United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Adoption of Conservation

Buffers: Barriers and

StrategiesNaturalResourcesConservationService

SocialSciencesInstitute

October 2002

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Front cover photo courtesy of NRCS Photo Galleryhttp://photogallery.nrcs.usda.gov/

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Acknowledgments

Supporting data for this publication includes social science researchstudies, reports from the Conservation Technology InformationCenter, and summaries of field interviews. I would especially like tothank NRCS technical specialists David Buland, Jim Cropper,

David Faulkner, Aaron Hinkston, Jim Robinson, Gary Wells,

and Bruce Wight for their time and expertise. Sandy Hodge, StateSpecialist-Public Policy, Community Development ExtensionProgram, University of Missouri, graciously assisted me with hertime and technical materials, including photos. Thanks also toFrank Clearfield, director, Social Sciences Institute, and to Peter

Smith, director, NRCS Resource Economics and Social SciencesDivision, for taking the time to help edit and modify this document,and Mary Mattinson, Suzi Self, and Wendy Pierce, NRCSNational Cartography and Geospatial Center, for editing andpreparing the document for publication.

Gail BrantSociologistSocial Sciences Institute

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Summary of Observations/Recommendations for Marketing Conservation Buffers .......................................... 2

Technology Transfer Model ........................................................................................................................................ 2

All Producers ................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Livestock Producers .................................................................................................................................................... 8

Low-Income and Minority Producers ........................................................................................................................ 9

American Indian Producers ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12

References .................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Adoption of Conservation Buffers: Barriers and Strategies

Figures

Figure 1 Conservation buffers regions .................................................................................................................. 1

Figure 2 Key features of the Missouri Extension and Transfer Model .............................................................. 3

Figure 3 Conservation buffer barriers ................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 4 Influences on environmental practices .................................................................................................. 6

Figure 5 Before buffer protection .......................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 6 After buffer protection ............................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 7 Windbreaks protecting field crops .......................................................................................................... 8

Figure 8 Windbreaks protecting livestock ............................................................................................................ 8

Figure 9 Alley cropping area has tree products and forage for grazing ............................................................ 8

Figure 10 Familiarity with conservation buffers by race ...................................................................................... 9

Figure 11 Distribution of minority operated farms - 1992 ................................................................................... 10

Figure 12 Percent of farms with sales less than $10,000 in 1997 ....................................................................... 10

Figure 13 NRCS representative and tribal member inspect growth and health of grasses ............................ 12

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Introduction

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)uses a voluntary approach in working with landownersto maintain and enhance natural resources. NRCS andthe Conservation Technology Information Centeremphasize four sets of conservation practices: conser-vation tillage, crop nutrient management, weed and pestmanagement, and conservation buffers (fig. 1). Thecommon name for these conservation practices/systemsis Core4. NRCS in its Core4 training materials definesconservation buffers as areas or strips of land main-tained in permanent vegetation to help control pollut-ants and manage other environmental problems.Specific practices include conservation buffers, alleycropping, contour buffer strips, cross wind trap strips,field borders, filter strips, grassed waterways withvegetated filter, herbaceous wind barriers, riparianforest buffers, vegetative barriers, and windbreak/shelterbelts.

This document examines attitudes and behaviors ofseveral producer groups relative to the adoption anddiffusion of conservation buffers. It summarizes generalobservations made by specialists and offers recommen-dations that field staff should consider when marketingconservation buffers. A technical transfer model in onestate is described, four producer groups (all producers,livestock, low-income and minority, and AmericanIndian) are examined, and barriers to the adoption ofbuffers and strategies that may address these barriersare listed for each group.

A variety of data sources were used to prepare thispublication, including field interviews with producergroups, interviews with NRCS specialists, researchpublications, and materials published by NRCS andother organizations within the conservation partnership.

Figure 1—Conservation buffers regions.

Adoption of Conservation Buffers: Barriers and Strategies

Source: Web site http://pmproductsvr.nrcs.usda.gov/prmsproducts/buffers.asp

2

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Summary of observations/

recommendations for marketing

conservation buffers

The following observations/recommendations can beuseful to NRCS field staff and other members of theconservation partnership in planning, designing, andimplementing marketing and outreach activities relativeto conservation buffers. These ideas are not exhaustiveor especially innovative, but they represent a startingpoint for field staff to consider.

Producers use conservation buffers because of whatbuffers do for them, not what they do for USDA, NRCS,the district, or any other organization/association. Sincethe evaluation of benefits varies for each producer, fieldstaff need to first find out the producers’ interests (e.g.,economics, environmental benefits, wildlife habitat, fishproduction, or legal issues), estimate these benefits, andpresent them in an understandable format.

