19 pages., via online journal article, Best management practices (BMPs) are suggested practices that help agricultural producers optimize production while reducing pollution, soil erosion, and other environmental impacts. Many audiences, including scientists and policy makers, have expressed disappointment at the current level of BMP use. Elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is used to understand how people process messages. ELM states that people can process messages either centrally or peripherally. This study sought to understand how producers processed information related to BMP adoption in grazing systems. Researchers conducted qualitative, in-depth interviews with 42 beef-cattle producers in Kansas and Oklahoma. It was found producers process information both centrally and peripherally, more specifically through past experiences and visual observations. This study suggests that when promoting BMPs, communicators should use visual cues to help producers process information. More importantly communicators should utilize strategies that encourage producers to reflect on past experiences to promote central processing.
Church, Sarah P. (author), Haigh, Tonya (author), Widhalm, Melissa (author), Garcia de Jalon, Silvestre (author), Babin, Nicholas (author), Carlton, J. Stuart (author), Dunn, Michael (author), Fagan, Katie (author), Knutson, Cody L. (author), and Prokopy, Linda S. (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
unknown
Published:
Netherlands: Elsevier Science BV
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 7 Document Number: D10262
16 pages., Via online journal., The Midwestern United States experienced a devastating drought in 2012, leading to reduced corn and soybean yields and increased instances of pests and disease. Climate change induced weather variability and extremes are expected to increase in the future, and have and will continue to impact the agricultural sector. This study investigated how agricultural trade publications portrayed the 2012 U.S. Midwestern drought, whether climate change was associated with drought, and whether these publications laid out transformative adaptation measures farmers could undertake in order to increase their adaptive capacity for future climate uncertainty. We performed a content analysis of 1000 media reports between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2014, sampled from ten agricultural trade publications. The results lead us to suggest that trade publications’ 2012 U.S. Midwestern drought discussion lacked information that would allow farmers and agricultural advisors to assess climate change risk and subsequent potential adaptive management strategies. Agricultural risk from climate change is very real, and farmers will need to adapt. The agricultural trade publications studied missed an opportunity to convey risk from climate change and the transformative adaptation practices necessary for a sustainable and resilient agricultural system.
Shikuku, Kelvin M. (author), Winowiecki, Leigh (author), Twyman, Jennifer (author), Eitzinger, Anton (author), Perez, Juan G. (author), Mwongera, Caroline (author), and Läderach, Peter (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2017-03-08
Published:
Africa
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 169 Document Number: D08757
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.