How to Increase Iowa Farmers’ and Landowners’

Understanding of Edge-of-Field Practices

EVIDENCE FROM A 2024 SURVEY

Xiaolan Wan, Jacqueline Comito, Wendong Zhang

May 2025
ABSTRACT
Edge-of-field (EOF) practices such as saturated buffers, bioreactors, and water quality enhancement wetlands
are critical components in managing excessive nutrient transport from agricultural fields. These practices play a
vital role in achieving the goal of 45 percent nutrient reduction outlined in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy,
and in helping the U.S. agricultural system to attain long-term sustainability. Key EOF practices, which are
important and necessary additions to in-field practices such as cover crops and no-till, can significantly improve
water quality, store more carbon in the soil, and enhance wildlife habitat in working landscapes. Despite their
important and effective nutrient reduction ability, however, EOF practices have been remarkably underutilized.
Building on a previous Iowa Nutrient Research Center-funded project, this study’s purpose is to further decode
and unpack the messenger effect in encouraging farmers to adopt critical EOF conservation practices. Using
online survey responses of 774 farmers and landowners residing in five watersheds in Iowa, this study provides
informative updates on EOF practices, including current adoption rates, willingness to pay for them, perceived
environmental benefits, and perceived barriers to adoption. It leverages split-sample information treatments to
explore messenger effects and identify effective education strategies to encourage farmers to adopt critical EOF
conservation practices. Our study indicates that incorporating wildlife benefits into educational materials can
effectively inform and motivate farmers and landowners to adopt EOF practices by connecting conservation
efforts with tangible emotional ecological benefits. Moreover, a female farmer messenger can empower the
delivery of wildlife information, leading to increased engagement. These findings are important for scaling up
adoption and making progress toward Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy goals, helping stakeholders attune and
refine strategies for outreach and engagement activities promoting EOF practices.

KEYWORDS
Edge-of-field practices, Messenger effects, Nutrient reduction, Barriers to adoption, Educational strategies;
Behavioral agricultural economics; Conservation programs

JEL CODES
Q16, Q18, Q24, Q57

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This survey was supported by an Iowa Nutrient Research Center grant. We thank Allison Anderson, Neely
Lehman, and Ellen Mclntosh of the Iowa State University Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology and Iowa
Learning Farms for conducting the survey, as well as Tina Kirstukas for editorial assistance. We also would like
to thank Nathan Stevenson, Wade Dooley, Laura Krouse, Matthew Helmers, and Kay Stefanik for their help with
the study.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………… 4
I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................6
II. Survey Implementation........................................................................................7
III. Survey Findings ..................................................................................................8
EOF and In-field Conservation Practice Adoptions ………………………………………. 8
Perceived Benefits of EOF Practices ……………………………………………………… 9
Barriers to Adoption ………………………………………………………...……………. 11
Information Treatment Experiments …………………………………………………….. 13
Hypothetical Adoption Rates ……………………………………………………………. 16
IV. Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 19
Appendix: Survey Methodology Details and Demographics …………………………….. 20
References ............................................................................................................. 22

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conservation practices are crucial for sustainable agricultural production and the preservation of healthy
ecosystems. These practices significantly enhance soil health, water quality, and biodiversity, and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Edge-of-field (EOF) practices, such as saturated buffers, bioreactors, and water quality
enhancement wetlands, play a pivotal role in improving water quality by effectively reducing nutrient loads and
fostering wildlife habitats.

However, these key EOF practices have been remarkably underutilized even though they can effectively reduce
nutrient delivery (Iowa Learning Farms, 2022). The 2022 Iowa Farmland Ownership and Tenure Survey shows
that EOF practices are used on less than 1 percent of Iowa farmland, compared to 7 percent for cover crops and
27 percent for no-till (Tong & Zhang, 2023). This low adoption rate is often due to a lack of understanding of
these innovative practices among farmers and landowners, and a statewide history of draining wetlands for
agriculture. Because these structural EOF practices are based on recent scientific advancements, farmers and
landowners are largely unfamiliar with them, and lack clear comprehension of what they do and why they would
be necessary—leading to uncertainty and reluctance to implement them. In addition, some of the practices are
familiar practices, such as a wetland or a buffer, that have been engineered for better water quality treatment and
many farmers and landowners don’t know the difference between the standard practice and the water quality
improvement practice.

In an earlier Iowa Nutrient Research Center project (Wan, Comito & Zhang, 2024), we investigated the effects
of various modes of messaging about these critical EOF practices on encouraging farmers to adopt them. The
purpose of this study is to further decode the reasons for low practice adoption and refine our investigation of
how educational messages might most effectively address them.

