13 pages, via Online journal, Natural resource advisors operate at a natural resource-climate nexus that presents opportunity for utilization of regionally relevant climate science and tools to support climate smart decision making among land managers. This opportunity, however, may be underutilized. In thousands of county offices across the country, USDA field staff with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) interface with farmers on a daily basis to provide conservation technical assistance, farm loans, and disaster recovery assistance. In this study, we conducted a survey of NRCS field staff (n = 1,893) and a similar survey of FSA field staff (n = 4,621) to determine the following: (1) how concerned USDA field staff are with both general and specific climate and weather threats and their effect on agriculture and forestry, (2) what available climate and weather resources staff are currently using, (3) how these factors relate to USDA field staff's confidence and interest in playing the role of climate advisor, and (4) the differences that exist between NRCS and FSA field staff related to these research questions. We found that many USDA field staff are concerned about climate change in general and about several specific impacts, but fewer are confident in their ability to support land managers in addressing these impacts. Additionally, increased concern about climate threats was related to higher levels of climate and weather resource use and an increased desire to play the role of climate advisor, but was also related to lower levels of self-reported ability to play that role. These findings can be used to inform appropriate application of professional development opportunities and creation of tools and resources to improve professional uses of weather and climate information.
7 pages, via Online journal, The mid-nineteenth century Hudson River School of painting reflects artists' views of American paradise, a glorified Hudson River landscape where the disappearing wilderness, agriculture, and human settlements coexisted along the river in perfect harmony. The romantic, peaceful coexistence of nature and humans became an unsustainable illusion as the twentieth century 507 km (315 mi) Hudson River became a major transportation route to the northern and western interior of the United States (figure 1). Like many rivers throughout history, navigation of the Hudson River waters fostered tanneries, paper mills, factories, electrical plants, and other enterprises along its coastline (Rothstein 2019). Rivers, with their abundant water supply and capacity to transport raw materials and finished goods, fueled the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, and the Hudson River was exemplary in its contributions. Settlements and industries along the Hudson River valley flourished, creating jobs, expanding communities, and bringing economic prosperity to the region and the nation. In its wake, followed an era of industrial pollution that left an ugly mark on the river celebrated for its beauty and pristine waters. In 1984, 321 km (200 mi) of the Hudson River was classified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site—one of the largest in the country.
6 pages, In this time of information overload, successfully engaging farmers with compelling outreach materials is a major challenge for conservation programs and related research projects. One potential approach is targeting information to the recipient, e.g., local rather than regional soil and water conditions, when sending messages to farmers. Targeted information may increase engagement by making materials stand out as more relevant and useful; conversely, it may decrease engagement by making farmers wary of the program and how it is using the information. We tested the effect of targeted information on farmer engagement using a large, randomized controlled trial in Iowa. In partnership with Iowa State University, we sent 2,996 farmers a single mailing with information about erosion at the local watershed (targeted) or state (control) level and measured their responses to a two-minute survey. We found that targeted information increased relative response rates by 20%, from 13.8% to 16.4%. This level of increase is meaningful for practitioners, as well as statistically significant. Our findings show that targeted information can be an important tool for practitioners and researchers seeking to better connect with farmers who are inundated with marketing mail.
14 pages, As agricultural conservation priorities evolve to address new complex social-ecological problems and emerging social priorities, new conservation incentive program participation and success can be enhanced by incorporating local stakeholder preferences into program design. Our research explores how farmers incorporate ecosystem services into management decisions, their willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem services programs, and factors beyond compensation level that would influence participation. We conducted three focus groups with 24 participants between January of 2019 and May of 2019 in Vermont. Our study revealed that a strong, intrinsic stewardship ethic motivates farmers to enhance ecosystem service provisioning from their farms, though financial pressures often limit decision-making. These results suggest that programs with sufficient levels of payment may attract participation, at least among some types of farmers, to enhance ecosystem services from farms in Vermont. However, farmers may be deterred from participating by perceived unfairness and distrust of the government based on previous experiences with regulations and conservation incentive structures. Farmers also expressed distrust of information about ecosystem services supply that conflicts with their perceptions of agroecosystem functioning, unless delivered by trusted individuals from the extension system. The delivery of context-specific information on how management changes impact ecosystem service performance from trusted sources could enhance farmers’ decisions, and would aptly complement payments. Additionally, farmers expressed a desire to see a program that both achieves additionality and rewards farms who have been stewards, goals that are potentially at odds. Our findings offer important insights for policy makers and program administrators who need to understand factors that will influence farmers’ willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem service programs and other conservation practice adoption initiatives, in Vermont and elsewhere.
Limit your search
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)✖[remove]4
