**SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE ADOPTION**

**OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES**

Frank Clearfield

Sociologist

Barbara T. Osgood

National Sociologist

Soil Conservation Service

Washington, D.C.

1986

SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE ADOPTION

OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES

[CONTENTS]{.underline}

BACKGROUND 1

EXPANDED MODEL FOR ADOPTION OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES 5

Social-Psychological Variables 5

Attitudes 8

Farm Structural Variables 9

Ecological Variables 11

Institutional Variables 14

CONCLUSION 17

REFERENCES 21

**SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE ADOPTION**

**OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES**

**BACKGROUND**

Although economic factors are certainly significant in the decision to
adopt conservation practices, they fail to account for all adoption
behavior. Sociological factors are also significant and, for some
farmers, ranchers, and landowners, even outweigh economic
considerations. Furthermore, in many cases, they establish the context
in which economic factors become significant. Farmers and ranchers
(hereafter farmers will include ranchers) who have a strong conservation
ethic, for example, may be willing to accept reduced profits in return
for the feeling that they have contributed to the welfare of future
generations. Environmentally concerned farmers may also be willing to
invest in practices that will enhance the environmental quality of their
lands and water resources, as well as enhance the economic value of the
land when it is sold or passed on to the next generation. An
understanding of these and other sociological factors is helpful in
developing successful programs for soil and water conservation.

Over the last three decades, research findings on the use/nonuse of
conservation practices have been collected under the adoption-diffusion
theoretical approach. Originally, this research focused on adoption of
commercial, profit-oriented innovations such as hybrid seed corn, soil
testing, and agricultural chemicals (Nowak, 1983). Many of these
innovations were characterized by high capital investments and/or
relatively complex technologies. During the sixties, researchers
developed social-psychological models to determine the characteristics
of the farmers who adopt innovations. These models were used to explain
adoption behavior on the basis of social and psychological
characteristics of individual adopters. The importance of
social-psychological variables was further emphasized by the
international work of Rostow (1960) and McClelland (1961) who offered
explanations of third world development through analyzing personality
characteristics. In all this research, the emphasis was specifically on
explaining behavior through individual action (van Es, 1983).

With regard to agricultural innovations, Everett Rogers has been
instrumental in synthesizing a typology that associated personal
characteristics of farmers with the timing of their adoption/nonadoption
of the innovation in question (Rogers, 1962; 1983; Rogers and Shoemaker,
1971). Critics have argued that this perspective ignores extra-personal
factors such as a farmer\'s ability to purchase the innovation, as well
as relevance of the measure for the particular farm operation. Peter
Nowak (1983) has also pointed out several other weaknesses:
investigators examined the communication process associated with
adoption of innovations as a unidirectional phenomenon \-- from
agricultural institutions to farmers; researchers defined an innovation
as it existed at the time of the study even though subsequent technical
modifications might have changed its adoptability; investigators did not
consider the actual research process that underlay the creation of the
innovation; investigators did not study the social consequences of the
innovations with respect to impacts on people of different socioeconomic
status; and almost all investigators used surveys to gather data, which
may have biased the results with inadequate or unreliable samples.

Adoption of conservation practices has become a central focus of
environmental research in the seventies and eighties. Two things are not
new: (1) the practices themselves and (2) dependence on the
social-psychological model. Some conservation practices are probably as
old as the practice of agriculture, but the institutionalization of soil
and water conservation through the development of standard practices
began with the formation of the Land Grant College System in 1862, the
Cooperative Extension Service in 1914, and the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) in 1935.

During the dust bowl days of the thirties, saving soil was perceived as
profitable because deep, fertile topsoil was considered absolutely
necessary to maintain agricultural productivity. The introduction of
chemical fertilizers and other production innovations has enabled
farmers to maintain or increase productivity in spite of soil loss. At
the same time, public concern for the environment has focused on
off-site impacts of erosion, such as effects on water quality. The
cultural meaning of conservation practices, therefore, has changed
emphasis somewhat from maintaining a productive soil base for a
profitable farm enterprise to looking beyond one\'s own farm boundaries
and protecting the greater environment (Nowak, 1982). Thus, the farmer
or landowner is called upon to adopt conservation practices, not only to
protect his or her [own]{.underline} future, but also to protect
[society\'s]{.underline} future. Because of this change in social
context, old conservation practices can still be considered innovations,
since for many producers they represent new practices. Some practices,
such as conservation tillage, are new practices that became feasible
with the development of herbicides, insecticides, and conservation
tillage equipment.

