase their conservation effort. Many respondents indicated a high level of frustration over the lack of profitability in farming. Higher prices for farm products were desired for three basic reasons. Some farmers indicated that higher prices would enable them to ease the intensity of their farming operations and remove erodible land from production. Others stated that higher profit margins would increase discretionary income and facilitate investments in conservation practices. Finally, producers indicated that better (or some) profits associated with farming would provide a sense of stability regarding their future in agriculture, thereby encouraging investment in long-term measures.

Financial incentives in the form of grants, cost-sharing programs, and tax benefits for conservation, were identified by 30 per cent of respondents as conditions which would enable them to begin or increase their use of conservation practices. For these individuals the economic merits of the practices were not perceived as sufficient to initiate adoption. With respect to the two economic conditions identified above - higher product prices and financial incentives - several producers acknowledged that only higher product prices would promote a continuing conservation effort by farmers. Indeed many respondents were keenly aware of the vagaries of publicly funded initiatives; hence the preference for self-reliance.

A significant number of farmers suggested that they required on-site technical assistance before they would proceed with conservation practices. Some members of this group indicated that although they were aware of their soil problems, and of some of the conservation measures available, they were unsure as to which practices were needed on their farms. Related to this condition for adoption was proof that soil conservation practices were required at all.

The last commonly-noted condition for adoption was the need for opportunities to rent conservation equipment (primarily for tillage and planting). Two basic reasons were given for this requirement. First, farmers indicated that they were not prepared to adopt expensive modifications to their management system without sufficient opportunities for experimentation. These opportunities were most often obtained through rental trials with implement dealers or Ontario Conservation Authorities. Second, some farmers indicated

12 B. SMlT AND J . SMITHERS

that, given the small size of their farm operations, they would be unable to purchase equipment for conservation tillage and planting, but would be prepared to utilize these methods if rental equipment (or custom work) were available on an on-going basis. A small number of respondents indicated that they were unwilling to change their management system under any circumstances.

Finally, participants in the survey were presented with a list of policy and program alternatives which might be pursued by governments in order to promote or enforce soil conservation. Options included a number of economic inducements (grants, loans, tax benefits, etc.), increased research and technical assistance, education programs, and various regulatory measures including cross-compliance and the establishment of soil loss limits.

Not surprisingly, nearly 58 per cent of respondents selected various forms of financial assistance as the most effective role for government in farm-level soil conservation. However, only 22 per cent of the same group indicated that initial start-up costs or willingness to invest were the factors which prevented them from beginning or increasing their soil conservation effort. This suggests that financial incentives, despite their apparent popularity with farmers, are not sufficient to ensure widespread adoption of soil conservation practices in Ontario. The findings also support the common belief that most farmers wish soil conservation to remain a voluntary action, to be accepted or rejected within the context of other farm management decisions, rather than having it become a regulatory matter.

CONCLUSIONS

Conservation technologies are somewhat distinct from other agricultural innovations because they do not provide financial or time-saving benefits to the farmer in the short term, nor, in some cases, in the long term (Fox and Dickson, 1988; Swanson, et al., 1986). In this respect they may be characterized as ‘indirectly superior’ innovations (Jolly, et al., 1985).

Unlike most agricultural innovations where the resultant benefits accrue directly to the adopter, the economic benefits are often deferred or absent for the farmer even though the societal benefits may be substantial. If the inputs for soil conservation technologies include substantial capital investment, foregone income and/or increased managerial requirements, and the output is reduced soil degradation, improved water quality, and the maintenance of the productive capacity of land for long-term food production, then it may be argued that conservation technologies are indeed ‘indirectly superior’ innovations for many land managers. In the context of sustainable agriculture, aggressive farm-level soil conservation efforts may not enhance economic viability, despite benefits to environmental quality and long-term food production.

The findings of this study have implications for program evaluation and the development of public policy. While public education and information on conservation are still needed in Ontario, the findings suggest that some quite distinct types of information are required. Evidence of the societal need for soil and water conservation is less compelling to land managers perhaps than is evidence of farm-level need and advantage. Consequently, there are requirements for detailed technical information on measures, on methods of implementation and on anticipated costs and benefits in both the short and long term. Furthermore, the range in reported barriers to adoption suggests the need for variety in soil conservation programs, and for the targeting of programs to appropriate land types and farm types.

Financial assistance is conventionally regarded as a popular form of government involvement in soil conservation. In this study a significant number of farmers indicated that security in farming, not short-term financial assistance, would encourage more activity in soil conservation. Similarly, for most farmers the primary motivation for adoption related to sustaining soil productivity rather than reducing environmental degradation. This does not imply that Ontario farmers are apathetic regarding environmental issues; it simply reflects the importance placed on the economic viability of the enterprise, particularly during difficult times in Canadian agriculture generally. For many farmers, long-term planning horizons are clouded by concerns over short-term survival.