In collaboration with the Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology at Iowa State University and with grant
support from the Iowa Nutrient Research Center, we conducted an online survey among Iowa farmers and
landowners across five different HUC-8 watersheds in the Des Moines Lobe, beginning in July 2024. We received
a total of 774 completed surveys, for a response rate of 10.6 percent. While this figure seems low, it aligns with
our initial expectations and typical response rates for online-only surveys. Anticipating this low response rate, we
proactively expanded our sample size to ensure sufficient data for robust analysis. We implemented a split-
sample design where farmers and landowners are randomly assigned to an information treatment describing the
benefits of EOF practices; these were incorporated into the online survey, ensuring that respondents viewed the
information assigned to them.

4
Our main findings from the survey:
• It is very clear that the majority of farmers and landowners do not understand EOF practices. An
alarming percentage of respondents are unaware that EOF practices reduce nitrogen loads into
waterways—when in fact all three excel at this, their primary function. Significant numbers erroneously
assume EOF practices primarily improve soil health or serve as sediment collectors. These results
point to a tremendous lack of knowledge about the primary functions and importance of EOF
practices, and highlight the critical need for more widespread, accessible educational outreach to
clarify and promote the vital role these practices play in improving water quality.

• Incorporating wildlife benefits into educational materials not only educates but also motivates
landowners and farmers to adopt EOF practices. This strategy effectively engages the audience by
connecting conservation efforts with tangible and emotional ecological benefits. Adoption rates rose to
varying degrees, sometimes significantly, with both videos and infographics that included wildlife
information.

• A 90-second video featuring a female farmer discussing the wildlife benefits as well as the nutrient
reduction capabilities of EOF practices proved the most effective of the message treatment options in
encouraging the adoption of conservation practices. More than half of those who viewed this video
indicated they would employ saturated buffers, and nearly half would incorporate water quality
enhancement wetlands. This finding suggests that the presence of a female spokesperson with wildlife
information could enhance the relatability and credibility of the message, leading to a higher
engagement and adoption rate.

• Concerns regarding the governmental regulations or administrative complexities of implementing EOF

practices are widespread, indicating that bureaucratic hurdles could significantly discourage
participation in government conservation programs that support and help to fund EOF practices.

• The language we use matters—surveys are only as good as our ability to ask the right questions. It was
clear after the 2022 round of surveys that farmers and landowners were confusing water quality
enhancement wetlands with any wetland or pond, and that they didn’t know the difference between
saturated buffers and regular buffers. Clearly defining these different practices in this survey brought
responses that align more fully with the current adoption numbers for the practices.

• The people we use matter, too. Our previous studies showed that other farmers delivering the
information in educational materials were more successful in boosting adoption rates than were
Extension professionals. This study refines those results one step further. Preliminary results reveal that
the gender of the farmer makes a difference—with early farmer adopters of the opposite gender proving
most successful, especially in educational videos. Videos featuring a female farmer were more effective
with male farmers than they were with female farmers, and videos featuring a male farmer resonated
more with female respondents. More research is needed to understand this finding since it is contrary
to findings in other research, but it suggests a potential tool to effectively attract and engage different
gender groups in conservation efforts.

5
I. INTRODUCTION
The global agricultural sector faces unprecedented challenges in the wake of escalating climate change. Rising
temperatures, unpredictable weather events, increased water scarcity, and soil degradation threaten traditional
farming practices and jeopardize agricultural sustainability. The Midwest—whose landscape is among the most
highly altered and intensively managed ecosystems in the country—faces significant water quality problems
attributable to nutrient transport from annual row crop agriculture (Rabotyagov et al., 2014; Howard et al.,
2023). Conservation practices play a vital role in sustainable agricultural production and maintaining a healthy
ecosystem—fundamentally improving soil health, enhancing water quality, preserving biodiversity, and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions (Helmers, 2017).

The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (INRS), introduced in 2012, calls for 45 percent total load reductions in
both nitrogen and phosphorus. Most of the excess nutrients draining into Iowa waterways come from agricultural
nonpoint sources; the INRS specifically outlines potential reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus loads achievable
through a wide range of both in-field and edge-of-field conservation practices (Lawrence and Benning 2019;
IDALS 2021). Despite more than a decade of various educational and promotional campaigns about such
practices, as well as availability of financial support for incorporating them, adoption of in-field conservation
practices such as planting cover crops remains low; adoption of EOF practices is even lower and less understood
(Howard et al. 2023; Wan, Howard & Zhang, 2025).

The low adoption of EOF practices can be attributed to a lack of understanding of these new practices and a
history of draining wetlands, usually called prairie potholes. Because these structural EOF practices are often
novel and rooted in recent scientific advancements, many farmers and landowners aren’t familiar with them or
don’t clearly understand how they function—creating uncertainty and reluctance to implement them. Without
comprehensive educational resources, training, and demonstrations to showcase the benefits and practical
application of the enhanced or new EOF practices, farmers may perceive them as overly complex, risky,
unnecessary or undesirable—leading to misconceptions about their efficiency and usefulness, and
overshadowing their potential advantages in water quality management, nutrient reduction, and environmental
protection.

