Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Which Factors Contribute to Environmental Behaviour of Landowners in Southwestern Ontario, Canada?

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Loss of natural heritage is a problem that is particularly prevalent in areas of high population density. We used a survey to understand the factors that drive environmental behavior of landowners in southwestern Ontario, Canada. The survey, which contained questions about environmental attitude, pro-environmental behavior and demographics, was mailed to 18,090 rural route addresses, and we received 3256 completed surveys (18% response rate). Two types of environmental behavior, namely voluntarily increasing the area of land set aside for conservation, and enrollment in a conservation stewardship program, were significantly correlated with a positive attitude towards conservation. Financial considerations also played a role. We showed that the biggest motivator to enroll in a wetland enhancement program was access to ‘more information on how the decline in wetland area affects them personally’, while ‘public recognition’ was the least motivating factor. We suggest that enrollment in voluntary land stewardship programs might be increased by providing information about the effects of ecosystem loss, and by providing financial incentives for participation. In a larger social context, outreach programs by government agencies could focus on improving pro-environmental attitudes, which in turn is likely to result in more pro-environmental behavior of landowners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-Ella MM, Hoiberg EO, Warren RD (1981) Adoption behaviour in family farm system: an Iowa study. J Rural Sociol 46:42–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Agresti A, Finlay B (2009) Statistical methods for the social sciences, 4th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Atari DO, Yiridoe EK, Smale S, Duinker PN (2009) What motivates farmers to participate in the Nova Scotia environmental farm plan program? Evidence and environmental policy implications. J Environ Manage 90(2):1269–1279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreiro-Hurlé J, Espinosa-Goded M, Dupraz P (2010) Does intensity of change matter? Factors affecting adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Spain. J Environ Plan Manage 53(7):891–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgart-Getz A, Prokopy LS, Floress K (2012) Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J Environ Manage 96:17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremer LL, Farley KA, Lopez-Carr D (2014) What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s SocioPáramo program. Land Use Policy 36:122–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brick J, Nebel S, Lantz V, Trenholm R (2016) Declining education levels in young male farmers in southwestern Ontario. Agric Environ Lett 1:160005. doi:10.2134/ael2016.02.0005

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton RJF (2014) The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on environmental behaviour: a review. J Environ Manage 135:19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton RJF, Schwarz G (2013) Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy 30(1):628–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canada Post (2015) Unaddressed Admail™—Customer Guide. https://www.canadapost.ca/tools/pg/customerguides/CGunaadm-e.asp. Accessed 1 June 2015

  • Carlson JE, Dillman DA, Lassey WR (1981) The farmer and erosion: factors influencing the use of control practices. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

    Google Scholar 

  • Cary JW, Wilkinson RL (1997) Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour. J Agric Econ 48:13–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colman D (1994) Ethics and externalities: agricultural stewardship and other behaviour. J Agric Econ 45(3):299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comerford E (2014) Understanding why landholders choose to participate or withdraw from conservation programs: a case study from a Queensland conservation auction. J Environ Manage 141:169–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Souza G, Cyphers D, Phipps T (1993) Factors affecting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Agric Resour Econ Rev 22:159–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Snoo GR, Herzon I, Staats H, Burton RJF, Schindler S, van Dijk J, Lokhorst AM et al. (2013) Toward effective nature conservation on farmland: making farmers matter. Conserv Lett 6(1):66–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defrancesco E, Gatto P, Runge F, Trestini S (2009) Factors affecting farmers’ pParticipation in agri-environmental measures: a Northern Italian perspective. J Agric Econ 59(1):114–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd Edn. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducks Unlimited Canada (2010) Southern Ontario wetland conversion analysis

  • Ducos G, Dupraz P, Bonnieux F (2009) Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs. J Environ Plan Manage 52(5):669–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environics Research Group (2006) National survey of farmers and ranchers. In: Ecological goods and services. Toronto

  • Environment and Climate Change Canada (2016) https://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=E05A7F81-1.