Researchers continued to use the social-psychological model to explain
adoption of conservation practices in the seventies. However, the
adequacy of the model has been questioned, based on the criticisms cited
earlier. Although there is an on-going debate on whether this
theoretical approach is appropriate to use as an explanation for the
adoption of practices, it is, for the most part, an artificial issue.
Both pro (Nowak, 1983; Heffernan and Green, 1982) and con (Pampel and
van Es, 1977; van Es, 1983) positions, when examined carefully, have
similar concerns and call for similar measures; that is, an expanded
model that still retains social-psychological elements. One issue that
is emphasized differently, however, is the voluntary adoption of
conservation practices. Nowak (1983) feels the social-psychological
model can be used to explain voluntary adoption, while van Es\'s (1983)
position is that the structure of agriculture has changed so much (in
terms of federal support programs, regulations, the increased power of
agribusiness and corporate farms, and the capital intensive nature of
farming) that voluntarism is a romantic concept divorced from the
political and social realities of agriculture.

**EXPANDED MODEL FOR ADOPTION OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES**

An expanded model to explain adoption of conservation practices permits
a balanced presentation of research findings that represents what are,
in essence, four major sets of explanatory variables:
social-psychological, farm structural, ecological, and institutional.
Research already exists in each category, which indicates the model has
already been expanded by empirical studies.

It should be noted that, while many of these research studies have
identified variables with statistical significance relative to the
adoption of conservation practices, the variance explained is small.
This frequently occurs in social science research, and demonstrates the
complex task of the behavioral researcher who is attempting to develop
predictive models.

**SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES**

The social psychological variables associated with conservation use fall
into two subcategories: individual level characteristics of the farmers)
and attitude variables. Characteristics of farmers include age, years
farming, education, off-farm employment, and social participation
(defined as the number of farm organizations to which a farmer belongs).
Age, a commonly used independent variable in research on adoption of
innovations (Rogers, 1983), has been used to try to explain conservation
behavior, but with dubious success. Research results show a varied
relationship between age and conservation behavior. Some studies have
found that older farmers are more likely to be SCS cooperators and
adopters of no-tillage techniques (Hoover and Wiitala, 1980; Lasley and
Nolan, 1981), but other studies find no relationship between age and use
of conservation practices (Carlson, et al., 1981). Still other studies
show that younger farmers are more likely to adopt conservation
practices. Nowak and Korshing (1983) argue that younger farmers are more
likely to adopt reduced tillage technologies, while older farmers are
more likely to adopt structural practices and other cultural practices
such as grass waterways and stripcropping. This age-selective adoption
may account for the lack of a relationship in other studies.

Some studies indicate that the number of years farming has a positive
and significant relationship with the use of conservation practices, at
least in the early years (Abd-Ella, 1981), while others show that
experienced farmers are more likely to rely on traditional tillage
practices (Miranowski, 1981). More research needs to be conducted on
both age and length of time farming. It is possible that even though
there is a positive relationship between these variables, the
relationship may be nonlinear (Basu, et al., 1982).

A positive association has been found between education and the use of
conservation practices (Carlson et al, 1981; Ervin and Ervin, 1982;
Pampel and van Es, 1977). In addition to the use of practices, education
is positively related to perception of erosion problems, knowledge of
government projects, and positive attitude toward these projects (Ervin
and Ervin, 1982; Taylor and Miller, 1978).

Off-farm employment is negatively related to both the use of
conservation practices (Ervin and Ervin, 1982) and the decision to adopt
conservation practices (Taylor and Miller, 1978). (Both use and decision
to [adopt]{.underline} have been used as dependent variables in research
studies to measure adoption.) Several variables, when controlled, could
help explain this negative relationship. Controlling for both size of
farm and farm income might reveal that data on small, part-time farmers
have masked the relationship between part-time farmers operating larger
farms and adoption of conservation practices. [Type]{.underline} of
non-farm occupation could also affect conservation behavior:
professional part-timers might be more likely to adopt because of higher
education levels and availability of cash income. Other factors, such as
the number of hired farm laborers and hours of off-farm employment might
also be important factors. Unfortunately, researchers have not examined
these relationships in depth.