The Edge-of-Field Conservation Practices Survey, building on a previous Iowa Nutrient Research Center project
(Wan, Comito & Zhang, 2024), aims to clarify how we can best fill this knowledge gap. In the first study, we found
that farmers and landowners were more likely to adopt EOF practices promoted in messages by other farmers
than by Extension professionals. However, the potential impact of the messenger's gender on adoption rates
remained unclear. In this study, we sought to investigate whether gender influences the effectiveness of the
messages and the degree to which it affects farmer engagement and practice adoption. We employed videos and
infographics featuring either a male farmer or a female farmer as a messenger, as well as a traditional text-heavy
fact sheet, in a split-sample design with different combinations of messages about EOF practices and their
environmental benefits. Our findings, detailed on the pages that follow, yield important considerations for
outreach and education efforts. They can also aid policymakers and conservation organizations in designing and
promoting programs to be more appealing to land managers. Understanding what drives farmer adoption can
lead to policies and incentives that align more effectively with their values and concerns.

6
II. SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION
This project not only built upon the previous survey but refined its methodology. For this round, we designed
videos and infographics to be more narrative and storytelling, magnifying focus on the farmer voices. We paired
various versions of those videos and infographics—featuring different messengers and combinations of messages
about EOF practices adoption and their environmental benefits—with an online survey, initiated in July 2024.

We sent the questionnaires to a sample of 7,445 individuals who reside and farm in five HUC-8 watersheds in
Iowa: the North Raccoon River Watershed, the Boone River Watershed, the Middle Cedar River Watershed, the
Turkey River Watershed, and the Winnebago River Watershed. These watersheds are primarily located in the
Des Moines Lobe and have varying levels of EOF practice adoption. Figure 1 presents a map with the five
watersheds highlighted.

Figure 1. The sampled farmers from five HUC-8 watersheds in Iowa.

7
III. SURVEY FINDINGS
EOF AND IN-FIELD CONSERVATION PRACTICE ADOPTIONS
First, we discerned how widely in-field and EOF practices had already been adopted among those we surveyed.
In our previous survey, we found that the adoption rates of saturated buffers and water quality enhancement
wetlands were over-reported because some respondents were reporting any buffer or any wetland they had on
their land (Wan, Comito & Zhang, 2024). To ensure accuracy and avoid respondents misunderstanding
terminology, we included explanatory notes for less familiar practices, such as saturated buffers, water quality
enhancement wetlands, and controlled drainage, detailed below.

The results indicate that EOF practices, such as saturated buffers, bioreactors, and water quality enhancement
wetlands, are still adopted considerably less frequently than are in-field practices such as no-till and cover crops.
Table 1 presents the percentage of EOF and in-field practice adoption among respondents.

Table 1. Percentage of edge-of-field and in-field practice adoption

Variables N Percent of farmers
Saturated buffers* 682 6.2
Bioreactors 677 2.8
Water quality enhancement wetlands* 688 8.1
Grassed waterway 753 84.5
Buffer strips 725 56.1
Controlled drainage* 690 10.7
Rotational grazing 687 14.0
Cover crops 740 34.3
No-till 727 55.2
Reduced tillage 719 75.1
The practices in bold are the edge-of-field practices.

* We added the following short notations to explain saturated buffers, water quality enhancement wetlands, and
controlled drainage:
Saturated buffers
(i.e., water is diverted into a perforated distribution pipe, where it slowly flows through
the soil of a vegetated buffer)

Water quality enhancement wetlands

(i.e., constructed shallow water area with gently sloping banks, an average water depth
of about 3 ft, and was designed specifically to improve water quality)

Controlled drainage/drainage water management

(i.e., outlet from a conventional drainage system is intercepted by a water control
structure for control of water levels and flow)

8
PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF EOF PRACTICES
The survey then focused on farmer attitudes toward the benefits of and barriers to adopting EOF treatments. The
results overwhelmingly indicate a significant disparity between the perceived and actual functions of the three
EOF practices we focused on—saturated buffers, bioreactors, and water quality enhancement wetlands.

The primary function of each of these three EOF practices is to support water quality, chiefly through removing
nitrogen (in its dissolved form, nitrate) from water draining from farm fields, before it enters waterways. Water
quality enhancement wetlands and saturated buffers also directly provide wildlife habitat benefits. None of the
three is notable for soil health or sediment reduction. However, respondents seem largely uninformed,
misinformed, or uncertain about these functions—underscoring a critical need for more widespread, accessible
education on the crucial role these practices play in water quality.