Confusion typically surrounds the rules and signupdates of USDA programs, including those promotingbuffers. Field staffs need to ensure that producersunderstand how new USDA programs operate and howparticipating in these programs may benefit theiroperation. To disseminate this information, field staffsshould consider using information technology methods(Web sites, e-mails, listserves) along with more tradi-tional distribution methods (direct mail, flyers posted atlocal gathering places, presentations at meetings).

Where, from whom, and how producers acquire infor-mation about buffers varies. Many field staffs arealready aware of the commonly used informationalsources in their locale. If field staffs are not aware oftheir local sources, they can use a sociological methodto learn where producers get their information. Thatmethod is to ask a small number of leading producers,who represent different groups, to identify their mostuseful source of information. These sources will mostlikely vary for different producer groups. Then, they canuse those sources to inform different groups of produc-ers about the benefits of conservation buffers. Obvi-ously, materials are more effective when the localvernacular is used and materials are written in theprimary language of the producer.

Conservation buffer systems may be optimized when avariety of factors are considered in planning including:

• economic and social/cultural factors (cost andbenefits, value placed on aesthetics or wildlife),

• legal/policy factors (impact on endangeredspecies, water quality),

• biological elements (trees, shrubs, and/orgrasses), and

• production components (buffer design, equip-ment, crops, and/or livestock).

For more information, see Human Aspects of theConservation Planning Environment, which is part ofthe Social Sciences Institute People Partnership andCommunities fact sheet series (PPC 023). Access thisseries at the following web site:http://www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/ssi/B_Stories/

A_Introduction.htm#ppcs

Field staffs need to have a clear understanding of whoowns, leases, operates, and manages land and whomakes agricultural related decisions. Field staffs thenneed to work closely with decisionmakers to clarifybenefits, program eligibility, and maintenance require-ments of buffers.

Livestock operations, rather than crop production, is adominant system for many low-income and minorityproducers. This factor, plus the fact that economicmargins are so tight for low-income producers, mayserve as a barrier to program participation. Economicsmust be addressed directly during the planning process.Establishing contact (especially first time contact) withlow income, minority, and American Indians is usuallybest achieved by using a one-on-one approach (Molnaret al., 2001).

Technology Transfer Model

In this section, a technology transfer model is describedthat was used in Missouri to assess producers’ needsand preferences for establishing and maintainingconservation buffers (Hodge, 2000a; 2000b). TheUniversity of Missouri’s Center for Agroforestry, inpartnership with the NRCS, the Soil and Water Conser-vation District, the Missouri Department of Conserva-tion-Forestry, and the University of Missouri Outreachand Extension, conducted field research on how toincrease adoption of conservation buffers. The project’sobjectives were to:

• gather social and economic information fromgroups of agricultural producers and ruralresidents that would assist in transferring infor-mation about conservation buffers,

• learn how much farmers already knew aboutconservation buffers and other agroforestrypractices/systems and what knowledge gapsneeded to be filled, and

• discover how farmers prefer receiving informa-tion.

3

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Methodology

A team composed of a social forester, rural sociologist,and agricultural economist met with community mem-bers and community groups to find an acceptable wayof gathering information and to determine what infor-mation would be needed. They decided that the teamshould design a questionnaire that would be adminis-tered through face-to-face interviews. These interviewsconcentrated on the individual’s knowledge of conserva-tion buffers, attitudes toward them, and awareness oftheir benefits. In addition, the questions inquired aboutfarming operations, local economic conditions, commu-nity social activities, and environmental concerns.Figure 2 gives the key features of this study.

Figure 2—Key features of the Missouri Extension andTransfer Model.

Potential respondents were randomly selected fromlists provided by the NRCS and the Farm ServiceAgency. Data collection lasted 3.5 months and 358farmers participated in the interviews. The teampresented survey results to community residents andthose who participated in the survey during a speciallyplanned dinner.

To assess how much knowledge farmers had aboutconservation buffers, the interviewers showed farmerspictures of different conservation buffers. Along withthe pictures, a one-sentence description of the practicewas presented. The interviewer assessed a farmer’sknowledge of conservation buffers by rating them on ascale from very low to very high.

To learn about a farmer’s attitudes toward trees, farm-ers were asked to rate the following reasons for plant-ing trees: wind protection, wildlife benefits, scenicbeauty, economic benefits, water quality, erosioncontrol, future generations, and flood protection.Farmers selected their response from a scale of unim-

portant, moderate, or very important.

Finally, farmers were asked to rate their preferredmethod of receiving information about conservationbuffers. Possible selections included farm visits byconservation personnel, e-mails, demonstrations ofconservation buffers on public land, tours of privatefarms, and idea sharing with groups of farmers.

