Great Lakes Regional Sediment Management Workshop

Victoria Pebbles, Program Director Great Lakes Commission

November 18, 2019

RESEARCHING

•GLC, OSU, MSU, AMP Insights

EFFECTIVENESS

• Long-term social and economic impacts

•Voluntary changes in on-farm behavior

AGRICULTURAL—GLRI Focus Area 3 Ag-nonpoint

PROGRAMS

•Nearly $100 million GLRI investments in GLRI priority watersheds for ag conservation FY2010-2016

Overview: What is REAP?

The World of REAP

• FY2010-FY2016 Investments

• GLRI Focus Area 3 (FA3) Activities

• Four FA3 Priority Watersheds

• 34 Different Projects/Programs (Investments)

Outcome-based Evaluation

• What project or program structure yields the highest levels of CP adoption by farmers?

• Which of these is most cost effective?

Recommendations for adapting current federal, state, local,

and non-governmental approaches to increase future

effectiveness•Where were most CPs installed (priority watersheds vs

PPAs)

•What were the most popular CPs installed (why)?

•How many producers participated?

•How many acres were covered?

• For each: how much did it cost? how long did it take?

•What structures to administer GLRI $ yielded the greatest results (time, money, farmer engagement)

Increased understanding of the most successful voluntary

approaches and associated timelines that motivate Great Lakes agricultural producers to

improve water quality

• Policy Level: What if any aspects of the GLRI funding process present obstacles to: community organizations wishing to compete for funds; or farmers engaging in ag conservation

• Community Level. Are capacity constraints hindering project implementation? Are longer term investments needed to secure success?

• Farm Level: What do farmers see as key obstacles?

Increased knowledge of current obstacles that must be

addressed by current voluntary approaches to

improve water quality

Outcomes Research questions to be answered

REAP Work

• Data analysis of the 4 priority watersheds:1. Physical, demographic, geospatial, and farm characteristics 2. Social Analysis of GLRI expenditures

• conservation practice installation and other project elements3. Economic analysis using GLRI Data and RIMS multipliers

• Interviews and focus groups with farmers and program managers (GLRI recipients)

• Assessment of GLRI Supported Water Quality Tools • Farm-level surveys

• Existing farmer surveys in the Maumee and Saginaw watersheds

• New farmer survey in all 4 priority watersheds

➢ Final REAP Report with conclusions & recommendations: January, 2020

➢ Advisory Council meeting: November 21 in Ann Arbor➢ Final Report: January, 2020

For more information….• Visit our website: glc.org/work/reap• Contact Dan Gold dgold@glc.org with questions and feedback

Next Steps

Summary: Survey of Four Priority GLRI Watersheds

Dr. Robyn Wilson, Ohio State University

REAP Survey Design

• Mixed-mode survey• Online and mail

• 3500 farmers from 4 EPA priority watersheds• 2830 valid

• Sample stratified by county

• Final sample size = 616• 22% adjusted response rate

• 9% adjusted rejection rate

• ~11% Saginaw, 24% Lower Fox, 25% Genesee, 40% Maumee

• No clear response bias

Study Variables• Farm characteristics

• E.g., farm size, tillage, presence of livestock, rent/own

• Farmer characteristics• E.g., age, education, farming experience

• Socio-psychological measures• E.g., concern, farmer identity, barriers to adoption

• Behaviors/outcomes• Cover crop and vegetated buffer use

• Participation in government programs

GLRI Farmer Concerns, Information Sources, and Practice Adoption

GLRI farmers are most concerned about making a profit

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Makingannualprofit

Mgmt soilhealth onyour farm

Passingfarm to next

gen

Lawsuitfrom

nutrient loss

Mgmtdecisions

otherfarmers

Add govtregulation

or rules

Nutrientloss from ag

Nutrientloss from

farm

Average concerns for farm and community challengesscale: 0 = not concerned, 6 = extremely concerned

GLRI farmers share a similar high reliance on other farmers and local conservation

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Other localfarmers

Cty landconservation

Crop adviser/fert

applicator

Demo farms,direct

feedback

Universityextension

Familymembers

NRCS Countyextension

agent

Localconservation

groups

Farm Bureau Commoditygroups

Preferences for information and guidance sources Scale ("rely on..."): 0 = not at all, 1 = some, 2 = a lot

Conservation practices are widespread but variable across the watersheds

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Genesee N = 155 Lower Fox N = 145 Maumee N = 245 Saginaw N = 67

% Adoption of cover crops, vegetative buffers, nutrient mgmt plan, & limited tillage

CC Use VB Use NMP Limited Till

NOTE: Future use without incentives more likely for cover crops than buffers. Measured by % who indicated they would “likely” or “definitely” use the practice without incentives in the future

Practice use is driven largely by a belief that the benefits are certain and the practice is effective

Benefits are uncertain

Practice is ineffective

Likelihood of using

cover crops or buffers

Farm Size+

-

-

Conservation identity

Production identity

-

+

GLRI Farmer Government Program Participation

Future government program participation is uncertain

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Genesee N = 155 Lower Fox N = 145 Maumee N = 245 Saginaw N = 67

