A technical assistance provider in the field; Credit: Michael Houtz, Penn State
Authors: Lisa Wainger, Dan Read, and Erika Blair
Other contributors: Matt Royer, Matt Ehrhart, Lamonte Garber, Nancy Nunn, Anil Kumar Chaudhary, and Kate Everts
What is the issue?
When farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed produce critical food, fiber and energy products, they also generate nutrient runoff that impairs water quality. The adoption of agricultural management practices, such as cover crops, riparian buffers and no-till, can reduce soil erosion, and curb nitrogen and phosphorous runoff into waterways, among other benefits. To facilitate farmers’ adoption of such practices, governments and non-governmental organizations offer financial and technical assistance. Yet, the performance of the technical assistance approaches have not been thoroughly evaluated nor communicated among practitioners. In this study, we conducted interviews of highly successful technical assistance providers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, to identify successful strategies for promoting adoption.
What did we find and why does it matter?
Highly regarded technical assistance providers are using a variety of techniques to promote adoption and they vary their techniques during the process of taking farmers from initial interest through designing and implementing a farm conservation plan. We found high agreement among providers on the need to 1) clarify the adoption process, 2) reduce transaction costs, and 3) leverage practitioner and farmer networks. Clarifying the process includes explaining all facets of the program and setting expectations for such things as installation details, inspections, and the timing of reimbursements. Reducing transactions costs refers to all efforts to make things easier for the farmer or landowner by identifying appropriate cost-share programs, filling out paperwork, helping find contractors, and in some cases arranging for maintenance. Practitioner and farmer networks support the process in different ways. Practitioner networks allow a given practitioner to match farmer concerns with programs that offer the best-fit options for that farm, including supplemental funding, and also reach non-adopters who may be attending other required trainings (e.g., for pesticide application certification). Networks of farmers and farming organizations provide trusted messengers to share information about their experiences with management practices with farmers and also provide opportunities for practitioners to reach new audiences.
Providers use different techniques throughout the process of adoption from creating familiarity through planning, installing and maintaining practices (Figure 1). At the one-on-one meeting stage, the most commonly mentioned techniques were to focus on practices that match farmers’ interests and to summarize the process and timeline involved in applying for and implementing practices. Starting a friendly conversation by discussing what farmers want from the practices and how they fit the goals of the farm, was seen as helpful by many at the farm visit stage. Many also mentioned stressing the voluntary nature of adoption, to provide the farmer with a measure of control over their decisions.
Most of the techniques mentioned by providers at the post-implementation stage aimed to ensure that the practices are maintained properly. Techniques include sending reminders to the farmers, ensuring that they have the proper resources, and providing some kind of social recognition, such as an award, to reinforce their decision to adopt and encourage them to maintain the practices in the future. The most frequently mentioned technique at this stage was to offset the burden of maintenance from the farmer to someone else, particularly for riparian forest buffers.
Figure 1. Stages of adoption of management practices
What did we do?
Highly effective providers were identified by conversations with technical assistance providers and stakeholders. We conducted 30 interviews (average duration 63 minutes) with 11 practitioners working in Pennsylvania, 9 in Maryland, and 10 in Virginia. Five respondents were women and 25 were men. Five respondents worked in federal agencies (NRCS and FWS), 8 in soil and water conservation districts, 3 in university extension, 8 in non-profits, and 6 in private consultancies. Interviews were coded to yield a preliminary model of seven adoption stages and identified 74 unique engagement techniques, linked to adoption stages.
Publication completed for this work
Read, D. J., Blair, E., & Wainger, L. (2024). Effective engagement techniques across the agricultural conservation practice adoption process. Environmental Management, 74, 1173–1189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02043-8
