Dueling Land Ethics - South Dakota State University

J Agric Environ Ethics DOI 10.1007/s10806-014-9494-y ARTICLES

Dueling Land Ethics: Uncovering Agricultural Stakeholder Mental Models to Better Understand Recent Land Use Conversion Benjamin L. Turner • Melissa Wuellner Timothy Nichols • Roger Gates

•

Accepted: 24 January 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract The aim of this paper is to investigate how alternative land ethics of agricultural stakeholders may help explain recent land use changes. The paper first explores the historical development of the land ethic concept in the United States and how those ethics have impacted land use policy and use of private lands. Secondly, primary data gathered from semi-structured interviews of farmers, ranchers, and influential stakeholders are then analyzed using stakeholder analysis methods to identify major factors considered in land use decisions, priorities of factors of each group, and to define relevant mental models describing each group’s view of the land ethic concept. Results show that these stakeholder groups prioritize land use factors qualitatively differently and possess strikingly different land ethics. It is concluded that shifts in stakeholder land ethics have contributed to recent land use changes. Lastly, we discuss how current agricultural policy sends mixed signals about preferred land use and the potential ramifications based on the different land ethics we’ve described. B. L. Turner (&) Natural Resource Management, South Dakota State University, West River Ag Center, 1905 Plaza Blvd., Rapid City, SD 57702, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. Wuellner Natural Resource Management, Natural Resource Management-Box 2140B, Brookings, SD 57007, USA e-mail: [email protected] T. Nichols Honors College, Honors College-Box 2075A, Brookings, SD 57007, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. Gates South Dakota State University, West River Ag Center, 1905 Plaza Blvd., Rapid City, SD 57702, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

B. L. Turner et al.

Keywords

Land ethic Mental models Land use Stakeholder analysis

Introduction Agriculture is a vocation that takes great pride in the value and history of its work. Producers, part-time practitioners, and professionals in agricultural related industries alike work to provide food and fiber for the survival and benefit of fellow man. That ethical responsibility of growing things for human use is clear and simple. As Dundon (2003) stated, ‘‘Who needs ethics to complicate that simplicity?’’ Ethics is the study of rules and principles that govern human conduct and what constitutes right and wrong in human decision making (Robinson et al. 2007); the word itself is derived from the Greek ethos which means ‘‘character’’. Agricultural management takes place within the intersection of ecologic, economic, and social spheres. This makes defining agricultural ethics quite difficult depending on the sphere(s) of interest to an individual. The Northern Great Plains (NGP) is a diverse, productive landscape capable of supporting an array of land uses depending on specific and local characteristics (Fig. 1). However, there has been a recent shift from grassland to cropland as a primary land use, particularly in the central region of the NGP. There are very often multiple, indeed conflicting, demands that pressure agricultural production in meeting food and fiber demands (e.g., Endangered Species Act, Clean Air and Water Acts, USDA farm programs or subsidies, market price and input cost volatility, public perceptions of agriculture, soil productivity, standard of living and generational transfer, etc.). These pressures, although individually appearing unrelated, converge on agricultural landscapes due to their ecological (e.g., soil, plants, animals, etc.), economic (e.g., commodity prices and costs) and social (e.g., family) characteristics. The convergence of forces on agricultural landscapes gives rise to concern not only in agricultural ethics but also in land ethics. History tells us that land use changes follow changes in people’s land ethics, a duel of perspectives that ‘‘swings the pendulum’’ towards increased production or conservation enhancement depending on which of the above forces prevail. In light of recent grassland losses, what is the land ethic duel today? What forces have shaped a ‘‘pendulum swing’’ towards land conversion of grasslands to row crop agriculture?

Purpose of Study The purpose of this paper is to investigate expressions of land ethics among various agricultural stakeholders in the NGP and how that may influence land use determination. We begin with a brief history of United States land use changes and policy. We then present a qualitative approach to understand the current land use ‘‘pendulum swing’’. Many studies have investigated land ethics related to animal agriculture and technology (Anthony 2012), morals and sustainability (Meijboom

123

Dueling Land Ethics: Uncovering Agricultural Stakeholder Mental Models

Fig. 1 Conceptual diagram of potential land uses, their relative disturbance level and capacity to provide ecosystem goods and services. Source B.L. Turner

and Brom 2012), ethics and economics (Diebel 2008; Thompson 1990), environmental conservation (Reimer et al. 2012), and gender roles (Alston and Whittenbury 2013). On the other hand, many quantitative approaches have been used to investigate land use change (e.g., Faber et al. 2012; Stephens et al. 2008; Sohl et al. 2012; Wright and Wimberly 2012; Johnston 2013), but none looked deeply into ethical values of individual producers. Stakeholder interviews, as well as a focus group, were utilized to describe and verify key factors and mental models expressed by stakeholders within a land ethic framework, allowing for comparison of expressed land ethics across each stakeholder group. This paper concludes with a discussion of potential implications of future land use policy in light of differing ethics expressed by stakeholders groups and the mixed messages they receive from current public policies.

Development of the Land Ethic Concept and Evidence of the ‘‘Swinging Pendulum’’ Preserving Resources Through Conservation Enhancement The earliest descriptions of an American land ethic were expressed in the early 1800s by Ralph Waldo Emerson and his pulpil Henry David Thoreau. Emerson wrote of the reciprocal relationship needed between man and nature (Emerson 1836) while Thoreau famously wrote about his experience living at Walden Pond near Concord, MA. Thoreau expressed his land ethic with appreciation for the complexity and harmony of nature, a living earth that man must live in harmony with (see Thoreau’s Walden 1854). John Wesley Powell echoed these men from a scientific perspective. Powell, head of USA Geological Survey (1881–1894), proposed that land settlement and development for agricultural purposes should be based on local conditions and potential, such as precipitation, soil, and water, not on arbitrary sections (Stegner 1992). President Theodore Roosevelt propelled these ideas into the twentieth century. Restraint or limited impact on natural resources was at the core of his perspective. In his seventh State of the Union address as President, he stated: Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an excess, it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so. (Roosevelt 1907a)