Social participation such as membership in local organizations has a
positive relationship with the use of conservation practices (Abd-Ella
et at., 1981; Clearfield, 1983; Korsching et al., 1981). Farmers who are
local opinion leaders are also more likely than other farmers to adopt
conservation practices (Lovejoy and Parent, 1981). This is probably
related to the fact that local leaders tend to be better-educated,
manage larger farms, and have a good understanding of soil erosion
problems.

**ATTITUDES**

Although attitudes are treated separately here, they are related to
individual level variables as well as farm structural variables. One
must remember that an attitude is defined only as \"a predisposition to
act\" and does not always represent one\'s behavior. Some farmers may
have strong conservation attitudes but may not follow through on these
attitudes due to financial limitations, lack of information, etc.

Four attitude variables have been examined in research studies in
relationship to use of conservation practices: stewardship, risk
orientation, non-economic orientation toward farming, and attitudes
toward government involvement. Stewardship, or the belief that farmers
have a moral obligation to protect natural resources, is positively
associated with the use of conservation practices (Ervin and Ervin,
1982; Nowak, 1982c). However, the influence of stewardship (or the
\"conservation ethic\") on the actual use of practices appears to be
declining. One recent study has determined that other factors, such as
economic returns, are far more influential in the adoption of practices
(Carlson et al., 1985).

Risk orientation, (defined as the likelihood one will take chances) has
been positively related to use of conservation practices (Ervin and
Ervin, 1982, Nowak and Korsching, 1981). However, Napier et al. (1985)
found that farmers who were most concerned about environmental issues
also were the most risk averse, noting that risk of adoption will
probably have to be reduced before these farmers will use conservation
practices. Economic orientation toward farming (a farmer who places a
high value on being one\'s own boss) is also positively related to use
of practices (Ervin and Ervin, 1982), and significantly related to
concern with soil erosion (Buttel et al., 1981).

Farmers have mixed attitudes toward government involvement in
agriculture. On the one hand, farmers generally do not support any type
of legal pollution controls. Furthermore, if the economic situation for
farmers worsens, they become even less supportive of government
intervention that has a regulatory flavor to it (Marsh and Christenson,
1977). On the other hand, most farmers feel the government is
responsible for funding conservation.

**FARM STRUCTURAL VARIABLES**

Farm structural variables related to the adoption of conservation
practices include: size of operation, net income/farm sales debt levels,
tenure, and farm specialization/diversification. Overall, studies on
farm size and the use of practices show either a significant effect
(Nowak and Korsching, 1981; Abd-Ella et al.,- 1981) or a strong positive
relationship (Carlson et al., 1981; Choi and Coughenour, 1979;
Coughenour and Kothari, 1962; Ervin and Ervin, 1982; Pampel and van Es,
1977). Most studies indicate the larger the farm size and the more
income produced by the farm enterprise, the greater the use of
conservation practices.

Early studies in adoption have shown a positive relationship between a
farmer\'s use of credit and use of conservation practices. These studies
were concluded, however, before the credit conditions that are prevalent
in agriculture today. It can be expected that farmers with high debt
levels will be more concerned than ever about profit maximization.
Practices that can be shown to maintain or increase profits (such as
conservation tillage) will be more likely to be adopted than more costly
conservation practices. High debt loads will further impact soil and
water conservation efforts due to the inability of farmers to maintain
existing practices. High debt will also increase pressure on farmers to
plant more row crops on marginal land.

Some studies associating farm tenure (owning or renting) to use of
conservation practices show that ownership is significantly related to
use of profitable practices but not to use of unprofitable practices
(Pampel and van Es, 1977). Even when practices are not controlled for
profitability, the relationship of farm ownership and use of
conservation practices has been found to be in a positive direction
(Abd-Ella, 1981; Carlson et al., 1981). Ervin (1985) maintains that
\"Despite past and present investigators\' efforts, the question of
whether rented land receives less, the same or more erosion control than
owner-operated land remains an enigma \... Nonetheless, theory and
empirical evidence suggest that erosion control decisions on rented land
will differ markedly from similar owner-operator decisions.\"

Also related to ownership is family participation in the farm operation.
When families have common aspirations regarding the future of the farm,
use of conservation practices is significantly higher (Abd-Ella et al.,
1981; Carlson and Dillman, 1983). Family size is also positively related
to the number of practices used, as is the degree to which married
couples share in farm decisions and the degree to which the family is
involved in gathering farm-related information (Abd-Ella et al., 1981;
Pampel and van Es, 1977).