Environmental Benefits
A considerable number of respondents still expressed uncertainty about the environmental benefits of the three
EOF practices we highlighted, especially bioreactors at 40 percent. Water quality enhancement wetlands and
saturated buffers got higher rankings, with a majority (70 percent) of respondents believing they are beneficial to
the environment at least to some degree—but a quarter not confidently informed about their specific functions
and benefits. Table 2 outlines the degree to which respondents perceived the three EOF practices as having
environmental benefits.

Table 2. Do you think that any of the following practices can be beneficial for the environment?
Neutral/
Percent who answered— N Definitely no Probably no Not sure Probably yes Definitely yes
Saturated buffers 760 1.2 3.3 26.3 46.1 23.2
Bioreactors 760 1.3 5.0 40.3 37.9 15.5
Water quality
759 1.6 4.5 22.8 45.6 25.6
enhancement wetlands

Soil Improvement
Respondents showed significant uncertainty about the effectiveness of all three practices, particularly bioreactors,
for soil health. This is understandable because the main function of each of the EOF practices in question is to
enhance water quality and support wildlife habitat, not to directly improve the soil health of agricultural fields.
Despite this, nearly half of respondents believe saturated buffers and water quality enhancement wetlands can
actually improve soil health. Table 3 details these perceptions of the efficacy of EOF practices in improving soil
health.

Table 3. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following practices can improve soil health?
Strongly Neutral/
Percent who answered— N disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree
Saturated buffers 756 1.7 7.9 41.3 41.1 7.9
Bioreactors 760 1.3 11.8 51.7 30.0 5.1
Water quality
755 2.0 10.1 38.5 40.5 8.9
enhancement wetlands

9
Nitrogen Reduction
Nearly 40 percent of respondents were either not sure of or disagree with the effectiveness of EOF practices in
reducing nitrogen in waterbodies—when in fact all three excel at this, their primary purpose. The results in Table
4 indicate this significant lack of familiarity with the primary functions of EOF practices.

Table 4. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following practices can reduce the amount of nitrogen
in water bodies?
Strongly Neutral/
Percent who answered— N disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree
Saturated buffers 761 0.7 3.4 33.4 48.5 14.1
Bioreactors 764 0.3 2.4 38.2 43.7 15.5
Water quality
758 0.9 2.6 30.2 50.8 15.4
enhancement wetlands

Sediment Reduction
Almost three-quarters of respondents mistakenly view wetlands primarily as sediment traps. This suggests a
fundamental misunderstanding, since the primary function of these wetlands is to improve water quality via
nutrient reduction, not sediment control. It also indicates that respondents are confusing water quality
enhancement wetlands with practices whose purpose is to capture sediment. More than half are also confused
about bioreactors, which have no role in sediment management. Table 5 shows this disparity between the
perceived and actual functions of these EOF practices.

Table 5. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following practices can prevent sediment from reaching
water bodies?
Strongly Neutral/
Percent who answered— N disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree
Saturated buffers 760 1.1 4.7 30.8 50.7 12.8
Bioreactors 761 1.2 7.2 39.7 40.0 12.0
Water quality
761 1.1 1.1 24.4 55.9 17.6
enhancement wetlands

Wildlife Habitat
Respondents largely believe all three EOF practices offer wildlife benefits. Water quality enhancement wetlands
were ranked most favorably, with nearly three-quarters of respondents (correctly) agreeing they offer wildlife
habitat, followed by saturated buffers at more than half. Nearly 45 percent of respondents mistakenly believe
bioreactors also directly enhance wildlife habitat, though they are designed and adopted mainly to reduce nutrient
runoff. Table 6 presents respondent views on EOF practices enhancing wildlife habitat.

Table 6. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following practices can enhance and expand wildlife
habitat?
Strongly Neutral/
Percent who answered— N disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree
Saturated buffers 754 1.1 7.2 38.6 43.0 10.2
Bioreactors 759 1.7 9.9 44.1 34.9 9.4
Water quality
757 1.1 1.5 24.4 52.6 20.5
enhancement wetlands

10
BARRIERS TO ADOPTION
The next four questions examined how farmers and landowners perceive four potential barriers to adopting EOF
practices—unfamiliarity with the practices, extra time and labor requirements in implementing them, difficulty in
finding information on conservation programs, and requirements and restrictions of government programs.

Familiarity with Practices

Around half of respondents expressed unfamiliarity with each practice—52 percent of respondents for saturated
buffers, 53 percent for bioreactors, and 47 percent for water quality enhancement wetlands. This lack of
familiarity represents a substantial barrier to the broader adoption and effective implementation of key EOF
practices. Table 7 details familiarity with the three EOF practices.

