nach oben

Environmental Management

Erschienen in:

30.05.2020

Normative Influences on Farmers’ Intentions to Practice Conservation Without Compensation

verfasst von: Jerry J. Vaske, Adam C. Landon, Craig A. Miller

Erschienen in: Environmental Management | Ausgabe 2/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Non-source nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous) from agriculture have created a massive hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. This zone contains no oxygen and is devoid of life. US Department of Agriculture programs provide direct payments to farmers to encourage adoption of practices that reduce nutrient pollution. Paying farmers to change behavior, however, is expensive. Personal and social norms may serve to reduce these payment costs by motivating farmers to take action without external reward. This study explored relationships between three normative concepts (awareness of consequences (AC), ascription of responsibility (AR), subjective norms (SN)) and Illinois farmers’ intention to continue participation in conservation without financial compensation. Data were obtained from a mailed questionnaire. Only farmers who were currently being paid to participate in a conservation program were included in the analysis (n = 551). Using norm activation theory and the theory of reasoned action, we hypothesized that SN would be positively related to AC, AR, and conservation intentions without compensation. We also predicted that AC would be positively related to AR, and that AC and AR would be positively related to conservation intentions. All hypotheses were supported. Both personal norms (AC, AR) and social norms (subjective norms) were related to intentions to continue conservation without pay. Behavioral interventions that activate norms may help facilitate conservation without payments. As applied in this study, activating personal and social norms may serve to reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture that is flowing into the Gulf of Mexico and resulting in the hypoxic zone.

Vorheriger Artikel Potential for Reclamation of Abandoned Gas Wells to Restore Ecosystem Services in the Fayetteville Shale of Arkansas

Nächster Artikel ‘Sub-Prime’ Water, Low-Security Entitlements and Policy Challenges in Over-Allocated River Basins: the Case of the Murray–Darling Basin

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Podsakoff et al. (2003) proposed the Harman single factor test as one approach for examining common method bias. This test is based on a principal components exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of all original questionnaire items being examined, without rotation and with the number of factors fixed to one. If this single factor EFA explains < 50% of the variance, method bias is generally not considered to be a problem. Applied to the items in this article, the single factor explained 41% of the variance. This approach, when coupled with the CFA and Cronbach reliability analysis results presented here (e.g., factor loadings, fit indices, reliability coefficients), suggests that common method bias was generally absent.

The indirect effect estimate is unstandardized and was estimated using the maximum likelihood method. The Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-squared, and bootstrapping procedure are not compatible as both are means of obtaining adjusted standard error estimates.

Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423CrossRef

Babcock H (2009) Assuming personal responsibility for improving the environment: moving toward a new environmental norm. Harv Environ Law Rev 33:117

Bagozzi RP, Phillips LW (1982) Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic construal. Admin Sci Quart 27:459–489CrossRef

Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 27:14–25CrossRef

Bates B, Quick B, Kloss A (2009) Antecedents of intention to help mitigate wildfire: implications for campaigns promoting wildfire mitigation to the general public in the wildland-urban interface. Saf Sci 47:374–381CrossRef

Bobinac A (2019) Mitigating hypothetical bias in willingness to pay studies: post-estimation uncertainty and anchoring on irrelevant information. Eur J Health Econ 20:75–82CrossRef

Bowles S (2008) Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine the moral sentiments: evidence from economic experiments. Science 320(5883):1605–1609CrossRef

Bowles S, Polania-Reyes S (2012) Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements? J Econ Lit 50(2):368–425CrossRef

Bratt C (1999) The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior. Environ Behav 31:630–656CrossRef

Brehm JM, Eisenhauer BW, Krannich RS (2006) Community attachments as predictors of local environmental concern. Am Behav Sci 50(2):142–165CrossRef

Bright AD, Manfredo MJ, Fishbein M, Bath A (1993) Application of the theory of reasoned action to the National Park Service’s controlled burn policy. J Leis Res 25(3):263–280CrossRef

Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New York, NY

Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (Eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, p 136–162

Byrne B (1998) Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

Cernat A (2015) The impact of mixing modes on reliability in longitudinal studies. Soc Met Res 44(3):427–457CrossRef

