Open Access

Keeping Land in Grass: Re-Enrollment Motivations with the Environmental Quality Incentive Program after the Conservation Reserve Program

Aaron J. Harp
Aaron J. Harp
 and 
Kristie Maczko
Kristie Maczko
   | Jun 26, 2024
Die Bodenkultur: Journal of Land Management, Food and Environment's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Published Online: Jun 26, 2024
Page range: 9 - 20
Received: Oct 24, 2023
Accepted: Apr 23, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/boku-2024-0002
Keywords
© 2024 Aaron J. Harp et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

CRP and EQIP final sample sizes by state.Tabelle 2. CRP und EQIP endgültige Stichprobengrößen nach Bundesländern.

State CRP EQIP Total
ND 139 35 174
SD 95 19 114
CO 27 18 45
MT 15 13 28
Other 25 25
Total 276 110 386

Descriptive Statistics for both CRP and EQIP respondents: “Following the end of your CRP/EQIP contract, how likely would you be to take any of the following actions?”*Tabelle 4. Deskriptive Statistiken für CRP- und EQIP-Teilnehmer “Wie wahrscheinlich ist es, dass Sie nach dem Ende Ihres CRP/EQIP-Vertrags eine der folgenden Maßnahmen ergreifen werden?”*

Item CRP EQIP Total
Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. N
Convert the majority of this field to dryland crops 2.76 1.47 229 2.09 1.29 102 2.55 1.45 331
Convert the majority of this field to irrigated crops 1.28 0.74 215 1.26 0.74 102 1.28 0.74 317
Leave the majority of this field in grass 3.18 1.57 222 3.98 1.32 103 3.43 1.54 325
Sell the majority of this field 1.54 1.07 219 1.31 0.78 97 1.47 0.99 316
Enroll the majority of this field in another conservation program 3.37 1.48 242 3.50 1.13 102 3.41 1.39 344

Independent Samples Wilcoxon W, Cohen's r, Cliff 's δ, Delaney & Vargha's A. “Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding agricultural practices and your role in agriculture.”*Tabelle 9. Unabhängige Stichproben Wilcoxon W, Cohen's r, Cliff 's δ, Delaney & Vargha's A. “Bitte geben Sie an, ob Sie den folgenden Aussagen über landwirtschaftliche Praktiken und Ihrer Rolle in der Landwirtschaft zustimmen oder nicht zustimmen.”*

Cohen's r Cliff's δ Delaney & Vargha's A
Wilcoxon W 95% CI 95% CI 95% CI
n1 n2 W p-value r Low High Effect Size d Low High Effect Size A Low High Effect Size
Farmers and ranchers have an obligation to protect the soil, water, plants, habitat, and fish and wildlife on their land. 269 107 15,386 0.2367 0.06 −0.04 0.16 small 0.07 −0.04 0.18 negligible 0.53 0.48 0.59 small
If you take care of the land, it will take care of you. 269 107 17,345 0.0004 0.18 0.09 0.27 small 0.21 0.10 0.31 small 0.60 0.54 0.65 small
All parts of the ecosystem, down to the microorganisms in the soil, are important for proper ecosystem functioning. 266 107 16,605 0.0048 0.14 0.05 0.24 small 0.17 0.05 0.28 small 0.58 0.52 0.64 small
Restored lands maximize both productivity and ecosystem function. 265 106 15,950 0.0250 0.11 0.01 0.22 small 0.14 0.01 0.26 negligible 0.57 0.50 0.63 small
Farmers and ranchers are only temporary trustees of the land, and it is their responsibility to take good care of it for future generations. 265 108 16,864 0.0023 0.16 0.06 0.25 small 0.18 0.07 0.28 small 0.59 0.54 0.64 small
The diversity of native plants and wildlife in an area is a sign of the quality of the natural environment. 266 108 15,501 0.1945 0.07 −0.04 0.17 small 0.08 −0.04 0.19 negligible 0.54 0.48 0.60 small
The quality of the land is positively influenced by the diversity of native plants and animals that live on and around it. 268 107 15,395 0.2339 0.06 −0.04 0.16 small 0.07 −0.14 0.19 negligible 0.54 0.47 0.60 small
Farmers and ranchers are masters of the land 267 107 14,596 0.7297 0.02 −0.09 0.12 small 0.02 −0.10 0.15 negligible 0.51 0.45 0.58 small
The needs of farmers and ranchers should take priority over the conservation of land. 268 106 14,014 0.8330 −0.01 −0.11 0.10 small −0.01 −0.14 0.12 negligible 0.49 0.43 0.55 small
Farmers and ranchers have the right to use the soil, water, plants, and animals on their land in any way they see fit. 270 106 15,489 0.2010 0.07 −0.04 0.17 small 0.08 −0.05 0.21 negligible 0.54 0.48 0.61 small
The best use of land should be determined by the amount of profit that can be earned annually. 267 107 13,202 0.2328 −0.06 −0.16 0.04 small −0.08 −0.20 0.05 negligible 0.46 0.40 0.52 small
Farmers and ranchers should focus on maximizing production on their land regardless of environmental costs. 269 107 13,072 0.1391 −0.08 −0.18 0.03 small −0.09 −0.21 0.03 negligible 0.45 0.39 0.52 small
Because farmers' and ranchers' livelihoods depend on the land, they are the best stewards of the land. 266 107 16,852 0.0037 0.15 0.04 0.25 small 0.18 0.06 0.30 small 0.59 0.53 0.65 small
Grazing land is easier to maintain than farmland. 268 108 13,788 0.4537 −0.04 −0.14 0.07 small −0.05 −0.17 0.08 negligible 0.48 0.41 0.54 small