Table 7. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement:

I am not familiar with the following practices?
Strongly Neutral/
Percent who answered— N disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree
Saturated buffers 755 5.3 25.6 17.6 42.3 9.3
Bioreactors 754 6.1 21.6 19.2 37.7 15.4
Water quality
755 6.0 29.9 17.4 40.1 6.6
enhancement wetlands

Time and Labor to Implement

A majority of respondents feel neutral or unsure about the labor and time required to implement and maintain
EOF practices—about 63 percent for saturated buffers, 65 percent for bioreactors, and 58 percent for water
quality enhancement wetlands. Most respondents likely have neither installed these practices themselves nor
know anyone who has, which makes it difficult for them to accurately assess the labor and time required. Given
the low adoption rates, it's probable that the majority are not familiar with the practical details involved. Providing
farmers and landowners with practical demonstrations, clear guidelines, and real-world examples could help
demystify the processes involved, and encourage wider adoption—and more important, allow farmers to see
that the benefits of these practices outweigh the efforts required. Table 8 evaluates respondent concerns about
excess labor and time required to implement and maintain these EOF practices.

Table 8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement:

It takes too much work and time to implement and maintain the following practices?
Strongly Neutral/
Percent who answered— N disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree
Saturated buffers 739 2.4 18.0 63.3 14.3 1.9
Bioreactors 748 1.7 9.8 64.9 19.4 4.2
Water quality
744 2.2 20.0 57.9 17.9 2.0
enhancement wetlands

11
Access to Information
A majority of respondents were unsure of how difficult it is to find information about state or federal conservation
programs supporting EOF practices. This suggests that most farmers were not actively seeking out such
information on conservation programs, due either to a lack of urgency to learn about these practices, or a lack
of related education. Moreover, nearly 15 percent reported challenges in finding the information on the practices,
indicating potential barriers that could hinder their participation or decision-making process—perhaps including
their own ability to easily conduct internet searches or navigate government websites. Table 9 measures
perceived difficulty in accessing information about state or federal conservation programs on the EOF practices.

Table 9. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement:

It is difficult to find information about state or federal conservation programs?
Strongly Neutral/
Percent who answered— N disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree
Saturated buffers 742 2.3 23.7 59.0 12.8 2.2
Bioreactors 746 2.0 18.9 61.6 15.1 2.4
Water quality
748 2.5 26.2 56.2 12.8 2.3
enhancement wetlands

Government Red Tape

Nearly 40 percent of respondents were worried about the “red tape” in government programs—administrative
hurdles that could significantly discourage participation in government conservation programs. Streamlining the
application and information retrieval processes to be more user-friendly and accessible could effectively lower
that barrier, as could providing clear, comprehensive guides and FAQs to help demystify the process for potential
participants. Table 10 presents respondent concerns about the requirements, restrictions, and paperwork in
government programs.

Table 10. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement:
There are too many requirements, restrictions, and paperwork associated with government programs?
Strongly Neutral/
Percent who answered— N disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree
Saturated buffers 739 1.1 9.9 49.7 25.7 13.7
Bioreactors 750 0.8 7.2 49.1 27.5 15.5
Water quality
754 1.2 9.5 47.5 27.2 14.7
enhancement wetlands

12
INFORMATION TREATMENT EXPERIMENTS
After assessing farmer attitudes toward the benefits of and barriers to adopting the three EOF treatments, the
survey moved to compare and identify which educational strategies and incentives were most effective in
encouraging farmers and landowners to adopt these practices.

We used a split-sample design to divide the 7,445 farmers and landowners into 10 random subsample groups of
745 individuals each. The 10 groups each received a different version of the survey, containing a questionnaire
and one of the following:
(1) A video about nutrient reduction benefits, featuring a female farmer
(2) A video about nutrient reduction and wildlife benefits, featuring a female farmer
(3) A video about nutrient reduction benefits, featuring a male farmer
(4) A video about nutrient reduction and wildlife benefits, featuring a male farmer
(5) An infographic-style fact sheet about nutrient reduction benefits, featuring a female farmer
(6) An infographic-style fact sheet about nutrient reduction and wildlife benefits, featuring a female
farmer
(7) An infographic-style fact sheet about nutrient reduction benefits, featuring a male farmer
(8) An infographic-style fact sheet about nutrient reduction and wildlife benefits, featuring a male farmer
(9) A baseline, traditional Extension fact sheet
(10) Only the questionnaire without supplemental information (the control group)

Randomly assigning participants to different groups allowed us to isolate the effects of each of the information
treatments from other confounding factors.

