与农民使用4R +养分管理方法相关的个人和县级因素

IF 2.2 4区 农林科学 Q2 ECOLOGY
J. G. Arbuckle, Lisa A. Schulte, S. Upadhaya
{"title":"与农民使用4R +养分管理方法相关的个人和县级因素","authors":"J. G. Arbuckle, Lisa A. Schulte, S. Upadhaya","doi":"10.2489/jswc.2023.00002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 4R Plus approach to agricultural nutrient management—ensuring that the “right source” of nutrients is used at the “right rate,” “right time,” in the “right place,” and combined with appropriate in-field and edge-of-field practices—is posited to lead to win-win outcomes for farmers and the environment. While industry and conservation organizations are promoting the approach, farmers have not yet adopted 4R Plus practices at rates sufficient to meet the state’s nutrient reduction goals. We employed multilevel modeling with survey data from 6,006 Iowa farmers to examine the complex relationships among individual- and county-level social, economic, and ecological factors associated with 4R Plus practice adoption. We found that adoption was associated with clusters of factors at both the individual and county levels. At the individual level, the variable crop area was positively associated with predicting use of all 4R Plus practices except Right Rate. Farmers’ perceived lack of agronomic capacity to address nutrient losses was negatively associated with use of all 4R Plus practices but the Right Source. At the county level, farmers in counties with a higher percentage of rented land were less likely to have adopted Right Time, Right Source, and Edge-of-Field practices. Those farming in counties with a greater average slope were more likely to adopt Plus practices, such as cover crops and terraces. County-level crop insurance coverage rate was negatively associated with In-Field and Edge-of-Field Plus practices. Overall, this study provides quantitative support for qualitative studies that call for conservation programs to simultaneously address factors operating at multiple scales to improve outcomes. Programs that combine local, direct assistance to farmers with broader efforts to remove structural barriers may be more likely to be effective at facilitating conservation adoption than those operating at one scale alone. Specific to 4R Plus programming, efforts that simultaneously help farmers address farm-level capacity barriers and improve policies and programs (e.g., crop insurance) to ensure encouragement rather than hindrance of practice adoption would likely lead to better environmental outcomes.","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"47 1","pages":"412 - 429"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individual- and county-level factors associated with farmers’ use of 4R Plus nutrient management practices\",\"authors\":\"J. G. Arbuckle, Lisa A. Schulte, S. Upadhaya\",\"doi\":\"10.2489/jswc.2023.00002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 4R Plus approach to agricultural nutrient management—ensuring that the “right source” of nutrients is used at the “right rate,” “right time,” in the “right place,” and combined with appropriate in-field and edge-of-field practices—is posited to lead to win-win outcomes for farmers and the environment. While industry and conservation organizations are promoting the approach, farmers have not yet adopted 4R Plus practices at rates sufficient to meet the state’s nutrient reduction goals. We employed multilevel modeling with survey data from 6,006 Iowa farmers to examine the complex relationships among individual- and county-level social, economic, and ecological factors associated with 4R Plus practice adoption. We found that adoption was associated with clusters of factors at both the individual and county levels. At the individual level, the variable crop area was positively associated with predicting use of all 4R Plus practices except Right Rate. Farmers’ perceived lack of agronomic capacity to address nutrient losses was negatively associated with use of all 4R Plus practices but the Right Source. At the county level, farmers in counties with a higher percentage of rented land were less likely to have adopted Right Time, Right Source, and Edge-of-Field practices. Those farming in counties with a greater average slope were more likely to adopt Plus practices, such as cover crops and terraces. County-level crop insurance coverage rate was negatively associated with In-Field and