Independent Samples Wilcoxon W, Cohen's r, Cliff 's δ, Delaney & Vargha's A. “Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statements…”*Tabelle 7. Unabhängige Stichproben Wilcoxon W, Cohen's r, Cliff 's δ, Delaney & Vargha's A. “Bitte geben Sie an, ob Sie den folgenden Aussagen zustimmen oder nicht zustimmen…”*

Item Cohen's r Cliff's δ Delaney & Vargha's A
Wilcoxon W 95% CI 95% CI 95% CI
n1 n2 W p-value r Low High Effect Size d Low High Effect Size A Low High Effect Size
I consider myself a steward of my property and feel a strong personal obligation to preserve its environmental qualities. 268 109 16,629 0.0064 0.14 0.04 0.23 small 0.14 0.05 0.23 negligible 0.57 0.52 0.61 medium
Working to maintain the environmental qualities of my property, such as improving soil health and native vegetation, is not always worth the time and effort. 266 109 14,844 0.6766 0.02 −0.08 0.12 small 0.03 −0.10 0.15 negligible 0.51 0.45 0.58 small
To me, maintaining the environmental qualities of my property is largely a matter of money; I wouldn't do it unless there was a financial reward. 263 108 14,502 0.7405 0.02 −0.09 0.11 small 0.02 −0.10 0.14 negligible 0.51 0.45 0.57 small
I prefer ranching to farming. 263 107 18,148 0.0000 0.23 0.14 0.32 small 0.29 0.17 0.40 small 0.64 0.59 0.71 medium
I would manage my property in exactly the same way with or without government incentives such as NRCS programs. 265 109 14,682 0.7953 0.01 −0.09 0.11 small 0.02 −0.11 0.14 negligible 0.51 0.45 0.57 small
I would feel guilty if I didn't succeed in conserving environmental qualities of my property. 263 109 16,531 0.0130 0.13 0.03 0.22 small 0.15 0.03 0.27 small 0.58 0.52 0.64 medium
Crop prices affect my management decisions for my property. 266 107 13,332 0.3183 −0.05 −0.15 0.06 small −0.06 −0.19 0.06 negligible 0.47 0.41 0.53 small
Livestock prices affect my management decisions for my property. 249 108 17,221 0.0000 0.22 0.12 0.31 small 0.64 0.16 0.40 large 0.57 0.58 0.70 medium
It is unusual in my community to participate in programs like EQIP, CRP or CSP. 267 107 12,488 0.0445 −0.10 −0.20 −0.01 small −0.13 −0.24 −0.01 negligible 0.44 0.38 0.49 small
The people around me I hold close (neighbors, family, friends, etc.) encouraged me to participate in programs such as EQIP. 267 108 16,602 0.0142 0.13 0.03 0.23 small 0.15 0.03 0.27 small 0.58 0.52 0.63 small
My family, and the practices we used when I was a child, strongly influence the practices I use today. 265 108 15,352 0.2507 0.06 −0.04 0.16 small 0.07 −0.05 0.19 negligible 0.54 0.47 0.60 small

