Many grassroots efforts across the U.S. are converging on a balance between ecological systems and cultural backgrounds for watershed management. Watershed planning requires the integration of biophysical, social and economic resources and information. Although research and technology are available with the overall intentions of improving water quality, many stakeholders are hesitant to implement best management practices (BMPs). It is important that human dimensions be incorporated into each phase of the planning process to increase a sense of ownership of the plan and successful implementation of plan conservation practices. Effective management plans are inclusive of resources within the respective watersheds but must also include local stakeholder knowledge and values for successful implementation. The objectives of this study were to identify the motivations for and constraints to adopting conservation practices by agricultural producers in the Rayse Creek watershed and secondly, to address the influence of cost-share programs on the producers' adoption behaviors. The study also examined adoption behaviors when cost-share programs were available. Seventeen Rayse Creek agricultural producers were interviewed between June 14 and September 21, 2005. Snowball sampling techniques were used to recruit participants. Those interviewed either rented or owned small farms (800 acres or less) or large farms (1000 acres or more) in the watershed. A short survey was administered to gather participant characteristics such as zip code, age, income, and level of education. Each interview was transcribed verbatim and qualitative analysis procedures were used for coding, extracting themes, and developing a conceptual framework for identifying and interpreting meanings (Marshall and Rossman 1999). The findings from this research reflect the perceptions of the agricultural producers from the Rayse Creek watershed in southern Illinois. The primary motivations for adoption were related to the financial, environmental and time-saving benefits perceived to be associated with implementing conservation practices. Participants admitted that they implemented conservation practices because the cost-share programs supplied them with additional money, the program's practices kept soil on their land and also allowed them to finish their work in the fields quicker. The constraints that emerged were associated with perceptions that producers were already doing enough to conserve, that practices were unsuitable for their land and farming systems, and that these practices caused financial burden and were time consuming. Information about the environmental benefits of cost-share programs was available; however, an individual's values and market economics can take precedence when deciding to adopt conservation practices. The implications from this study need to be considered by agency personnel and land managers when developing policies and watershed implementation plans in agriculturally dominated watersheds similar to Rayse Creek. In addition, cost-share programs should emphasize the long-term benefits of conservation practices versus merely touting the short-term financial incentives.

Water conservation practices are being widely implemented to alleviate sediment and nutrient losses from agricultural land and unsustainable groundwater use for irrigation. Tailwater recovery (TWR) systems are conservation practices being implemented to collect and store runoff to reduce nutrient losses and provide a source of irrigation water. This collection of research is focused on evaluating TWR systems through the following actions: 1) investigate ability to reduce solids and nutrients delivery to downstream systems, 2) compare differences in solid and nutrient concentrations in surface water samples from TWR systems to irrigation water from a TWR systems; 3) determine the potential to irrigate water containing solids and nutrients; 4) quantify a water budget for TWR systems; 5) conduct cost and benefit analyses of TWR systems; and 6) analyze economic cost to reduce solids and nutrients and to retain water. Tailwater recovery systems did not significantly reduce concentrations of solids and nutrients; however, loads of solids, P, and N were significantly reduced by 43%, 32% and 44%, respectively. Mean nutrient loads per hectare available to be recycled onto the landscape were 0.20 kg ha-1 P and 0.86 kg ha-1 N. Water budget analyses show these systems save water for irrigation but were inefficient. Net present value (NPV) and benefit cost ratios were positive and >1 for producers who owned the land, but remained <1 if land was rented. However, beyond improvements to irrigation infrastructure, farms with a TWR system installed lost NPV of $51 to $328 per ha. Mean total cost to reduce solids using TWR systems ranged from $0 to $0.77 per kg, P was $0.61 to $3,315.72 per kg, and N was $0.13 to $396.44 per kg. The mean total cost to save water using TWR systems ranged from $189.73 to $628.23 per ML, compared to a mean cost of groundwater of $13.99 to $36.17 per ML. Mechanistically, TWR systems retain runoff on the agricultural landscape, thereby reducing the amount of sediment and nutrients entering downstream waterbodies and provide an additional source of water for irrigation; however, more cost-effective practices exist for nutrient reduction and providing water for irrigation.

Shelterbelts were established in the Canadian Prairies as a means to protect soil from wind erosion. Knowledge gaps remain about shelterbelts' ecosystem services to the agro-landscape, hence hiding farmers' trade-offs in a changing agriculture. This research first investigated shelterbelts' effect on soil biological activity and fertility. Soil samples were collected in September 2012 from sheltered and non-sheltered fields in the Rural Municipality of Stanley, Manitoba. Results showed that shelterbelts promote higher soil biological activity, potentially correlated to the enhanced organic matter and micro-climate adjacent to shelterbelts. A survey was then conducted to explore shelterbelts' cultural services to the local community. Results indicated that while shelterbelts were perceived to significantly benefit community well-being, they were mainly recognised for agricultural functions. We conclude that shelterbelts are a significant element of both supporting and cultural ecosystem services, contributing to the prairie agro-system resilience. Further research and quantification of shelterbelts' socio-ecological services is recommended.

