Pathways to conservation persistence: Psychosocial drivers of durable grasslands following the Conservation Reserve Program

References

1. ↵
   1. Barnes, J.C.,
   2. M. Sketch,
   3. A.R. Gramza,
   4. M.G. Sorice,
   5. R. Iovanna, and
   6. A.A. Dayer

   . 2020. Land use decisions after the Conservation Reserve Program: Re-enrollment, reversion, and persistence in the southern Great Plains. Conservation Science and Practice 2(9). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.254.
2. ↵
   1. Bigelow, D.,
   2. R. Claassen,
   3. D. Hellerstein,
   4. V. Breneman,
   5. R. Williams, and
   6. C. You

   . 2020. The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16 Economic Information Bulletin Number 215. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/95642/eib-215.pdf.
3. ↵
   1. Burger, L.W.,
   2. K.O. Evans,
   3. M.D. McConnell, and
   4. L.M. Burger

   . 2019. Private lands conservation: A vision for the future. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43(3):398-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1001.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Caldas, M.M.,
   2. J.S. Bergtold,
   3. J.M. Peterson, and
   4. D.H. Earnhart

   . 2016. Land-use choices: The case of conservation reserve program (CRP) re-enrollment in Kansas, USA. Journal of Land Use Science 11(5):579-594. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2016.1215563.

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Cetas, E.R., and
   2. M. Yasué

   . 2017. A systematic review of motivational values and conservation success in and around protected areas. Conservation Biology 31(1):203-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12770.

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Conner, M., and
   2. P. Norman

   . 2022. Understanding the intention-behavior gap: The role of intention strength. Frontiers in Psychology 13:923464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923464.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Coppess, J.

   2017. Historical Background on the Conservation Reserve Program. Farmdoc Daily 7:82. Urbana, IL: Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2017/05/historical-background-on-the-crp.html.
8. ↵
   1. Cortés-Capano, G.,
   2. N. Hanley,
   3. O. Sheremet,
   4. A. Hausmann,
   5. T. Toivonen,
   6. G. Garibotto-Carton,
   7. A. Soutullo, and
   8. E. Di Minin

   . 2021. Assessing landowners’ preferences to inform voluntary private land conservation: The role of non-monetary incentives. Land Use Policy 109:105626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105626.

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Cullum, R.F.,
   2. M.A. Locke, and
   3. S.S. Knight

   . 2010. Effects of conservation reserve program on runoff and lake water quality in an oxbow lake watershed. Journal of International Environmental Application and Science 5(3):318-328. https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/47098.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Cutter, J.,
    2. T. Hovick,
    3. D. McGranahan,
    4. J. Harmon,
    5. R. Limb,
    6. J. Spiess, and
    7. B. Geaumont

    . 2022. Cattle grazing results in greater floral resources and pollinators than sheep grazing in low-diversity grasslands. Ecology and Evolution 12(1):e8396. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8396.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Daniel, D.W.,
    2. L.M. Smith,
    3. D.A. Haukos,
    4. L.A. Johnson, and
    5. S.T. McMurry

    . 2014. Land use and Conservation Reserve Program effects on the persistence of playa wetlands in the High Plains. Environmental Science and Technology 48(8):4282–4288. https://doi.org/10.1021/es404883s.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Dayer, A.A.,
    2. S.H. Lutter,
    3. K.A. Sesser,
    4. C.M. Hickey, and
    5. T. Gardali

    . 2018. Private landowner conservation behavior following participation in voluntary incentive programs: Recommendations to facilitate behavioral persistence. Conservation Letters 11(2):e12394. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12394.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. de Snoo, G.R.,
    2. I. Herzon,
    3. H. Staats,
    4. R.J.F. Burton,
    5. S. Schindler,
    6. J. van Dijk,
    7. A.M. Lokhorst,
    8. J.M. Bullock,
    9. M. Lobley,
    10. T. Wrbka,
    11. G. Schwarz, and
    12. C.J.M. Musters

    . 2013. Toward effective nature conservation on farmland: Making farmers matter. Conservation Letters 6(1):66–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00296.x.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Dillman, D.,
    2. J.D. Smyth, and
    3. L.M. Christian

    . 2014. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Fourth Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15. ↵
    1. Doidge, M.,
    2. D.A. Hennessy, and
    3. H. Feng

    . 2020. The role of economic returns in land use change: Evidence from farm-level data in the US Northern Great Plains. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(5):669–679. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2020.00084.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
16. ↵
    1. Emtage, N., and
    2. J. Herbohn

    . 2012. Implications of landholders’ management goals, use of information and trust of others for the adoption of recommended practices in the Wet Tropics region of Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 107:351–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.07.003.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Fishbein, M., and
    2. I. Ajzen

    . 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.
18. ↵
    1. Force, D., and
    2. N. Bills

    . 1989. Participation in the CRP: Implications of the New York experience. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44(5):512-516.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
19. ↵
    1. Frey, E., and
    2. T. Rogers

    . 2014. Persistence: How treatment effects persist after interventions stop. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1(1):172-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214550405.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
20. ↵
    1. Gebhart, D.L.,
    2. H.B. Johnson,
    3. H.S. Mayeux, and
    4. H.W. Polley

    . 1994. The CRP increases soil organic carbon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49(5):488.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
21. ↵
    1. Gooden, J.

