Abstract
Twenty-four qualitative interviews were conducted with farmers and farmland owners in two Minnesota subwatersheds of the Red River Basin. The interviews were designed to elicit participant views on decision-making drivers and farm management goals, especially related to natural resource stewardship. In this paper we examine perceived self-efficacy as a determinant of conservation behavior. Study findings highlight multiple constraints to conservation agriculture, including low perceived self-efficacy, regardless of motivation. These results suggest that programs and policies designed to elevate self-efficacy may be helpful for increasing conservation behavior. In particular, we suggest empowering feedback loops as a mechanism to build self-efficacy among farmers and agricultural landowners. Improved understanding of farmer decision-making drivers and self-efficacy sources and constraints will likely aid natural resource professionals and policy makers in designing and implementing agricultural conservation programs and policies that are more closely aligned with goals and values of farmers, and will thus be helpful in achieving state and local water conservation goals.
Introduction
Balancing agricultural production and water resource protection is a major challenge facing policy makers, natural resource professionals, and agricultural producers across the United States and globally. Although there have been marked improvements in water quality within the United States since the 1972 passage of the Clean Water Act, agricultural non-point source pollution remains a significant problem and contributor to downstream impairments. In Minnesota, where both water and agriculture are fundamental to the state's heritage, identity, and economy, finding this balance has become a cornerstone issue for state agencies and state-funded initiatives. Yet, despite substantial funding and focus on improving water quality and promoting water conservation practices, approximately 56% of assessed water bodies are impaired, largely by agricultural pollutants (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2020). This has fueled debate about options and strategies for expanding water conservation practice implementation among farmers and agricultural landowners.
There has been extensive field-scale research on the biophysical and geochemical implications of conventional and conservation agricultural practices in Minnesota, yet the challenge of how best to expand conservation practice adoption among farmers and agricultural landowners continues to elude conservation field staff, state agencies, and policy makers. This is a particularly timely question as state agencies consider enforcing new regulations and restructuring management of water resources at a watershed scale (BWSR 2016). Because 75% of Minnesota's land area is privately owned, meeting any watershed-scale water quality goals will require engagement and support by multiple individual landowners. Moreover, water conservation practices are mostly voluntary; therefore, expanding their implementation may entail shifting norms of behavior.
Shifting farmer conservation behavior can be a particular challenge given the complexity facing agricultural decision-makers. For example, while farmers may feel a commitment to the land, they may baulk at practices they perceive to be threatening to traditional practices or to yield outcomes (Petrzelka et al. 1996) or farm appearance (Burton 2004). Social factors, such as modeling, feedback, and peer networks, have emerged as a powerful influence in studies that examine barriers to conservation practice adoption (Abrahamse and Steg 2013; Armstrong and Stedman 2012; Salamon et al. 1997; Sassenrath et al. 2010). Social persuasion can be a significant motivator for landowners' conservation decisions in places where conservation norms are well established, but less so in transitioning communities or communities with fewer well-established conservation norms (Armstrong and Stedman 2012). Influence of family, both prior and future generations, is particularly strong for farmers who have a strong tie between viability of the farm and personal heritage (Sassenrath et al. 2010). A recent study in the western Lake Erie Basin found that increasing the perceived ability (efficacy) of farmers who were already motivated to make more pro-environmental choices could help meet local regional water quality goals (Wilson et al. 2018). Farm type (large or small) emerged as a factor for adoption of pro-environmental management practices, but similar to other aspects of decision-making, was part of a complex of factors that influenced outcomes (Greiner et al. 2009; Soule 2001; Tavernier and Tolomeo 2004) including economics, geography, education, and access to emerging technologies.
Using inductive (i.e., hypothesis-free), participant-centered research methods, this study explores farm decision-making processes among farmers and agricultural landowners in two impaired northwestern Minnesota watersheds within the Red River Basin of the North. Twenty-four interviews were conducted in total. Through thematic data analysis, we examine emergent themes, as well as relationships among themes in participants' expressed farm management values and goals and perceptions of their own ability to meet goals. This paper applies an inductive, or theory development, lens focused on the decision process rather than the more common approach that uses deductive, or theory testing, methods focused on quantifying predictors of the decision outcome or practice. It examines the psychological, social, environmental, and institutional conditions and forces affecting conservation decision-making and, ultimately, conservation behaviors.
Related Literature. Several empirical studies have addressed the longstanding sociological debate over the influence of social structures versus human agency on behavior by investigating the relative importance of multiple external and internal forces such as outcome expectations, social norms, and perceived behavioral control on behavioral intentions and behaviors. This literature review examines two predominating models of farmer conservation behavior and then presents a third that enables a more nuanced examination of the complementary roles of structural and agential forces on conservation behavior. The social cognitive theory lays the foundation for our empirical investigation of self-efficacy as a core component of conservation decision-making. Self-efficacy reflects an individual's beliefs about their own ability to achieve certain personal or social goals (Bandura 1990; Markowitz 2013).
Eccles and Wigfield's (2002) expectancy-value model purports that an individual weighs both the likelihood of an outcome (i.e., expectancy) and its relative worth (i.e., value) when deciding whether to act. In an agricultural context, the model would predict that when a farmer is confronted with choosing one of several nutrient management conservation practices, the farmer will select the practice perceived most likely to produce the outcomes of the highest value to the farmer (i.e., high goal attainment expectancy).