Research concerning the relationship between the degree of farm
specialization/diversification and use of conservation practices shows
mixed results. One study found more specialized farms used significantly
fewer practices and expended little effort in reducing soil erosion
(Ervin and Ervin, 1982). A second study found that, the more specialized
a farm, the greater the number of practices used (Abd-Ella et al.,
1981).

**ECOLOGICAL VARIABLES**

Two factors are important when considering the effect ecology has on
adoption of conservation practices: (1) actual soil erosion conditions,
and (2) perception of those conditions. Research findings are mixed,
perhaps because of the variability in research techniques and the
research definition of the erosion problem. Some researchers have
calculated erosion rates on study farms, using the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE), while others have accepted the farmer\'s evaluation of
erosion conditions. When the USLE was used to evaluate erosion, one
study found that soil erosion was not a significant explanatory variable
relative to adoption of practices (Nowak and Korsching, 1981). Another
study found a significant relationship between erosion potential and a
farmer\'s effort in reducing the erosion problem (defined as the
difference between the worst erosion possible and actual erosion) but
not to the number of conservation practices used (Ervin and Ervin,
1982).

A longitudinal study that compared farmers\' perceptions of their
erosion problems with objective evaluations by SCS personnel (Hoover et
al., 1982) found considerable differences in evaluation between farmers
and soil conservationists. These differences decreased with intensified
financial, educational, and technical assistance. In 1971, only 1
percent of the farmers felt soil erosion was a \"major problem\" on
their farm, while SCS personnel estimated that 85 percent of the farms
were in this category. In 1982, after 11 years of conservation efforts,
20 percent of the operators felt soil erosion was a major problem while
SCS conservationists estimated 57 percent. What seems important is that
a perception of the problem is a prerequisite to conservation efforts.
In other words, perception of a problem is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for the adoption of conservation practices.

Recent research has shown that the pattern of perception of soil erosion
exhibits the \"proximity effect;\" that is, farmers and landowners are
more likely to identify erosion as a problem somewhere other than on
their own farm. Farmers are most likely to identify erosion as a problem
in their county, somewhat less likely to identify it as a problem in
their community, and even less likely to identify it as a problem on
their own farm (Bultena et al., 1984). There may be several reasons for
this discrepancy. For one, farmers may not have an erosion problem on
their own farm. (Research upon which the \"proximity effect\" hypothesis
has been based did not involve actual,, on-farm evaluations of erosion.)
Second, farmers may not be aware of the magnitude of erosion on the farm
because sheet and rill erosion is not characterized by large gullies and
dramatic soil losses. Third, there may be a desire on the part of
farmers to deny the problem in order to reduce the psychological stress
resulting from their failure to-act.

Another aspect of perception is the fact that farmers frequently
overestimate the extent to which they are practicing good soil
conservation. This is especially true in regard to conservation tillage.
Nowak and Korsching (1985) have found that farmers consider themselves
to be using conservation tillage when they use conservation tillage
equipment or reduce the number of passes over the field, even though
residue on the field is far below the standard for conservation tillage.

If, as the research indicates, there is a widespread lack of awareness
of erosion problems and of effective conservation practices, then
education and technical assistance must be provided before the process
of adoption can begin. Some researchers have referred to this as the
\"supply\" side of the adoption process rather than the \"demand\" side.
The \"supply\" side of the adoption process considers the ways by which
innovations and information about them are made available to individuals
or households through agencies and their implementation strategies
(Brown, 1981). Institutional variables are more likely to be related to
the supply side of the adoption process. The \"demand\" side emphasizes
adoption of an innovation as an outcome of an individual learning or
communications process determined primarily by individual and/or farm
unit characteristics.

**INSTITUTIONAL VARIABLES**

Of all the variables affecting the adoption of conservation practices,
institutional variables are among the most influential, yet they are the
least defined, the most difficult to document, and the least researched.
In the long run, however, institutional factors may have the greatest
impact on adoption and use of conservation practices. Social scientists
who gathered at the 1982 RCA Symposium called attention to the
inconsistencies and conflicts between conservation and production goals
of USDA agencies, and called for research to evaluate and identify the
institutional barriers to conservation (English, et al., 1984). The 1985
Farm Bill addresses some -of these concerns with its \"Sodbuster\".
\"Swampbuster\", and Conservation Reserve features.

