Incentives and disincentives identified by producers and drainage contractors/experts on the adoption of controlled tile drainage in eastern Ontario, Canada
Colin Dring, J. Devlin, G. Boag, M. Sunohara, J. FitzGibbon, E. Topp, D. Lapen
{"title":"Incentives and disincentives identified by producers and drainage contractors/experts on the adoption of controlled tile drainage in eastern Ontario, Canada","authors":"Colin Dring, J. Devlin, G. Boag, M. Sunohara, J. FitzGibbon, E. Topp, D. Lapen","doi":"10.2166/WQRJC.2015.047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates incentives and disincentives regarding adoption of controlled tile drainage (CTD) in a region of eastern Ontario, Canada, where CTD could be used prolifically from a biophysical standpoint, but is not. Irrespective of documented environmental and agronomic benefits of CTD, adoption remains low. Surveys and semi-structured interviews with producers and drainage contractors/experts were used to evaluate awareness of CTD and identify producer adoption impediments. Surveys indicated nearly 70% of producer respondents had heard about CTD. Top ranked incentives identified by producers (who adopted) and drainage contractors/experts combined were: soil water retention benefits, increased crop yields, and gratification improving the environment. Top ranked disincentives combined by target groups were: increased farm labor, perceived lack of extension services, and costs. Many producer adopters emphasized motivators grounded in personal or community bearing, such as peer interaction and doing the right thing for the environment. Drainage contractors emphasized adoption impediments tied to a perceived lack of extension support for CTD. Drainage contractors themselves desired more extension support and firm data/research foundations with respect to advocating CTD to clients. With respect to motivation for producers to adopt CTD, this latter point may be critical given that producers highly valued drainage contractors as an information source on drainage practices.","PeriodicalId":54407,"journal":{"name":"Water Quality Research Journal of Canada","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2166/WQRJC.2015.047","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water Quality Research Journal of Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2166/WQRJC.2015.047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
This study investigates incentives and disincentives regarding adoption of controlled tile drainage (CTD) in a region of eastern Ontario, Canada, where CTD could be used prolifically from a biophysical standpoint, but is not. Irrespective of documented environmental and agronomic benefits of CTD, adoption remains low. Surveys and semi-structured interviews with producers and drainage contractors/experts were used to evaluate awareness of CTD and identify producer adoption impediments. Surveys indicated nearly 70% of producer respondents had heard about CTD. Top ranked incentives identified by producers (who adopted) and drainage contractors/experts combined were: soil water retention benefits, increased crop yields, and gratification improving the environment. Top ranked disincentives combined by target groups were: increased farm labor, perceived lack of extension services, and costs. Many producer adopters emphasized motivators grounded in personal or community bearing, such as peer interaction and doing the right thing for the environment. Drainage contractors emphasized adoption impediments tied to a perceived lack of extension support for CTD. Drainage contractors themselves desired more extension support and firm data/research foundations with respect to advocating CTD to clients. With respect to motivation for producers to adopt CTD, this latter point may be critical given that producers highly valued drainage contractors as an information source on drainage practices.
期刊介绍:
The Water Quality Research Journal publishes peer-reviewed, scholarly articles on the following general subject areas:
Impact of current and emerging contaminants on aquatic ecosystems
Aquatic ecology (ecohydrology and ecohydraulics, invasive species, biodiversity, and aquatic species at risk)
Conservation and protection of aquatic environments
Responsible resource development and water quality (mining, forestry, hydropower, oil and gas)
Drinking water, wastewater and stormwater treatment technologies and strategies
Impacts and solutions of diffuse pollution (urban and agricultural run-off) on water quality
Industrial water quality
Used water: Reuse and resource recovery
Groundwater quality (management, remediation, fracking, legacy contaminants)
Assessment of surface and subsurface water quality
Regulations, economics, strategies and policies related to water quality
Social science issues in relation to water quality
Water quality in remote areas
Water quality in cold climates
The Water Quality Research Journal is a quarterly publication. It is a forum for original research dealing with the aquatic environment, and should report new and significant findings that advance the understanding of the field. Critical review articles are especially encouraged.