The theory of planned behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen 2011) includes subjective norms (i.e., the influence of important others) and perceived behavioral control (PBC) as additional predictors of behavioral intention, and ultimately, actual behavior. PBC, or the “perceived ease or difficulty of performing a behavior” (Ajzen 1991), is believed to affect behavioral intention and actual behavior directly. Thus, even if behavioral intention is high, a lack of PBC may inhibit actual behavior. PBC is a function of past experiences of and anticipated future constraints or barriers to the behavior. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) liken PBC to people's “confidence in their ability to perform the behavior.” Thus, in the nutrient management example, the theory of planned behavior would predict that if a farmer has low levels of confidence in a practice because of concerns about resources (e.g., financial, time, skill, or equipment) or opportunity (e.g., weather constraints, land suitability, or markets), the farmer will not adopt a practice, even though goal attainment expectancy may be high. Ajzen's work and other applications of the theory of planned behavior show strong support for PBC as a reliable predictor of pro-environmental behavior and behavioral intentions, as long as expectations for goal attainment are high (Cleveland et al. 2005; Harland et al. 2007).
Self-efficacy is a central determinant of goals and behaviors in Bandura's (1990) social cognitive theory. Bandura explains, “Among the mechanisms of agency, none is more central or pervasive than people's beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over events that affect their lives. Self-beliefs of efficacy influence how people feel, think, and act.” Bandura argues that a lack of control over events and conditions that affect one's life (i.e., low levels of self-efficacy) can be a serious barrier or impediment to action. Further, a perceived inability to control conditions and events influences not only decisions to act or not act, but also effort and persistence in acting (Zimmerman 2000). Thus, low levels of self-efficacy in conservation agriculture will affect a farmer's farm management goals and affect his or her effort and persistence in conservation practice adoption. For these reasons, low self-efficacy can have serious consequences for action outcomes. More recently Bandura (2012) has identified four chief sources of self-efficacy: (1) enactive experiences (e.g., mastery), (2) vicarious experiences (e.g., social models of success), (3) social persuasion (e.g., reinforcement of positive self-image and reduction of self-doubt), and (4) emotional and physical states (figure 1). Each of these sources directly or indirectly involves social or physical feedback as a central catalyst.
PBC and self-efficacy are useful constructs for understanding decision-making processes because at the most basic level they can facilitate or impede particular behaviors, regardless of value-goal-behavior alignment. These constructs are especially valuable to understand how an individual chooses an action from a suite of possible actions, or why an individual fails to act in situations in which action outcomes are viewed by the individual as attractive and likely. Only minimal empirical research exists on farmers' PBC (Prokopy et al. 2008), and it has focused primarily on quantitative measures of perceived ability to adopt a practice (i.e., ability to implement no-till farming practices), rather than perceived ability to achieve certain personal or social goals through practice (i.e., ability to meet farm management goals through no-till farming practices). For example, Fielding et al. (2008) found that farmer survey respondents with strong intentions to manage riparian zones had higher control beliefs (e.g., viewed time, physical property characteristics, fence maintenance, and changing practices as less of barrier to action) than those with weak or no intentions. Lynne and Rola (1988) found that PBC is a significant predictor of decisions to adopt micro-irrigation technology among Florida commercial strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) farmers they surveyed. However, control of external conditions also emerged as significant to behavior. The authors noted that perceived outside “micro-management” by state-managed water districts (i.e., coercive control) reduced PBC and may have constrained both decisions to adopt and the intensity of adoption investment. They also observed, “Farmers may need to perceive at least some control in order for them to move forward with technology decisions: with more (internal) control, farmers are more likely to take action, and to invest more intensely.” Varying thresholds of requests for action from water managers were recommended, as was further consideration of minimal requests to enhance perceived internal control versus major requests, which reflect higher external control.
Finally, Sulemana and James (2014) found that “free choice and control” over “the way life turns out” was a significant positive predictor of Missouri farmers' attitudes toward ethical uses of pesticides and herbicides. While studies like these show promise for broadened investigations of perceived control, theoretical models for understanding or predicting conservation behavior in agricultural are lacking. Few qualitative studies have investigated PBC or self-efficacy. However, farmers' perceptions of control and pursuit of mastery have been found to be central to farmer identity (Burton 2004) and farm management goals. Our study first explores farmers' farm management goals and then examines perceived self-efficacy in meeting farm management goals (i.e., personal goals) and in conservation agriculture (i.e., personal or social goals). In the discussion, we examine Bandura's (1990, 2012) conception of self-efficacy in social cognitive theory as a useful analytical framework to explore the study data, as it has theoretical and practical merit.
Materials and Methods
Study Area. Researchers and local land-management agency personnel were particularly interested in behaviors and decision-making of farmers of the Red River Basin because of the predominance of the activity on the landscape and the impacts downstream. The waters of the Red River Basin flow east from Saskatchewan, Canada, through southern Manitoba and north from South Dakota, through Minnesota and North Dakota, eventually reaching the southern end of Lake Winnipeg. The basin is flat, wide, and slow-draining under natural conditions. It is also highly susceptible to flooding, with southerly spring melt accumulating behind frozen northern waters during seasonal snowmelt (Red River Basin Commission 2005). Agricultural production dominates the landscape and the local economy, but many of the environmental concerns of the basin are attributed to agricultural land uses (Red River Basin Commission 2005). Nutrient pollution levels in the basin are largely dependent on adjacent land cover, and the US portion of the river is estimated to contribute 30% of total nitrogen (N) and 43% of total phosphorous (P) occurring in Lake Winnipeg (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and RRWMB 2006).
