Final report for ONE22-420B
Project Information
The state of Vermont has long been a national leader in the development and implementation of programs aimed at addressing sustainability within its food and agricultural system. In recent years, such efforts have taken the form of various payments for ecosystem service programs, which aim to incentivize the use of sustainable practices on farms through various mechanisms, including financial compensation. The Vermont Pay for Phosphorus (PfP) program is the latest of these efforts. It provides payments to farmers for reducing phosphorus runoff from farms with the goal of alleviating a number of ecological concerns, especially soil health and water quality, among others. What is unique about the PfP program is that, rather than being practice-based, it is performance-based, meaning farmers have the flexibility to implement conservation practices they know will work for their own operations. The opportunity to collect data while this project is in its infancy provides a crucial window for collecting vital baseline data that can inform a number of additional research efforts in the coming years and as the PfP project takes shape.
This project made use of qualitative research methods, including farm visits, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups with the aim of developing a better understanding of the motivations, concerns, and decision-making of different types of producers as it relates to the Vermont Pay for Phosphorus (PfP) program.
Many participating farmers painted the PfP program in a positive light. However, some barriers to entry and difficulties with program participation were reported, especially for smaller-scale vegetable, animal production and pasture-based production systems. Similarly, some on-farm innovation among different livestock and pasture-based systems, as well as alternative soil and nutrient management practices adopted by some silage corn and small-grain producers, were reportedly not being captured by PfP models, limiting model performance and reducing potential payments.
Several farmers that participated in the program for the first year, but left the program in subsequent years, provided further evidence of challenges - and well as opportunities to expand future participation. Those that were smaller scale (acreage) and/or specialty producers (vegetable/fruit and non-cropping animal producers) were an extremely small segment of those that participated and an even smaller share of participating producers that continued with the PfP program past the first year. Based on the analysis of interviews, this was largely due the fact that payments per acre at these smaller scales were not substantial enough to compensate for the time and effort to collect and enter data into the decision support system.
Many participating farmers expressed positive sentiments for the farmer outreach component of this project, where project findings were presented and discussed at length. Farmer participation in this process enabled free exchange of ideas formulated around the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the PfP program that are to be incorporated into a report for the administrators of the program.
A number of outreach activities that were conducted through this partnership grant, including: 1) Direct dissemination of research findings to participating farmers, 2) Conference travel and presentation of findings, and 3) Dissemination of findings via brief reports through the UVM network, and 4) Preparation of results for publication in peer-reviewed, open-access academic journals.
In this project, the question we answer is how motivations, concerns, and decision-making vary between the different types of producers currently enrolled in the Vermont Pay for Phosphorus program as well as between farms of different sizes (both in acreage and income). The objectives of this project are as follows:
- Conduct semi-structured interviews and farm visits with producers enrolled in the VT PfP program to gather data on farmer perspectives and perceptions of the program.
- Develop an understanding of the motivations, concerns, and decision-making of different types of producers as it relates to PES programs, generally, and the VT PfP program, specifically.
- Conduct focus groups with different types of producers to communicate interview findings and facilitate critical discussion.
- Communicate findings from interviews and focus groups to relevant agencies, producers, and partners.
These methods produce a detailed understanding of the factors that influence farmer decisions regarding enrollment in PES programs. Not only does this provide vital baseline data to inform the direction of the PfP program over the next 5 years, but it also helps inform the development of future PES programs within the state to better support both ecosystems and farmers.
In the coming decades, the U.S. Northeast is expected to face a number of challenges with the potential to undermine the sustainability and resilience of the regional food and agricultural system. These challenges have varying implications for farmers and agricultural landscapes across the region as well as for the ecosystem services they produce. The U.S. Northeast is not unique in its need to sustain a healthy regional landscape and land-based economies, but there are several unique attributes in this region that propel the urgency to assess the production of ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Within the United States, the Northeast is “the most heavily forested and most densely populated region in the country” (U.S. GCRP 2017), and the urban coastal corridor between Washington D.C. and Boston is one of the most developed environments in the world (Horton et al. 2014). At the same time, the region has struggled with a declining productive landbase and decreasing regional self-reliance (Griffin et al. 2015). Together, this means that while the region is becoming more developed, adding additional strain on ecosystems and ecosystem services in the region, it is also losing the farmers and working land managers that might be best positioned to implement practices to improve the provisioning of these services.
In addition to these unique characteristics, several recent shocks to the U.S. Northeast also motivate the need to increase the pace and scale of ecosystem service provisioning. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 laid bare a number of fault lines within production systems of the United States, including food and agricultural systems. The U.S. Northeast is also expected to experience regionally specific impacts of a changing climate, including rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and a warming ocean, especially in the Gulf of Maine (Horton et al. 2014). Together, these shocks add to the growing pressure on agricultural landscapes and the livelihoods of those that work them.