Immediately after respondents viewed the information treatment in their survey, we presented a dichotomous
choice contingent valuation question to gauge how willing they were to adopt an EOF practice. (For example:
“Now assuming that IDALS will offer a one-time cost share payment of 100 percent of the installation cost for your field,
would you sign up for an IDALS cost share program and install a saturated buffer on your field?”) This question format,
in which respondents have only two answer choices—yes or no, in this case—yields more accurate results than
directly asking farmers to state their desired payment level.

Figures 2 and 3 show examples of the educational videos and infographic-style fact sheets included with our
surveys.

13
A person wearing a hat A person sitting at a table
AI-generated content may be incorrect. AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A person and person standing in a field with a dog A person in a red sweater
AI-generated content may be incorrect. AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 2. Video information treatments featured either a male farmer (left) or a female farmer (right), discussing
only nutrient reduction (top), or also including wildlife benefits (bottom).

14
Figure 3. Fact sheet treatments included infographic-style fact sheets about nutrient reduction including wildlife
benefits (top), or not including wildlife (bottom left and middle), and featuring male farmers (top and bottom left)
or female farmers (top right and bottom middle). One group also received a traditional text-heavy Extension fact
sheet (bottom right).

15
HYPOTHETICAL ADOPTION RATES
Table 11 compares the adoption rates of a hypothetical saturated buffer and a hypothetical water quality
enhancement wetland after respondents viewed the information treatments. The data indicate that adding
wildlife benefit information to educational materials can significantly increase adoption rates for EOF practices—
most notably, among respondents who were shown a video featuring a female farmer that included information
on wildlife benefits. The adoption rate for saturated buffers and water quality enhancement wetlands rose 18
percent and 19 percent, respectively, over the video featuring a female farmer discussing nutrient reduction
benefits alone.

Adding wildlife information didn’t make much difference for the male farmer videos, but proved effective for the
infographics featuring a male farmer—increasing adoption by about 15 percent for water quality enhancement
wetlands and 10 percent for saturated buffers.

Table 11. Take-up rates of EOF practices

Saturated buffers Water quality enhancement wetlands
Number of farmers Number of farmers
Treatments willing to adopt Percent willing to adopt Percent
Video Female 27 of 73 37.0 21 of 71 29.6
Video Female Wildlife 33 of 60 55.0 28 of 58 48.3

Video Male 38 of 80 47.5 28 of 76 36.8

Video Male Wildlife 39 of 86 45.3 35 of 86 40.7

Infographic Female 30 of 73 41.1 25 of 73 34.2

Infographic Female Wildlife 26 of 64 40.6 22 of 63 34.9

Infographic Male 27 of 77 35.1 25 of 76 32.9

Infographic Male Wildlife 41 of 83 49.4 36 of 83 43.4

Traditional Fact Sheet 22 of 62 35.5 26 of 62 41.9

Control 31 of 73 42.5 25 of 72 34.7

16
Cost Share Payments
We expect a monotonic increase with cost share rates, and the prevailing rates are 100 percent full compensation.
The general trend shown in the data is that increased payment rates lead to higher adoption rates. For saturated
buffers, the adoption rate grows from about 39 percent when farmers are offered a 75 percent cost share payment
rate to 46 percent at a 125 percent cost share payment rate. For water quality enhancement wetlands, the
adoption rate starts at 29.5 percent with a 75 percent cost share payment rate and rises to 42 percent at a 125
percent payment rate. Table 12 shows the effect of cost share payments on the adoption of EOF practices.

Table 12. Cost share payment rates and EOF practice adoption
Saturated buffers Water quality enhancement wetlands
Number of farmers Number of farmers
Cost-share payment willing to adopt Percent willing to adopt Percent
75% 55 of 142 38.7 43 of 146 29.5
90% 61 of 142 43.0 59 of 150 39.3
100% 68 of 162 42.0 56 of 135 41.5
110% 66 of 146 45.2 50 of 139 36.0
125% 64 of 139 46.0 63 of 150 42.0

Gender Dynamics
Intriguingly, the data reveal that videos featuring a female farmer were more effective with male farmers than
female farmers, with male farmers showing a higher willingness than female farmers to adopt both saturated
buffers (about 14 percent higher) and water quality enhancement wetlands (about 15 percent higher). Similarly,
videos featuring a male farmer resonated more with female farmer respondents, resulting in higher adoption rates
compared to their male counterparts—10 percent higher for saturated buffers and 4 percent higher for water
quality enhancement wetlands. While more research is needed to understand this finding since it is contrary to
findings in other research, it suggests that presenter gender in videos could be a factor that increases engagement
and adoption rates. Table 13 presents a breakdown of EOF practice adoption based on respondent gender and
information treatments.