Descriptive Statistics for both CRP and EQIP respondents. “Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statements…” *Tabelle 6. Deskriptive Statistiken für CRP- und EQIP-Teilnehmer: “Bitte geben Sie an, ob Sie den folgenden Aussagen zustimmen oder nicht zustimmen…”*

Item CRP EQIP Total
Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. N
I consider myself a steward of my property and feel a strong personal obligation to preserve its environmental qualities. 1.36 0.62 268 1.18 0.41 109 1.31 0.58 377
Working to maintain the environmental qualities of my property, such as improving soil health and native vegetation, is not always worth the time and effort. 3.38 1.30 266 3.29 1.39 109 3.35 1.33 375
To me, maintaining the environmental qualities of my property is largely a matter of money; I wouldn't do it unless there was a financial reward. 3.40 1.12 263 3.34 1.10 108 3.39 1.11 371
I prefer ranching to farming. 3.19 1.22 263 2.58 1.14 107 3.01 1.23 370
I would manage my property in exactly the same way with or without government incentives such as NRCS programs. 2.88 1.15 265 2.83 1.17 109 2.86 1.16 374
I would feel guilty if I didn't succeed in conserving environmental qualities of my property. 2.19 0.94 263 1.94 0.86 109 2.11 0.92 372
Crop prices affect my management decisions for my property. 2.50 1.10 266 2.62 1.11 107 2.54 1.10 373
Livestock prices affect my management decisions for my property. 3.16 1.20 249 2.56 1.15 108 2.98 1.22 357
It is unusual in my community to participate in programs like EQIP, CRP or CSP. 3.56 1.01 267 3.79 0.88 107 3.63 0.98 374
The people around me I hold close (neighbors, family, friends, etc.) encouraged me to participate in programs such as EQIP. 3.33 0.95 267 3.06 1.01 108 3.25 0.98 375
My family, and the practices we used when I was a child, strongly influence the practices I use today. 2.74 1.10 265 2.57 1.01 108 2.69 1.08 373

CRP Respondents: “Do you currently or have you ever participated in any of the following United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - sponsored conservation incentive programs? (Mark all that apply.)”Tabelle 3. CRP-Befragte: “Nehmen Sie derzeit oder haben Sie in der Vergangenheit an einem der folgenden vom US-Landwirtschaftsministerium (USDA) geförderten Programm zur Förderung des Naturschutzes teilgenommen? (Markieren Sie alle zutreffenden Punkte.)”

Program Yes, in the past Yes, currently Possibly in the future No Missing Total
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) Frequency 8 9 22 199 38 276
Percent 2.9% 3.3% 8.0% 72.1% 13.8% 100.0%
Agricultural Land Easements (ALE) Frequency 6 7 17 208 38 276
Percent 2.2% 2.5% 6.2% 75.4% 13.8% 100.0%
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Frequency 14 15 38 172 37 276
Percent 5.1% 5.4% 13.8% 62.3% 13.4% 100.0%
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Frequency 49 18 30 141 38 276
Percent 17.8% 6.5% 10.9% 51.1% 13.8% 100.0%
Wetland Reserve Easements (WRE)* Frequency 12 35 27 167 36 277
Percent 4.3% 12.6% 9.7% 60.3% 13.0% 100.0%

Independent Samples Wilcoxon W, Cohen's r, Cliff 's δ, Delaney & Vargha's A. “Following the end of your CRP/EQIP contract, how likely would you be to take any of the following actions?” *Tabelle 5. Unabhängige Stichproben Wilcoxon W, Cohen's r, Cliff 's δ, Delaney & Vargha's A. “Wie wahrscheinlich ist es, dass Sie nach dem Ende Ihres CRP/EQIP-Vertrags eine der folgenden Maßnahmen ergreifen werden?”*

Item Cohen's r Cliff's δ Delaney & Vargha's A
Wilcoxon W 95% CI 95% CI 95% CI
n1 n2 W p-value r Low High Effect Size d Low High Effect Size A Low High Effect Size
Convert the majority of this field to dryland crops 229 102 14,590 <0.001 0.19 0.09 0.28 small 0.25 0.12 0.37 small 0.62 0.56 0.68 medium
Convert the majority of this field to irrigated crops 215 102 11,286 0.5209 0.03 −0.08 0.13 small 0.03 −0.06 0.12 negligible 0.51 0.47 0.56 small
Leave the majority of this field in grass 222 103 8,150 <0.001 −0.22 −0.31 −0.12 small −0.29 −0.40 −0.16 small 0.36 0.30 0.42 small
Sell the majority of this field 219 97 11,606 0.0762 0.09 0.00 0.18 small 0.09 0.00 0.19 negligible 0.55 0.33 0.43 small
Enroll the majority of this field in another conservation program 242 102 12,288 0.9478 0.00 −0.09 0.08 small 0.00 −0.12 0.11 negligible 0.50 0.44 0.56 small