    2019. A review of critical perspectives on private land conservation in academic literature. Ambio 49(5):1019-1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01258-y.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Heimlich, R.E., and
    2. O.E. Kula

    . 1989. Grazing lands: How much CRP land will remain in grass? Rangelands Archives 11(6):253-257.

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Hellerstein, D.M.

    2017. The U.S. Conservation Reserve Program: The evolution of an enrollment mechanism. Land Use Policy 63:601-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.017.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Horne, P.

    2006. Forest owners’ acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation: A choice experiment based approach. Silva Fennica 40(1). https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.359.
25. ↵
    1. Kahneman, D.,
    2. J.L. Knetsch, and
    3. R.H. Thaler

    . 1991. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1):193-206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Kuhfuss, L.,
    2. R. Préget,
    3. S. Thoyer,
    4. N. Hanley,
    5. P. Le Coent, and
    6. M. Désolé

    . 2016. Nudges, social norms, and permanence in agri-environmental schemes. Land Economics 92(4):641-655. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.92.4.641.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
27. ↵
    1. Kwasnicka, D.,
    2. S.U Dombrowski,
    3. M. White, and
    4. F. Sniehotta

    . 2016. Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: A systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychology Review 10(3):277-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1151372.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
28. ↵
    1. Li, C.,
    2. L.M. Fultz,
    3. J. Moore-Kucera,
    4. V. Acosta-Martínez,
    5. J. Horita,
    6. R. Strauss,
    7. J. Zak,
    8. F. Calderón, and
    9. D. Weindorf

    . 2017. Soil carbon sequestration potential in semiarid grasslands in the Conservation Reserve Program. Geoderma 294:80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.032.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Li, C.,
    2. L.M. Fultz,
    3. J. Moore-Kucera,
    4. V. Acosta-Martínez,
    5. M. Kakarla, and
    6. D.C. Weindorf

    . 2018. Soil microbial community restoration in Conservation Reserve Program semi-arid grasslands. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 118:166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.12.001.

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Liu, J., and
    2. Y.E. Riyanto

    . 2017. The limit to behavioral inertia and the power of default in voluntary contribution games. Social Choice and Welfare 48(4):815-835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-017-1036-x.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Lutter, S.H.,
    2. A.A. Dayer, and
    3. J.L. Larkin

    . 2019. Young forest conservation incentive programs: Explaining re-enrollment and post-program persistence. Environmental Management 63(2):270–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1127-1.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. Morefield, P.E.,
    2. S.D. LeDuc,
    3. C.M. Clark, and
    4. R. Iovanna

    . 2016. Grasslands, wetlands, and agriculture: The fate of land expiring from the Conservation Reserve Program in the midwestern United States. Environmental Research Letters 11(9):094005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094005.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Niemiec, R.M.,
    2. V. Champine,
    3. J.J. Vaske, and
    4. A. Mertens

    . 2020. Does the impact of norms vary by type of norm and type of conservation behavior? A meta-analysis. Society and Natural Resources 33(8):1024-1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1729912.

    OpenUrl
34. ↵
    1. Onianwa, O.O.,
    2. G.C. Wheelock,
    3. M.R. Dubois, and
    4. S.T. Warren

    . 1999. Assessing the retention potential of Conservation Reserve Program practices in Alabama. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 23(2):83–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/23.2.83.

    OpenUrl
35. ↵
    1. Pavlacky, D.C.,
    2. C.A. Hagen,
    3. A.M. Bartuszevige,
    4. R. Iovanna,
    5. T.L. George, and
    6. D.E. Naugle

    . 2021. Scaling up private land conservation to meet recovery goals for grassland birds. Conservation Biology 35(5):1564–1574. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13731.

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Polites, G.L., and
    2. E. Karahanna

    . 2012. Shackled to the status quo: The inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Quarterly 36(1):21-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410404.

    OpenUrl
37. ↵
    1. Prokopy, L.S.,
    2. K. Floress,
    3. J.G. Arbuckle,
    4. S.P. Church,
    5. F.R. Eanes,
    6. Y. Gao,
    7. B.M. Gramig,
    8. P. Ranjan, and
    9. A.S. Singh

    . 2019. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 74(5):520–534. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.74.5.520.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
38. ↵
    1. Race, D., and
    2. A. Curtis

    . 2013. Reflections on the effectiveness of market-based instruments to secure long-term environmental gains in southeast Australia: Understanding landholders’ experiences. Society and Natural Resources 26(9):1050-1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.779338.