123

B. L. Turner et al.

Roosevelt is also quoted: ‘‘The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others’’ (Roosevelt 1907b). Production Enhancement Through Resource Utilization In the Land Ordinance of 1785, Jefferson proposed a new method to survey land for both governments and businesses: a strict grid of rectangles known as townships, each consisting of 36 sections, size 640 acres (259 ha) each, with ‘‘quarter sections’’ (64.75 ha) and ‘‘units’’ (16.19 ha) within each section (Encarta 2006). This method of surveying facilitated Jefferson’s dream of an agrarian society of small landowners spread over the whole nation (Boyd et al. 1950) and was eventually used to survey land acquired by the USA in the Northwest Territory, the Louisiana Purchase, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Another ethic that developed alongside Jefferson’s agrarian society was ‘‘manifest destiny’’, defined by journalist John L. O’Sullivan: It is America’s manifest destiny to overspread the contentment [to fulfill God’s plan] (Encarta 2006). The culmination of Jefferson’s grid and manifest destiny was achieved with the passing of the Homestead Act of 1862. This act granted a ‘‘quarter section’’ to settlers who would work the land for 5 years. Hundreds of thousands of settlers acquired homesteads and began moving westward across the continent. How the Pendulum Impacts the Land Homestead Act allotments of public land continued as late as 1916 (Gray et al. 1938). These allotments were unrealistically small (due to the Jeffersonian grid) and tended to be west of the 100th meridian (Cooke et al. 1936; Fig. 2). Part of the justification was a 1909 Bureau of Soils claim that USA soils were an ‘‘indestructible and immutable’’ resource (Sachs 1994). Optimistic farmers arrived in droves during years of favorable rainfall, leading to a misperception of how arid the environment could actually be (Lockeretz 1978). Homesteading, because of the small acreage issued to each family, encouraged overgrazing of pasture and cultivation of land in many areas unsuitable. These forces, combined with drought, led to serious but small dust bowls occurring from 1910 to 1914 (Johnson 1947; Lockeretz 1978). However, the drought eased and a new wave of farmers entered the Plains. Profits and technology aided in increased cultivation capacity. Wheat prices increased through World War I and peaked in 1919 ($2.16 per bushel compared to $0.87 during 1910–1914). Tractors introduced during World War I enabled farmers to achieve unprecedented scale (Lockeretz 1978). Promotion of cultivation (Fig. 3), which relied on widespread tillage practices, led to massive exposure of soils to wind erosion, resulting in the Dust Bowl of the 1930s (Fig. 4).

123


Fig. 2 A sign marking the 100th meridian in central South Dakota. The 100th meridian was a geographic marker to homesteaders indicating where farming should stop and land remain in native prairie. Today, farming along or west of the meridian is common. Photo credit author B.L. Turner

Pendulum Swings in Response to the Dust Bowl The United States Congress established the soil erosion service (SES) to investigate the Dust Bowl causes and provide solutions. Hugh H. Bennett (the service’s first director from 1933 to 1951) famously stated ‘‘It would be better if the sod had never been broke at all’’ (Baumhardt 2003) and that the massive soil erosion problems were a result of ‘‘a false philosophy of plenty, a myth of inexhaustibility’’ of land resources. He advised that government programs be redesigned to give incentives for diversified cropping systems with reduced tillage to conserve water and soil resources. The SES created the Soil Bank program (SBP) in 1956, which focused on removing lands from production with high risk of erosion to establish permanent vegetative cover. Individual land owner’s perspectives also shifted as a result of the Dust Bowl and this shift was championed by wildlife scientist Aldo Leopold. Leopold’s message was an appeal to a landowner’s conscience with a formalized definition of the land ethic: A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise (Leopold 1949).

123

B. L. Turner et al.

Fig. 3 World War I-era posters promoting wheat production and export. Photo credits University of North Texas Library and AuthenticHistory.com

Fig. 4 Effects of the Dust Bowl were not only seen across the Great Plains, including the picture on the left taken near Dallas, South Dakota, but in places as far away as the nation’s capital, seen in the right picture of the Lincoln Memorial under a cloud of dust. Photo credit wikipedia.org and weta.org

Bennett and Leopold’s efforts made great strides for soil, water, and wildlife conservation, which remained at the forefront of agricultural policy through the 1940s and 1950s. Get big or get out However, new policies arose that were intended to address rising welfare and economic concerns in agriculture to swing the pendulum toward production. The best example of this was Dr. E.R. Butz (USA Secretary of Agriculture 1971–1976), who championed the ‘feed the world’ mentality and advised producers and agribusinesses alike to ‘get big or get out’ by planting crops ‘fence row to fence

123


row’. To achieve this, Butz abolished a New Deal program that paid for conservation (see ‘ever-normal granary’; Henry Wallace) and initiated the first direct payments to farmers (Philpott 2008). These incentives led to increased cultivation as well as erosion risk, with annual cropland soil losses estimated at 4.0–6.8 billion tons (GAO 1977; Barlowe 1981; Harlin and Barardi 1987; Lee 1984) and vast tracts of wildlife habitat fragmented or destroyed. Renewed Conservation and Production Priorities With renewed pressure on public policy to conserve natural resources, the conservation reserve program (CRP) was established under the 1985 Farm Bill. Similar to its predecessor SBP, CRP incentivized removal of high risk erosion land for establishing permanent cover. However, unlike SBP’s 3-year contracts, CRP required 10–15 year contracts. CRP’s long-term benefits have been positive for both soil conservation and wildlife and has been perceived so favorably that the program has been renewed in every subsequent Farm Bill. Similarly in the 1990 Farm Bill, the Wetlands Reserve program established incentives for wetland protection. However, there also exists today renewed focus on agricultural production, with programs such as multi-peril or revenue-based crop insurance (e.g., USDA-RMA’s actual production history, actual revenue history, or adjusted gross revenue plans) or the USA renewable fuels standard, approved by both the 2005 Energy Policy Act and again in 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.

Current Land Use Status According to a USDA-ERS report (Claassen et al. 2011), most high productivity land is used for intensive cropping (80 %) while most low productivity land is used for grazing (73 %). Medium productivity land is spread across all land uses, including cropping (53 %), hay and pasture (10 %), range (32 %), and CRP enrollment (5 %). The report concluded that this data ‘‘implies that [economic] returns to medium productivity land are similar across land uses, although landowners may differ on the most valuable use’’ (Claassen et al. 2011). Similarly, the FAO (2011) stated: Ranchers, advisors, and policymakers must not assume that a uniform management approach for all grasslands can be successful in maintaining the unique ecology of each grassland type; such an assumption has been shown to be disastrous in the past, and could be catastrophic in the future. The grassland goods and services valued by society also vary a great deal, as they are influenced by different soils, topographies, climates, and managements, and their interactions. These recent reports highlight the need of understanding land owners or operators values, which are highly influential in determining land use. Unfortunately, relatively few studies have examined these factors.