To address these intersecting issues, significant efforts are needed to incentivize the production of ecosystem services while also supporting food systems and agricultural livelihoods. Payments for ecosystem services, or PES programs, represent one such effort with the potential to promote specific land management behaviors through various mechanisms, including direct financial compensation. Evidence suggests that the broad regional adoption of ecosystem service production practices at scale, with the right support, has the potential to not only ecosystem service provisioning on agricultural lands, but to also increase agricultural livelihood viability, sustainability, and resilience (Coleman & Machado 2022).
The State of Vermont has long been a leader in the development and implementation of programs aimed at improving the production of ecosystem services in agriculture. The Vermont Pay for Phosphorus (PfP) program is the latest of these efforts. It provides payments to farmers for reducing phosphorus runoff with the goal of alleviating several ecological concerns, especially water quality, among others. What is unique about the PfP program is that, rather than being a practice-based PES program, it is performance-based, meaning that farmers have the flexibility to implement conservation practices they know will work for their own operations. The PfP program is also interesting in that it engages with several different types of Vermont farmers, including vegetable, mixed, crop and hay farmers. Such a unique program provides a number of opportunities for various types of farmers, but not without some of the same challenges that face other PES programs, which include the creation of new externalities, trade-offs between efficiency and equity, and being top-down in their approach (Chan et al. 2017).
To better understand how farmer perspectives and perceptions of these challenges impact program uptake and implementation, this partnership grant uses a combination of farm visits, in-depth semi-structured interviews, and focus groups to gauge the motivations, concerns and decision-making of farmers who have enrolled in this program. Through close collaboration with Nic Cook, the Research and Soil Conservation manager of Cedar Circle Farm and Education Center, this research aims to collect farmer perspectives and provide farmers more access to the policy process as this program rolls out.
Such research is both timely and relevant. Not only is the VT PfP program beginning now, providing a unique window in which to gather important baseline data for future research, but it is also one of the first programs of its kind in the United States. This work therefore has the potential to be exemplary, impacting the design and development of other performance-based PES programs elsewhere. Beyond its academic import, this research is also important for farmers in Vermont and elsewhere. As has long been recognized in Vermont, farmer "goals, needs and perspectives" are vitally needed "to inform the design of [PES] programs that farmers would be willing to participate in" (Hammond-Wagner et al. 2019). At the same time, however, preliminary conversations with farmers currently enrolled in the VT PfP program reveal lingering concerns and uncertainties regarding program design and implementation.
This research aims to probe deeper into these dynamics to understand farmer perspectives and to integrate them into ongoing conversations as the program gets underway. More generally, this project contributes to SARE's overall goal of ensuring the diversity, profitability, sustainability, and resilience of agriculture in the Northeast through a better understanding of the ways that performance-based PES programs contribute to farm viability as well as the ways these programs might be improved going forward to further serve these aims.
Ultimately, PES programs provide one of the most promising frameworks for addressing the social, economic, and ecological dimensions of agricultural sustainability and resilience. Going forward, the ability of such programs to foster conditions where farmers can have high quality of life and communities can thrive will depend predominantly on the extent to which they incorporate and are amenable to farmer perspectives. This partnership grant aims to do this within the context of the VT PfP program through discussions with and exchanges between the various types of farmers currently enrolled with the goal of creating an ongoing dialogue between program managers and farmers.
Cooperators
- - Producer
Research
Methods:
This project made use of several distinct qualitative research methods, including farm visits, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups with the aim of developing a better understanding of the motivations, concerns, and decision-making of different types of producers as it relates to the Vermont Pay for Phosphorus (PfP) program. For all these methods, research participants were identified from the list of enrolled farms available through the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, which runs the VT PfP program, including ~60 vegetable producers, hay producers, crop producers and mixed-production farms. From each of these four categories of farms, a representative sample of producers was identified using a snowball sampling technique.
- Objective 1: Conduct semi-structured interviews and farm visits with producers enrolled in the VT PfP program to gather data on farmer perspectives and perceptions of the program.
To complete this objective, this project made use of two qualitative methods. First, farm visits offered insight into not only the thinking of farmers but the material function and specific dynamics of their various operations. These farm visits took approximately 2 hours and involved a tour of farms along with open-ended discussion on themes related to the Pay for Phosphorus program to gauge farmer perspectives. This discussion was guided by a series of questions developed with the input of the project’s farmer collaborator, Nic Cook. To compensate for their time and efforts in these field visits, farmers were paid $200 per farm visit. In all, this project conducted farm visits with 10 farmers in total.