This study was conducted in two subwatersheds of the Red River Basin: Mustinka River watershed and the South Branch of the Wild Rice River watershed (figure 2). Project personnel selected these subwatersheds based on input from project partners to represent the varying agricultural, geographic, and hydrologic conditions in the basin. The Mustinka River watershed drains 22,711 ha (562,112 ac), primarily in agriculture (86%), and nearly all row crops: corn (Zea mays L.), soybeans (Glycine max [L.] Merr.), sugar beets (Beta vulgaris), and small grains (Dollinger et al. 2013). Flooding and aquatic environment impairments are issues of primary concern because of the relatively flat topography, broad floodplains, and extensive landscape modifications to accommodate row crop agriculture, such as ditching and stream channelization. Alteration of natural hydrology has accelerated in recent years with estimates of more than 4,828 km (3,000 mi) of drain tile permitted in the watershed since 2009 (Dollinger et al. 2013). At approximately 5,387 km2 (2,080 mi2), the Wild Rice River watershed is the third largest in the Red River Basin. Agriculture is the primary land use with over 60% of the area in agricultural production. The chief resource concerns in the Wild Rice watershed and the South Branch include erosion, nutrient management, wetland management, surface water quality, flood damage reduction, and wildlife habitat (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2011). Researchers and local land management agency personnel hoped that a better understanding of farmer and landowner behavior and decision-making might help to more effectively address some of the natural resource challenges that the community is facing.
Study Design, Data Collection, and Analysis. Data were gathered and analyzed using an adapted grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006; Corbin and Strauss 2008). Researchers conducted in-depth interviews with key informants and used thematic analysis procedures to identify and describe farm management goals, as well as to examine divergent and convergent themes around perceived self-efficacy in conservation agriculture.
We developed a semistructured interview guide as the primary data collection instrument. Interview questions included items related to perspectives on community strengths, reflections on changes in farm management, impacts of natural resource systems on farm production, and perspectives on conservation practices. We consulted local natural resource professionals, including watershed district and Soil and Water Conservation District staff, in each of the two study watersheds to develop an initial pool of prospective participants and on the content of the interview instrument. Since one goal was maximum variation in the sample, participants were identified with varying farm sizes, conservation actions, and engagement in watershed decision-making processes. Project personnel used a network referral process to broaden the sample by asking participants to recommend other farmers with different backgrounds or perspectives based on their public knowledge of the individual. Participation in interviews was voluntary and participant identities remained confidential. Interviews were audio-recorded with signed consent of the participants, and recordings were later transcribed. Participants were offered US$50.00 as an incentive and reimbursement for their time.
A total of 64 individuals were contacted in December of 2012 through April of 2013 across the two study subwatersheds (table 1). In total 24 interview sessions were conducted with 25 total participants; one interviewee asked a friend join the session. Interviews lasted from 45 minutes to two hours. All participants were currently farmers or had managed farm operations in the past. Interview participants represent wide-ranging farm characteristics with differing farm sizes, ownership arrangements, and varying conservation practice adoption. Participants' ages ranged from 28 to 80. Four of the interviewees were female. Nearly all of the participants had lived in the community and worked as farmers for most, if not all, of their lives. Over 50% of the participants had a combination of owned and rented farmland, and most earned more than 50% of their household income from the farming operation. Farm operation sizes ranged from just over 81 to 2,630 ha (200 to 6,500 ac). Participants were asked about 10 conservation practices common for farms in this geography, such as buffers, terraces, and conservation tillage, and they could add additional actions they were taking that they believed to be conservation practices. Conservation tillage and use of cover crops were the most frequently reported conservation practices. Twenty-two of 24 participants reported using one or both of those practices.
Qualitative data were analyzed in two phases: first, through open coding consistent with a grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006) and second, through focused coding aimed at addressing the emergent research questions with heightened theoretical sensitivity toward themes associated with perceptions of self-efficacy. Coding and code organization was performed using QRS International's Nvivo 10 software (Burlington, Massachusetts). The coding schema development process included periodic checks for consistency and applicability across a team of researchers familiar with the study. Further, codes were analyzed for predominant themes through an iterative process of developing refined tables of themes and concept maps. Creation of tables of maps helped enhance sensitivity by offering structure and visual representation of data for consideration. In some cases, this alternative presentation of the themes and data prompted additional analysis and coding as researchers were able to examine the findings through a different lens. Analysts individually coded data and then compared codes. Coding frameworks were discussed, and conflicts of interpreted meaning resolved collectively as the process unfolded.
Results and Discussion
Findings. We present findings from two phases of analysis. The first section includes a summary of descriptive findings associated with participants' expressed personal farm management goals. The second section, self-efficacy in farming, examines participants' beliefs about their ability to meet personal farm management goals and, more specifically, to meet these personal goals through conservation agriculture. We provide exemplary quotes illustrating how varying conditions and forces appear to influence, positively or negatively, self-efficacy beliefs associated with farm management goals and conservation agriculture.
Farm Management Values and Goals. We asked study participants several questions about the meanings they ascribe to their farms and their goals in farm management. Specifically, participants were asked to describe what they like about being a farmer, what their farm means to them, and what the most important factors are for them when making farm management decisions. Responses varied by individual, though they converged within four values: (1) farm productivity, (2) natural resource stewardship, (3) cultural identity preservation, and (4) decision-making autonomy. Farmer management decisions appear to be both directed by these values and an expression of these values.