(Federal rules prohibit Federal employees from con-ducting surveys or focus groups without the questionsfirst approved by USDA; however, non-Federal groupsare typically not restricted from conducting surveys orfocus groups. For more information on how to conductsurveys and focus groups, visit the Social SciencesInstitute website: http://www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/ssi/.Scroll down to FACT SHEETS and click, scroll down toPPC 014, Designing Surveys for Conservation Activi-ties.)

Findings

The study found that farmers prefer receiving addi-tional information on conservation buffers to supple-ment their familiarity and knowledge of these practices.The study also found that farmers gave their highestrating to “planting trees for future generations.” Also,farmers wanted conservationists to provide informationon how income can be generated from managing treeswithin a short planning horizon. Respondents recog-nized that harvesting trees for short-term income is aneconomic gain, while at the same time, growing treesfor future generations is a secured investment.

Most respondents were moderately interested inlooking at conservation buffers that are demonstratedon public lands or private farms. They were also inter-ested in sharing ideas with other farmers who havesimilar interests. They were least interested in havingsomeone come to their land to evaluate the feasibility ofplanting trees. By identifying those farmers and farmergroups who have an existing interest in conservationbuffers, the team could distribute and target informa-tion to a more receptive audience.

An important finding is that gathering informationproactively from the community seems to increase thechance of successful adoption of conservation buffersmore than if NRCS field staffs use individual onfarmevaluations to plan for conservation buffers.

• an interdisciplinary team• field interviews with community interest

groups to determine relevant survey ques-tions

• use of pictures and one sentence descrip-tions of practices

• farmers rating of their knowledge andunderstanding about buffers

• reporting of study findings to questionnairerespondents via a community social activity(community dinner)

The Missouri Extension and

Transfer Model

KEY FEATURES

4

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Finally, the findings from this project indicate thatfarmers do not routinely know how they can makemoney on trees in a short-term planning horizon. It maybe necessary to provide specific information aboutpotential income that explains how to produce fastgrowing, locally desirable trees.

All Producers

This section is the first of four producer sections. Thissection lists barriers (fig. 3) and strategies related to theadoption of conservation buffers that are common to allproducers. These barriers and strategies are the typicaladoption issues that producers face when consideringwhether to adopt conservation buffers.

Barriers

• Some producers lack information on site-specificagronomic, economic, and environmental costsand benefits as well as availability of alternativepractices that can be customized to site condi-tions.

• Information is often presented using highlytechnical descriptions, often containing jargon.

• The short-term cost of implementing practicesdoes not equal the short-term economic returnsbecause of low incentive or cost-share packagesoffered to landowners.

• Major changes in farming operations are some-times needed to implement practices.

• Conservation buffers may not always correspondto a producer’s personal goals and values (e.g.,open and clean fields) nor be in line with thecharacteristics of the farm operation (e.g.,maximizing crop production).

• Some producers view labor and time costsassociated with establishing and maintainingbuffers as excessive.

• Some producers feel that land taken out ofproduction will result in an inefficient use of farmmachinery.

• Land taken out of production because of programparticipation is sometimes viewed as idle land,and idleness, if applied to their self-perceptions,can have negative connotations for producers.

• A perception of some producers is that by-products from shrubs and trees are not realagricultural production.

• Formal training of field staff often lacks theintegration of social factors with physical factors.In addition, NRCS field staff, district staff, andother outreach and extension personnel are notalways similarly trained, which may result inmixed messages being delivered to producers.

• Government programs are sometimes seen ashaving too much red tape, and producers havenegative attitudes toward entering into legalcontracts as required by some programs.

• Farmers view some programs as placing toomany restrictions on those who will inherit/purchase the operation.

• Some producers are hesitant to enroll in CRP/CRPcontinuous signup because of—loss of base acres for commodity programs,—expectation of earning more from renting out

land than from an annual program payment,—reduction of flexibility to adjust land uses to

changing market conditions, and—adverse effect on the financial status of the

farm.

• Some producers are reluctant to establish buffersbecause of concerns that equipment operatorswill not maintain buffers, which potentiallyconflicts with Agency requirements for managingconservation buffers.

• Some producers perceive that CRP enrollmentinterferes with landlord-tenant relationships.

Figure 3—Conservation buffer barriers.

Land taken out of production

Cost to establish/maintain

Hard to maintain

Difficult to farm around

Does not work in this area

Other

None

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

23

17

11

6

3

19

23

Source: Total sample (n=752) From Conservation Technology Information Center1997 (December). “Conservation Technology Awareness and Use.” CTIC,West Lafayette, Indiana.

