Looking down on the land from above, agricultural conservation practices are spatially clustered. While biogeophysical factors like slope and soil type help explain these patterns, research also indicates that social factors likely play a significant role in organizing farm practices across space (Eades 2006; Ilbery and Maye 2011; Kolady et al. 2021).
A very recent study published in the journal Environmental Sociology by Schewe et al. (2024) investigated the regional clustering of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in New York state. The results of the study indicate the importance of including spatial factors when trying to understand the diffusion of farming innovations. Specifically, the authors find that the proportion of neighbors who have adopted a practice is associated with a higher likelihood of farmer adoption, as well as that regional factors such as slope and soil type are also linked to likelihood of adoption (p. 1-2). Schewe et al. argue, “adoption of BMPs must be understood within the specific local context” (p. 2). From this perspective, it is not only space that matters but place as well: community, available resources, local programs, local history, and all that shapes geography around a farm.
For example, it is often noted that in Iowa, Washington County leads the state in cover crop adoption (using at least cover crop acres enrolled in cost share as a measure). Some scholars have been investigating why counties like Washington can exhibit remarkably higher rates of a conservation practice adoption than their neighbors. In a 2023 study from Popovici et al., researchers identified pairs of counties in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana where adoption of cover crops varied widely across county lines and then deeply investigated the reasons for the regional disparities. That study identified relevant factors such as “attitudes toward cover crops,” “conservation agency influence,” “presence of experts, advocates, and/or entrepreneurs,” and “local incentive-based programs,” among others (p. 614). In other words, when we look down on the land from above and see cover crops clustering by county, we’re seeing in part the effects of local resources, programs, and culture.
But this issue is further complicated by something else found by Schewe et al. (2024). They looked across New York at the spatial distribution of 3 different practices—soil testing, no-till, and riparian buffers—and found that while each practice’s distribution exhibits clusters, the different practices cluster in different regions. For example, the regional hotspots for no-till are not in the same places as the regional hotspots for riparian buffers. This seems to suggest that these clusters are less indicative of the presence or absence of a local generalized conservation ethic and more indicative of local conditions suitable for the adoption of specific practices.
It’s a finding that is echoed elsewhere. If you’re interested in this general topic, I might start with Prokopy et al.’s (2019) recent meta-analysis, “Adoption of Agricultural Conservation Practices in the United States: Evidence From 35 Years of Quantitative Research.” The researchers identify many of the variables that have been found to be associated with the adoption of agricultural conservation innovation, parsing those social factors with explanatory promise from those factors that seem less relevant. Amid many nuanced conclusions, Prokopy et al. argue that “future research should examine whether decision making is differently motivated based on practice type”, explaining that there is also theory and research from the social psychology of decision making that suggests that “object-specific attitudes” about specific conservation practices “are more important than general attitudes” (p. 532). If we want to understand the diffusion of conservation innovation, at some point, we made need to take things practice by practice, culture by culture, and region by region. That’s a lot to consider.
Understanding the spatial clustering of conservation in agriculture appears to require understanding of how specific practices intersect with locally-specific social and biogeophysical conditions, including systems of resources, local programs, local culture and history, local social networks, and more. It’s a complex system of variables to model. However, each case of farmer adoption of a conservation practices is a living model. Each individual story is nested within both a geographic region and a local experience of living and working. Put differently, the spatial clustering of conservation in agriculture reflects a spatial clustering of shared stories. So, maybe, the fastest and most comprehensive way of explaining regional clustering of any given conservation practice could be to share local stories.
References
Eades, D. C. (2006). Identifying spatial clusters within United States organic agriculture.
Ilbery, B., & Maye, D. (2011). Clustering and the spatial distribution of organic farming in England and Wales. Area, 43(1), 31-41.
Kolady, D., Zhang, W., Wang, T., & Ulrich-Schad, J. (2021). Spatially mediated peer effects in the adoption of conservation agriculture practices. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 53(1), 1-20.
Popovici, R., Ranjan, P., Bernard, M., Usher, E. M., Johnson, K., & Prokopy, L. S. (2023). The social factors influencing cover crop adoption in the Midwest: A controlled comparison. Environmental Management, 72(3), 614-629.
Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Arbuckle, J. G., Church, S. P., Eanes, F. R., Gao, Y., … & Singh, A. S. (2019). Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 74(5), 520-534.
Schewe, R., Fenner, W. H., Iavoriska, L., & Kelleher, C. (2024). Spatial diffusion of innovations: a spatial analysis of agricultural conservation behaviors in New York State. Environmental Sociology, 1-15.
Iowa Learning Farms 