Several participants emphasized farm productivity in terms of crop yield and prices as a goal that has a strong influence on farm management decisions: “Yield. Crop yields
would probably be the best indicator of success. Probably, the bottom line is the yield and how much we can sell it for.” Many participants also expressed basic farm management principles linked to natural resource stewardship, especially in relation to protecting wildlife habitat and soil health: “I believe in a ‘live and let live’ kind of thing. If there's a slough there, why not make it better for the wildlife and better for the land?” Another participant emphasized soil conservation as a primary stewardship goal in farm management: “I think farmers are good stewards, because if we don't have the soil, we don't have the water, we don't have the things we need to farm, we are going to go out of business. Making sure that the resources are there for the long term is important to us.” For a few participants, stewardship also means not harming your neighbor or your neighbor's land:
We have to be concerned about our own land because of our own desire to make our land better and more utilizable. But, when our actions directly affect the person next to us or down the road in a negative way, we have to be very careful of that. Our biggest concern has to be not just our own immediate land, but also theirs too. You know we can't say ‘well this is the best thing for my land and to hell with the rest of you.’
Participants expressed a strong reverence for the rural landscape, lifestyle, and farming heritage. They described farming as a cultural identity they wish to preserve: “I like being close to my heritage and family roots. I like the small-town, rural environment and being close to the land.” Several explained that being a farmer comes with a certain cultural responsibility to keep the farm in operation: “This particular farm and most the acreage involved has been in our family since 1880. So I've got a responsibility, I would call it, to take care of it, keep it going, pass it down.”
Though resource stewardship and cultural identity clearly influence farm management, a central motivator for farmers and farmland owners we interviewed was decision autonomy. Notably, almost every participant observed that autonomy or independence was why they chose farming as a livelihood. Participants appreciated the sense of “freedom” farming affords, valued “not having someone else make decisions for me,” and ultimately cherished “being my own boss.” One participant summed it up: “You know it's nice to be able to call your own shots. You do a decent job, and see your rewards or benefits. That's probably the biggest thing.”
Self-Efficacy. In this section, we identify and describe findings associated with self-efficacy and particular conditions or forces that appear to have a significant influence on participants' beliefs in their ability to achieve personal farm management goals through conservation agriculture. These findings are a product of the second phase of analysis, which pinpointed sources and constraints affecting self-efficacy beliefs. First, we explore findings on the sources of self-efficacy. The following conditions or forces support positive outcome expectations of conservation agriculture: (1) personal achievement, (2) observing others, and (3) peer feedback. Second, we examine findings on constraints to self-efficacy. The following conditions or forces constrain positive outcome expectations or result in negative outcome expectations of conservation agriculture: (1) farm expansion, (2) federal farm programs, (3) nonlocal government control, and (4) weather variability and uncertainty. Though these sources and constraints were obvious areas of convergence among participants' narratives in the analysis, we found divergent cases as well. We present examples from divergent cases, where occurring.
Sources of Self-Efficacy in Conservation Agriculture. Personal achievement in the form of demonstrating mastery, self-reliance, and resiliency appear to have a direct and significant effect on self-efficacy beliefs among farmers and farmland owners interviewed. One's own personal achievements set up expectations for more positive outcomes in conservation agriculture associated with farm management values and goals of decision-making autonomy, natural resource stewardship, and farm productivity. For example, participants depicted mastery experiences in detailed stories of personal success in soil conservation and precision agriculture. Confidence in self-reliance, supporting high self-efficacy, was conveyed in relation to tasks associated with erosion control and soil health. In contrast, some participants expressed self-doubt and vulnerability, leading to low self-efficacy, associated with an increasing reliance on rapidly advancing technology or on chemical applications.
Soil conservation and erosion control measures, such as conservation tillage, had been widely adopted by participants and largely were viewed as rewarding personal accomplishments, although use of precision technology appeared to have a varying influence on self-efficacy. One participant positively described the use of global positioning systems (GPS) as enabling more efficient and environmentally friendly farming practices:
How does [GPS] work for us? It works a whole bunch! It's better for the environment. When I apply chemical, we apply so that sprayers shut off as it goes down the road, our planters shut off so we are using better technology to help us become better stewards of the land.
Other participants admitted to not mastering GPS, describing precision agriculture as “challenging:”
I think at our age, it's about the technology side that is challenging, because we just are at that age where technology doesn't come as easily for us as it does for my kids. There is a lot of technology with precision farming, with the GPS and steering systems. We do that stuff, but we are maybe a little behind the curve. It's a little bit more of a challenge for us to adapt to the new technology.
Some participants described an increasing reliance on chemical inputs for weed and pest control as an area of vulnerability, requiring extra monitoring and effort: “Ag production these days can't get along without [chemical application]. So [it is] something you just try and do as carefully as possible and watch the runoff issues.” Similarly, another participant observed, “I always figured when Roundup Ready soybeans came, we had the world by the tail. It made it pretty easy, you know, just one chemical, spray it all…But [weeds are] getting resistance to that and…they have new chemicals coming out to combat that. It's something you have to stay on top of all the time.”