RCA Symposium participants also cited a need to \"break down barriers
among institutions involved in soil and water conservation by
strengthening decentralization of program control and development of
multi-agency planning at the local level\" (English, et al., 1984).
Recent research has shown that, although conservation agencies are
frequently selected as likely sources of needed conservation
information, there is confusion about the types of assistance available
from individual agencies (Bultena, et al., 1984).

In general, the higher the number of institutional contacts, the greater
the likelihood farmers will use conservation practices (Abd-Ella et.
al.1 1981, Clearfield, 1983; Nowak and Korsching, 1981). Ervin and Ervin
(1982) found that farmers who are SCS cooperators or who have an SCS
conservation plan are more likely to use conservation practices.

As one would expect, cost-sharing programs have been found to have a
substantial effect on use of conservation practices. Studies of several
demonstration projects show that there is a significant relationship
between the number of conservation practices subsidized and the use of
practices (Nowak and Korsching, 1981; Ervin and Ervin, 1982; Hoover et
al., 1982). However, [perceptions]{.underline} of economic feasibility
may be as important to the adoption process as actual economic
feasibility (Clearfield, 1983). Erwin and Alexander (1981) found that,
except for no-till planting and contour stripcropping, a majority of the
farmers interviewed perceived that other conservation practices were
economically profitable. They point out that \"\...one can argue that
perceptions of economic profitability are of utmost importance for
adoption. Once the practice has been adopted then performance (i.e.,
realized returns versus costs) will determine continued use.\" Research
on cost-share rates is very limited. It exists mostly in the form of
case studies and tends to be site- and practice- specific. More
broad-based research needs to be done in this area before any general
statements can be made for the purpose of policy development.

Although the influence of institutional factors on adoption of
conservation practices remains a relatively unexplored area of research,
there is considerable interest in the \"supply\" side of the adoption
model. Extrapolation of results from studies of adoption in other areas
suggests that the market approach, in which emphasis is placed on
information, technical and financial assistance, and target clienteles,
might achieve greater application of conservation practices. Lawrence
Brown (1981) refers to this as the \"Market and Infrastructure
Perspective,\" explaining that \"individual behavior does not represent
free will so much as choices within a constraint set and (that) it is
government and private institutions which establish and control the
constraints.\" He has proposed three stages in the diffusion process as
(1) establishment of diffusion agencies through which the innovation is
distributed to the population at large, (2) implementation of an agency
strategy to induce adoption, and (3) adoption of the innovation.

Several recent research studies have used this concept as the basis for
examining information sources, relationships among conservation agencies
and Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and characteristics of target
clienteles. (Bultena et al., 1984; Korsching and Hoban, 1984). They have
cited the need to see farmers as \"segmented\" rather than \"mass\"
audiences, and to target information and technical assistance to
sub-groups based on their common needs,, characteristics, stages in
decision-making, etc. This approach may be particularly relevant as
conservation agencies focus their assistance on areas with the most
critical resource problems where it may be necessary to work with a
variety of client groups. Knowledge of these new clienteles - their
needs, values, information sources, etc. - will enable agency personnel
to develop more successful strategies to market conservation. As Burch
and DeLuca (1984) have stated, \"Research on innovation-adoption
suggests a complimentarily between (the) two sources of information.
[Mass media make the innovation known, but interpersonal sources make it
respectable]{.underline}. Early adopters appear to have greater exposure
both to mass media and to interpersonal sources of information.\"

**[CONCLUSION]{.underline}**

Recent research in the area of adoption of soil and water conservation
has provided useful information for program implementation. Several
characteristics of likely adopters have been identified. We know, for
example, that adopters of conservation practices are likely to be

well-educated, full-time farmers with a high level of organizational
participation. We also know that farmers who possess the \"conservation
ethic\" - that is, those concerned with preserving the land for future
generations - will also be more likely to adopt, although other factors,
such as risk aversion, may intervene. Other characteristics, such as
farm ownership, family participation and awareness of erosion problems
are also typical of adopters.

This profile of most likely adopters enables agency personnel in the
field to evaluate the clientele in a particular area and estimate the
likelihood that recommended conservation practices will be accepted and
applied. If the level of \"adopter characteristics\" is high, there may
be little need for intensified technical assistance, cost sharing or
other program implementation strategies.

