Crop insurance enrollment is prevalent among farmers surveyed in Indiana, Iowa, and Illinois. Through mixed qualitative and quantitative methods, the researcher found that crop insurance does not directly limit conservation practice adoption. Farmers view crop insurance and conservation practices as providing unique and complementary benefits to manage financial and production risks. Some farmers are interested in incentive programs that reimburse conservation practices. Crop insurance subscribers have positive attitudes toward the program and expect subsidy as a norm. Without subsidy, farmers would prioritize reducing coverage levels or adopting drainage or cover crops. Overall, crop insurance was not found to inhibit conservation behaviors.

1. Understanding how
crop insurance
impacts conservation
adoption
Michelle Hemler
Research Associate, Purdue University
Dept. of Forestry & Natural Resources
mhemler@purdue.edu

3. Crop Insurance
Implemented in 1938 as a campaign promise by President
Roosevelt
1970s: Criticism due to its cost
1980s: Policymakers seek to make crop insurance
mandatory
Subsidy needed to increase participation
1994: Turning point in enrollment
Rising interest in protecting crop insurance
“We have strengthened and preserved the crop insurance program
– the number one priority of virtually every producer that testified
before our Committee.’’ – Senator Pat Roberts on the 2012 Farm Bill

4. Research Questions
Does crop insurance limit the adoption of
conservation practices and, if so, how?
What attitudes, beliefs, and/or norms do crop
insurance enrollers have that perpetuates the
continued use of insurance and impedes
conservation adoption?

5. The Reasoned Action Approach
Fishbein 2008

6. Methodology
Mixed-Methods Approach
Qualitative Methods: Focus Group and Interviews
Quantitative Methods: Survey
Instrument Sample size Location
Focus Group n=3 Indiana
Interviews n=14 Indiana and Iowa
Survey n=719 Indiana, Iowa, Illinois

7. Qualitative Methods
Interview Development
Reviewed by several researchers
Agency recommendations
Snowball sampling during interviews
Analysis
Interviews recorded and transcribed
Thematic coding and inductive reasoning
using Nvivo 12 software

8. Quantitative Methods
Survey Development
Addresses obtained through
FarmMarket ID
Mail survey using Dillman
2014 5-wave method
Analysis
Quality control in Excel
Stata statistical software
Binary regression on crop
insurance enrollment

9. Crop insurance not limiting
 Both behaviors provide unique benefits
 Crop insurance: financial risk from uncontrollable
weather
 Conservation practices: on-farm risk protection
“I mean, when you get 10-plus inches of rain, you're flooded. You're
going to have issues. So what do you do to try to mitigate those risks?
And that's where we've implemented cover crops into strategic areas to
try to do that.”

10. Interested in incentive program
 Multiple farmers interested in applying or already
applied
 More awareness needed of program availability
“I have signed up… I feel comfortable making the investment in my cover
crops even if I wouldn't get that reimbursement… There hasn't been a lot of
questions here at our office about it.”
“That's definitely helpful. It came about too late this past year…I haven't
heard much about it though recently. So, hopefully, people are promoting.”
“The only reason I bought crop insurance this year was because Iowa had
the cover crop incentive. And we're using cover crop on every acre…that
allowed us some very cheap insurance.”

11. Positive towards Insurance
 Crop insurance enrollment prevalent across farmers
 Positive attitudes, with subsidy expected as a norm
 Experiences create beliefs of gratitude, as well as fear
“I do like that
they subsidized
crop insurance. I
think it's a nice
way to give
benefit to the
farmer.”
“I do think if you
were to get rid of
the subsidies on
crop insurance, a
lot more people
would opt out of
crop insurance…”
“But the other reason I
believe in crop
insurance is that, as a
general rule of thumb,
my premise is this, if
someone is willing to
pay part of your input
cost, let them
[laughter].”

12. Enrollment in Crop Insurance
 90% had enrolled in crop insurance between 2012-2017
 61.55% of enrolled using reduced/no-tillage
 25.42% of enrolled using cover crops
 76.22% of enrolled chose revenue insurance
 80% of enrolled chose either 75, 80, or 85% coverage
 Most common claims in the last five years were
drought, wind, and excess moisture
38.45% Response Rate

13. Influence of Enrollment
 Those enrolled were significantly more likely to
agree with:
 Crop insurance will exist next year (p=0.028)
 Crop insurance will protect my farm
operation regardless of water-related risks
(p=0.016)
 I can’t imagine managing my farm operation
without crop insurance (p=0.003)

14. Behavior Change without Subsidy
Top Priority Percent of Farmers n
Reduce my coverage level on crop insurance 23.08 135
Implement additional drainage 21.71 127
Purchase crop insurance at market value 18.29 107
Implement cover crops 16.41 96
Implement reduced/no-tillage 16.24 95

15. Crop insurance not limiting
 No significant difference between groups
 Disconnect between adopters and non-adopters
 Those who were using the practices were significantly
more likely to indicate that crop insurance wasn’t
limiting
 Interest in the incentive program linked to adopters
 Significantly more likely to value cover crops
 Adopters continue the practice regardless of subsidy

16. Conclusion
Crop insurance was not found to directly limit
adoption
Individuals participate in both behaviors to maximize
revenue and on-farm benefits
Incentive program likely to be used by adopters
Crop insurance use is reinforced through positive
attitudes and beliefs
Behavior changes if the subsidy were removed

17. Acknowledgements
Funding provided by USDA-NIFA
Natural Resources Social Science lab members at Purdue
M.S. committee: L. Prokopy, O. Doering, N. Thompson