The second method in support of this objective was semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews provide a more formal setting in which to ask specific questions of farmers related to their motivations, concerns and decision-making surrounding the PfP program. At the same time, the nature of semi-structured interviews also allows for a more natural conversation to develop that gives research participants the freedom to explore important topics that are not necessarily considered within the list of questions. As with the farm visits, the questions for these interviews was developed beforehand with the input of the project’s farmer collaborator. To compensate for their time and efforts in these semi-structured interviews, farmers were paid $50; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 farmers in total.
- Objective 2: Develop an understanding of the motivations, concerns, and decision-making of different types of producers as it relates to PES programs, generally, and the VT PfP program, specifically.
To develop an understanding of the motivations, concerns, and decision-making of different types of producers in the VT PfP program, the results of both farm visits and semi-structured interviews were transcribed for content analysis, which is a standard qualitative data analysis technique that categorizes and collates data based on dominant themes (Cope 2016). We categorized data according to themes such as institutional trust/distrust, regulatory requirements, perceived economic concerns/benefits, perceived ecological concerns/benefits, and stewardship ethics, among others. Once coded, data were evaluated to understand the motivations, concerns, and decision-making of participating farmers. Particular attention was paid to differences and/or similarities in perspectives between farmers of various types (e.g., primary production practices) and between farms of various sizes (both in acreage and income). Through further consultation with this project’s farmer collaborator and other farmers the results of these interviews were used to develop the topics and themes serving as discussion prompts in the ensuing focus groups.
- Objective 3: Communicate interview findings and facilitate critical discussion among different types of producers.
To further delve into some of the issues that emerge from the analysis of farm visits and semi-structured interviews, a participatory farmer focus group was held in December 2024. The focus group included 12 farmers that were previously identified through the farm visits and semi-structured interviews. The session was guided by themes and discussion prompts that were based on findings from the farm visits and interviews and further developed through consultations with the farmer collaborator. To compensate for their time and efforts in these focus groups, farmers were paid $150 each.
Data from the focus group was coded and analyzed to complement the analysis of both the farm visit and semi-structured interview data to develop a final series of findings and results based on this work.
- Communicate findings to relevant farmers, agencies, and institutional partners.
Communication of research findings included: 1) Direct dissemination of research findings via email and an in-person final meeting with participating farmers, 2) Conference travel and presentation of findings, and 3) Dissemination of findings through the UVM network, and 4) Publication of results in peer-reviewed, open-access academic journal. Further details about all four aspects of this outreach plan are listed in the “Outreach Plan” below.
Since being awarded in August of 2022, this project has focused on conducting semi-structured interviews with farmers currently enrolled in the Vermont PfP program. IRB approval from the University of Vermont was obtained in October 2022, and following IRB approval recruitment of research subjects began. Due to information sharing limitations between the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets and the University, research subjects had to be recruited indirectly. A recruitment email from former project PI Mario Machado was sent out by the PfP program director to the approximately 50 farmers currently enrolled in November and since then, interviews have begun being scheduled and conducted.
Following the departure of PI Mario Machado to a new position in the private sector, University of Vermont PhD student Benjamin Ryan was recruited to complete the remaining objectives of this SARE grant.
A total of 29 interviews were conducted with farmers in the PfP program by the end of the grant period. Almost all interviews have been with dairy farmers, given dairy farmers constitute a majority of the farms currently enrolled in PfP. Selected interviews with vegetable and non-dairy animal producers were conducted by Benjamin Ryan to expand farmer experiences to better understand how the PfP program impacts different types of farms/farmers. Additionally, since a goal of this project is to better understand how the PfP program functions overall, the research team realized that there may also be significant research value in conducting interviews with agency personnel, conservation district staff, and other relevant project stakeholders. As such, the original IRB application was modified to account for these additional research participants and 5 interviews with these other PfP stakeholders have been conducted to date.
Of the interviews conducted by Mario Machado and Benjamin Ryan, most have painted the PfP program in a positive light. However, from further interviews, this does not appear to be a universally shared perspective, especially for particular farm types (i.e. small-scale vegetable, animal production and pasture-based systems). Similarly, some on-farm innovation among different livestock and pasture-based systems, as well as alternative soil and nutrient management practices adopted by some silage corn and small-grain producers, are not captured by the model limiting model performance and subsequent payments.