It is possible, however, that agency efforts have already reached many
of these early adopters. A recent evaluation of the SCS Conservation
Technical Assistance (CTA) Program shows that half of CTA planning
assistance in 1983 was provided to those who have been district
cooperators for at least 3 years.. almost three-fourths of CTA direct
assistance was provided to owner-operators and more than one-half of CTA
direct assistance was provided to full-time farmers (USDA, 1985). These
are the \"ready, willing and able\" farmers and landowners with whom SCS
technical personnel have worked for the last 50 years.

The National Conservation Program, since 1983, has focused attention on
the most critical problem areas and provided the impetus for a
redirection of SCS program activities. This redirection has necessitated
a shift from the \"first come, first served\" clientele of earlier days
to a different clientele - one that may or may not include farmers and
landowners with high adopter characteristics. This shift is reflected in
the SCS evaluation of targeted areas: CTA direct assistance time was
proportionately higher for landlords, non-farmers, and those who were
not conservation district cooperators (USDA, 1985).

Sociological research indicates to us that redirecting our efforts to
new clienteles may not be easy, and that special implementation
strategies may be needed to achieve high levels of adoption. The
research confirms that the American farming community (and therefore
agency clientele) is less and less the homogeneous group of full-time
family farmers that comprise the popular American image of \"farmer\",
and more and more a heterogeneous group composed of large, corporate
farmers, part-time farmers, farm managers and absentee landowners. This
warrants an additional shift in the focus of the adoption-diffusion
model from the social-psychological perspective to a marketing
perspective, which, in paralleling structural change in agriculture, can
begin to provide information that can help the agency achieve success
with new clienteles) such as:

1.  Farmers should be viewed as a \"segmented\", rather than a \"mass\"
    audience.

2.  Farmers need \"personalized\" information and technical assistance
    that will help them increase their awareness and recognize sheet and
    rill erosion as a problem on their own farm.

3.  Farmers need information and technical assistance that will help
    them evaluate the economic impacts of proposed conservation systems
    on their operation.

4.  The \"mass media,\" especially farm magazines, should be used in
    greater amounts for the dissemination of conservation information in
    the early stages of adoption.

5.  The role of the various agencies involved in conservation should be
    clarified, common goals among the agencies firmly established, and a
    teamwork approach of [public]{.underline} and [private]{.underline}
    organizations at the local level emphasized.

6.  Implementation strategies and marketing approaches should be
    targeted to the needs, abilities and attitudes of different
    clienteles. (For example, absentee landowners, part-time farmers).

7.  Obstacles to conservation (such as tradition, perceived costs, and
    risk aversion) should be identified by local farmers and dealt with
    as part of the program implementation process.

8.  An evaluation of the \"best mix\" of technical, educational, and
    financial assistance should be considered in relation to the
    socioeconomic characteristics of local community members. This could
    involve sharing agency personnel, highly coordinated information
    campaigns, and innovative financing measures.

9.  Potential and existing interpersonal networks among farmers,
    ranchers and other land users should be used to help disseminate
    conservation information, especially in the later stages of
    adoption, and to expand participation among a wide variety of local
    groups.

These, and other findings from sociological research can provide SCS
with the bases for developing program implementation strategies that can
continue to get conservation on the land and provide for maintenance of
existing systems in the long term.

**[REFERENCES]{.underline}**

Abd-Ella, Mokhtar M. , Eric 0. Hoiberg and Richard D. Warren. 1981.
[Adoption Behavior]{.underline} in [Family Farm Systems:]{.underline}
[An Iowa Study]{.underline}. Journal of Rural Sociology. 46: 42-61.

Basu, Arun C. , Barbara T. Osgood and Jacquelyne D. Diggs. 1982.
[Background Paper]{.underline} on [Adoption]{.underline} and [Diffusion
of]{.underline} Soil [and]{.underline} Water [Conservation Practices for
the 1985 RCA Process]{.underline}. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept.
of Agricult7dre, Washington, D.C.

Brown, Lawrence A. 1981. [Innovation Diffusion: A New
Perspective]{.underline}. New York: Methuen.

Bultena, Gordon, Eric 0. Hoiberg and Peter J. Nowak. 1984. Sources [of
Conservation Information and Participation in Conservation Programs: An
Interregional Analysis]{.underline}. Sociology Report No. 156, Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa.