123

B. L. Turner et al.

Methods Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholder analysis is an approach for generating knowledge about stakeholders’ actions to understand their behavior, intentions, interrelations and interests and to assess the influence and resources they bear on decision making or implementation processes (Varvasovszky and Brugha 2000). The stakeholder model offers ethicists an approach to ecologic-economic-social problems by identifying groups that have intrinsic values at the intersections of these sectors (Moodley et al. 2008). Substantial efforts have been made in corporate business to develop ethical principles and strategies for management (Preston 1975; Carroll 1991; Warwick and Cochoran 1985). Development in agricultural ethics has been slower (Dundon 2003) but stakeholder analysis could be a way to strengthen the existing knowledge base or expand the breadth of inclusiveness for framing land ethics problems. In this study, unstructured interviews and follow-up correspondences were done with three stakeholder groups: (1) participants inclined toward farming use (denoted F); (2) participants inclined toward ranching use (denoted R); and (3) influencers (i.e. highly knowledgeable persons not inclined to rangeland versus farmland use but whose opinion was valued across stakeholder groups, denoted I for ‘‘influencers’’). Farmers and ranchers were the primary voices contributing to this study and their views were supplemented by influencers. A focus group was later used to either validate or refute the initial finding, allowing for refinement of conclusions. The cumulative aim of these procedures was to describe the mental models of system participants. A mental model of a dynamic system is a relatively enduring and accessible, but limited (i.e. imperfect), internal conceptual representation of an external system whose structure maintains the perceived structure of that system (Doyle and Ford 1998). Mental model articulation is crucial for understanding the complexity and perceptions existing in ethical decision making. Interview Methods Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, where the investigator begins with a preset number of questions for the participant but allows the conversation to vary depending on responses (Hancock et al. 2007). Garnering in-depth insights into stakeholder values and relationships and the ability to triangulate sources is a major strength of semi-structured methods (Reed et al. 2009). Interviews were conducted face-to-face, usually at the home, home-office or office building in which the participant chose to meet. Only one interviewee was unable to meet in person due to time and travel limitations; that interview was conducted via telephone. The interview guide consisted of two lists of 20 open-ended questions (summarized in Table 1). Not all questions were asked of every participant, but each was asked at least one question from each topic area. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, usually within 24 h; none were transcribed later than 3 days after the interview took place. Handwritten field notes were taken during each interview and were used for reference during transcription to confirm specific

123


concepts or terms used by the interviewee whenever words or phrases did not sound clear in the recording. Coding Procedures: Open and Axial Coding The purpose of open coding was to refine the problem, determine problem boundaries and identify key variables or factors and their causal arguments that reflect mental models of the system participants. Each transcription was read and color coded based on land use related factors. For example, ecological, agricultural production, or land use characteristics were coded green. Public policy, government, and politics were coded blue. Economics, marketing and technology were coded yellow. Lastly, personal values, extracted mental models and family and community related thoughts were coded gray. Memoing was used widely throughout open coding to describe implicit structure, sub-factors within a given color code (e.g., commodity prices or input costs within economics), general observations or sometimes questions to be reflected upon later. During axial coding, segmented data were aggregated by finding relationships among categories of codes. Similar to knowledge mapping, which utilizes semistructured interviews to identify interactions and knowledge of stakeholders (Reed et al. 2009), causal loop diagramming was employed to investigate the variables and causalities each stakeholder identified with and valued. Causal loop diagramming is a method developed through system dynamics used to identify and visually describe mental models, system components and sub-components, and the potential causality enforced from variable to variable. The procedure used here followed recommendations of Kim and Andersen (2012). To achieve this, color codes for each interview group were aggregated together for analysis in axial coding. These single arguments were arranged by theme within stakeholder group and ranged from as little as one or two sentences to an entire page. Coding charts were created for each argument that revealed an insight about land use. These were given a conversation identification number based on type of interviewee, participant number, and paragraph number. Information sources or context were recorded where applicable. Also, themes were recorded based on the color coded area from which the argument came as well as notes that described any memos that provided additional information. These coding charts were used to document quantitatively the nature and number of arguments by participants to use in the stakeholder-factor analysis. Stakeholder-Factor Analysis A structured approach to identify stakeholder interests in factors, causal relationships and ethical considerations was used to quantify the qualitative methods described above. A stakeholder-factor matrix was created similar to Moodley et al. (2008) to quantify the priorities and ethical responsibilities of each stakeholder group and understand any interactions or divergences among them. The matrix was created by counting the number of arguments from each stakeholder group within the coding charts about where their ethical priorities and concerns lie. The matrix

123

B. L. Turner et al. Table 1 Interview sections with example questions Interview sections Description of enterprise/role

Sample question(s) Can you describe the nature and scope of your operation? How does your organization help agricultural producers? Land managers?

Personal values/nature of contribution

What motivated you into the agricultural business?

Challenges/issues coming for agriculture

What challenges or issues do you foresee in the near- and long-term future for your industry?

Conversion history

What are the primary tools you use to help land managers make decisions?

Have you converted acres from prairie to cropland? Why or why not? Have you witnessed prairie being converted to cropland?

Views toward public policy

How has public policy, like subsidies or insurance, influenced your decisions?

Views toward ecosystem good and services

What value do you place on ecosystem goods and services?

View about potential conservation strategies

What, if any, solutions do you see in the struggle to conserve native rangeland while still being able to produce field crops that are so highly demanded?

If any of these goods and services are lost, are they worth trying to restore/recover?

allowed for relatively rapid identification of risk, support, importance, and interrelated issues for each stakeholder group. Focus Group Methods Focus groups are extremely valuable within stakeholder analysis because they allow small groups to brainstorm, categorize and prioritize ideas, to provide rapid feedback, and are useful for generating data on complex issues that require discussion to develop understanding (Reed et al. 2009). For this study, a focus group was initiated to view, discuss, and respond to the initial conclusions reached from analysis of the interview data. The focus group took place during a 1-h session in Rapid City, SD. Subjects were pre-selected and gathered for a meeting through a continuing education program facilitated by a third-party organization. Twenty-nine individuals participated in the group (Fig. 6) and were identified as either F, R, or I depending on their operation or role. The lead author presented preliminary results from the individual interviews. The focus group was allowed to ask questions for further clarification. Then the group was split into five sub-groups of five and one sub-group of four participants. Each were given three questions to discuss for 15 min: 1. 2. 3.

How accurate were the definitions of the mental models defined?; How could the interview factors identified be improved?; and How could producer and/or agricultural leadership influence land conversion decisions?