Edge-of-Field Plus practices. Overall, this study provides quantitative support for qualitative studies that call for conservation programs to simultaneously address factors operating at multiple scales to improve outcomes. Programs that combine local, direct assistance to farmers with broader efforts to remove structural barriers may be more likely to be effective at facilitating conservation adoption than those operating at one scale alone. Specific to 4R Plus programming, efforts that simultaneously help farmers address farm-level capacity barriers and improve policies and programs (e.g., crop insurance) to ensure encouragement rather than hindrance of practice adoption would likely lead to better environmental outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50049,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"412 - 429\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2023.00002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2023.00002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

农业养分管理的“4R +”方法——确保以“正确的速度”、“正确的时间”、“正确的地点”使用“正确的来源”养分,并与适当的田间和田间实践相结合——旨在为农民和环境带来双赢的结果。虽然工业和环保组织正在推广这种方法,但农民采用“4R +”做法的速度还不足以达到该州的营养减少目标。我们利用来自爱荷华州6,006名农民的调查数据,采用多层模型来检验个人和县级社会、经济和生态因素与采用“4R +”实践相关的复杂关系。我们发现,在个人和县的层面上,收养与一系列因素有关。在个体水平上,可变作物面积与除正确率外的所有4R +实践的预测使用呈正相关。农民认为缺乏解决营养损失的农艺能力与使用除正确来源外的所有4R +做法呈负相关。在县一级,租用土地比例较高的县的农民不太可能采用“合适的时间”、“合适的来源”和“田地边缘”做法。那些在平均坡度较大的县耕作的人更有可能采用Plus做法,如覆盖作物和梯田。县级作物保险覆盖率与“田间+”和“田边+”措施呈负相关。总的来说,本研究为定性研究提供了定量支持,这些定性研究要求保护计划同时解决在多个尺度上运作的因素,以改善结果。将对农民的当地直接援助与消除结构性障碍的广泛努力相结合的项目,可能比单一规模的项目更能有效地促进保护的采用。具体到“4R +”规划,同时努力帮助农民解决农场层面的能力障碍,改善政策和项目(如作物保险),以确保鼓励而不是阻碍实践的采用,可能会带来更好的环境结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Individual- and county-level factors associated with farmers’ use of 4R Plus nutrient management practices
The 4R Plus approach to agricultural nutrient management—ensuring that the “right source” of nutrients is used at the “right rate,” “right time,” in the “right place,” and combined with appropriate in-field and edge-of-field practices—is posited to lead to win-win outcomes for farmers and the environment. While industry and conservation organizations are promoting the approach, farmers have not yet adopted 4R Plus practices at rates sufficient to meet the state’s nutrient reduction goals. We employed multilevel modeling with survey data from 6,006 Iowa farmers to examine the complex relationships among individual- and county-level social, economic, and ecological factors associated with 4R Plus practice adoption. We found that adoption was associated with clusters of factors at both the individual and county levels. At the individual level, the variable crop area was positively associated with predicting use of all 4R Plus practices except Right Rate. Farmers’ perceived lack of agronomic capacity to address nutrient losses was negatively associated with use of all 4R Plus practices but the Right Source. At the county level, farmers in counties with a higher percentage of rented land were less likely to have adopted Right Time, Right Source, and Edge-of-Field practices. Those farming in counties with a greater average slope were more likely to adopt Plus practices, such as cover crops and terraces. County-level crop insurance coverage rate was negatively associated with In-Field and Edge-of-Field Plus practices. Overall, this study provides quantitative support for qualitative studies that call for conservation programs to simultaneously address factors operating at multiple scales to improve outcomes. Programs that combine local, direct assistance to farmers with broader efforts to remove structural barriers may be more likely to be effective at facilitating conservation adoption than those operating at one scale alone. Specific to 4R Plus programming, efforts that simultaneously help farmers address farm-level capacity barriers and improve policies and programs (e.g., crop insurance) to ensure encouragement rather than hindrance of practice adoption would likely lead to better environmental outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (JSWC) is a multidisciplinary journal of natural resource conservation research, practice, policy, and perspectives. The journal has two sections: the A Section containing various departments and features, and the Research Section containing peer-reviewed research papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信