Feedback from farmers participating in the Vermont PfP Program suggests consideration for feedback mechanisms to integrate innovative practices that are not completely included in the program may improve efficacy and participation. Similarly, due to the ‘black box’ nature of the algorithmic determination, communication of differences between expected and actual payments could be improved through explanations of scenarios, parameters and dynamics (model transparency) via trusted stakeholders like conservation planners, nutrient management planners and agronomic advisors.
As previously reported the research team also gained access to a survey conducted by the University of Vermont in early 2022 regarding farmer attitudes towards the PfP program. While this data has not been collected under this SARE project, the analysis of it will nevertheless prove valuable for informing this research and will serve as vital baseline data going forward. As such, the research team has done an analysis of these survey data and is in the process of drafting a baseline report summarizing and detailing this work. Once completed, this report will be included as part of the outputs produced from this SARE project.
Finally, interviews findings from this SARE project have also supported a broader PfP program evaluation that is being conducted by the Gund Institute for Environment in 2025, and findings will be incorporated into that report when submitted to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets.
This project made use of qualitative research methods, including farm visits, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups with the aim of developing a better understanding of the motivations, concerns, and decision-making of different types of producers as it relates to the Vermont Pay for Phosphorus (PfP) program.
Many participating farmers painted the PfP program in a positive light. However, some barriers to entry and difficulties with program participation were reported, especially for smaller-scale vegetable, animal production and pasture-based production systems. Similarly, some on-farm innovation among different livestock and pasture-based systems, as well as alternative soil and nutrient management practices adopted by some silage corn and small-grain producers, were reportedly not being captured by PfP models, limiting model performance and reducing potential payments.
Several farmers that participated in the program for the first year, but left the program in subsequent years, provided further evidence of challenges - and well as opportunities to expand future participation. Those that were smaller scale (acreage) and/or specialty producers (vegetable/fruit and non-cropping animal producers) were an extremely small segment of those that participated and an even smaller share of participating producers that continued with the PfP program past the first year. Based on the analysis of interviews, this was largely due the fact that payments per acre at these smaller scales were not substantial enough to compensate for the time and effort to collect and enter data into the decision support system.
Many participating farmers expressed positive sentiments for the farmer outreach component of this project, where project findings were presented and discussed at length. Farmer participation in this process enabled free exchange of ideas formulated around the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the PfP program that are to be incorporated into a report for the administrators of the program.
Education & Outreach Activities and Participation Summary
In-person farmer gathering at a centrally-located conference space at Caledonia Spirits in Montpelier, Vermont in December 2024 to share study findings and seek farmer input in interpretation of key lessons learned.
Participation Summary:
Beyond the immediate objectives of this research, the outreach component of this work is essential to fulfilling the overall goal of bringing more farmer perspectives into the dialogue with PES program development and implementation in Vermont. To deliver on this goal, there are a number of outreach activities that were conducted through this partnership grant, including: 1) Direct dissemination of research findings to participating farmers, 2) Conference travel and presentation of findings, and 3) Dissemination of findings via brief reports through the UVM network, and 4) Preparation of results for publication in peer-reviewed, open-access academic journals.
1) Direct dissemination of research findings via pamphlet to participating farmers
Results were shared through an in-person farmer gathering held in Montpelier, VT in December 2024 that summarized research findings including summary hand-outs and presentation slides. The goal was to produce a summary of results in a format that is appropriate and accessible to farmers, and which provides a resource and reference for ongoing conversations between program managers and participants throughout the VT PfP program's 5-year cycle.
2) Conference travel and presentation of findings
Findings from this research were accepted for presentation at four conferences during the proposed project's 2-year cycle. Preliminary results from the farm visits and secondary data analysis undertaken through this SARE project were presented by Benjamin Ryan at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA) conference, and additional results shared at the Rural Sociological Society (RSS) annual meeting and the American Geophysics Union (AGU) in 2024. In June 2025 further results will be shared at the Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association Conference and Workshop (NAREA). PI Travis Reynolds also attended the Northeast Grazing and Livestock Conference and the Northeast Pasture Consortium Annual Meeting at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst in January 2024 to identify potential synergistic research projects with a PES focus, and to network with livestock system stakeholders with interests in the current SARE project outcomes.
3) Dissemination of findings through the UVM network
Beyond these conferences, communication of the results of this work to partners and institutions within Vermont included sharing key findings and recommendations through the Gund Institute's network, which includes other organizations at UVM such as Cooperative Extension and the Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, as well as organizations outside the university such as the Vermont Land Trust, the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts, and the Vermont's branch of the Northeast Organic Farmers Association. Through an ongoing collaboration with Gund Institute researchers the results of this SARE project will be integrated into a broader evaluation of the PFP program that will be completed in 2025 (including a survey of program participants and supplemental interviews of participants not already interviewed through this SARE project.)