123


At the conclusion of the 15-min period, each group reported the highlights of their discussion, verifying or refuting the preliminary conclusions and providing feedback from the questions above. Author Involvement The authors’ degree of involvement differed among participants. Although each interview was kept within 1 h, more or less time was spent with each person due to logistics and individual schedules. For example, some interviewees insisted on meeting over dinner at their home or spending the night if they knew the author had lengthy travel, while others insisted on meeting in an office or at another location due to time and travel limitations. In the latter cases, interaction occurred strictly during the interview. The physical presentation and background of the interviewer may influence responses. The interviewer’s background includes agricultural experience in rural Texas. It was common to wear blue jeans, boots, a western hat or baseball cap to an interview, likely giving interviewees comfort that the researcher was knowledgeable about agriculture and did not feel the need to ‘dumb-down’ their responses. Most interviewees also inquired about the author’s background out of curiosity. Because the author was not local, participants realized he did not have an ‘agenda’ and was not attempting to expose producer’s responses for a specific cause. Sites and Samples of Interviews Interviews were continually conducted until the most recent interviewee per category yielded no new information (Didier and Brunson 2004) or until a total of ten interviews per category were reached. In total, 25 participants were interviewed (eight farmers, eight ranchers, and nine stakeholders) from the state of South Dakota (Fig. 5). Potential subjects were initially contacted using a directory from a continuing education program. For those who agreed to participate, the researcher sought the participants’ friends and neighbors nearby to further explore land use in that area. Of those contacted through the directory or by reference from agreeable participants, only one declined to participate. Respondents ranged from those highly engaged in the land use debate (e.g., on a committee or elected board member of a commodity group; publicly elected officials) to those who preferred not to publicly engage, focusing strictly on their own operation. Efforts were made to obtain input from as many types of land-based operations and stakeholders as possible (e.g., farms or ranches ranging from a few hundred to 6,000 ha; legislators, CPA’s, industry middlemen; academic or state natural resource agency researchers, etc.; Tables 2, 3). Interview data were strengthened by overlap among producers and their respective enterprises as many operated more than one.

123

B. L. Turner et al.

Fig. 5 Map of South Dakota indicating stakeholder participants from both interview and focus group participants. (Green dots farmer; Yellow triangle rancher; Red diamond Influencer). Color gradient indicates annual rainfall. (Color figure online)

Table 2 Type and number of agricultural enterprises represented in farmer and rancher samples

Type of enterprise

Number in interview sample

Number in focus group

Total

Row crop

14

13

27

Cow-calf

13

10

23

Feedlot

3

1

4

Wildlife hunting/ recreation

3

N/A

3

Hay/pasture

3

N/A

3

Stocker/custom grazing

2

N/A

2

Swine

1

0

1

Dairy

0

1

1

Total

39

25

64

Follow-Up Correspondence To maintain involvement with stakeholders, follow-up correspondences were conducted to allow interested participants to view preliminary conclusions and to give them an opportunity to provide additional remarks about the nature of the land use decisions. This was achieved by sending each participant a 10-slide presentation in Adobe PDF format that summarized the factors and the mental models defined after the interview process. Feedback was recorded via email by the primary author to compare reactions to the data. Six of the 26 producers (23 %) responded to the follow-up opportunity.

123

Dueling Land Ethics: Uncovering Agricultural Stakeholder Mental Models Table 3 Influencer role and representation

Influencer role

Number in interview sample

Number in focus group

Total

Grain marketer

2

1

Cattle order-buyer

1

0

1

Certified public accountant

1

0

1

Agency wildlife researcher

1

0

1

Farm researcher

1

0

1

Legislator

1

0

1

Water district manager

1

0

1

State department of agriculture representative

1

1

2

3

Engineer

0

1

1

Ag loan officer/lending

0

3

3

Beef industry representative

0

2

2

Ag teacher/FFA sponsor

0

1

1

SDSU extension

0

1

1

Farm service agency

0

4

4

Ag public relations

0

1

1

Food company representative

0

1

1

Ag business/agronomy

0

1

1

Energy company representative

0

1

1

Pork industry representative

0

1

1

Ag union representative

0

1

1

Total

9

20

29

Results Alignment of Key Factors Through Open Coding The open coding procedure revealed nine factors influential in land use determination: economics, community, land base, land ethic, ownership, technology, ecology, soil health, and public policy (Table 4). Many interviewee responses included multiple factors, highlighting the highly linked and complex nature of land use decisions. These factors were evident in both the individual stakeholder and focus group responses. The diversity of factors identified illustrates the complex, commonly overlapping context in which land use decisions are made and resources managed. Because the focus of this paper deals with the land base and individual land ethics, a brief overview of the Land Base and Land Ethic factors follows. Stakeholder quotations are followed by a letter in parenthesis: F for farmer, R for rancher, I for influencer.

123

B. L. Turner et al. Table 4 Identified system factors accompanied with a response Factors

Sample Response

Economic

‘‘The drivers are the economics; it’s not good… the fact is they have to make money- it’s sheer economics’’ (F)

Community

‘‘I don’t think that we can restore the dynamics of the communities in this state any more than we can restore the grasslands’’ (R)

Land base

See below

Land ethic

See below

Ownership

‘‘I’m probably less willing to take some wild risk on something really wild out there than someone who didn’t have the roots that we have’’ (F)

Technology

‘‘As our farming practices have changed we’re seeing more sophisticated agronomy, seeing a lot higher use of fertilizer using variable-rate, using global positioning for tillage’’ (I)

Ecology

‘‘If we degrade our ecosystem in an attempt to feed 9 billion people then we will end up starving ourselvesWe shouldn’t be doing anything to degrade our own ecosystem’’ (I)

Soil health

‘‘Healthy land has to have high organic matter, and it has to have residue out there to protect it from wind and water erosion’’ (F)

Public policy

‘‘You know the cattle people don’t get government payments…But there isn’t anything out there that’s going to guarantee you $800 an acre whether it rains, hails, whatever. So the livestock industry is at a disadvantage right away’’ (R)

Land Base If we are going to continue to feed the world I think [land conversion has] to happen (F) External pressures, such as increasing food and energy demands, growing compliance standards, and profit or expansion pressures to reach long-term goals on both farmers and ranchers have led to an array of pressures on the landscape. I would say [farmers] view themselves more as ‘‘we’re helping feed the world’’, [they’re] helping keep US food prices down, which I happen to believe they are. That [they] are part of a grander plan to feed a hungry growing population (I) As it becomes harder for us, whether it’s the Environmental Protection Agency, or animal-rights activist…it’s going to add a cost (F) The biggest challenge we have, if you want to talk about governmental pressures, there is obviously environmental pressures. Regulations that are coming down the pipe that may impact the cost of production, may impact our ability to do things necessary from an environmental standpoint (R) Pressures on the land base were also internally driven through the self-imposed pressure to remain productive enough to sustain desired lifestyles. In most cases, these included goals to pass operations on to the next generation or expanding acreage:

123


Long-term goals would be to someday pass this on to my son, also expansion… there’s a lot of personal gain in feeding people and keeping this world going (F) We want to continue to grow…so we do things to grow the business without trying to detrimentally affect the resource (R) Lastly, the pressure to scale production, fulfill demand and remain profitable could lead to ‘mining’ of natural resources: [With increasing cash farm rents] we are going to mine more of the soil…[farmers] are going to try to get as much out of it before [they’re] done instead of looking to the next generation (F) Will we see those impacts immediately? No. But you will eventually because the nutrients are going away (I) We do not have a mechanism to price externalities well enough to result in good long-term land-use decisions. We are going to tear up a lot of Prairie and be sorry for it (R) Land Ethic We are just tenets here (R) Each of the producer groups expressed a clear land ethic, however, the way in which they defined it differed dramatically. For example, ranchers expressed views of holism and emphasized the long-term factors in decision making: The long-term sustainability of wildlife, livestock and our existence depends on how we take care of the land (R) Conservation would have a very, very high value to me. I would not consider exposing or risking the resources that are entrusted to me…I won’t do it (R) It’s just really gratifying to know that what we’re doing is contributing to the diversity instead of taking away from it…The greater the diversity the more we are in sync with nature. It’s a validation that were probably on the right track when it comes to how we treat the land (R) This is contrast to farming stakeholders who characterized maintenance of productivity as a personal value: We can do the very best job of what we can do. And I’m talking about planting the crop, taking care of it and harvesting it (F) You have to make profit to make a living, so I have to keep focused on that (F) There is a lot of value in success…when you have the ability to reach a goal or produce and hit your goals is very rewarding…there’s a lot of personal gain in feeding people (F)

123

B. L. Turner et al.

This stakeholder comment is likely the most concise way to summarize the different land ethic definitions of various producers: Its ‘farming is a business’ [row crops] versus ‘farming is a lifestyle’ and I am a steward [ranching] (I) These differing views of land ethic provides insight about an operator’s preference to disturb the landscape through intensive cultivation or conservation through conscious self-restraint. Cultivation was less a concern for the business oriented producer versus those who view themselves as tenants and stewards first. Stakeholder-Factor Matrix Axial coding identified 26 sub-factor descriptions (Table 5), which helped to create an eight-factor stakeholder matrix (Table 6). Most of the responses were related to economics (27.3 %), ecology (17.5 %), and the land base (15.3 %). Alignment of Stakeholder Mental Models Mental models of stakeholders were also quite different due to different land use histories, experiences, roles, and values. Farmers thought of production components much more independently (e.g., efficiency of individual units) while ranchers tended to view their operations synergistically (e.g., efficiency of the whole operation). For example, ranchers were less likely to invest in new activities unless it stood to benefit multiple enterprises, whereas farmers were more likely to invest in such activity even if it were to benefit only one enterprise. Farming stakeholders tended to value the maintenance of production (Fig. 6). Six out of 10 concerns or interests of farmers were related to production maintenance: profits, agronomy, grain production, productivity, operation size, and markets and marketing. Ranchers also valued profits and markets and marketing, but from a livestock rather than a grain perspective. While ranching stakeholders did value profits and production, they tended to value the integrity of the ecosystem more highly, with four of their highest ten factors pointed at ecology related factors: ecosystem goods and services, environmental impacts, grass conversion, and integrity/diversity of landscapes (Fig. 7). Although farmers also valued ecosystem goods and services, they tend to focus on different goods and services than ranchers. For example, farmers tended to focus on soil functions such as water infiltration and nutrient storage while ranchers tended to focus on wildlife and plant diversity, nutrient cycling, and recreation. Influencer stakeholders tended to view the system much more objectively than either of the producer groups (Fig. 8). For example, influencers’ number one response sub-factor was grass conversion. Influencers also more highly valued the impacts of land use on the rural population and the role that subsidies play in land use decisions compared to farming and ranching responses. Farming’s top responses did not include subsidies but were concerned with the recruitment and retention of young producers to agriculture. Ranching was concerned with subsidies (due to subsidies’ potential influence on farming intensity), but the rural community did not

123

Dueling Land Ethics: Uncovering Agricultural Stakeholder Mental Models Table 5 Sub-factors identified with descriptions Sub-factor name

Description of comments included with the sub-factor.

Markets and marketing

Commodity and input markets; volatility

Ag profits

Concern for profit or loss

Grain production

Total grain produced (either on the farm or in the region)

Livestock production

Total number of livestock inventory and/or the pound of meat produced

Eco. G&S

Non-market goods such as water filtering, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, etc

Integrity/diversity

The integrity/diversity of the landscape relative to the native condition of the NGP

Environmental impacts

Non-point source pollution, erosion, biodiversity losses, etc

External pressures

Polices such as taxation or environmental compliance

Internal pressures

Maintaining operation feasibility for future generations

Operation size

Pressure to increase size and scale relative to current state

Grass conversion

Loss of grassland due to conversion, primarily to farming but also urbanization

General concern

General concern about public policy’s influence on private land and potential unintended consequences

Subsidies

Concern that agricultural subsidies contribute to land use decision making

Flexibility

Flexibility or lack of flexibility in government programs that limit management options

Rural population

Concern about diminishing rural communities

Producer age

Influence that producer age has on enterprise preferences, i.e. whether to farm or ranch

Young producers

Concern that too few people are returning to agriculture and what can be done to bring people back

Labor

Influence that agricultural labor has on the rural economy/social stability

Agronomy

Technology enhancements that lower unit costs of production

Genetics

Crop genetic improvements that increase feasibility of row crops

Equipment size

Size and scale of agricultural equipment whose investment in raises production demands to meet financial obligations

Productivity

The ability of soil under management to maintain productivity either with or without major management amendments (e.g., N, P, and K)

Native-ness

How close soil under management is to soil characteristics prior to major human disturbance (e.g., tillage)

Absentee ownership

Concern that absentee owners create potential consequences on land use choice, financial demands, or social community

Risk on owned

The risk preference of a producer operating on their own land, usually less risky relative to leased land

Risk on leased

The risk preference of a producer operating on land they lease from absentee owners, usually more risky relative to own land

show up as evidently in their top responses, as generational transfer of ranching assets entails less financial risk compared to farming assets. Influencers usually supported the group in which they had greater association (e.g., grain marketers sympathetic to individual farmers; cattle order buyers more sympathetic to

