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.