Descriptive Statistics for both CRP and EQIP respondents: “Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding agricultural practices and your role in agriculture.”Tabelle 8. Deskriptive Statistik für CRP- und EQIP-Befragte. “Bitte geben Sie an, ob Sie den folgenden Aussagen über landwirtschaftliche Praktiken und Ihre Rolle in der Landwirtschaft zustimmen oder nicht zustimmen.”

Item CRP EQIP Total
Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. N
Farmers and ranchers have an obligation to protect the soil, water, plants, habitat, and fish and wildlife on their land. 1.56 0.66 269 1.52 0.81 107 1.55 0.70 376
If you take care of the land, it will take care of you. 1.59 0.60 269 1.36 0.52 107 1.52 0.59 376
All parts of the ecosystem, down to the microorganisms in the soil, are important for proper ecosystem functioning. 1.64 0.66 266 1.44 0.60 107 1.58 0.65 373
Restored lands maximize both productivity and ecosystem function. 1.80 0.68 265 1.64 0.73 106 1.75 0.70 371
Farmers and ranchers are only temporary trustees of the land, and it is their responsibility to take good care of it for future generations. 1.62 0.71 265 1.40 0.63 108 1.56 0.69 373
The diversity of native plants and wildlife in an area is a sign of the quality of the natural environment. 1.82 0.84 266 1.70 0.79 108 1.79 0.82 374
The quality of the land is positively influenced by the diversity of native plants and animals that live on and around it. 1.94 0.92 268 1.79 0.81 107 1.90 0.89 375
Farmers and ranchers are masters of the land. 2.15 1.03 267 2.12 1.07 107 2.14 1.04 374
The needs of farmers and ranchers should take priority over the conservation of land. 2.99 0.99 268 3.00 1.12 106 2.99 1.03 374
Farmers and ranchers have the right to use the soil, water, plants, and animals on their land in any way they see fit. 2.94 1.15 270 2.77 1.33 106 2.90 1.20 376
The best use of land should be determined by the amount of profit that can be earned annually. 3.36 1.05 267 3.50 0.99 107 3.40 1.04 374
Farmers and ranchers should focus on maximizing production on their land regardless of environmental costs. 3.82 0.91 269 3.95 0.93 107 3.86 0.91 376
Because farmers' and ranchers' livelihoods depend on the land, they are the best stewards of the land. 2.44 1.10 266 2.10 1.10 107 2.34 1.11 373
Grazing land is easier to maintain than farmland. 2.71 0.96 268 2.80 1.09 108 2.73 1.00 376

One or More EQIP Practices in Use by Potential Respondents in EQIP Sample.Tabelle 1. Eine oder mehrere EQIP-Praktiken, die von potenziellen Befragten in der EQIP-Stichprobe angewendet werden.

Practice % of Potential Respondents
Vegetative Cover, Grass Already Established 36.1%
Permanent Wildlife Habitat, Non-easement 18.3%
Establish Permanent Native Grasses 14.8%
Wetland Restoration 10.3%
Establish Permanent Introduced Grass & Legume 5.7%
Safe Grass 2.7%
Duck Nesting Habitat 2.6%
Rare And Declining Habitat 1.7%
Farmable Wetlands Buffer 1.6%
Establish Permanent Vegetative Reduce Salinity, Non-easement 1.2%
Shelterbelt Establish, Non-easement 1.1%
Farmable Wetlands Program Wetland 0.9%
Wildlife Food Plot 0.7%
Establish Permanent Salt Tolerant Vegetative Cover, Non-easement 0.6%
Field Windbreak Non-easement 0.5%
Wetland Restoration Non-floodplain 0.5%
Multiple Wildlife Habitat Buffers 0.4%
Filter Strips 0.1%
eISSN:
2719-5430
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Life Sciences, Ecology, other
Journal RSS Feed