Skip to main content
Log in

Getting to better water quality outcomes: the promise and challenge of the citizen effect

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agriculture is a major cause of non-point source water pollution in the Midwest. Excessive nitrate, phosphorous, and sediment levels degrade the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico. In this research we ask, to what extent can citizen involvement help solve the problem of non-point source pollution. Does connecting farmers to farmers and to other community members make a difference in moving beyond the status quo? To answer these questions we examine the satisfaction level of Iowa farmers and landowners with their current conservation measures as a proxy for willingness to change. A survey of 360 conservation minded farmers obtained from a random sample of 75 HUC (Hydrologic Unit Code) 12 Iowa watersheds reveals that 27% of the variance among farmers’ perception of adequacy of their conservation practices is explained by a combination of beliefs about the seriousness of water pollution, personal, civic, and expert connections. The more farmers talk with other farmers the more likely they are satisfied with their conservation efforts. However, the more frequently farmers talk to friends and neighbors that don’t farm, the more likely they are to not be satisfied with their conservation efforts. Further, the more social organizations farmers belong to—e.g., more non-farmers they interact with in a group setting—the more likely they are to be dissatisfied with their level of effort being adequate to protect local water bodies. These findings suggest the personal and civic connections among farmers and communities are important in explaining perceptions of how adequate conservation measures are. These perceptions have implications for farmers’ willingness to go beyond current actions and more actively engage in solving local watershed problems and explain why they may not currently be engaged in additional actions.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

HUC:

Hydrologic Unit Code

EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency

NPS:

Non point source

CRP:

Conservation Reserve Program

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

NRCS:

Natural Resource Conservation Service

ISU:

Iowa State University

SWCD:

Soil and Water Conservation District

References

  • Albrecht, D., G. Bultena, E. Hoiberg, and P. Nowak. 1982. The new environmental paradigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education 13: 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H., G.W. Gillespie Jr., and O.W. Larson III. 1981. The social bases of agrarian environmentalism: A comparative analysis of New York and Michigan farm operators. Rural Sociology 46 (3): 391–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flora, C.B. 2004. Social aspects of small water systems. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 128: 6–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J.E. 1990. Knowledge and public policy: The search for meaningful indicators. New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libra, R.D. 1998. Nitrate-nitrogen: Iowa’s unintended export. Iowa Geology, 23. Iowa city: Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, G.D., and K. Thomas. 1982. Rural-urban difference in support for environmental protection. Rural Sociology 47 (1): 114–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, Thomas.A 2004. Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food, and community. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, Thomas A. 2005. Civic agriculture and community problem solving. Culture and Agriculture 27 (2): 92–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCown, R.L. 2005. New thinking about farmer decision makers. In The farmer’s decision, ed. J.L. Hatfield, 11–44. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, L.W. 2003a. Small town services and facilities: The influence of social capital and civic structure on perceptions of quality. City & Community 2 (2): 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, L.W. 2003b. Civic structure. In Encyclopedia of community: From the village to the virtual world, ed. K. Christiansen and D. Levinson, 179–182. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, L.W. 2003c. Civic watershed communities. In Walking towards justice: Democratization in rural life, ed. M.M. Bell, F.T. Hendricks, and A. Bacal, 121–134. Amsterdam: Research in rural sociology and development vol. 9 JAI/Elsevier.

  • Morton, L.W. 2008. The role of civic structure in achieving performance-based watershed management. Society and Natural Resources 21:751–766.http://www.informaworld.com.

  • Morton, L.W., and S. Brown. 2007. Water issues in the Four State Heartland Region: A survey of public perceptions and attitudes about water. Department of sociology, technical report SP289. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, L.W., and S. Padgitt. 2005. Selecting socio-economic metrics for watershed management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 103: 83–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooney, J.G., E. Woodrum, T.J. Hoban, and W.B. Clifford. 2003. Environmental worldview and behavior: Consequences of dimensionality in a survey of North Carolinians. Environment and Behavior 35: 763–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parisi, D., M. Taquino, S.M. Grice, and D.A. Gill. 2004. Civic responsibility and the environment: Linking local conditions to community environmental activeness. Society and Natural Resources 17: 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prilleltensky, I. 1994. The morals and politics of psychology: Psychological discourse and the status quo. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seechi, S., P.W. Gassman, M. Jha, L. Kurkalova, H.H. Fend, T. Campbell, and C.L. Kling. 2007. The cost of cleaner water: Assessing agricultural pollution reduction at the watershed scale. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 62 (1): 10–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay Jr., K.R., and R.E. Dunlap. 1978. Rural-urban residence and concern with environmental quality: A replication and extension. Rural Sociology 43 (3): 474–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA. 2002. National water quality inventory 2000 report. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. http://www.epa.gov/305b/. Accessed 7 Oct 2008.

  • Van Liere, K.D., and R.E. Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. The Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (2): 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, F.W., and T.A. Lyson. 2001. Structural pluralism and all-cause mortality. American Journal of Public Health 91 (1): 136–138.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research is funded by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) United States Department of Agriculture under Agreement No.2002-51130-01515 Heartland Regional Water Quality Coordination Initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lois Wright Morton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morton, L.W., Weng, C.Y. Getting to better water quality outcomes: the promise and challenge of the citizen effect. Agric Hum Values 26, 83–94 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9175-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9175-4

Keywords

Navigation