123

B. L. Turner et al. Table 6 Stakeholder-factor matrix Factors

Economic

Sub-factors

Markets and marketing

Public policy

Community

Soil health Ownership

13

7

26

13

5

34

Grain production

11

7

11

29

8

11

6

25

11

18

5

34

1

8

6

15

Eco. G&S Environmental impacts

0

15

9

24

External pressures

5

10

1

16

Internal pressures

2

1

1

4

Operation size

8

2

0

10

Grass conversion

9

11

14

34

General concern

3

7

4

14

Subsidies

4

9

12

25

Flexibility

4

4

2

10

Rural population

3

6

8

17

Producer age

3

2

1

6

Young producers

5

2

6

13

5

0

2

7

12

1

3

16

Genetics

1

2

4

7

Equipment size

3

2

1

6

Productivity

9

8

7

24

Nativeness

0

3

1

4

Agronomy

Absentee ownership

4

2

3

9

Risk on owned

3

0

0

3

Risk on leased Total

Subfactor total

6

Labor Technology

Influencers

16

Integrity/diversity Land base

Ranchers

Ag profits Livestock production Ecology

Farmers

2

1

3

6

138

158

122

418

Factor total

% of total

114

27.3

73

17.5

64

15.3

49

11.7

43

10.3

29

6.9

28

6.7

18

4.3

418

100

ranchers). They cherished their role of helping producers within the system remain viable and sustainable for the long-term (Table 7). Although public policy (e.g., crop insurance structure, CRP incentives) was shown to be important in land use determination, it only received 11.7 % of all stakeholder responses, which ranked fourth of all major factors identified. Economic, ecologic, and land base factors ranked substantially higher, with community factors ranked somewhat similarly. There were also key interactions between factors. For example, government programs support a few key crop species (e.g., corn, soybeans and wheat) which incentivized producers to plant these crops and thereby invest in specialized technology. This not only restricts future cropping choices in order to fully utilize the investment, but also signals to agronomy and

123


Fig. 6 Farming stakeholders top ten sub-factors

Fig. 7 Ranching stakeholders top ten sub-factors

Fig. 8 Influencer stakeholders top ten sub-factors

123

B. L. Turner et al. Table 7 Brief mental model characteristics identified for each interview group that contributed to each respective land ethic definition Farming

Ranching

Influencers

Efficiency oriented

Synergy oriented

Objective observers

Enterprise accountants

Whole-farm accountants

Interactive with external environment, actors, and markets

Independent of external environments, actors, and markets

Sympathetic of producers goals

Land ethic = maintenance of production

Land ethic = integrity of ecosystem

Cherish their own role Valued long-term success for all Land ethic = sustaining agricultural heritage for all

equipment companies that these are the commodities that need development emphasis (e.g., improving genetics, increasing combine size, etc.). As production is ‘scaled-up’ to larger acreages to pay for these investments, declines in both ecosystem diversity (e.g., number of plant species) as well as rural communities (e.g., increasing farm sizes reduces total number of farmers) occurred. Focus Group Responses How Accurate are the Mental Models Described? The group consensus was that the factors presented as well as mental models (Table 7) accurately portrayed those of stakeholders in the region. They also added further evidence from their experience concerning mental models of farming and ranching: Farmers are more economic; it’s easier to move in-and-out of [activities] faster. The major difference is labor intensity. Producers are influenced, whether they want to or not, by labor intensity. [Cattle production] just takes longer [to produce a harvest], it is quicker for farming. Because of the farming production system nowadays, farmers have more time to be exposed and influenced by market, social, or technological changes. These highlight an important contrast between land use choice and how it influences the amount and type of interaction a producer has with the land. Ranching tends to be slower, more labor intensive for more time during the year, which hinders the ability to utilize external resources (e.g., consultants). What is the Role of Agricultural Leadership in Defining Land Ethics and Influencing Land Use Decisions? The focus group highlighted some key insights about agricultural leadership (e.g., local community leaders; local respected producers; etc.) and the role it should play

123


in land ethics and land use decision making. These revolved around agricultural leaders’ role in the rural community and how aware and sensitive leadership education needs to be while interacting with producers: Getting leaders engaged at the local level [is critical] We [agricultural producers] need to raise awareness of what is happening [on the land]. We need to be sensitive of traditional vs. progressive attitudes. Farmers and ranchers tend to butt heads; we need to be facilitators of change. This shows that some producers are willing to take ownership of complex issues such as land ethics and land use when presented with pertinent information and challenged with such questions. Do You See the Life Cycle or Don’t You? An interesting dynamic that the focus group described was the relationship between land use choice and intimacy with the land. Farmers were described as more economic, as they are able to move in and out of particular activities faster than ranchers could. This is due to the nature of the production cycle. Ranching entails year-round labor in order to feed and care for livestock through the winter. Farming activities on the other hand are primarily spring-fall activities, giving farmers 3–5 months to travel to conferences, participate in workshops or industry meetings, attend farm or technology shows, or simply take personal time off. Although economically feasible and personally satisfying, this has shifted farming from one that recognizes a full year’s life cycle on the land (i.e. planting, plant growth, reproduction, seed harvest and storage, and then re-planting) to one that only has to manage intra year linkages (i.e. planting, plant growth, harvesting). The necessary input—seeds—are now out sourced by farmers to major agribusinesses. This picture is dramatically different for a rancher who can be responsible for three generations of cattle at any one time (i.e. cow, nursing calf, and replacement heifers being developed). This is true from a feeding perspective as well. Because cattle require forage year round, ranchers have to account for forage growth, reproduction and reemergence the next year and must not compromise this through over-grazing. Year-round demand for labor to care for livestock provides ranchers continuous opportunities to interact with both plant and animal life cycles on the land and greatly reduces flexibility to participate in activities described above. This major difference in life cycle exposure described within the focus group is yet another factor influencing the land ethic of ranching and farming stakeholders.