5

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

• Some producers have had adverse experienceswith poorly designed layouts and/or the type ofbuffer species.

• Some producers may not always know thenutrient needs of their crops and perceive thatcrops and buffers compete for nutrients, water,and sunlight.

• Producers do not feel that their neighbors will useconservation buffers to protect adjacent tracks ofland.

• Producers do not always know the distinctorganizations that make up the ConservationPartnership nor are they familiar with the variousroles and responsibilities of conservation part-ners.

Strategies

• Provide to NRCS and the Conservation Partner-ship specialized buffer training that emphasizesthe integration of social, legal, economic, andphysical resources. This will result in moreconsistent definitions, technical assistance, andinformational messages.

• The Conservation Partnership should standardizethe definition for conservation buffers by usingillustrations to show an array of conservationbuffer practices.

• Use oral, written, and/or illustrative mediums tohighlight the benefits of buffers including erosioncontrol, improved soil productivity, protectedground and surface water, fish and wildlifehabitat, aesthetics, and protection of land andwater resources for future generations. Ensurethe producer that the benefits apply to the currentresource problem and/or future plans for thatoperation.

• Provide producers with a customized economicanalysis of the costs and benefits of programs.Field staff may want to obtain specific informa-tion on buffers from NRCS National HeadquartersWeb site. National Headquarters’ economic website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/RESS/

issues/bufferecon.htm

• Some states provide a list of practice and costestimates that outline the cost and benefits ofconservation buffer practices/systems versusconventional practices. These estimates shouldthen be provided to producers. Contact the NRCSstate economist to determine if there is a list foryour state.

• Outline the potential of buffers in trying to ensurethat adequate incentives are provided to facilitatethe adoption of conservation buffers as part ofthe “best mix” of conservation practices.

• Change perceptions of some producers who feelthat idle land is not productive land. The mainte-nance and cultivation of buffer products (nuts,berries, wood) is not only productive, but at thesame time protects and enhances natural re-sources.

• Work simultaneously with owner and tenant. Ifeither is absent, provide duplicate information tothe other party.

• Consider using volunteers to reduce your timeand labor in establishing and maintaining buffers;e.g., AmeriCorps/Vista. (Friends of the

Rappahannock is a locally based community

organization that promotes conservation and

protection of the natural resource base. Friends

of the Rappahannock work cooperatively with

farmers and other landowners to plant stream-

side forest buffers and to install fences to keep

livestock out of the streams. AmeriCorps/Vista

volunteers are used to assist farmers and

landowners to plant the streambank buffers. —

Personal communication from Shannon E.

Wilson, Volunteer Projects Coordinator,

AmeriCorps/VISTA, Friends of the Rappahan-

nock, Fredericksburg, VA. Additional informa-

tion can be obtained by visiting the Web site

http://for.communitypoint.org.)

• Market and promote the benefits of buffers byusing demonstrations, testimonials, videos, andother mediums specific to the area (fig. 4).

• Develop and distribute a quick reference list ofthe types and sources of technical assistance,information and education materials, and finan-cial assistance that is available for establishingand implementing buffer practices from local,State, and Federal sources.

6

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Demonstration plots

University extension offices

Other producers

Farm publications

Government incentives

Ag input companies

Crop consultants/farm managers

NRCS/Conservation districts

Farm & commodity associations

Government mandates

Public opinion

Radio

The Internet

0 Percent 20 Percent 40 Percent 60 Percent 80 Percent 100 Percent

Local dealers and suppliers

2.79

3.60

3.91

4.02

4.26

4.59

4.69

4.73

4.82

4.85

4.88

4.96

5.15

5.20

Mean

A great deal of influence 6 5 4 3 2 No influence Do not know

2

1

2

3

24 23 25 13 7 2 4

23 23 24 14 9 4 3

16 26 24 15 9 4 5

13 22 29 17 11 3

23 19 19 13 11 5 7 3

12 20 34 15 9 5 4 1

14 21 26 13 12 5 36

14 16 29 17 12 8 3

12 15 29 16 510 7 6

8 13 27 18 17 5 9 3

16 12 16 13 13 9 19

10 11 21 16 1215 14

5 10 16 21 17 14 15

4 4 10 12 1311 33 13

2

1

3

1

• Compile a county-by-county directory of technicalexperts and agency staffs who have responsibili-ties in the area of conservation buffers.

• Routinely update mailing lists to ensure mostproducers have access to and receive informationin a timely manner.