<p>1st essay abstract:   </p> <p>This study investigates the economic rents of the wind energy industry in the U.S. and their economic impacts on local economies, using Benton and White counties in Indiana as study regions. By calibrating a partial equilibrium model using 2007-2010 data of the industry, we find a resource rent of $9.72/MWh. We then use a general equilibrium model with Dutch Disease features to study the optimal tax levied on this rent, and the economic impacts of redistributing the tax revenues back to the county residents. An exhaustive rent tax increases real county personal income by as high as 9.1% and as low as 2%, depending on the county’s features. Applying an incentive compatible resource rent tax rate and redistributing the revenues to the county’s laborers leads to an increase of 3.5% and 16% in their income in White and Benton counties, respectively. We also perform robustness checks by allowing labor mobility between counties to examine the impacts of resource rents on the county economy under endogenous labor growth. </p> <p>1st essay data: All data acquired comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, county Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Indeed.com, news articles, and wind developers websites.</p> <p><br></p> <p>2nd essay abstract:   </p> <p>Using the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model, we estimate the deadweight loss imposed by county-level wind power development restrictions in the form of increased electricity costs due to suboptimal siting. This is accomplished by optimizing the power system of the United States' Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) from 2020 to 2050. We perform the optimization with and without land-use constraints arising from simulated potential local ordinances restricting wind power development, and under multiple scenarios reflecting different renewable portfolio standards (RPS). We find that local restrictions on wind power increase the total system cost by 0.15%-0.3% and the wholesale electricity price by 1.8%-2.7%, depending on the RPS scenario. Changes in the generation and installed capacity mixes are more substantial and depend on both the level of county restrictions on wind power, and RPS requirements, thus indicating an interaction between RPS requirements and local wind power restrictions. We also find that plausible restrictions on wind development do not pose major barriers to meeting renewable energy targets in a cost-effective manner.</p> <p>2nd essay data: All data is embedded inside the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.</p> <p><br></p> <p>3rd essay abstract:   </p> <p>The USDA promotes adoption of conservation practices beneficial for soil health and environment through agricultural cost-share payment programs such as EQIP or CSP. Although the efficiency of these programs has been evaluated through additionality estimates, which represent the percentage of farmers who would adopt a practice only with payments, the potential complementarities between certain combinations of practices have often been overlooked. Unaccounted for, these complementarities may impact additionality estimates. This paper provides a thorough investigation of additionality estimates of common practices, including no-till, nutrient management and cover crops, accounting for potential complementarities between them. We find no significant differences between traditional additionality estimates and estimates accounted for potential complementarities between the three practices. The results thus indicate that despite agronomic evidence of synergies in co-adopting these three practices, we find no solid indication of adoption complementarity between them in reality. </p> <p>3rd essay data: Data is acquired from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Esri maps.</p>

(in english): Modern agriculture faces soil erosion as one of its problems in the Czech Republic. Soil conservation practices are implemented to prevent erosion. This thesis reports on perception of the soil conservation practices by farmers themselves. Hypothesis of the research is based on declaration of organic farming in the Czech Republic: to specifically protect natural sources. Main research question is: Is there a difference in perception of soil conservation practices between certified organic farmers and farmers using conventional methods? As a concept to examine perception, this thesis uses the theory of planned behavior developed by Icek Ajzen. Results show that farmers' attitudes towards soil conservation practices in general are negative. Their attitudes can be explained by intermingling beliefs about erosion, the agriculture subsidy system and own soil quality. Specific practices are evaluated by other than anti-erosion effects. The farmers do not perceive social pressure from their peers to adopt soil conservation practices and their perceived control over adoption of a practice is low. Evaluating the level of difficulty of specific practices, smaller farmers feel substantial difficulties regarding financial issues. The results do not indicate a difference in perception of soil...

<p>Field-edge buffers are a promising way to address nonpoint source pollution from agricultural runoff, but concentrated runoff flow often renders standard fixed-width linear buffers ineffective. AgBufferBuilder (ABB) is a tool within ESRI ArcMap Geographic Information Systems software that designs and evaluates targeted, nonlinear buffers based on hydrologic modeling and other field-specific parameters. We tested ABB on n=45 Areas of Interest (AOIs) stratified based on estimated sediment loading across three sub-watersheds within Michigan’s Saginaw Bay watershed to evaluate the effectiveness of ABB relative to existing practices across a wide range of landscape conditions. We modeled tractor movement around ABB buffer designs to assess more realistic versions of the likely final designs. ABB regularly failed to deliver the desired 75% sediment capture rate using default 9 m x 9 m output raster resolution, with Proposed buffers capturing from 0% to 68.49% of sediment within a given AOI (mean=37.56%). Differences in sediment capture between Proposed and Existing buffers (measured as Proposed – Existing) ranged from -48% to 66.81% of sediment (mean=24.70%). Proposed buffers were estimated to capture more sediment than Existing buffers in 37 of 45 AOIs, representing potential for real improvements over Existing buffers across the wider landscape. In 13 of 45 AOIs, ABB buffers modified for tractor movement captured more sediment than Existing buffers using less total buffer area. We conducted a collaborative design process with three Saginaw Bay watershed farmers to assess their willingness to implement ABB designs. Feedback indicated farmers may prefer in-field erosion control practices like cover cropping and grassed waterways over field-edge ABB designs. More farmer input is needed to better assess farmer perspectives on ABB buffers and to identify preferred data-based design alternatives. Engineered drainage systems with raised ditch berms and upslope catch basins piped underground directly into ditches were encountered several times during site visits. ABB only models surface flow and does not recognize drain output flow entering waterways. Modified ABB functionality that models buffers around drain inlets would greatly improve its functionality on drained sites. This may be accomplishable through modification of user-entered AOI margins but requires further investigation. Unfortunately, the existing tool is built for outdated software and is not widely accessible to non-expert users. We suggest that an update of this tool with additional functionality and user accessibility would be a useful addition in the toolbox of conservation professionals in agricultural landscapes.</p>