Burch, William R., Jr. and Donald R. DeLuca. 1984. [Measuring the Social
Impact of Natural Resource Policies]{.underline}. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Buttel, Frederick H., Gilbert W. Gillespie, Jr., Oscar W. Larson III,
and Craig K. Harris. 1981. The [Social Bases]{.underline} of [Agrarian
Environmentalism:]{.underline} A [Comparative Analysis of New York and
Michigan Farm Operators.]{.underline}. Rural Sociology. 46 (Fall):
392-410.

Carlson,, John E. and Don A. Dillman. 1983. [Influence]{.underline} of
[Kinship Arrangements]{.underline} on [Farmer
Innovativeness]{.underline}. Rural Sociology. 48: 183-200.

Carlson, John E., Don A. Dillman and William R. Lassey. 1981.
[The]{.underline} Farmer [and Erosion: Factors Influencing the Use of
Control Practices]{.underline}. Bulletin No. 601, Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Carlson, John E., Don A. Dillman, Donald M. Beck, and C. Ellen Lamiman.
1985. [Early Adopters]{.underline} and Non-Users of [No-Till in the
Pacific Northwest]{.underline}. Report prepared for the Soil
Conservation Service by the Department of Rural Sociology, Washington
State University and Department of Agricultural Economics, University of
Idaho.

Clearfield, Frank. 1983. [Adoption of Conservation Practices: Review and
New Findings]{.underline}. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Rural Sociological Society, Lexington, Kentucky.

Coughenour, C.M. and K.B. Kothari. 1962. [What Bluegrass Farmers
Think]{.underline} are [the Conditions]{.underline} for USDA [Soil
Conservation]{.underline} and [Soil-Building Practices]{.underline}.
Progress Report 120, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Dorow, Norbert A. 1984. The [Farm Structure of the Future:]{.underline}
Trends [and]{.underline} Issues. Paper No. 17, The Farm and Food System
in Transition: Emerging Policy Issues. Cooperative Extension, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

English, Burton C. , James A. Maetzold, Brian R. Holding and Earl 0.
Heady. 1983. [RCA]{.underline} \' [Symposium:]{.underline} Future
[Agricultural Technology and Resource Conservation]{.underline} -
[Executive Summary]{.underline}. Center for Agricultural and Rural
Development, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Ervin, David E. 1982. Soil [Erosion Control on Owner-Operated and Rented
Cropland]{.underline}. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 37:
285-288.

1985\. [Constraints to Practicing Soil Conservation:]{.underline} Land
Tenure Relationships. Paper presented at NC-162 Symposium, Zion,
Illinois.

Ervin, David E. and Charles T. Alexander. 1981. [Soil
Erosion]{.underline} and [Conservation]{.underline} in [Monroe
County]{.underline}, Missouri: Farmers\' [Perceptions, Attitudes and
Performances]{.underline}. Dept. of Agricultural Economics, University
of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

Heffernan, William and Gary Green. 1982. [Applicability]{.underline} of
the [Adoption Diffusion]{.underline} Model [to Resource
Conservation:]{.underline} The Pro Position. Paper presented ;t-the
Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, San Francisco,
California.

Hoban, Thomas J. and Peter F. Korsching. 1985. [Social and]{.underline}
Land [Tenure Changes: Implications for Extension\'s Role in
Conservation]{.underline}. Presentation for Cooperative Extension
regional conference, St. Louis, Missouri.

Hoover, Herbert and Marc Wiitala. 1980. [Operator and Landlord
Participation]{.underline} in [Soil Erosion Control]{.underline} in the
Maple [Creek Watershed in Northeast Nebraska]{.underline}. Staff Report
NRED 80-84, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Hoover, Herbert, Russell Schultz and Krista Reed. 1982. [Farmer
Attitudes Toward Soil Conservation and Water Quality: Has
Government]{.underline} Made a [Difference?]{.underline} Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Soil Conservation Society of America, New
Orleans, Louisiana.

Korsching, Peter F., Thomas J. Hoban and Jane Maestro-Scherer. 1985.
[The Selling of Soil Conservation: A]{.underline} Test [of the Voluntary
Approach, Volume 1]{.underline}. Sociology Report 151, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa.