• Distribute lists and information on demonstrationprojects, university outreach and extensionspecialists, names and experiences of producers,testimonials and videos, ads for local producermeetings, farm publications, government initia-tives, locally led activities, agricultural inputcompanies, crop consultants, professional farmmanagers, commodity groups, grower and otherassociations, family and friend networks, radioand TV, newspapers, electronic communication,and farm tours.

• Market conservation buffers by identifying androutinely working with local leaders to design andimplement outreach activities that involve the

farming/ranching community. Leadership fromwithin the local community has the advantages oflocal visibility and the perception that “being oneof their own, is therefore more trustworthy.” Thiscan generate an increase in momentum foradopting alternative practices.

• Promote and recognize individuals and groups ofproducers who have adopted the use of buffers as“friendly to trees,” “stewards of land, trees, andgrasses,” or other such philosophies. The promo-tion and recognition of conservation behavior canbe facilitated through use of Conservation of theYear programs and local media spots (newslet-ters, radio, TV, exhibitions at fairs).

• Partner with local community-based and non-profit organizations (e.g., local chapter of theNational Wildlife Federation) to design andimplement outreach strategies. These organiza-tions have the advantage of being visible tocommunity members and having leadership comedirectly from within the community.

Figure 4—Influences on environmental practices.

Source: Approximately half of the total sample (344<n<397) from Conservation Technology Information Center1997 (December). “Conservation Technology Awareness and Use.” CTIC, West Lafayette, Indiana.

7

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

• Assist producers in designing buffers by usingvisuals to show appropriate layouts, growth ofvegetative buffers, and how these buffers willlook over time. The ability to visualize finalresults can positively influences a producer’sdecision. Landscape architect software can beused to produce the visuals showing a land areaafter conservation programs are established (figs.5 & 6). Contact the NRCS national landscapearchitect at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/

directory/sciencetech.html#ced for informa-tion on the use of landscape architect software.

Figure 6—After buffer protection.

• Work with producers to offer the use of nativegrasses as an alternative to trees. Emphasize thatgrassy filters can be used as a turnaround.

• Promote acceptance of trees by tying theirbenefits to a resource problem, including theabsorption of nutrients and pesticides, carbonsequestration, release of oxygen, stream tempera-ture reduction and regulation, wind protection ofcrops and soils, wildlife habitat (cover, nestingarea, shelter, food source), improved aesthetics,alternative income sources (harvesting of nuts or

hardwoods over time), erosioncontrol, protection of naturalresource base for future genera-tions, and finally, flood protection.

• Create a listserve, an interac-tive Web site, or other suchelectronic means for producersand members of the conservationpartnership. This listserve can beused to obtain information, suchas recent publications, researchneeds, and producer participation(where permission has beengranted by the producer). Oneadvantage of an electronic applica-tion is that all members of thepartnership would routinely haveaccess to the same information.One example of an interactive Website is on the University of Mis-souri Center for Agroforestry’ssite. This Web site has an interac-tive map feature of Missourishowing a landowner’s location.When the location is clicked, aphoto appears showing the type ofbuffers practice in use. The site is:http://

www.centerforagroforestry.org.

• Create or use a newsletter as ameans to inform field staff andproducers; e.g., BufferNotespublished by the National Associa-tion of Conservation Districts. Thisnewsletter is available at http://

www.nacdnet.org/buffers.

Figure 5—Before buffer protection.

8

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Livestock Producers

Barriers

• The installation and maintenance of fencing areperceived by some as excessive financial andlabor costs.

• Producers are reluctant to change managementpractices even if livestock damage the land alongstreams.

• Based on historical precedence, producers objectto excluding livestock from streams and othertraditional water sources.

• Producers fear that woody vegetation in riparianzones will increase beaver activity and flooding.

• Producers perceive that shelterbelts, living snowfences, and windbreaks will decrease acres forgrazing and/or feeding of livestock.

Strategies

• Show livestock producers the benefits of wind-breaks/shelterbelts including the reduction ofanimal stress, decreased mortality rates, reduc-tion in feed and water consumption, and themanagement of snow.

• Associate the benefits of conservation buffers andintensive rotational grazing with current resourceproblems including fewer animals falling overunstable banks, fewer animals lost because ofwalking on frozen streams in the winter, cleanerwater supplies when alternative water suppliesare used, and restoration of denuded riparianareas.

Figure 7—Windbreaks protecting field crops.

• Encourage producers to evaluate alternatemanagement practices that can reduce injury tolivestock (fencing and establishing riparianbuffers). These practices can help reduce finan-cial risk by providing cost share and training asthese new management skills are adopted.

• Help producers obtain a mix of technical, finan-cial, and educational assistance for the installa-tion of alternative water sources. Constructingwater wells is cost prohibitive for many produc-ers who traditionally have used a natural watersource for their livestock.