4) Publication of results in peer-reviewed academic journal
Lastly, the results of this work will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed academic journals and will be available for open-access to ensure it is widely available. A first paper arising under this project on the topic of the PfP program as a case study of co-design of data-driven agri-environmental mechanisms is already under review.
Learning Outcomes
In interview and focus group settings 10 participating farmers reported an increase in knowledge and awareness of payment for ecosystem services program in Vermont including new details about the design and functioning of the Vermont Payment for Phosphorus program not previously known to them.
Project Outcomes
Many participating farmers expressed positive sentiments for the farmer outreach component of this SARE project, where additional details of the PfP program were shared and where project findings from interviews and farm visits with participating farmers were presented and discussed at length. Farmer participation in this process enabled free exchange of ideas formulated around the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the PfP program that are to be incorporated into a report for the administrators of the program.
The study findings around barriers to entry and ongoing participation among subsets of Vermont farmers - especially those that were smaller scale (acreage) and/or specialty producers (vegetable/fruit and non-cropping animal producers) - highlight opportunities for program reforms to support expanded participation.
For example, several respondents noted that payments per acre were not substantial enough for smaller farms to justify the time and effort needed to collect and enter data into current decision support system. Larger producers, meanwhile, some of whom outsourced the administrative component to third-party advisories or entities, consistently reported better program experiences than those that worked independently. Farmers’ interactions with the data managers was not only related to higher payments, but also associated with greater confidence in the model inputs and outputs. This suggests that additional investments in human capital - including improved support and development of trusted third-party advisors - may support enhanced program efficacy and efficiency, and thus contribute to PfP's ultimate economic and environmental goals.
Meanwhile, there is some optimism among some producers that innovations in precision monitoring technologies might alleviate some of the administrative burden through automated record-keeping and ease of data transfer - although to date such systems are still subject to human and technical (i.e., calibration) error.
Semi-structured interviews proved to be rich for developing individual experiences with the Vermont PfP program. Focus groups were effective in gaining additional perspectives and nuances in impactful changes and opportunities. Snowball sampling did not initially yield as many subjects as desired, but with limited alternatives, it was effective. An additional purposive sampling approach was undertaken to understand why some producers were no longer participating (ensuring those that dropped out of the program were interviewed). This provided integral evidence for limitations in the current program approach in reaching farmers that no longer were participating. Qualitative survival analysis is one possible method recommended for future research.
A widely held benefit of PfP program participation aside from monetary, was the social and communal evidence of ‘good’ behavior and reductions in phosphorus stemming from farm fields. The program provides farmers with actionable, provable and accessible information on their management and its causal effects. With ever looming regulatory and litigatory threats, the program strengthens the knowledge and provides verifiable evidence of mitigating phosphorus pollution. This as a benefit to farmers cannot be understated and could be developed further for public and communal benefits in watershed modelling as well as sub-field level reductions in phosphorus and economic optimizations.
Behavioral change through this specific SARE project was minimal for most producers, although the PfP program itself did initiate the transition of several farmers from continuous corn to grass-based systems. The compensation for recent changes in management was a powerful motivator and many producers felt these payments were substantial contributions to their financial sustainability. As the program is not complete (and data availability remains limited), the long-term changes at the individual level and state level were not able to be measured but will be investigated in follow up research.
This SARE research focused on farmer perspectives, although there are many stakeholders that are critical in the program, expanding the scope would be beneficial to identifying pluralistic perspectives. Based on this, more focus groups between different stakeholder groups are recommended, perhaps with support of a facilitator and/or mediator. As mentioned in the project outcomes, these entities (third-party advisors) played critical roles and deepening the research into these entities would strengthen future initiatives.
Finally, we identified artificial intelligence and precision agriculture technologies (decision-support tools, planters, sprayers, yield monitors and satellite imagery, etc.) as avenues of future research as trust and access to capital drive adoption of digital tech. The integration of these technologies is an important element of emerging governance assemblages and market initiatives. Future programs leveraging biogeochemical algorithms for improving farmer decision-making and governance of natural resources for economic (and for ecological services) likely have limitations in the producers that can participate and enact actionable changes in management/operations. Consideration of these limitations from a technical, operational and management perspective is paramount to anticipate potential winners and losers.
Information Products
- The Future Governance of Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture: Advancing Justice-Based Approaches
- Understanding Farmer Decision Making in Performance-Based PES Programs through the Vermont Pay for Phosphorus Program
- Understanding farmer decision making in performance-based PES programs through the Vermont Pay-for-Phosphorus program