The voluntary nature of soil conservation in Ontario requires that farmers be motivated to act of their own accord. While some researchers have questioned the appropriateness and effectiveness of voluntarism (e.g. Crosson, 1984; Fox and Dickson, 1988), there is little evidence to suggest that the importance of self-reliance

SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES 13

will change in south western Ontario in the foreseeable future. Consequently, increased field-level research to enhance the farm-level economics of conservation farming and an increased societal participation in the real costs of environmentally-safe food production (either at the cash register or uia the public purse) may be required to promote more widespread adoption of soil conservation practices by Ontario farmers - particu- larly if agro-environmental objectives exceed the level of soil management needed to simply sustain productivity. The establishment and attainment of these objectives represent significant challenges to researchers and policy-makers alike, and will require continued progress in understanding both the reasons for, and barriers to, the use of soil conservation practices in agriculture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research was supported by the Soil and Water Environmental Enhancement Program (SWEEP), Agricul- ture Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The authors also acknowledge the helpful contributions of Dr P. Keddie and Dr M. Miller.

‘This paper provides a summary of the empirical study. For a detailed description of the sampling procedures, tests for representativeness, variable selection, questionnaire design and implementation, choice and conduct of statistical tests, and presentation of all analytical results see the technical report (Smithers and Smit, 1989) available from the authors.

REFERENCES

Banks, T. M., Bhide, S., Pope, C. A. and Heady, E. 0. 1983. Effects of Tenure Arrangements, Capital Constraints, and Farm Size on the Economics of Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Iowa, CARD Report 111. Iowa State University, Ames.

Barbier, E. 1987. ‘The concept of sustainable economic development’, Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101-1 10. Boardman, J. 1988. Public policy and soil erosion in Britain, pp. 33-50, in J. M. Hooke, (ed.) Geomorphology in Environmental Planning,

Brklacich, M., Smit, B., Bryant, C. and Dumanski J. 1989. ‘Impacts of environmental change on sustainable food production in

Brklacich, M., Bryant, C. R. and Smit, B. E. 1991. ‘A review and appraisal of the concept of sustainable food production systems’,

Brown, L. A. 1981. Innovation Diffusion: a new perspective, Methuen, London. Brown, M. A. 1980. ‘Attitudes and social categories: complementary explanations of innovation adoption’, Environment and Planning, A

Bultena, G. L. and Hoiberg, E. 0. 1983. ‘Factors affecting farmers’ adoption of conservation tillage’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 38, 281 -284.

Buttel, F. H. and Swanson, L. E. 1986. Soil and water conservation: a farm structural and public policy context, pp. 26-39, in S. B. Lovejoy and T. L. Napier, (eds.) Conserving Soil: insights from socio-economic research, Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny.

Wiley, Chichester.

southwest Ontario, Canada’, Land Degradation & Rehabilitation, 1(4), 291-303.

Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-14.

12, 176- 186.

Carlson, E. and Dillman, D. A. 1983. ‘Influence of kinship arrangements on farmer innovativeness’, Rural Sociology, 48, 183-200. Carlson, E. and Dillman, D. A. 1986. Early adopters and nonusers of no-till in the Pacific Northwest: a comparison, pp. 83-94, in S. B.

Lovejoy and T. L. Napier, (eds.) Conserving Soil: insights from socio-economic research, Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny.

Coleman, D. and Roberts, P. 1987. Cropping, Tillage and Land Management Practices in Southwestern Ontario: 1986, Soil and Water Environmental Enhancement Program, Agriculture Canada, Guelph.

Crosson, P. 1984. ‘New perspectives on soil conservation policy’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 39, 222-225. Crosson, P. R. and Stout, A. J. 1983. Productivity Effects of Cropland Erosion in the United States, The Johns Hopkins University Press,

Culver, D. and Seecharan, R. 1986. ‘Factors that influence the adoption of soil conservation strategies’, Canadian Farm Economics,

De Young, R. 1986. ‘Encouraging environmentally appropriate behaviour: the role of intrinsic motivation’, Journal of Environmental

Dickey, E. C., Jasa, P. J., Dolesh, B. J., Brown, L. A. and Rockwell, S. K. 1987. ‘Conservation tillage: perceived and actual use’, Journal

Dickinson, W. T., Kachanoski, R. G., Lobb, D. A., Smithers, J. A., Vyn, T. J. and Miller, M. H. 1987. Soil Erosion and Phosphorus Runofl

Baltimore.

20(2), 9-13.

Systems. IS, 281-292.

of Soil and Water Conservation, 42, 432-434.

from Ayricullurai Cropland in Southwestern Ontario, Centre for Soil and Water Conservation, University of Guelph, Guelph.

14 B. SMIT AND J. SMITHERS

Douglass, G . 1984. The meanings of agricultural sustainability, pp. 3-29. in G. Douglass, (ed.) Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order, Westview Press, Boulder.

Dumanski, J.. Coote, D. R., Luciuk, G. and Lok, C. 1986. ‘Soil conservation in Canada’, Journal o/’Soil and Water Conservation, 41, 204-2 10.