Chou CP, Bentler PM (1995) Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle RH (Ed) Structural equation modeling. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advan Exp Soc Psych 24:201–234CrossRef

Cialdini RB, Trost MR (1998) Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert D, Fiske S, Lindzey G (eds.) The Handbook of social psychology, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, p 151–192

Dayer AA, Lutter SH, Sesser K, Hickey CM, Gardali T (2018) Private landowner conservation behavior following participation in voluntary incentive programs: recommendations for facilitate behavioral persistence. Conserv Lett 11(2):1–11CrossRef

De Young R (1993) Changing behavior and making it stick: the conceptualization and management of conservation behavior. Environ Behav 25(3):485–505CrossRef

De Young R (2000) New ways to promote pro-environmental behavior: expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. J Soc Issues 56:509–526CrossRef

Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 4th edn. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

Echeverria JD (2005) Regulating versus paying landowners to protect the environment. J Land Res Environ Law 26:46

Environmental Working Group (EWG) (2017) Farm subsidy database. https://farm.ewg.org/subsidyprimer.php

Fang WT, Ng E, Zhan YS (2018) Determinants of pro-environmental behavior among young and older farmers in Taiwan. Sustainability 10:1–15CrossRef

Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2010) Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. Psychology Press Taylor & Francis, New York, NY

Floress K, Jalon Garcia S, Church SP, Babin N, Ulrich-Schad JD, Prokopy LS (2017) Toward a theory of farmer conservation attitudes: dual interests and willingness to take action to protect water quality. J Environ Psychol 53:73–80CrossRef

Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50CrossRef

Fox J (1991) Regression diagnostics. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CACrossRef

Freyfogle ET (2007) On private property: finding common ground on the ownership of land. Beacon Press, Boston, MA

Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V (2008) A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J Consum Res 35:472–482CrossRef

Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V, Cialdini RB (2007) Invoking social norms—a social psychology perspective on improving hotels’ Linen-Reuse programs. Cornell Hotel Restaur Admin Q 48:145–150CrossRef

Grasmick HG, Bursik Jr RJ, Kinsey KA (1991) Shame and embarrassment as deterrents to noncompliance with the law: The case of an antilittering campaign. Environ Behav 23:233–251CrossRef

Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Harland P, Staats H, Wilke HAM (2007) Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: questions derived from norm-activation theory. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 29(4):323–334CrossRef

Heberlein TA (1972) The land ethic realized: Some social psychological explanations for changing environmental attitudes. J Soc Issues 28:79–87CrossRef

Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6(1):1–55CrossRef

Illinois (2014) State of Illinois Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Budget Fact Sheet. Office of the Governor, Pat Quinn, http://www2.illinois.gov/gov/budget/documents/budget%20book/fy%202015%20budget%20book/fy%202015%20agency%20budget%20fact%20sheets.pdf

Illinois EPA (2015) Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy. http://www.epa.illinois.gov/Assets/iepa/water-quality/watershed-management/nlrs/nlrs-final-revised-083115.pdf

Illinois Department of Agriculture (2019) Facts about Illinois agriculture. Illinois Department of Agriculture, Springfield, IL. https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/agr/About/Pages/Facts-About-Illinois-Agriculture.aspx

Kaiser F, Hubner G, Bogner FX (2005) Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 35(10):2150–2170CrossRef

Kim Y, Dykema J, Stevenson J, Black P, Moberg DP (2019) Straightlining: overview of measurement, comparison of indicators, and effects in mail-web mixed mode surveys. Soc Sci Comp Rev 37(2):214–233CrossRef

Kling CI (2001) Economic incentives to improve water quality in agricultural landscapes: some new variations on old ideas. Am J Agric Econ 93(2):297–309CrossRef

Landon AC, Kyle GT, Kaiser RA (2016) Predicting compliance with an information-based residential outdoor water conservation program. J Hydrol 536:26–36CrossRef

Landon AC, Kyle GT, Kaiser RA (2017) An augmented norm activation model: the case of residential outdoor water use. Soc Nat Resour 30(8):903–918CrossRef

Landon AC, Woosnam KM, Boley BB (2018) Modeling the psychological antecedents to tourists’ pro-sustainable behaviors: An application of the value-belief-norm model. J Sustain Tour 6(6):957–972CrossRef