While many participants discussed a general concern with the need for and impacts of chemical use, some noted a reduction in chemical use in recent years, and consequent perceived benefits to human and environmental health:
As far as pollutants, I think in the last 10, 15 years it's improved. We used to put things down like atrazine, because we had to fight the weeds. But as you learn more about it, that's not a good deal. You're putting it down in the soil, it never leaves, it goes down into the underground water source. Since Roundup products came out and some of these gene modifications, we're not putting pesticides down like we used to. When I was in my younger years, wow, it's amazing I survived it. We sprayed a lot of pesticides, a lot of harsh chemicals. Now we're just not.
Social models of success, and specifically observing other farmers, appear to play a chief role in shaping positive outcome expectations for conservation agriculture. Before adopting new conservation practices, farmers want to see how they have worked for others. This theme relates most closely to the farm management values and goals of farm productivity and cultural identity preservation. One participant explained, “Farmers always pull up in each other's farms and visit to see what's going on. Usually you can see what other people are doing, and then you start asking questions about what's up.” Neighbors asking neighbors about their experiences or observing conservation outcomes on neighboring fields is how many farmers are introduced to conservation practices: “We talk to neighbors who have done [a conservation practice]. Like there is a field really close by, and so we can probably take that example. See what his experiences are… and then make the decision from there.” Several participants acknowledged closely watching the success or failure of other farmers who experimented with new agricultural practices. For example, some farmers recalled observing a shift in erosion control practices within their community over time. As a result, this participant now has positive outcome expectations for the collective adoption of conservation tillage, producing high levels of collective efficacy:
I look back at where we were 20 years ago. The soil erosion was terrible. Wintertime out here, the snow in the ditches would have been half dirt. Thank goodness pretty much everyone has parked the plows. I think everybody is doing more of a conservative tillage approach. I know we have really changed.
However, a few participants pointed out that collective farming practices in the watershed are inconsistent with their own personal stewardship goals and expressed concern about negative outcomes. While some noted reductions in fertilizer use among farmers, others were apprehensive about continued overuse of fertilizer in the agricultural community, resulting in low levels of collective efficacy:
I worry about the nitrates going into our water…I would say 10 or 15 years ago, you'd see the fertilizer rates going on the land a lot higher. There are still guys that put too much on. Through education, farmers are starting to find out that the nitrogen they were putting on was much more than they needed.
Several participants noted that interpersonal interactions within the agricultural community are highly valued. For some, interactions among farmers and farmland owners appear to be a source of support and direct outcome expectations in conservation agriculture. Cultural identity preservation is a closely related value with this self-efficacy theme, as is retaining decision-making autonomy. One participant described feeling a sense of community: “There is a real sense of community when you get into these small rural ag towns… people tend to look out for each other.” To some farmers, “looking out for each other” is a pathway to preserve the close-knit rural lifestyle in agricultural communities. For others it is a way to get direct feedback on the outcomes of farming practices.
One participant was careful to distinguish “coffee shop talk” from knowledge sharing between farmers with firsthand experience in implementing practices. Knowledge sharing can be very influential in farm management: “Coffee shop talk doesn't do a whole lot for me relative to making decisions of how we are going to manage our own business, but getting feedback and input from folks who have adopted those practices, and weighing that in our own decisions? Well, we're not too closed-minded for that.” A few farmers pointed out that protecting land and water resources requires cooperation among landowners and farmers, including one participant who said, “As a community the landowners do need to be involved with each other. We're first and foremost responsible for our own land, but we want to see good things in the community as a whole, so in that sense we need to be in cooperation if we really want to see improvement.”
In other cases, participants did not feel they could influence other farmers or their farm management, despite having serious concerns about conventional agriculture practices. A few outright rejected the idea of giving peer feedback. For example, a participant explained that he would not confront neighbors about their farming practices: “I would never go up to [the neighbors] and say, ‘You're spraying again.’ I wouldn't. No.” Another expressed futility toward changing tree removal practices: “In a way I'd like to see [the landscape] not be quite so wide open with every little tree dozed out in the middle of the fields. I'd like to see tree lines back on lines again. I don't think that's ever going to happen.”
Constraints to Self-Efficacy in Conservation Agriculture. Several external conditions or forces had the effect of depleting self-efficacy and collective efficacy beliefs in meeting personal farm management goals through conservation agriculture. Many participants described feeling “stuck” and characterized farmers as having “little or no control” over events that affect them.
Some participants described feeling “trapped” in a system that does not allow them to do what they used to in farming or do what they want to do now, such as planting cover crops or experimenting with other conservation practices. This feeling of being stuck or trapped conflicts with the farm management goal and value decision-making autonomy primarily, but can also disrupt other values such as productivity, stewardship, or cultural preservation. For some, economic trends have narrowed profit margins making conservation practices too costly and reinforcing expectations of negative outcomes of conservation agriculture for farm productivity goals:
We're not doing some of the farm programs, because we are not paid what [we need]. You cannot have summer fallow to rest the land or plant alfalfa or some other cover crop to nurture back the land. We did this quite often before, but you can't do it anymore, because you can't make it financially. You are using every acre of land to its fullest.
Economic pressure to expand operations was a source of consternation among many participants. Several farmers interviewed referenced this pressure: “You got to go bigger to do it cheaper and make more money at it, but when is it ever going to stop? It is a huge problem I think.” Another interviewee said, “A lot of farms have gotten very large. I think in the future [our] farm is getting larger. If the farm is going to continue, we will have to get bigger.”