Table 13. Respondent gender and EOF practice adoption

FEMALE RESPONDENTS
Saturated buffers Water quality enhancement wetlands
Number of farmers Number of farmers
Treatment willing to adopt Percent willing to adopt Percent
Video Female 8 of 23 34.8 6 of 23 26.1
Video Male 18 of 33 54.5 16 of 33 48.5
Infographic Female 11 of 26 42.3 4 of 26 15.4
Infographic Male 11 of 29 37.9 13 of 29 44.8

MALE RESPONDENTS
Saturated buffers Water quality enhancement wetlands
Number of farmers Number of farmers
Treatment willing to adopt Percent willing to adopt Percent
Video Female 51 of 104 49.0 43 of 104 41.3
Video Male 57 of 128 44.5 47 of 129 44.5
Infographic Female 45 of 109 41.3 43 of 109 39.4
Infographic Male 57 of 129 44.2 48 of 129 37.2

17
Barriers to Practice Adoption
Respondents offer various reasons why they choose not to participate in EOF conservation programs, outlined
in Table 14. Roughly a quarter for each practice cited fear of additional government regulations, suggesting an
on-going distrust of regulatory interventions that has been well documented. The potential loss of productive
land is a major concern for about 21 percent with saturated buffers and 25 percent for water quality enhancement
wetlands. A notable percentage of farmers also are reluctant to engage with government agencies. Secondary
concerns involve the uncertainty of environmental benefits, the complexity and effort required to implement
these practices, and the technical knowledge needed.

Table 14. Reasons for rejecting an EOF conservation program

Water quality
Saturated buffers enhancement wetlands
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
The government might put additional regulations on this field 182 23.5 214 27.7
Taking land out of production 165 21.3 195 25.2
I don’t want to deal with the government agency 131 16.9 157 20.3
Uncertainty of improvements in water quality 111 14.3 98 12.7
Don’t understand how they work 97 12.5 100 12.9
Time or labor involved 93 12.0 100 12.9
Technical knowledge required 64 8.3 60 7.8
Cost share is too low/easement payment is too low 49 6.3 59 7.6
Lack of support from other farmers 38 4.9 36 4.7
Other 111 14.3 118 15.3

18
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy led the nation in 2012 in calling for 45 percent total load reductions in
both nitrogen and phosphorus draining into Iowa waterways, primarily from agricultural nonpoint sources. Edge-
of-field (EOF) practices, such as saturated buffers, bioreactors, and water quality enhancement wetlands, offer a
proven way for farmers and landowners to contribute to this pioneering effort to improve water quality by
effectively reducing nutrient loads and fostering wildlife habitats—without taking cropland out of production.

However, key EOF practices have been woefully underutilized, primarily due to a lack of understanding of the
primary functions and benefits of these innovative practices among farmers and landowners. This study
reinforces and highlights the critical need for more widespread, accessible educational outreach to clarify and
promote the vital role these practices play in improving water quality.

Designed to further decode the effect different messengers and messages have on motivating farmers to adopt
key edge-of-field conservation practices, this study revealed the following key findings that could strengthen
outreach communications and help to raise adoption rates:

• Integrating wildlife benefits into educational materials not only informs but also motivates farmers and
landowners to adopt EOF practices, engaging the audience by linking conservation efforts with tangible
ecological benefits.

• A female farmer can bring enhanced relatability and credibility to conservation messages. Educational
videos featuring a female farmer discussing wildlife benefits are more effective than those featuring a
male farmer, with a substantial increase in adoption rates for both saturated buffers and water quality
enhancement wetlands. This highlights the enhanced relatability and credibility a female spokesperson
brings to the conservation message.

• Targeted use of presenter gender in educational videos could be a valuable strategy to attract and
engage different gender groups in conservation efforts, possibly boosting EOF practice adoption rates.

• Concerns about bureaucratic red tape associated with government programs are widespread. This
points to the necessity for simplifying administrative processes and perhaps offering additional
educational support, which could motivate a greater number of farmers to engage in these beneficial
conservation endeavors.

19
APPENDIX: SURVEY METHODOLOGY DETAILS AND DEMOGRAPHICS
In Summer 2022, we contracted Iowa State University’s Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology Survey
Research Services (CSSM-SRS) to conduct a web/mail survey about the willingness of Iowa farmers to adopt
EOF practices. This was round one of a three-round survey. Round two was initiated in 2023, and round three,
this third online survey, was initiated in July of 2024.

The questionnaires used for the study were developed by the principal investigators (PIs) in cooperation with
CSSM-SRS staff. Data collection commenced in July of 2024. CSSM-SRS, in collaboration with the PIs, drafted
an invitation letter, a reminder postcard, and an email reminder. The initial invitation letter explained the purpose
of the study, requested online participation, and assured complete confidentiality. CSSM contact information was
also provided to allow participants to reach out with questions or concerns. Invitation letters included a $1 bill
as an incentive to complete the survey.