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Reimer, A.P., and
    2. L.S. Prokopy

    . 2014. Farmer participation in U.S. farm bill conservation programs. Environmental Management 53(2):318–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0184-8.

    OpenUrlPubMed
40. ↵
    1. Riley, M.

    2016. How does longer term participation in agri-environment schemes [re]shape farmers’ environmental dispositions and identities? Land Use Policy 52:62-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.010.

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Ryan, R.M., and
    2. E.L. Deci

    . 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55(1):68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
42. ↵
    1. Skaggs, R.K.,
    2. R.E. Kirksey, and
    3. W.M. Harper

    . 1994. Determinants and implications of post-CRP land use decisions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(2):299–312. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40986847.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Sorice, M.G.,
    2. C.J. Donlan,
    3. A.R. Santo,
    4. G.M. Luque, and
    5. C.A. Hagen

    . 2021. Exploring pathways to participation in an at-risk species conservation program. Conservation Science and Practice 3(9):e489. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.489.

    OpenUrl
44. ↵
    1. Stern, M.J., and
    2. K.J. Coleman

    . 2015. The multidimensionality of trust: Applications in collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 28(2):117-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.945062.

    OpenUrl
45. ↵
    1. Sullins, D.S.,
    2. M. Bogaerts,
    3. B.H.F. Verheijen,
    4. D.E. Naugle,
    5. T. Griffiths, and
    6. C.A. Hagen

    . 2021. Increasing durability of voluntary conservation through strategic implementation of the Conservation Reserve Program. Biological Conservation 259:109177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109177.

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Swann, E., and
    2. R. Richards

    . 2016. What factors influence the effectiveness of financial incentives on long-term natural resource management practice change? Evidence Base 2016(2):1–32. https://doi.org/10.21307/eb-2016-003.

    OpenUrl
47. ↵
    1. Telesetsky, A.

    2017. Eco-restoration, private landowners and overcoming the status quo bias. Griffith Law Review 26(2):248-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2017.1355770.

    OpenUrl
48. ↵
    1. Thompson, A.W.,
    2. A. Reimer, and
    3. L.S. Prokopy

    . 2015. Farmers’ views of the environment: The influence of competing attitude frames on landscape conservation efforts. Agriculture and Human Values 32(3):385–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9555-x.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
49. ↵
    1. USDA

    . 2018. The Conservation Reserve Program: A 35-Year History. Washington, DC: USDA. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/35_YEARS_CRP_B.pdf.
50. ↵
    1. USDA FSA (Farm Service Agency)

    . 2019. CRP practices (acres) by county and expiration year. Washington, DC: USDA FSA. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/reports-and-statistics/conservation-reserve-program-statistics/index.
51. ↵
    1. USDA FSA

    . 2020. The Conservation Reserve Program 54th signup results. Washington, DC: USDA FSA. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/su54book.pdf.
52. ↵
    1. USDA FSA

    . 2021a. USDA expands and renews Conservation Reserve Program in effort to boost enrollment and address climate change. Washington, DC: USDA FSA. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/news-releases/2021/usda-expands-and-renews-conservation-reserve-program-in-effort-to-boost-enrollment-and-address-climate-change.
53. ↵
    1. USDA FSA

    . 2021b. Fact sheet: 56th general enrollment period Environmental Benefits Index (EBI). Washington, DC: USDA FSA. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2020/crp-56th-ebi-fact-sheet-12-31-2020.pdf.
54. ↵
    1. USDA FSA

    . 2022a. Conservation Reserve Program: Fact sheet. Washington, DC: USDA FSA. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2022/conservation-reserve_program-fact_sheet_2022.pdf.
55. ↵
    1. USDA FSA

    . 2022b. Grasslands Conservation Reserve Program: Fact sheet. Washington, DC: USDA FSA. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/grassland_crp_working_lands-fact-sheet04-01-22.pdf.
56. ↵
    1. USDA NASS (Natural Agricultural Statistics Service)

    . 2020. Census of Agriculture: 2017 state and county profiles. Washington, DC: USDA NASS. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/.
57. ↵
    1. USDA NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service)

    . 2022. Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative. Washington, DC: USDA NRCS. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/lesser-prairie-chicken-initiative.
58. ↵
    1. Vaske, J.

    2019. Survey Research and Analysis, Second Edition. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, L.L.C.
59. ↵
    1. Vaske, J.J.,
    2. A.C. Landon, and
    3. C.A Miller

    . 2020. Normative influences on farmers’ intentions to practice conservation without compensation. Environmental Management 66:191-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01306-4.

    OpenUrl
60. ↵
    1. Wang, T.,
    2. M. Luri,
    3. L. Janssen,
    4. D.A. Hennessy,
    5. H. Feng,
    6. M.C. Wimberly, and
    7. G. Arora

    . 2017. Determinants of motives for land use decisions at the margins of the Corn Belt. Ecological Economics 134:227–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.006.

    OpenUrl