• Promote practices, such as riparian forest buffers,to operators of confined animal feeding opera-tions; pair a producer’s concerns with benefitsincluding dampening noise, reducing drift ofaversive smells, screening outsiders’ views of theoperation, and trapping nonpoint source pollut-ants.

Figure 8—Windbreaks protecting livestock.

Figure 9—Alley cropping area has tree products andforage for grazing.

9

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

• Ensure that producers understand that grassybuffers do not have to “give way” to unwantedwoody vegetation by providing technical assis-tance on how to maintain grassy buffers throughmowing, controlled burning, herbicide treat-ments, and/or livestock grazing.

Low-Income and Minority

Producers

Barriers

• Because of USDA definitions, isolation from acommunities mainstream agricultural activities,and privacy issues, NRCS field staffs have prob-lems identifying low-income and minority farm-ers.

• Low-income and minority producers and theleaders who represent these groups may not beon mailing lists and may not routinely participatein conservation activities.

• Written material may be written at too high anacademic level or may not be printed in theprimary language of the low-income and minorityproducers. Figure 10 shows the familiarity withconservation buffers by race.

• Low income and minority producers may lackincome for establishing and maintaining bufferpractices.

Figure 10—Familiarity with conservation buffers byrace.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Very familiar Somewhat familiar Not at all familiar

WhiteBlack

Strategies

• Names and addresses used to develop contactlists can be derived from field notes, MinorityServing Institutions/Universities, local Extensionoffices, and/or other local organizations. Distrib-uting information from up-to-date contact listsensures that producers have access to andreceive information in a timely manner. Figure 11shows the distribution of minority operated farmsin 1992.

• Use a one-on-one method to establish initialcontact. Allow sufficient time to initially establisha working relationship. Using one-on-one contactsto encourage participation of low income andminority producers as well as the groups’ leader-ship can help represent their needs and interestsin district and locally led activities.

• Have local community leaders and producersproofread any printed or visual information todetermine its appropriateness for use based onprimary language, local customs, values, andvernacular.

• Ensure that a network of family and friends isused in information gathering and disseminationactivities; low-income producers tend to rely onfamily and friends to evaluate the usefulness andpracticality of information.

• Work cooperatively with producers and membersof the conservation partnership to determine iflow cost loans and grants are available.

• Work cooperatively with local foundations andorganizations, such as the Heifer Project Interna-tional, Southern Federation of Cooperatives, andWildlife Foundation, to pool available resources.Pooling resources can help facilitate activities,such as the purchasing of seedlings, establishingnetworks for small producers, and conductingdemonstrations for low cost technologies. Figure12 shows the percent of farms that sales of lessthan $10,000 in 1997.

• Use farm tours, field days, workshops, anddemonstration projects within the community asa means to focus on the use and applicability oflow cost technologies (e.g., low cost fencing andmovable water sources).

• Partner with local community-based and non-profit organizations to design and implementoutreach strategies. The communities’ lowincome and minority producers usually trustthese organizations.

Source: Molnar, J., A. Bitto, and G. Brant 2001. Core Conservation Practices:Paths and Barriers Perceived by Small and Limited Resource Farmers.

10

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Figure 12—Percent of farms with sales less than $10,000 in 1997.

Figure 11—Distribution of minority operated farms - 1992.

Source: Census of Agriculture. 1992. Resources Assessment andStrategic Planning Division, Dec. 1997, USDA-NRCS,Washington, DC.

Source: Census of Agriculture. 1997. USDA National AgriculturalStatistics Service. Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/atlas97/map006.htm

11

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

American Indian Producers

Barriers

• NRCS field staffs are sometimes unfamiliar withAmerican Indian culture and/or the structure andoperation of tribal governments.

• NRCS field staff lack information and knowledgeof the appropriate protocol when working withAmerican Indians, their formal and informalleadership, organizations, or agencies.

• Historical, cultural, and sacred areas may belocated within areas most suitable for the installa-tion of buffers.

• Indian landowners, the tribes, and lessees maynot participate in locally led conservation activi-ties.

• Establishing and maintaining buffers on triballands often require the assistance of representa-tives from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). BIAmay lack sufficient staff to help tribes plan andinstall conservation buffers.

• Agreement on the need for and types of conserva-tion buffers among tribal members as well as withthe BIA may be difficult to obtain within a shorttimeframe.

• Hunting may not be allowed on Indian lands andcould serve as a barrier to installing conservationbuffers and alternative enterprises on these lands.

• Costs of practices may be prohibitive for Indianlandowners, tribes, or for BIA managed lands.