Korsching, Peter F., Curtis Stofferahn, Peter Nowak and Donald Wagener.
1981. [A Comparison]{.underline} of [Adopters]{.underline} of
Conservation [Practices with Traditional Innovation Adopter
Categories]{.underline}. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Rural Sociological Society, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Lasley, Paul and Michael Nolan. 1981. [Landowner Attitudes Toward Soil
and Water Conservation]{.underline} in [the Grindstone]{.underline} -
[Lost]{.underline} - [Muddy Creek Project]{.underline}. Report
C-2-50347, Dept. of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri, Columbia,
Missouri.

Lovejoy, Stephen B. and Dale Parent. 1981. Social [Aspects]{.underline}
of a [Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program: A Panel Study
Of -the Black Creek Project]{.underline}. Experiment Station Bulletin
No. 350, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, Indiana.

Marsh, C. Paul and James A. Christenson. 1977. Support for
[Economic]{.underline} Growth and [Environmental]{.underline}
[Protection,]{.underline} [1973-1975]{.underline}. Rural Sociology.
*2.101-167-.* -

McClelland, David. 1961. The Achieving Society van Nostrand, Princeton,
N.J.

Miranowski, John, Michael Monson, James Shortle and Lee D. Zinser. 1981.
[Effect of Agricultural Land Use Practices on Stream Water Quality:
Economic Analysis]{.underline}. Iowa State University; Ames, Iowa.

Napier, Ted and D. Lynn Forster. 1985. Farmer [Attitudes and Behavior
Associated with Soil Erosion]{.underline} Control. In: Halcrow, Harold,
Earl 0. Heady and Melvin L. Cotner (eds.). Soil Conservation Policies,
Institutions and Incentives. Soil Conservation Society of America,
Ankeny, Iowa.

Napier, Ted L., Silvana, Camboni and Cameron S. Thraen. 1985. Factors
[Associated]{.underline} with [the Importance]{.underline} Placed [on
Environmental Concern in the Adoption]{.underline} of Farm
[Technologies]{.underline} and [Techniques]{.underline}. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of The Southern Association of Agricultural
Scientists, Biloxi, Mississippi.

Norris, Patricia E. and Sandra S. Batie. 1985. [Factors Influencing the
Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices.: A Virginia Case
Study]{.underline}. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural
Sociological Society, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Nowak, Peter J. 1982. [Applicability of an Adoption]{.underline} -
[Diffusion Model to Resource Conservation:]{.underline} A [Supporting
View]{.underline} - Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural
Sociological Society, San Francisco, California.

1982b. [Social Dimensions in the Adoption of Soil and Water
Conservation]{.underline}

[Practices]{.underline}. Position paper prepared for the Soil
Conservation Service.

Nowak, Peter J. and Peter F. Korshing. 1981. [Social and Institutional
Factors Affecting the Adoption and Maintenance of Agricultural
BMP\'S]{.underline}. Journal paper No. J-10379, Iowa Agriculture and
Home Economics Experiment Stations, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

1985\. [Conservation Tillage: Revolution]{.underline} or Evolution?
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

Pampel, Fred, Jr. and J. C. van Es. 1977. [Environmental Quality and
Issues of Adoption Research]{.underline}. Rural Sociology. 42: 57-71.

Rogers, Everett. 1962. [Diffusion of Innovations]{.underline}. The Free
Press, New York, N.Y.

1983. [Diffusion of Innovations]{.underline}. Third Edition. The Free
      Press, New York, N.Y.

Rogers, Everett and F.F. Shoemaker. 1971. [Communication]{.underline} of
[Innovations:]{.underline} A Cross - [Cultural Approach]{.underline}.
Second edition. The Free Press, New York, N.Y.-

Rostow, W. 1960. [The Stages of Economic Growth]{.underline}. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England.

Taylor, David L. and William L. Miller. 1978. [The Adoption Process and
Environmental Innovations. A Case Study of a Government
Project]{.underline}. Rural Sociology, 43: 634-648.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1985.

[Evaluation]{.underline} of [Conservation Technical
Assistance]{.underline}. Part [I:]{.underline} [National]{.underline}

[Summary]{.underline}. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

van Es, J. C. 1982. The Adoption/Diffusion Tradition Applied to Resource
Conservation: Inappropriate Use of Existing Knowledge. Paper-presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Rural- Sociological Society, San Francisco,
California.

1983\. The [Adoption/Diffusion Tradition Applied to Resource
Conservation: Inappropriate]{.underline} Use [of Existing
Knowledge]{.underline}. The Rural Sociologist. 3:76-82.