Discussion This work set out to investigate the initial questions: what is the land ethic duel today? And what forces have shaped a shift in land ethics as they relate to land

123

B. L. Turner et al.

conversion from grasslands to row crop agriculture? This paper attempted to answer this question through stakeholder interviews and a focus group, to solicit individual goals, values, and ethics among stakeholder groups. The results shed light on potential directions of future land use, particularly as it relates to policy changes. The Continuous Debate: Production and Profit Versus Conservation Enhancement Since Jefferson first proposed the use of surveys based on grids and a nation of agrarians, USA public policy has been shaped by the land ethics of its leaders. It has been a tug of war, or a swinging pendulum, as policy shifts one way (toward production and profit; e.g., manifest destiny) and then back (to conservation enhancement; e.g., Roosevelt and the National Park Service). As successful as the modern day CRP has been, renewed policies for production and profitability have emerged such as highly subsidized multi-peril or revenue-based crop insurance programs. These programs are a public manifestation of individual land ethics expressed through the politics of the day. For example, SBP and CRP were established as society pushed back after the Dust Bowl and the loss of wildlife habitat and erosion of the 1970s. Similarly, direct payments and insurance tools have been in response to calls to enhance production and profitability for agriculture as environmental and market conditions improved. Each policy direction represents a sincere effort by society to address land use problems. Because currently elected leadership directs policy, a feedback exists between policy makers with agricultural producers and society based on their own mental models and land ethics. Influence of Current Land Ethics on the ‘‘Pendulum’’ Recent USA farm and energy policy has shifted to support a few commodity crops. This trend has lead towards more monoculture based ecosystems and might be described as a putting all our eggs in one (or a few) baskets approach. In response, conservation oriented stakeholders have expressed discontent. The result was the addition of Sodsaver and Conservation Compliance provisions in the Senate passed 2012 Farm Bill. The progression of society discontent followed by policy responses has created a confounding decision making environment for land owners and operators. Land is a finite resource with boundaries. Producers operate on land in an effort to be successful to achieve the standard of living they desire. How they achieve this is influenced by a number of factors, including economics, community, and public policy. Clear feedbacks exist in economics (e.g., profitability) and community (e.g., school size; number of new producers), but policy feedbacks have become confusing. Today there exists incentives to both increase production and scale of agriculture as well as enhance biodiversity conservation, which sends mixed messages to society about what the long-term land use goals of the nation are and allows agricultural producers, elected officials, and society-at-large to ‘‘play politics’’ on whatever side of an issue or policy they want, confusing even more the messages sent about land use policy goals.

123


True Land Ethic or Enlightened Self-interest? Dundon (2003) described the fantasy of ‘‘value neutral’’ ideals and that efforts to define concepts as ‘‘value neutral’’ as trying to shake off the more representative role of multi functionality in agriculture. The issue of multi functionality is critical to understanding land use decision. Again, Dundon informs us: What this history [of value neutral progress] reveals is that values implicit in agriculture or impacted by its tools become ‘‘new’’ values to be positively pursued as explicit functions of the agricultural enterprise when those values are clearly endangered, or at least clearly obvious to some adequately vocal constituency. Such multi functionality would produce tensions and conflicts in any profession or vocation, so it is not surprising that annoyance and nostalgic desires for greater simplicity are expressed in agriculture. The producers interviewed for this study clearly described ideas and values that shape their land ethic. Both producer groups clearly valued the agricultural landscape, the benefits it provides, and the heritage that comes with being involved in agriculture. In the most basic terms, all the producers interviewed deeply cared for and valued the land on which they operate. However, when each group’s comments were analyzed in greater depth, it became clear that ranching stakeholders valued different functions of the land compared to farming. For example, Ranching’s most frequently expressed concern was ecosystem goods and services while farming was most concerned with agricultural profits. In other words, ranching was explicitly concerned with threats of loss of ecosystem goods and services; Farming was explicitly concerned with threats of loss of agricultural profits, among others. These explicit functions have a distinctive parallel to those land ethics of Aldo Leopold or the Manifest Destiny paradigms, described above. If there is such a distinction, what determines where a producer falls on the land ethic continuum? Is holding a profit protection viewpoint truly a land ethic, in the sense that it protects the ecosystem from which agricultural benefits of food production are derived? For example, Ranching’s view of protecting ecosystem services (rancher’s highest concern in Fig. 7; evident through conservation of grazing, wildlife habitat management, etc.) is indeed a way of protecting their own agricultural profit (their fourth highest concern). On the other hand, farming’s view of protecting agricultural profits (farmer’s highest concern) is viewed as a way to protect the ecosystems goods and services (i.e. if we are profitable we can take care of the land; evident through soil management practices that increase efficiency rather than ecosystem integrity, e.g., no-till adoption, residue management, precision applications, etc.). These explicit functions that influence land use decisions highlight the continuing conflict between land ethics of agricultural stakeholders. Intervening through public policy, which might be necessary at some level, would certainly not address the total problem and is likely only to treat a symptom of the problem (i.e. subsidies for one use, farming, far outweigh subsidies for all

123

B. L. Turner et al.

other uses), not its root cause (i.e. land use decision making is made in a complex environment of interrelated factors none of which can be easily separated). There are limitations to this study. The interview sample size (26) could be expanded with additional interviewees to help corroborate these conclusions. The focus group meeting, although insightful and beneficial, was not long enough for participants to go into enough detail about each factor more precisely or to delve into the similarities or differences among the factors and mental models described. It was clear that more time was needed to have a more complete response from the participants. Also, interviewees and focus group participants were all from South Dakota, which might exclude some cultural and historical factors important in other states. However, based on the strength of the interviewee follow-ups and the focus group discussion, we believe these findings to be accurate and precise, demonstrating that the mental models described are common across the region and exert powerful influences on land use decisions.

Conclusion Based on the expressed mental models and land ethics of the producers and given the massive shift in conversion toward more farming acres, we conclude that there has been a large shift in land ethics away from ecosystem integrity toward maintenance of production. This can visibly be seen on the landscape in areas that had historically remained in grasslands that are now being converted for farming enterprises, as individual producers shift their paradigm. In spite of this, there are a number of ranching stakeholders who consciously have retained a contrary mental model—that of ecosystem integrity—and who refuse to shift their paradigm to a maintenance-based approach to land management. Policy makers must recognize the diversity of the landscape on which their decisions have consequences, but even more importantly, how their policy decisions dramatically change the land ethics of producers. Although it may be argued that that is the purpose of policy (i.e. to provide incentives for individuals to alter their behaviors), history has shown that ‘one size fits all’ approaches can have negative long-term consequences (e.g., the Dust Bowl, wildlife losses of the 1970s, etc.) which affect not only the producers on the ground, but those in urban and political centers as well. Incentivizing one mental model or land ethic over another simply reinforces the misunderstood, misused paradigms of production enhancement and policy interventions. Continuing to implement solutions that address only one or two factors, runs the risk of exacerbating systemic problems, causing further long-term conflict. Truly systemic solutions will require examining not just the rates and levels (e.g., payment levels for conservation, rate of support for commodity production) we use within agricultural systems, but how producers and influencers view the land. Systemic solutions will require education of stakeholders in a thoughtful engaging way. Agricultural landscapes are complex systems. Knowledge of and responsibility for the complex nature of ecosystem goods and services and how these are altered due to major disturbances such as land use changes need to be addressed in locally appropriate ways depending on the individual producer and

123


community values and goals. Few people are aware of the scale and scope of land use change and even fewer understand the complex nature of ecosystems and what they provides (e.g., water cycling, nutrient cycling, food production, wildlife habitat, recreation, carbon sequestration, etc.) to society. Knowledge of the issue makes one equally responsible for it. Therefore, education about alarming land use change is essential for informing, challenging and improving mental models about the NGP system and its status.