• Conservation may not be a top priority if Indianlandowners lease their individual allotted lands.

• Installing conservation buffers can reduce theamount of rental acreage as it takes land out ofproduction. This may result in negative attitudestoward conservation buffers.

• The BIA may not have adequate resources forenforcement of lease agreements should a lesseefail to maintain conservation buffers.

• NRCS and other members of the conservationpartnership may lack awareness and understand-ing of the most effective means of communicat-ing/working with Indian landowners and tribes.This may be especially problematic during initialcontacts.

Strategies

• Request assistance/training from the SocialSciences Institute’s cultural anthropologist and/orlocal experts on how to work effectively withtribal governments. Social Sciences Institutecourse titled ‘T04 – Consultation with AmericanIndian Governments’ can be requested at the SSIWeb site: http://www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/ssi/.Scroll down to training.

• Promote conservation buffers by appealing to thehigh value that Indian landowners and tribesplace on their land and its natural resources forthemselves and future generations.

• Request assistance from the State HistoricalPreservation Officer to ensure that all historical,cultural, and sacred areas are recorded and takeninto consideration in planning for the installationof buffers.

• Offer low cost technologies that are applicable tothe site conditions of Tribes and Indian landown-ers.

• Meet simultaneously, where practical, withlandowner and lessee to identify and agree onappropriate buffer practices.

• Consider using visual media as one means ofcommunication. After use, ask if this is an effec-tive method of communication; modify mediacommunication techniques according to re-sponses.

12

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

References

Brant, Gail. 2001. SSC - trip report, Sugar Creek Water-shed, Anadarko, OK.

Brant, Gail. 1998. Conservation of the 1996 Farm Bill:Social factors influencing implementation ofprograms. USDA, NRCS Social Sciences InstituteTechnical Booklet T013. Also available at http://

www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/ssi/.

Buland, David. 2001. Personal communications. Econo-mist, Natural Resources Inventory and AnalysisInstitute, USDA-NRCS, Temple, TX.

Conservation Technology Information Center. 1997.Conservation technology awareness and use. CTIC,West Lafayette, IN.

Conservation Technology Information Center. 1998. Themultiplier assessment study. CTIC, West Lafayette,IN.

Cropper, James. 2000. Personal communication. Foragemanagement specialist, Grazing Lands TechnologyInstitute, USDA-NRCS, University Park, PA.

Dishongh, Gail. 1995. Windbreaks and ecosystem-basedassistance in the Natural Resource ConservationService. J. Soil and Water Conserv., Vol. 50, No. 3,pp. 249-252.

Dosskey, Mike, Dick Schultz, and Tom Isenhart. 1997.Agroforestry Note 5. USDA National AgroforestryCenter, Lincoln, NE.

Farm Bill Network News. 2002. Use of conservationbuffers. Also available at http://www.fb-net.org/

buf-idx.htm

Farm Service Agency. 2001. Questions and answers:Conservation reserve pogrom continuous signup.Release #14840.00. Also available at http://

www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/news/releases/2000/04/

1484.htm

Faulkner, David. 2000. Personal communication.Virginia state economist, NRCS, Richmond, VA.

Hafs, William C. 2000a. Impacts of agriculture on waterquality in the Green Bay ecosystem and proactiveagriculture approaches to protecting water quality.Presentation to North Carolina State employees andenvironmentalists, North Carolina State University.

• Consider providing technical assistance initiallyin the form of one-on-one contacts (fig. 13).Indian landowners can be presented with a briefdescription and example of how buffers willaffect usable land, including compensation forland taken out of production. Indian landownerscan be approached with an NRCS field staff and atribal representative, such as a member from theTribal Environmental Department. What is to besaid and who is to say what during the one-on-oneassistance should be decided upon in a pre-meeting between NRCS, field staff, and tribalrepresentatives. What is important here is thatNRCS and the tribes are understanding the samemeaning of common terms.

Figure 13—NRCS representative and tribal memberinspect growth and health of grasses.

Conservation of land and water resources is of greatvalue to Indian landowners and tribes, and will serve asa common focal point between NRCS field staff, Indianlandowners, and tribes.

Summary

This publication identified barriers known to impedethe adoption of conservation buffers by all producers,livestock producers, low-income and minority produc-ers, and American Indian producers. Whether NRCSfield staffs are working one-on-one with producers orcooperatively with members of the conservationpartnership, knowledge of these barriers can aid ininfluencing the decisionmaking process relative to theadoption and diffusion of conservation buffers. Thestrategies outlined can serve as a basis for this process.The identified barriers and strategies are by no meansan exhaustive set. The users of this information maywant to customize the material based on local, social,and physical resource characteristics.