Epplin, F. M. and Tim, T. F. 1986. ‘Influence of crop and farm size on adoption of conservation tillage’, Journal of Soil and Water Consertiation, 41, 424 427.

Ervin, D. E. 1986. Constraints to practicing soil conservation: land tenure relationships, pp. 95-107, in S. B. Lovejoy and T. L. Napier, (eds.) (’onseroing Soil: insights,from socio-economic research. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny.

Ervin, C. E. and Ervin, D. E. 1982. ‘Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: hypotheses, evidence and policy implications’, Land Economics, 58, 277 292.

Fox, G. and Dickson, E. J. 1988. Whaf’s Economic About the Economic Costs ofSoil Erosion to Canadian Farmers (Discussion Paper DP88/3), Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph, Guelph.

Gasson, R. M. 1973. ‘Goals and values of farmers’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 24, 521-542. Green, G . P. and Heffernan, W. D. 1987. ‘Soil erosion and perception of the problem’, Journal of Rural Studies, 3, 151 157. Hartman J. A. and Brown, E. J. 1970. Evaluation of a Five Year Demonstration Farm Program in Two Pennsylvania Counties (Extension

Hooks, G. M., Napier, T. L. and Carter, M. V. 1983. ‘Correlates of adoption behavior: the case of farm technologies’, Rural Sociology,

Ilbery, B. W. 1985. Agricultural Geography- A Social and Economic Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jolly, R. W., Elveld, B., McGram, V. and Raitt, D. 1985. Transferring soil conservation technology to farmers, pp. 459 480, in R. F.

Follctt and B. A. Stewart, (eds.) Soil Erosion and Crop Productivity. American Society of Agronomy ~~ Soil Science Society of America

Jones, G. E. 1967. ‘The adoption and diffusion of agricultural practices’, World Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Annals, 9(3), 1-34.

Korsching, P. F. and Nowak, P. J. 1983. Flexibility in conservation policy, pp. 149--159, in D. E, Brewster, (ed.) Furms in Transition, Iowa State University Press, Ames.

Lee, L. K. 1983. Land tenure and adoption of Conservation tillage. Journal ofsoil and Water Conseraatinn, 38, 166-168. Lionberger, H. F. 1960. Adoption of New Ideas and Practices, Iowa State University Press, Ames. Manning, E. W. 1988. ‘Soil conservation: barriers to a comprehensive national response’, Prairie Forum, 13(1), 99 121. Napier, T. L. and Forster, D. L. 1982. Farmer attitudes and behaviour associated with soil erosion control, pp. 137-150, in H. G.

Halcrow, E. 0. Heady, and M. L. Cotner, (eds.) Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions, and Incentives, Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny.

Norris, P. E. and Batie, S. S. 1987. ‘“Virginia farmers’’ soil conservation decisions: an application of Tobit Analysis’, Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 19, 79-90.

Nowak, P. J. 1984. Adoption and diffusion of soil and water conservation practices, pp. 214-237, in B. C. English, J. A. Maetzold, B. R. Holding and E. 0. Heady, (eds.) Fufure Agricultural Technology and Resource Conservation, Iowa State University Press, Ames.

Nowak, P. J. 1987. ‘The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations’, Rural Sociology, 52,

OMAF. 1990. Agricultural Statistics,for Onfario, 1989, Publication No. 20, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Toronto. Pampel, F. and Van Es, J. 1977. ‘Environmental quality and issues of adaptation research’, Rural Sociology, 42, 57 71. Rogers, E. M. 1962. &@usion oflnnovations, The Free Press, New York. Shelton, 1. J., Wall, G. J. and Dickinson, W. T. 1984. A Proposed Methodology for Mapping Provincial Soil Loss Poterzfial (Publication

Sheskin, 1, M. 1985. Survey Research for Geographers, American Association of Geographers, Washington, D. C. Smithers, J. and Smit, B. 1989. Conservation Practices in Southwestern Ontario Agriculture: barriers to adoption, LEG 28, University of

Sparrow, H. 1984. Soil at Risk: Canada’s Eroding Future, Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Ottawa. Swanson, L. E., Comboni, S. M. and Napier, T. L. 1986. Barriers to adoption of soil conservation practices on farms, pp. 108 120, in

S. B. Lovejoy and T. L. Napier, (eds.) Conserving Soif: insight from socio-economic research, Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny.

Taylor, D. L. and Miller, W. L. 1978. ‘The adoption process and environmental innovations: a case study of a government project’, Rural Sociology, 43, 634 ~648.

Wall, G. J., Vaughan, E. E. and Driver, G. 1985. Cropping, Tillage and Land Management Practices in Southwestern Ontario: 1984, Ontario Institute of Pedology, Guelph.

Wischmeier, W. and Smith, D. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: a guide to Conservation planning (USDA Agricultural Handbook. No. 537), United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C .

Studies Report No. 42), Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

48, 308- 323.

Crop Science Society of America, Madison.

208-220.

No. 84.4), Ontario Institute of Pedology, Guelph.

Guelph, School of Rural Planning and Development, Guelph.