References Alston, M., & Whittenbury, K. (2013). Does climatic crisis in Australia’s food bowl create a basis for change in agricultural gender relations? Agriculture and Human Values, 30, 115–128. Anthony, R. (2012). Building a sustainable future for animal agriculture: An environmental virtue ethic of care approach with the philosophy of technology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 123–144. Barlowe, T. (1981). Soil conservation policies: An assessment. Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society of America. Baumhardt, R. L. (2003). Dust Bowl Era. Encyclopedia of Water Science, DOI: 10.1081/E-EWS. Boyd, J. P., Cullen, C. T., Catanzariti, J., & Oberg, B. B. (Eds.). (1950). The papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Towards the moral management of the organisations stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 38–48. Claassen, R., Carriazo, F., Cooper, J. C., Hellerstein, D., & Udea, K. (2011). Grassland to cropland conversion in the Northern Plains: The role of crop insurance, commodity, and disaster programs. ERR-120, U.S.D.A. Economic Research Service, June 2011. Cooke, M. L., Bennett, H. H., Fowler, F. H., Harrington, F. C., Moore, R. C., Page, J. C., Wallace, H. A., & Tugwell, R. G. (1936). Report of the great plains drought area committee. Box 13, Hopkins Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Lib. http://newdeal.feri.org/texts/450.htm. Didier, E. A., & Brunson, M. W. (2004). Adoption of range management innovations by Utah ranchers. Journal of Range Management, 52, 7–18. Diebel, P. L. (2008). Ethics and agriculture: A teaching perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 33(3), 303–310. Doyle, J. K., & Ford, D. N. (1998). Mental model concepts for system dynamics research. System Dynamics Review, 15(4), 411–415. Dundon, S. J. (2003). Agricultural ethics and multi functionality are unavoidable. Plant Physiology, 133, 427–437. Emerson, R. W. (1836). Nature. Boston: James Munroe and Company. http://ia700204.us.archive.org/22/ items/naturemunroe00emerrich/naturemunroe00emerrich.pdf. Encarta, Manifest Destiny, United States History. (2006). http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_ 761568247/manifest_destiny.html. Faber, S., Rundquist, S., & Male, T. (2012). Plowed under: How crop subsidies contribute to massive habitat losses. Environmental Working Group. http://www.ewg.org/. Accessed 7 Aug 2012. FAO. (2011). In D. B. Hannaway & H. A. Fribourg (Eds.), Country pasture/forage resource profiles, United States of America. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization. http://www.fao.org/ag/ Agp/AGPC/doc/Counprof/PDF%20files/USA.pdf. GAO. (1977). To protect tomorrow’s food supply, soil conservation needs priority attention. CED 77-30. GAO, Washington, DC. http://www.gao.gov/products/CED-77-30. Gray, L. C., Bennett, J. B., Kraemer, E., & Sparhawk, W. N. (1938). The causes: Traditional attitudes and institutions. In Soils and men USDA yearbook of agriculture (pp. 111–135). Washington, DC: USA Government Printing Office. Hancock, B., Windridge, K., Ockleford, E. (2007). An introduction to qualitative research. The National Institute of Health Research, Research Design Service for the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humbler.

123

B. L. Turner et al. Harlin, J., & Barardi, G. (1987). Agricultural soil loss. Boulder: Westview. Johnson, V. (1947). Heaven’s tableland: The dust bowl story. New York: Farrar, Straus and Company. Johnston, C. (2013). Wetland losses due to row crop expansion in the Dakota Prairie Pothole Region. Wetlands, 33(1), 175–182. Kim, H., & Andersen, D. F. (2012). Building confidence in casual maps generated from purposive text data: Mapping transcripts of the Federal Reserve. System Dynamics Review, 28(4), 311–328. Lee, L. K. (1984). Land use and soil loss: A 1982 update. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 39, 226. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lockeretz, W. (1978). The lessons of the dust bowl: Several decades before the current concern with environmental problems, dust storms ravaged the Great Plains, and the threat of more dust storms still hangs over us. American Scientist, 66(5), 550–569. Meijboom, F. L. B., & Brom, F. W. A. (2012). Ethics and sustainability: Guest or guide? On sustainability as a moral ideal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 117–121. Moodley, K., Smith, N., & Preece, C. N. (2008). Stakeholder matrix for ethical relationships in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 26, 625–632. Philpott, T. (2008). A reflection on the lasting legacy of 1970s USDA Secretary Earl Butz. http://grist.org/ article/the-butz-stops-here/. Preston, L. E. (1975). Corporation and society: The search for a paradigm. Journal of Economic Literature, 13, 434–453. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumas, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1933–1949. Reimer, A. P., Thompson, A. W., & Prokopy, L. S. (2012). The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: Implications for conservation adoption. Agriculture and Human Values, 29, 29–40. Robinson, S., Dixon, J. R., Preece, C. N., & Moodley, K. (2007). Engineering, business and professional ethics. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Roosevelt, T. R. (1907a). Seventh state of the union address, December 3, 1907. http://en.wikisource.org/ wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt%27s_Seventh_State_of_the_Union_Address. Roosevelt, T. R. (1907b). Address to the deep waterway convention, Memphis, TN. October 4, 1907. Sachs, A. (1994). Dust to dust: Forgotten lessons of America’s great agricultural catastrophe. World Watch, 7(1), 32–35. Sohl, T. L., Sleeter, B. M., Sayler, K. L., Bouchard, M. A., Reker, R. R., Bennett, S. L., et al. (2012). Spatially explicit land-use and land-cover scenarios for the Great Plains of the United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 153, 1–15. Stegner, W. (1992). Beyond the hundredth meredian. New York: Penguin Books. Stephens, S. E., Walker, J. A., Blunck, D. R., Jayarman, A., Naugle, D. E., Ringleman, J. K., et al. (2008). Predicting risk of habitat conversion in native temperate grasslands. Conservation Biology, 22(5), 1320–1330. Thompson, P. B. (1990). Agricultural ethics and economics. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 42(1), 3–7. Thoreau, H. D. (1854). Walden. New York: New American Library, Penguin Putnam Inc. Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Heath Policy Plan, 15(3), 239–246. Warwick, S. L., & Cochoran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 4, 758–769. Wright, C. K., & Wimberly, M. C. (2012). Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands. Proceeding to the National Academy of Sciences, 110(10), 4134–4139.

123