13

Adoptio

n o

f Con

servatio

n B

uffe

rs

Hafs, William C. 2000b. Vegetated riparian buffers.Presentation to North Carolina State employees andenvironmentalists, North Carolina State University.

Hodge, Sandra S. 2000a. Agroforestry Extension andOutreach in Missouri: A multi-agency approach intraining and service delivery. Proc. Fields andForest 2000: A Coastal Agroforestry Conf. and TradeShow, Cumberland, British Columbia.

Hodge, Sandra S. 2000b. How rural communities caninform research and development in agroforestry:the importance of social science research. Proc.Fields and Forest 2000: A Coastal AgroforestryConf. and Trade Show, Cumberland, British Colum-bia.

Hodge, Sandra S. 2000c. Personal communication.Professor of Agroforestry, University of MissouriCenter of Agroforestry at Columbia, MO.

Kraft, Steven E., Christopher Lant, and Keith Gillman.1996. WQIP: An assessment of its chances foracceptance by farmers. J. Soil and Water Conserv.,Vol. 51, Iss. 6, pp. 494-498.

Lant, Christopher L., Steven E. Kraft, and Keith R.Gillman. 1995. Enrollment of filter strips andrecharge areas in the CRP and USDA easementprograms. J. Soil and Water Conserv., Vol. 50, Iss. 1,pp. 193-200.

Lyons, J., B.M. Weigel, L.K. Paine, and D.J. Undersander.2000. Influence of intensive rotational grazing onbank erosion, fish habitat quality, and fish communi-ties in southwestern Wisconsin trout streams. J. Soiland Water Conserv., Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 271-276.

Lyons, J., Stanley W. Trimble, and Laura K. Paine. 2000.Grass versus trees: managing riparian areas tobenefit streams of Central North America. J. Amer.Water Resourc. Assoc., Vol. 36, No.4, pp. 919-930.

Makowski, Thomas J. 1999. 8 ways conservationists caninfluence landowners. Conserv. Voices, Vol. 1, No. 6.

Molnar, J., A. Bitto, and G. Brant. 2001. Core conserva-tion practices: adoption barriers perceived by smalland limited resource farmers. Bu. 646, AL Agric.Exp. Sta., Auburn Univ.

Pampel, Fred, Jr., and J.C. van Es. 1977. Environmentalquality and issues of adoption research. RuralSociol., Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 57-71.

Robinson, James. 2001. Personal communication. NRCSagroforester, USDA National Agroforestry Center,Fort Worth, TX.

Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenhart. 2000. BearCreek yields bedrock buffer information. BufferNotes pub. by Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Districts. Alsoavailable at http://www.nacdnet.org/buffers.

Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenhart, W.W. Simpkins,C.W. Mize, and M.L. Thompson. 1995. Design andplacement of a multispecies riparian buffer stripsystem. Agroforestry Systems 29:201-226.

Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, W.W. Simpkins, C.W. Mize,and M.L. Thompson. 1994. Developing amultispecies riparian buffer strip agroforestrysystem. Proc. Riparian Ecosystems in the HumidU.S. - Functions, Values and Management, March 15-18, Atlanta, GA.

United States Department of Agriculture, NaturalResources Conservation Service. 2001. People,Partnership, and Communities Fact Sheet Series.Human aspects of the conservation planningenvironment. No. 23. Available from Social ScienceInstitute web site at http://www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/

ssi/ under fact sheets.

United States Department of Agriculture, NaturalResources Conservation Service. 2000. People,Partnership, and Communities Fact Sheet Series.Barriers and strategies for small-scale producers.No. 41. Available from Social Science Institute website at http://www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/ssi/ underfact sheets.

United States Department of Agriculture, NaturalResources Conservation Service. 1999. Core4conservation practices the common sense approachto natural resource conservation. Part 4, BufferPractices, Ch. 1, pp. 1-2.

United States Department of Agriculture, NaturalResources Conservation Service. 1997. People,Partnership, and Communities Fact Sheet Series.Designing surveys for conservation activities. No.14. Available from Social Science Institute web siteat http://www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/ssi/ under factsheets.

Valdivia, Corinne C., and Sandra S. Hodge. 2000. Factorswhich influence land use management: are smallfarmers in Missouri, USA, willing to adoptagroforestry. 16th Symp. Farming Systems Assoc.,Globalization and Local Development: Challenges toSmall-Scale Production, Santiago, Chile, 27-29.

Wight, Bruce C. 2001. Personal communication. NRCSlead agroforester, USDA National AgroforestryCenter, Lincoln, NE.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, nationalorigin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and IndependenceAvenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.