2019 SWCS International Annual Conference July 28-31, 2019 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

1. Understanding Western
Lake Erie Basin Farmers’
Perceptions of Nutrient
Loss Consequences
Elizabeth Schwab
Robyn Wilson
Margaret Kalcic

2. • Conservation literature largely focuses on factors
influencing adoption of practices (e.g. Prokopy et al.,
2008; Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012), not perceptions
• Literature on accuracy of perceptions in environmental
contexts generally lacking
– Much focuses on perceptions of resource use/consumption (e.g.
Attari et al., 2010; Attari, 2014; Schley & DeKay, 2015)
BACKGROUND
2

3. • Phosphorus loads from the Maumee River
are the best predictor for the severity of algal
blooms in the western Lake Erie basin
(Annex 4 Objectives and Targets Task Team,
2015)
• Over 89% of total phosphorus contributions
to the western Lake Erie basin are estimated
to come from nonpoint sources (Ohio EPA,
2010)
• Lake Erie serves as the drinking water
source for 11 million people (Lake Erie LaMP,
2011)
• Knowing that Lake Erie water quality issues
are important, why does understanding
farmer perceptions matter?
– If farmers don’t believe that nutrient loss on
their farm will have undesirable
consequences, they may have less incentive
to take steps towards addressing the problem
SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY AREA
https://www.americanrivers.org/river/maumee-river/
Maumee River watershed
3

4. • Focus on corn and soybean farmers in the
Maumee River watershed
– Survey mailed in winter 2014
– 7500 farmers randomly selected
• 2276 responses (~30%)
• Survey developed to investigate farmer
usage of a variety of conservation
practices, but also included questions about
perceptions and beliefs related to nutrient
management
SURVEY DETAILS
4

5. SAMPLE STATISTICS
Mean Minimum value Maximum value
Age 58 20 96
Years farming 37 2 79
Education Some college Some high school Graduate/professional degree
Annual gross farm income $100,000--$249,999 < $50,000 > $500,000
Acres farmed (owned + rented) 543 3 7050
Watershed average cropland acres farmed = 264 (NASS 2012 Census of Agriculture)
5

6. • What drives farmer perceptions of
likelihood that nutrient loss on their farm will
lead to the following negative outcomes?
– Decreased crop yield
– Decreased water quality
– Decreased soil health
– Increased production costs
RESEARCH QUESTION
6

7. • Perceived likelihood of negative outcomes from nutrient loss
– How likely or unlikely is it that nutrient loss on your farm will result in…(average of scores for
decreased crop yield, decreased water quality, decreased soil health, and increased production
costs)?
– Range: 0 (not at all likely) to 3 (extremely likely)
• Farmer’s conservationist identity (Burton, 2004; McGuire et al., 2013)
– Average of 7 conservation-oriented items measuring how important each is in defining a “good
farmer” (e.g. “A good farmer is one who minimizes nutrient runoff into waterways”)
– Range: 0 (not important at all) to 4 (very important)
• Perceived sufficiency of farmer’s NMPs
– Extent of agreement that “current nutrient management practices on my farm are sufficient to
minimize nutrient loss”
– Range: -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
• Vulnerability
– Characteristics of land (highly erodible land, slope)
– Adoption of nutrient management practices (subsurface fertilizer placement, tillage, cover
crops, use of soil testing to inform nutrient application)
– Range: 0 (no “vulnerability”) to 6 (maximum “vulnerability”)
SURVEY QUESTIONS
7

8. INITIAL MEDIATION MODEL
Farmer’s
conservationist
identity
Perceived likelihood
of negative outcomes
from nutrient loss
Perceived
sufficiency of
farmer’s NMPs
+
-+/-
8

9. MODERATED MEDIATION MODEL
Farmer’s
conservationist
identity
Perceived likelihood
of negative outcomes
from nutrient loss
Perceived
sufficiency of
farmer’s NMPs
+
-
Vulnerability
+
9

10. MODERATED MEDIATION MODEL
Farmer’s
conservationist
identity
Perceived likelihood
of negative outcomes
from nutrient loss
Perceived
sufficiency of
farmer’s NMPs
+
-
Vulnerability
-
10

11. MEDIATION COMPONENT
Farmer’s
conservationist
identity
(scale = 0 – 4)
Perceived likelihood
of negative outcomes
from nutrient loss
(scale = 0 – 3)
Perceived
sufficiency of
farmer’s NMPs
(scale = -2 – 2)
b = -0.1171*
c’ = 0.3426*
a = 0.1070*
Indirect effect (ab): -0.0125
Total effect (ab + c’): 0.3301*
* denotes p < 0.05
11

12. MODERATION COMPONENT
Overall regression model:
Ŷ = i1 + b1X + b2W + b3XW
= 0.464 + 0.107(consID) – 0.005(vuln) – 0.007(consID*vuln)
b1, b2, b3: p > 0.05
Perceived
sufficiency
Conclusion: the effect of
conservationist identity on
farmers’ perceived sufficiency
of their nutrient management
practices does not significantly
depend on vulnerability.
12

13. TAKEAWAYS AND IMPLICATIONS
Farmer’s
conservationist
identity
Perceived likelihood of
negative outcomes from
nutrient loss
Strong,
positive direct
relationship
Farmer’s
conservationist
identity
Perceived likelihood of
negative outcomes from
nutrient loss
Perceived sufficiency
of farmer’s NMPs
Weak, negative indirect
relationship
Conservationist identity is positively
related to farmers’ perceived sufficiency
of nutrient management practices
regardless of vulnerabilityFarmer’s
conservationist
identity
Perceived sufficiency
of farmer’s NMPs
Vulnerability
13

14. The direct relationship between
conservationist identity and perceived
likelihood of negative outcomes from nutrient
loss has a “bigger” impact than pathways
considering perceived sufficiency of nutrient
management practices or vulnerability.
Should we be concerned about this?
TAKEAWAYS AND IMPLICATIONS
14

15. • Improving representations of vulnerability
• Assessing perceived versus “actual”
likelihood of water quality impacts from
farmers’ operations
– If we identify certain groups of people who
misperceive reality, how can we reach them to
address the problem and help improve
accuracy of perceptions?
NEXT STEPS
15

16. Thank you!
Funding: NSF Dynamics of Coupled Natural and
Human Systems Program
schwab.175@osu.edu
16