Participation in programs

No programs Only GLRI programs Only other programs Both GLRI and other

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Genesee N = 155 Lower Fox N = 145 Maumee N = 245 Saginaw N = 67

Future participation in programs

Will participate in the future Unsure about participation in future

Note: 15-22% of farmers are “unsure” if they have participated in GLRI programs

Biggest barriers to participation include land mgmt. restrictions, paperwork, and payment amount

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Restrictionson landmgmt

Too muchpaperwork

Prgm paytoo small

Prefer payfor

performance

Not flexibleto meetneeds of

farm

Prgm paytoo slow

Prefer paystart highand dcr

Too short forBMP to pay

for itself

Info notreadily

available

Notinterested inparticipating

Government program participation barriersscale: -2 = strongly disagree, 2 = strongly agree

Program interest is greatest among young, educated farmers who believe in practice effectiveness

Effect on Interest Sig.

Farm Size .054

Age .032

Education .018

Broad response efficacy .008

Cover crops response efficacy .029

Grass buffers response efficacy .000

Variables tested but not significant: current practice adoption, farm-level/watershed-level concern, conservationist/productivist identity, perceived

responsibility for water quality, practice knowledge

Interest leads to participation when perceived barriers are small and the farm is large

Program Interest

Program Participation

Stronger barriers

Weakens relationship

Program Interest

Program Participation

Larger farms

Strengthens relationship

Most critical barriers are information availability, program flexibility, and restrictions on how land is managed

Summary and Conclusions

Motivations

Being younger, more educated and more conservation minded

Operating a large farm

Believing that the benefits of conservation are certain, that the

practices are effective, that farmers are responsible for water quality, and being concerned about watershed-level issues

Constraints

Being older, less educated and more production minded

Operating a small farm

Believing that the benefits of conservation are uncertain, that the

practices are ineffective, that the government is responsible for water

quality, and being concerned about farm-level issues

Extra Slides

Sample Characteristics

Mean Min Max

Age 59 23 93

Years of farming experience 36 2 90

Education Some college Some high school Graduate degree

Farm’s annual net income <$50,000 48% <$50,000 >$500,000

Sole manager 65% - -

Manage livestock 44% - -

Total number of acres owned 1039 18 12,000

Percent acres rented 44% 0% 100%

GLRI Farmer Current and Future Conservation Practice Use

Biggest barriers to cover crops are weather, equipment, time, and lack of economic return

NOTE: Genesee farmers generally perceive these barriers as lower than others

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Uncertaintyin weather

Lack ofequipment

Lackimmediate $

return

Timeconsuming

Restrictions Shortincentivecontracts

Daily opschanges

Lack ofpractice

knowledge

Uncertaintyof benefits

Lack of techassistance

Use onrentedground

Not able tosee demo

Cover crop implementation barriersscale: 0 = not at all, 1 = a little, 2 = some, 3 = a lot

Biggest barriers to buffers include losing land, weather, lack of a return and program restrictions

Note: Weather is a bigger challenge in the Maumee and Saginaw

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Land loss Restrictions Lackimmediate

$ return

Uncertaintyin weather

Shortincentivecontracts

Timeconsuming

Lack ofequipment

Uncertaintyof benefits

Use onrentedground

Lack ofpractice

knowledge

Daily opschanges

Lack of techassistance

Not able tosee demo

Vegetative buffer implementation barriersscale: 0 = not at all, 1 = a little, 2 = some, 3 = a lot

How do the priority watersheds differ?

Genesee farmers: lowest perceived barriers, greatest

belief in cover crop effectiveness, lowest concern about

nutrient loss/future regulation, & greater commitment

to engaging in conservation despite challenges.

More big farms, highest cover crop use, least unsure

about future program participation.

Maumee farmers: more small farms/off-farm income,

less diverse rotations, greatest level of concern about a

variety of challenges, most likely to believe that ag is

not the main driver of water quality issues, most

concerned about cover crop barriers & effectiveness.

Highest participation in programs.

Lower Fox farmers: most informed about conservation,

most likely to believe that quality of life depends on a

healthy watershed, least concerned about nutrient

loss/future regulation.

Highest GLRI participation rates.

Saginaw farmers: less rented land, more small

farms/off-farm income, less diverse rotations, least

concerned about program barriers.

Highest participation in programs, but most unsure

about future program participation

Least skeptical Most skeptical

What is the impact of GLRI programs on key drivers of adoption?• Evaluating GLRI is difficult as 20% of farmers were unsure if

they participated in a GLRI-funded project or program.

• GLRI appears to be similar in impact to other federal funded programs, however...• GLRI participants did perceive cost barriers as slightly lower than

participants in other government programs.

• Certain beliefs (i.e., perceived responsibility, practice effectiveness, concern, etc) were greatest among those participating in both GLRI and other government programs.

• GLRI participants may be the most conscientious and concerned about nutrient loss, and therefore seeking out multiple opportunities to participate in conservation.