Landon AC, Woodward RT, Kyle GT, Kasier RA (2018) Evaluating the efficacy of an information-based residential outdoor water conservation program. J Clean Prod 195:56–65CrossRef

Leopold A (1949) A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

Linder JR, Murphy TH, Briers GE (2001) Handling nonresponse in social science research. J Agric Educ 42(4):43–53CrossRef

Manning M (2009) The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Br J Soc Psychol 48:649–705CrossRef

Marsh HW, Hocevar D (1985) Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: first and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psych Bull 97:562–582CrossRef

Mastrangelo ME, Gavin MC, Laterra P, Linklater WL, Milfont TL (2014) Psycho‐social factors influencing forest conservation intentions on the agricultural frontier. Conserv Lett 7(2):103–110CrossRef

Meijboom FLB, Stafleu FR (2016) Farming ethics in practice: from freedom to professional moral autonomy for farmers. Agric Hum Values 33(2):403–414CrossRef

Mezzatesta M, Newburn DA, Woodward RT (2013) Additionality and the adoption of farm conservation practices. Land Econ 89(4):722–742CrossRef

Niemiec RM, Champine V, Vaske JJ, Mertens A (2020) Does the impact of norms vary by type of norm and type of conservation behavior? A meta-analysis. Soc Nat Resour. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1729912

Nolan JM (2017) Environmental policies can buttress conservation norms. Soc Nat Resour 30(2):228–244CrossRef

Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S (2003) Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CACrossRef

Okuman M, Marin-Ortega J, Novo P (2018) Effects of awareness on farmers’ compliance with diffuse pollution mitigation measures: a conditional process modelling. Land Use Pol 76:36–45CrossRef

Osmond DL, Hoag DL, Luloff AE, Meals DW, Neas K (2015) Farmers’ use of nutrient management: Lessons from watershed case studies. J Environ Qual 44:382–390CrossRef

Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S, Lee J, Podsakoff N (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903CrossRef

Pradhananga AK, Davenport MA (2015) Landowner motivations for civic engagement in water resource protection. J Am Waters Resour Assoc 51(6):1600–1612CrossRef

Pradhananga AK, Davenport MA, Fulton DC, Maruyama GM, Current D (2017) An integrated moral obligation model for landowner conservation norms. Soc Nat Resour 30(2):212–217CrossRef

Prager K, Posthumus H (2010) Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ adoption of soil conservation practices in Europe. p. 1-21 In: Napier TL (ed) Human dimensions soil and water conservation, Nova Science Publications, Inc., United Kingdom, p. 388

Prokopy LS, Floress K, Klotthor-Weinkauf D, Baumgart-Getz A (2008) Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. J Soil Water Conserv 63:300–311CrossRef

Prokopy LS, Towery D, Babin N (2014) Adoption of agricultural conservation practices: insights from research and practice. Purdue University Extension FNR-488-W, West Layaette, Indiana

Rabotyagov SS, Kling CL, Gassman PW, Rabalais NN, Turner RE (2014) Economics of dead zones: causes, impacts, policy challenges, and a model of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Environ Econ Pol 8:58–79CrossRef

Rabotyagov SS, Campbell T, Jha M, Gassman PW, Arnold J, Kurkalova L, Secchi S, Feng H, Kling CL (2010) Least-cost control of agricultural nutrient contributions to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Ecol Appl 20:1542–1555CrossRef

Ramsdell CP, Sorice MG, Dwyer AM (2016) Using financial incentives to motivate conservation of an at-risk species on private lands. Environ Conserv 43(1):34–44CrossRef

Raykov T (1997) Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Appl Psychol Meas 21(2):173–184CrossRef

Raymond C, Brown G, Robinson G (2011) The influence of place attachment and moral normative concerns on the conservation of native vegetation: a test of two behavioral models. J Environ Psychol 31:323–335CrossRef

Reimer AP, Prokopy LS (2014) Farmer participation in US Farm Bill conservation programs. Environ Manag 53:318–332CrossRef

Ruhl JB (2007) The background principles of natural capital and ecosystem services—did “Lucas” open Pandora’s box? J Land Use Environ Law 22:525–547