The invitation letter was sent to the 7,445 people in the main sample July 2 and 3, 2024. On July 12, follow-up
reminder emails were sent to 4,468 non-respondents with available email addresses. A postcard reminder was
sent between July 16 and July 22, 2024, to 6,727 non-responders with a deliverable address. Mail that was
returned by the U.S. Postal Service marked as undeliverable were also documented. CSSM-SRS staff monitored
and recorded the receipt of completed surveys.

A total of 774 survey responses were received during the data collection period from July 2 through September
10, 2024. This total included 67 partially completed surveys, in which at least 50 percent of the core questions
were answered or at least one of the survey’s most critical questions (Q22/24) was completed. Core questions
were defined as questions that all participants are expected to answer (i.e., questions that cannot be skipped
based on previous responses). Some questions could be skipped—for instance, someone who participates in a
program would not need to answer a question about why they chose not to participate in the program. Table 15
breaks down response rate details.

Table 15. 2024 EOF online survey response rate

Total Percent of total
Initial Sample 7445
Not eligible 166 2.2
Eligible Sample 7279
Returned by USPS 332 4.6
Refused 62 0.9
No response 6065 83.3
Completed Surveys 774 10.6
Fully complete 707 91.3 (707/774)
Partial > 50% complete 67 8.7 (67/774)

20
The data in Table 16 provide a snapshot of respondent demographic characteristics. The average age of
participants is 65.9 years. More than 80 percent are male, 45 percent have at least a bachelor’s degree, and the
farm income of more than a quarter of participants exceeds $250,000 annually. A little more than half identified
as farmers or operators. Participants have a moderate risk tolerance, with an average score of 3.9.

Table 16. Summary statistics of sociodemographic variables

Variables Mean Std. Dev. N
Age 65.9 13.5 703
Male 81.2% 0.4 714
% Bachelor’s degree 45.0% 0.5 709
% Income > $250k 26.2% 0.4 646
% Farmer/Operator 51.2% 0.5 719
Risk tolerance* 3.9 1.4 704
* Risk tolerance measures a farmer's willingness to take on risks, scaling from 1 (always avoid taking risks) to 7 (always take risks).

Table 17 presents the summary of farm characteristics. The average farm size among respondents is almost 450
acres. More than 95 percent of farms have tile drainage systems, and about 63 percent are located near a creek.
Participation in conservation programs is also highlighted, showing that two-thirds of respondents are enrolled
in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and about one-fifth in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP).

Table 17. Summary statistics of farm characteristics

Variables Mean Std. Dev. N
Farm size (acres) 449.1 653.7 689

Percentage of farms with: Percent Std. Dev. N

Creek 62.5 0.5 771
Tile drainage 95.6 0.3 772
CRP participation 66.4 0.5 768
EQIP participation 20.8 0.4 727

21
REFERENCES
Helmers, M. 2017. Nutrient Reduction Strategy creates a More Resilient Iowa. Farm Progress,
September 14, 2017.

Howard, G., Zhang, W., Valcu‐Lisman, A., & Gassman, P. W. (2023). Evaluating the tradeoff between cost
effectiveness and participation in agricultural conservation programs. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 106(2), 712-738. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajae.12397

Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship (IDALS) (2021). Iowa Water Quality Initiative – Iowa’s
Nutrient Reduction Strategy in Action: 2020 Annual Report.
https://iowaagriculture.gov/sites/default/files/2021/WQI%20Annual%20Report%202020.pdf.

Iowa Learning Farms (2022). Whole Farm Conservation Best Practices Manual.
https://store.extension.iastate.edu/Product/15823.

Lawrence, J., and Benning, J. (2019). Reducing Nutrient Loss: Science Shows What Works.
https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/13960.

Rabotyagov, S.S., Campbell, T.D., White, M., Arnold, J.G., Atwood, J., Norfleet, M.L., Kling, C.L., Gassman,
P.W., Valcu, A., Richardson, J., Turner, R.E., & Rabalais, N.N. (2014). Cost-effective Targeting of Conservation
Investments to Reduce the Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 111: 18530–18535. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405837111

Tong, J., and Zhang, W. Iowa Farmland Ownership and Tenure Survey 1982–2022: A Forty-Year Perspective.
Working paper 23-WP 651. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University.
https://farmland.card.iastate.edu/files/inline-files/farmland-ownership-tenure-2022_0.pdf

Wan, X., Comito, J., and Zhang, W. (2024). Decoding Iowa Farmers’ Understanding of Edge-of-Field Practices.
Policy Brief 24-PB 41. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University.
https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/24pb41.pdf

Wan, X., Howard, G., & Zhang, W. (2025). Enrollment Restrictions and Conservation Practice Adoptions by
Midwestern Farmers: Survey Evidence from Iowa. Land Economics.
https://doi.org/10.3368/le.101.2.050924-0041R

22