Understanding conservation decisions of agriculture producers

被引:3
|
作者
Sweikert, Lily A. [1 ,3 ]
Gigliotti, Larry M. [2 ]
机构
[1] South Dakota State Univ, Dept Nat Resource Management, Box 2140B,SNP 138,North Campus Dr, Brookings, SD 57007 USA
[2] South Dakota State Univ, US Geol Survey, South Dakota Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Unit, Dept Nat Resource Management, Box 2140B,SNP 201C,North Campus Dr, Brookings, SD 57007 USA
[3] US Agcy Int Dev, Amer Assoc Adv Sci, 1300 Penn Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT | 2019年 / 83卷 / 04期
关键词
agriculture; behaviors; conservation; land use values; motivations; wildlife; LAND-USE; NONRESPONSE BIAS; HABITAT LOSS; VALUES; PARTICIPATION; DIMENSIONS; ATTITUDES; PARADIGM; WILDLIFE; PROGRAM;
D O I
10.1002/jwmg.21643
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Most land in the United States is privately owned and used for agriculture. To address the effect of agriculture on wildlife, conservation professionals and organizations need to understand the land use decisions made by farmers and ranchers. We developed a tool for categorizing farmers and ranchers by their conservation land use values (LUVs) to understand how those values affect their land use motivations and resultant decisions. We defined land as the whole natural environment including soil, water, plants, fish, and wildlife. We used principal axis factoring and reliability analysis to identify statements representing human-centered values and nature-centered values of farmers and ranchers. We tested the validity of the combined statements with a survey of South Dakota's private landowners (n = 4,000, Jan through May 2016), resulting in the LUV scale. Crossing the average scores on the human-centered and nature-centered statements identified 4 LUV types: humans first (20%), nature first (29%), interconnected (29%), and disconnected (22%). Analysis of variance and chi-square tests showed that, compared to the humans first and disconnected LUV types, the nature first and interconnected LUV types reported significantly greater importance of the following: most categories of wildlife in their land use decisions, conservation-related motivations for participating in a United States Farm Bill Conservation Program, conservation-related motivations for land use decisions, and participation in conservation-related behaviors. Conservation professionals and organizations can use the LUV scale to better understand landowners' land use decisions to evaluate and inform conservation policy, programs, messaging, and improve conservation outcomes. (c) 2019 The Wildlife Society.
引用
收藏
页码:993 / 1004
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Early adoption of conservation agriculture practices: Understanding partial compliance in programs with multiple adoption decisions
    Ward, Patrick S.
    Bell, Andrew R.
    Droppelmann, Klaus
    Benton, Tim G.
    [J]. LAND USE POLICY, 2018, 70 : 27 - 37
  • [2] Stepwise frameworks for understanding the utilisation of conservation agriculture in Africa
    Brown, Brendan
    Nuberg, Ian
    Llewellyn, Rick
    [J]. AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS, 2017, 153 : 11 - 22
  • [3] Post-production decisions in agriculture: understanding postharvest storage and marketing decisions of smallholder farmers
    Priya, Preeti
    Mitra, Suddhachit
    [J]. FOOD SECURITY, 2020, 12 (06) : 1317 - 1329
  • [4] Post-production decisions in agriculture: understanding postharvest storage and marketing decisions of smallholder farmers
    Preeti Priya
    Suddhachit Mitra
    [J]. Food Security, 2020, 12 : 1317 - 1329
  • [5] Understanding the conditions of conservation agriculture adoption in Lango region, Uganda
    Kaweesa, Sara Helen
    Ndah, Hycenth Tim
    Schuler, Johannes
    Melcher, Andreas
    Loiskandl, Willibald
    [J]. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS, 2020, 44 (10) : 1260 - 1279
  • [6] Understanding Adoption and Impacts of Conservation Agriculture in Eastern and Southern Africa: A Review
    Ngoma, Hambulo
    Angelsen, Arild
    Jayne, Thomas S.
    Chapoto, Antony
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN AGRONOMY, 2021, 3
  • [7] Understanding landowner decisions regarding access to private land for conservation research
    O'Brien, Rebecca S. M.
    Dayer, Ashley A.
    Hopkins, William A.
    [J]. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 2021, 3 (11)
  • [8] CONSERVATION TITLE IMPACTS ON PRODUCERS
    BADER, K
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION, 1988, 43 (01): : 70 - 71
  • [9] Conservation tillage is not conservation agriculture
    Reicosky, Don C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION, 2015, 70 (05) : 103 - 108
  • [10] AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
    不详
    [J]. FORSTWISSENSCHAFTLICHES CENTRALBLATT, 1990, 109 (06): : 357 - 357