Rundquist S, Cox C (2015) Iowa’s low hanging fruit: Stream buffer rule = cleaner water, little cost. http://www.ewg.org/research/iowas-low-hanging-fruit#.Wam7vk3rtaQ

Schepers J, Wetzels M (2007) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norms and moderation effects. Inf Manag 40:90–103CrossRef

Schwartz SH (1968) Awareness of consequences and the influence of moral norms on interpersonal behavior. Sociometry 31:355–369CrossRef

Schwartz SH (1973) Normative explanations of helping behavior: a critique, proposal, and empirical test. J Exp Soc Psychol 9:349–364CrossRef

Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 10:221–279

Schultz PW (2011) Conservation means behavior. Conserv Biol 25(6):1080–1083CrossRef

Shortle JS, Horan RD (2001) The economics of non-point pollution control. J Econ Surv 15(3):255–289CrossRef

Sorice MG, Conner JR (2010) Predicting private landowner intentions to enroll in an incentives program to protect endangered species. Hum Dimens Wildl 15(2):77–89CrossRef

Steil M (2017) Minnesota farmers say Dayton plan to curb runoff is laced with problems. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/01/13/minnesota-farmers-say-dayton-pollution-runoff-plan-too-costly

Stern P, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano G, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Res Hum Ecol 6(2):81–97

Stern P (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424CrossRef

Stubbs M (2014) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): status and issues. Congr Res Serv Rep. 42783:24

Thøgersen J (1996) Recycling and morality: a critical review of the literature. Environ Behav 28:536–558CrossRef

Thompson AW, Reimer A, Prokopy LS (2015) Farmers’ views of the environment: the influence of competing attitude frames on landscape conservation efforts. Agric Hum Values 32(3):385–399CrossRef

Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418(6898):671–677CrossRef

Trumbo CW, O’Keefe GJ (2007) Intention to conserve water: environmental values, reasoned action, and information effects across time. Soc Nat Res 18(6):573–585CrossRef

Turner RE, Rabalais NN, Scavia D, McLsaac GF (2007) Corn belt landscapes and hypoxia of the Gulf of Mexico. In: Nassaur JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D eds. From the Corn Belt to the Gulf: Ecological and societal implications of alternative agricultural future. RFF Press, Baltimore, MD, p 10–27

USDA (2014) Conservation Reserve Program Report. US Department of Agriculture. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/augupdate14.pdf

USDA Farm Services Agency (2017) Conservation Reserve Program. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/

USC 33 1251 (1972) Federal Water Pollution Act Amendments of 1972. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

Van Riper CJ, Kyle GT (2014) Understanding the internal processes of behavioral engagement in a national park: a latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory. J Environ Psychol 53:145–156

Van Vugt M (1998) The psychology of social dilemmas. Psychology 6:289–292

Vaske JJ (2019) Survey research and analysis, 2nd edn. Sagamore-Venture Publishing LLC, Urbana, Ill

Vaske JJ, Whittaker D (2004) Normative approaches to natural resources. In: Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Bruyere BL, Field DR, Brown P (Eds.) Society and natural resources: a summary of knowledge. Modern Litho, Jefferson, MO, p 283–294

Vaske JJ, Jacobs MH, Espinosa TK (2015) Carbon footprint mitigation on vacation: a norm activation model. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 11:80–86CrossRef

Titel: Normative Influences on Farmers’ Intentions to Practice Conservation Without Compensation
verfasst von: Jerry J. Vaske
Adam C. Landon
Craig A. Miller
Publikationsdatum: 30.05.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Environmental Management / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0364-152X
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1009
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01306-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

The Relationship between Social Development and Ambient Particulate Matter Pollution: Can We Predict The Turning Points?

From Conflict to Cooperation: A Macromarketing View of Sustainable and Inclusive Development in Lebanon and the Middle East

Rapid Resource Change and Visitor-Use Management: Social–ecological Connections at the Bonneville Salt Flats

‘Sub-Prime’ Water, Low-Security Entitlements and Policy Challenges in Over-Allocated River Basins: the Case of the Murray–Darling Basin

Integrating Place Attachment into Management Frameworks: Exploring Place Attachment Across the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Adaptive Capacity of Households to Degradation of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study in the Colombian Andes