Participants articulated a correlation between increased capital investments needed for specialized equipment to support larger operations and reduced flexibility to experiment with conservation agriculture. The financial burden of purchasing new equipment makes farmers less flexible. One participant recalled, “Our grandson was looking at a new corn planter and soybean planter. It was US$250,000 used. About 12 [or] 15 years ago we bought a planter, and we paid like US$12,000, US$13,000 for it, and now a new one is over US$250,000…[the equipment prices are] out of kilter totally.” Getting bigger also was regarded as riskier, especially for young or struggling farmers, because of unpredictable land prices. When asked what challenges they face in their farm operations, land prices was a common source of uncertainty and powerlessness further constraining the prospects of collective action: “I mean, it's all land prices and land rent and stuff that really isn't in your control anymore.” A second participant questioned, “The land prices. I don't know as a young farmer how you could make it? That is something that concerns me very greatly.” These expected negative outcomes of conservation agriculture on productivity, higher costs, and more risk, appear to reduce self and collective efficacy and, in turn, impede conservation action.
Not only did farm expansion emerge as a constraint to positive outcome expectations for decision-making autonomy, farm productivity, and natural resource stewardship, it also appeared to stir up concerns related to a fourth farm management goal: cultural identity preservation. A few participants associated trends toward bigger farms and fewer farmers with negative consequences for farming communities and lifestyles. One participant observed, “The fact that the size of the farm is getting bigger and bigger, it's the demise of rural life, really.” Similarly, another participant acknowledged cumulative effects of farm expansion: “There are fewer people. Towns have shrunk in size, rural communities are down population-wise, and schools are smaller and consolidating, as the farms have gotten larger.”
Several participants noted that the structure and requirements of federal farm programs have increased reliance on crop insurance and reduced their control over crop rotation decisions. Many participants referenced the financial pressure to plant only a corn and soybean rotation. Within this context, farmers identify little opportunity to engage in conservation agriculture that would have the kind of positive outcomes on natural resource stewardship they desire. Similar to the farm expansion theme, constraints related to the federal farm program conflict with the farm management goal and decision-making autonomy value primarily, as well as productivity, stewardship, or cultural preservation. One participant conceded that a corn and soybean rotation does not benefit soil health and water quality: “The farm program doesn't really allow for [more diverse] crop rotation, which is pretty standard for the soil health [and] water quality things we want to be doing. But, the farm program leads [farmers] to just corn and soybeans.” One participant explained further, “My basic [goal is] to be a steward of the land, but when politics won't let you do that, I feel you're kind of trapped in the deal sometimes.” Risk management was a common theme, as was concern about a growing reliance on crop insurance:
When I started farming, if you had a bad crop it took 3 years to regain what you had lost. Now I am sure you are at 10 years, if not 15. You do need more risk management. We spend more money on crop insurance. Years ago we never bought any crop insurance.
In general, participants tended to have greater trust in local government bodies and less trust in state or federal agencies, which at times were characterized as bureaucratic, unjust, and lacking local knowledge. Nonlocal government control of conservation agriculture appeared to produce negative outcome expectations for the farm management value of decision-making autonomy. One interviewee recalled attempts to work with state government agencies on a local water project: “It just seems like no matter what you try to do to help alleviate the problem, you run into bureaucracy with the agencies. That's a big problem and I don't see how to overcome it because [the agencies] just gave into [more powerful government interests].”
For some participants, nonlocal control over locally implemented conservation programs was a source of unease. One participant described feeling powerless in a meeting with state and federal agencies:
Well, you got 10 different agencies sitting there all the way from, well, Fish and Game and DNR and the whole gamut of them. They're all people sitting there getting paid to do this. I mean some drive down from the [Twin] Cities. It's a nice day, two-day trip for them to come down and sit there. They're getting paid [and] we have to take the time off to go up there. We have no power in that meeting, because we haven't got official papers. I mean, it's just completely stacked against you.
Some participants also expressed skepticism about regional water resource authorities and decisions that resulted in farmland flooding:
The watershed [district], well, sometimes I question their willingness to understand the situation and give recommendations that are beneficial to the area. I had a situation just east of me where water was coming from the east and it couldn't get through the culvert fast enough. So, it would spread over the land. It took me five years to convince the watershed that it would be conducive to enlarge that culvert. It took five years and two serious flooding situations to convince them that was the thing to do. They should have been able to understand what the situation was sooner.
Generally, local conservation professionals were the most highly trusted sources of information about conservation agriculture, and farmers' local knowledge was most highly valued. Several participants shared positive outcome expectations for local projects, led by local people:
Not everyone knows everything, but when [a farmer] sees firsthand of what is happening out there, they should be the ones that ultimately make the decision as to what should be done. When they've been working out there on the land, they see the change, they see how it works, instead of a bureaucrat somewhere [else] making a decision.
Relations with nonagricultural groups in the region, particularly downstream urban governments, appeared strained. Many participants expressed unease with the notion of agricultural land use decisions upstream being dictated by downstream urban officials. For example, when discussing flooding in the Red River Basin, a participant observed, “[The water is] pushed down to Fargo, and that's all we hear about. I am guessing most of [Fargo officials'] ideas are going to make our problems worse.” Interviewees were skeptical that people outside of their area could design policies and programs that would have positive outcomes for farming and rural community issues. One participant contended,
Our paycheck is in the field. If we want to have a crop and we want a paycheck, we have to get [the crop] in. Those are very tough things in agriculture that I don't think urban people understand at all. They don't understand the long hours, the dirt, the pressures.
In contrast to most farmers interviewed, one participant concluded, based on his observations of conventional agriculture's negative outcomes, that more outside control of agricultural practices is needed. A few participants shared negative outcome expectations of conservation agriculture that relies solely on voluntary adoption for personal natural resource stewardship goals:
I think the only people that can be [responsible for conservation is] the government. It was proven many, many times that farmers can't get together. They're just too independent… We all get along out here fine, don't get me wrong. But, if I went out and said that I want to keep more water in that slough, I would maybe get half of them to go with me and the other half wouldn't.
Similarly, another participant described the need for outside government control and conservation programs to protect sensitive ecosystems: “If there was no government control? Was no farm program? There wouldn't be a wetland left. Every wetland would be farmed. That's the biggest thing… it would all be farmed.”
Participants expressed concern and an awareness of their lack of control over weather and changing weather patterns. Weather variability and uncertainty was viewed as limiting farmers' confidence in positive outcomes of any particular conservation agricultural practice year-to-year. Further, weather variability brought additional uncertainty to farm management goals of productivity and stewardship. One participant reflected, “The pressure is always on you to work with the weather. Try to stay one step ahead of the weather. You pretty much depend upon nature.” Another participant more directly questioned farmers' ability to adapt to changing weather:
Weather is playing a big role. I mean if we have a drought next year, are we going to be able to make our payments? We don't know. The weather is a big challenge… The weather is always so unpredictable. It's probably the biggest challenge. We just don't know what is going to happen!
Discussion. The body of knowledge around determinants of agricultural conservation practices is growing. This paper adopts an inductive, or theory development, decision process-focused approach to understanding conservation agriculture, rather than the more common deductive, or theory testing, practice adoption-focused approach. What this approach offers is depth and credibility in identifying the psychological, social, and agro-political underpinnings of decision-making and an opportunity to examine areas of convergence and divergence in how farmers perceive and articulate their own control in the conservation decision-making arena. A qualitative methodology enables a more nuanced and multidimensional examination of beliefs and motivations beyond measurements of agreement and disagreement or support and opposition (Olson and Davenport 2017; Prokopy et al. 2008). This study highlights the complexities of farmer decision processes and demonstrates, as Bandura (1990) has suggested, the powerful role of self-efficacy in determining actions and outcomes.
The outcome of this study is an inductive framework of self-efficacy in conservation agriculture (figure 3). The conceptual framework highlights our study's most significant findings, including participants' farm management goals, sources of self-efficacy (i.e., expected positive outcomes of conservation agriculture), and constraints to self-efficacy (i.e., expected negative or non-outcomes of conservation agriculture). The framework also indicates the likely emotional states associated with high and low self-efficacy as well as the effects of these states on action effort. Though inferences about the effects of self-efficacy on emotional states and action effort are only minimally supported in this study, this relationship deserves further investigation.
In this qualitative investigation, low levels of perceived self-efficacy, or the perceived inability to control conditions and forces that affect achievement of personal goals (Bandura 1990), emerged as a common and powerful storyline—participants feel “stuck” in a system they cannot influence. Data analysis revealed that interviewees expressed low self-efficacy in meeting the farm management goals they have set for themselves through conservation agriculture. Participants generally characterized themselves and other farmers as having “little or no control” over external forces affecting decision outcomes including farm expansion pressure and the need for high capital investments, federal farm program crop insurance, nonlocal government control, and the weather. Lacking control on and off the field clearly affects farmers' lives and livelihoods, and we argue lacking control also affects their conservation agriculture decisions and actions. Our study suggests that for many farmers lacking control manifests in feelings of vulnerability, helplessness, and frustration.
PBC, or confidence in an ability to perform agricultural conservation practices (Olson and Davenport 2017; Prokopy et al. 2008), appeared to be less of an impediment to meeting farm management goals through conservation agriculture than low self-efficacy. Still, some participants acknowledged resource constraints, including the ability to secure financial capital to purchase expensive conservation equipment and a lack of familiarity with technology associated with precision agriculture. In addition, a value-goal-behavior misalignment (Eccles and Wigfield 2002) did not emerge as a significant constraint to conservation action. The farmers interviewed highly valued natural resources including soil and water, and stewardship was a primary farm management goal. However, participants expressed feeling constrained in achieving stewardship goals alongside other farm management goals such as farm productivity through conservation agriculture. Instead of questioning the value of clean water or conventional agriculture's impacts on water, participants described farm expansion pressure, federal farm programs, and nonlocal government control as constraints to stewardship. In other words, for many participants, achieving personal goals of natural resource stewardship through existing conservation agriculture regimes is difficult, if not impossible, within the current agro-political context.
One opportunity to address low self-efficacy in conservation agriculture is through empowering feedback loops. Studies specifically on farmer behaviors have found social norms (Atwell et al. 2009; Newhouse 1990) and socially comparative feedback (e.g., farms as display of a farmer's identity, knowledge, and skills in agriculture) (Burton 2004; Sutherland and Burton 2011) influence farmers' behaviors. According to Cattaneo and Chapman (2010), feedback is central to the empowerment process; iterative feedback is essential to decisional milestones such as setting goals, taking action, and observing and reflecting on outcomes. Feedback is critical to self-efficacy beliefs and continuous improvement, and not knowing the reason for a success or failure undermines future motivation to act (Eccles and Wigfield 2002).
Bandura's (2012) work illuminates the pivotal role of feedback in maintaining or enhancing self-efficacy beliefs (figure 3). For example, four central sources of self-efficacy: mastery, social models of success, persuasion, and physical and emotional states, all directly or indirectly involve feedback. Study findings clarify the function of personal, social, and ecological feedback as important sources of self-efficacy in conservation agriculture. The role of personal achievements (e.g., mastery) as a primary and most direct source of self-efficacy was obvious in our study. Findings suggest that farmers develop self-efficacy through successes in precision agriculture, erosion control, and soil health, most notably, for example, in the study participants who believed their use of GPS has helped them “become better stewards of the land.” Farmers build perceptions of self-efficacy internally by experiencing their own successes, demonstrating self-reliance, and facing and overcoming challenges (i.e., resilience). Consequently, they gain confidence and optimism in the potential for future success: “How does [GPS] work for us? It works a whole bunch.” Bandura's work further suggests those with confidence and optimism in future outcomes are likely to act with more effort and persistence. Though fundamental to sustained action, skill is not a prerequisite to action because natural human ability varies and skill develops over time as one responds to feedback (i.e., learning through either direct observation of one's own success or failure or demonstration of success/failure by others).
Social models of success are the most direct, and perhaps trusted, form of social norm (i.e., external) feedback among our participants. Observing others' success (e.g., proper drainage during a rainstorm event, reduced input costs) is a principal source of perceived self-efficacy in conservation agriculture. Farmers develop self-efficacy through observation and discussion of other farmers' accomplishments: “Farmers always pull up in each other's farms and visit to see what's going on.” Seeing others succeed, especially others who farmers view as like-minded individuals (i.e., shared values or experiences) or credible experts, and observing broader outcomes of conservation movements (e.g., shifts toward conservation tillage practices) will serve to increase self-efficacy in conservation agriculture.
Social persuasion and confidence building originate not from personal experience or observation but through external encouragement and coaching. Interpersonal interactions, in particular talking to other respected farmers, emerged as a source of self-efficacy for some participants, including the participant who does not rely on “coffee shop” talk but will consider “feedback and input from folks who have adopted those practices” when making their own decisions. However, evidence also exists that the benefits of social persuasion as a programming tactic in conservation agriculture may be limited by the high value placed on decision autonomy. Persuasive arguments based on merit, rather than on pressure or coercion, will fare better. Many participants expressed pride in making decisions independently: “[A farmer] sees firsthand of what is happening out there, they should be the ones that ultimately make the decision as to what should be done.” A few acknowledged they would not attempt to persuade others, even their neighbors, to adopt conservation practices. In contrast to farmer-to-farmer persuasion, social modeling of behaviors and outcomes, through demonstration and social recognition (e.g., demonstration farms, field days, awards, or media coverage), makes social norms more visible and relatable to farmers (Abrahamse and Steg 2013).
This project confirms self-efficacy beliefs influence conservation decision-making processes among farmers. Future research could begin to quantify sources of self-efficacy and their relative effects on self-efficacy, goal setting, and conservation action. Self-efficacy psychometric scale development and testing is needed, especially within complex and variable agro-political contexts. This study reveals that self-efficacy may add predictive power beyond PBC measures in conservation behaviors. Personal achievement, observation of success, and supportive peer feedback are particularly promising determinants of effortful and sustained behaviors.
Management Implications. Farmers' farm management goals align well with conservation agriculture principles, and farmers have a multitude of conservation action options at their disposal. We argue that one of the biggest, yet understudied, barriers to sustained conservation action is that farmers have very little, if any, feedback on the outcomes of conservation agriculture on their personal farm management goals. For many farmers, their only feedback on conservation agriculture outcomes comes in the form of bushels per acre. Those who have managed to overcome any negative outcome expectations or risk perceptions engage in conservation agriculture with high effort and persistence and have seen positive feedback in soil health and erosion control, as well as in farm input and labor efficiencies. Still, the water quality benefits of conservation agriculture, touted by conservation programs and professionals, largely have not been demonstrated.
Summary and Conclusions
Empowerment increases as self-efficacy, knowledge, and competence increase (Cattaneo and Chapman 2010). With a core farm management goal of decision autonomy, farmers are well positioned to respond to initiatives that leverage their local knowledge and build skill. Moreover, closing the feedback loop on how conservation actions affect (either positively or negatively) values associated with farm productivity, natural resource stewardship, cultural identity preservation, and decision autonomy, will reduce uncertainty and skepticism and increase the likelihood that farmers will adopt practices with higher and more sustained effort.
We think the distinction between PBC (i.e., ability to adopt no-till farming practices) and self-efficacy, or perceived ability to control events or conditions that affect goal achievement (e.g., ability to meet multiple farm management goals through no-till), has important implications for conservation agriculture programming. Programs aimed at reducing constraints to practice adoption (e.g., cost share, equipment rental) should be paired with programs that support self-efficacy beliefs through empowering feedback loops (i.e., raise expectations for positive outcomes). Conservation programs can be better designed to promote mastery and resiliency experiences and increase farmer access to existing networks where social norming, modeling, and persuasion already take place. Similarly, shifting the dialogue from expectations for negative outcomes in productivity (e.g., bushels per acre) to expectations for positive outcomes in efficiency and profitability will require a more engaged and broader discussion about risk and reward—one which should include farmers, landholders, agricultural advisors, financial lenders, and conservation professionals.
- © 2020 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society