  • Falconer K (2000) Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective. J Rural Stud 16:379–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finger R, Lehmann B (2012) Adoption of agri-environmental programmes in Swiss crop production. Euro Choices 11(1):28–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzén F, Dinnétz P, Hammer M (2016) Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to participate in eutrophication mitigation—a case stud of preferencres for wetland creation in Sweden. Ecol Econ 130:8–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gailhard İU, Bojnec Š (2015) Farm size and participation in agri-environmental measures:Farm-level evidence from Slovenia. Land Use Policy 46:273–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghazalian PL, Larue B, West GE (2009) Best management practices to enhance water quality: who is adopting them? J Agric Appl Econ 41(3):663–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie J, Kim S-A, Paudel K (2007) Why don’t producers adopt best management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry. Agric Econ 36:89–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale K, Yoshida Y, Beazley K, Sherren K (2015) Does stewardship program participation influence Canadian farmer engagement in biodiversity-friendly farming practices? Biodivers Conserv 24:1487–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grand River Conservation Authority (2015) http://www.grandriver.ca/index.cfm. Accessed 1 June 2015

  • Greiner R (2015) Motivations and attitudes influence farmers’ willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts. Agric Syst 137:154–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habron GB (2004) Adoption of conservation practices by agricultural landowners in three Oregon watersheds. J Soil Water Conserv 59(3):109–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoover H, Wiitala M (1980) Operator and landlord participation in soil erosion control in the maple creek watershed in Northeast Nebraska. USDA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Howley P (2015) The happy farmer: the effect of nonpecuniary benefits on behavior. Am J Agric Econ 97(4):1072–1086. doi:10.1093/ajae/aav020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karali E, Brunner B, Doherty R, Hersperger A, Rounsevell M (2014) Identifying the factors that influence farmer participation in environmental management practices in Switzerland. Hum Ecol 42:951–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy EH, Beckley TM, McFarlane B, Nadeau S (2009) Why we don’t “Walk the Talk”: understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada. Hum Ecolo Rev 16(2):151–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss A, Ageyman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260. doi:10.1080/1350462022014540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasley P, Nolan M (1981) Land owner attitudes towards soil and water conservation in the grindstone-lost-muddy creek project. Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohr SL (2010) Sampling: design and analysis, 2nd Edn. Brooks/Cole, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Merckx T, Feber RE, Riordan P, Townsend MC, Bourn NAD, Parsons MS, Macdonald DW (2009) Optimizing the biodiversity gain from agri-environment schemes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 130(3-4):177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Méthot J, Huang X, Grover H (2015) Demographics and societal values as drivers of change in the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River basin. J Great Lakes Res 41(Suppl. 1):30–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mobley C, Vagias WM, DeWard SL (2009) Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior: the influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environ Behav 42(4):420–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy G, Hynes S, Murphy E, O’Donoghue C, Green S (2011) Assessing the compatibility of farmland biodiversity and habitats to the specifications of agri-environmental schemes using a multinomial logit approach. Ecol Econ 71:111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noga W, and Adamowicz WL (2014) A study of Canadian conservation offset programs: lessons learned from a review of programs, analysis of stakeholder perceptions, and investigation of transactions costs. Sustainable Prosperity Research Paper

  • Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry https://www.ontario.ca/page/land-stewardship-and-habitat-restoration-program. Accessed 19/12/2016

  • Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/oscia-programs/glasi/farmland-health-check-up/. Accessed 19/12/2016

  • Palm-Foster LH, Swinton SM, Lupi F, Shupp RS (2016) Too burdensome to bid: transaction costs andpay-for-performance conservation. Am J Agric Econ 98(5):1314–1333. doi:10.1093/ajae/aaw071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patino JE, Estupinan-Suarez LM (2016) Hotspots of wetland area loss in Colombia. Wetlands 36(5):935–943. doi:10.1007/s13157-016-0806-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paudel KP, Gauthier WM, Westra JV, Hall LM (2008) Factors influencing and steps leading to the adoption of best management practices by Louisiana dairy farmers. J Agric Appl Econ 40(1):203–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahelizatovo NC, Gillespie JM (2004) Factors influencing the implementation of best management practices in the dairy industry. J Soil Water Conserv 59(4):155–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg S, Margerum RD (2008) Landowner motivations for watershed restoration: lessons from five watersheds. J Environ Plan Manage 51(4):477–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, C., Mussell A, Sweetland J, and Seguin B (2012) The greening of Canadian agriculture: policies to assist farmers as stewards of the environment. In: Hungry for change: Macdonald-Laurier Institute

  • Sica YV, Quintana RD, Radeloff VC, Gavier-Pizarro GI (2016) Wetland loss due to land use change in the Lower Paraná River Delta, Argentina. Sci Total Environ 586:967–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth SJ, Gusta M, Belcher K, Phillips PWB, Castle D (2011) Environmental impacts from herbicide tolerant canola production in Western Canada. Agric Syst 104:403–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorice MG, Oh C-O, Gartner T, Snieckus M, Johnson R, Donlan CJ (2013) Increasing participation in incentive programs for biodiversity conservation. Ecol Appl 23(5):1146–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SYSTAT (2009) SYSTAT® 13.1 Statistics_I_II_III_IV. SYSTAT Software Inc, San Jose, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Trenholm R, Anderson T, Lantz V, and Haider W (2013) Landowner views on wetland enhancement and restoration in and adjacent to the credit river watershed: credit valley conservation

  • Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (2013) Watershed Report Cards 2012. http://thamesriver.on.ca/watershed-health/watershed-report-cards/. Accessed 1 June 2015

  • Van Herzele A, Gobin A, Van Gossum P, Acosta L, Waas T, Dendocker N, de Frahan BH (2013) Effort for money? Farmers’ rationale for participation in agri-environment measures with different implementation complexity. J Environ Manage 131:110–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay F (1992) Barriers to adoption: a general overview of the issues. Rural Sociol 2(2):10–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GA (1997) Factors influencing farmer participation in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. J Environ Manage 50(1):67–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GA, Hart K (2000) Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environ Plan A 32(12):2161–2185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood A, Stedman-Edwards P, Mang J (2000) The root causes of biodiversity loss. Earthscan, New Yord, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Wossink GAA, van Wenum JH (2003) Biodiversity conservation by farmers: Analysis of actual and contingent participation. Eur Rev Agric Econ 30:461–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynn G, Crabtree B, Potts J (2001) Modelling farmer entry into the environmentally sensitive area schemes in Scotland. J Agric Econ 52:65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu J, Belcher K (2011) An economic analysis of landowners’ willingness to adopt wetland and riparian conservation management. Can J Agric Econ 59(2):207–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:39–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (# 865-2008-0045) through the project lead by Van Lantz, University of New Brunswick and Ryan Trenholm, Simon Fraser University. We also acknowledge financial support from the Province of Ontario through the Canada-Ontario Agreement and the invaluable assistance with data set management provided by Grant Wilkens of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Silke Nebel

    Present address: Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5B7, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, 1424 Clarke Road, London, ON, N5V 5B9, Canada

    Silke Nebel & Jeff Brick

  2. Municipality of West Perth, 169 St. David Street, Mitchell, ON, N0K 1N0, Canada

    Jeff Brick

  3. Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada

    Van A. Lantz

  4. School of Resource & Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada

    Ryan Trenholm

Authors
  1. Silke Nebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeff Brick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Van A. Lantz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ryan Trenholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silke Nebel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nebel, S., Brick, J., Lantz, V. et al. Which Factors Contribute to Environmental Behaviour of Landowners in Southwestern Ontario, Canada?. Environmental Management 60, 454–463 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0849-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0849-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation