Landowner decision-making, land retirement, and wildlife conservation: The Conservation Reserve Program and the Reinvest in Minnesota Program in southeastern Minnesota

In this study of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Reinvest In Minnesota Program (RIM) in southeastern Minnesota, I examined participant's decision processes, their perceptions of changes in wildlife sightings, as well as the effectiveness of CRP and RIM as conservation programs. Historically there has been considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of land retirement programs for conservation. As there are numerous options for land retirement program participants, the choices made can have considerable influence on wildlife habitat availability. Through the results of a mail survey (CRP n=396; RIM n=93), I examined the factors landowners considered important in their decision to enroll in a land retirement program, in choosing between different programs, in their choice of conservation practice, and in their decision to re-enroll. Program participants indicated whether they have seen an increase or decrease in wildlife sightings since enrolling their program acreage, and responded to questions regarding their initial enrollment, plans for reenrollment, cover crops, management practices, and basic demographic factors. To evaluate the performance of both programs as tools for habitat conservation, the survey data was considered in combination with a review of the literature and policies governing CRP and RIM. The critical factors to landowners in both programs tended toward conservation, with wildlife conservation, water quality, and soil erosion ranking among the most important factors. RIM participants expressed a clear preference for a longer contract term overall, whereas CRP participants preferred a contract term similar to the existing term of 10 years. CRP participants were more likely to plant introduced grasses than native grasses. A majority of respondents reported an increase in wildlife sightings since enrollment, and of these, significantly more landowners who adopted native grasses, tree planting, permanent wildlife habitat, or a wildlife food plot reported an increase, than those who established permanent introduced grasses and legumes. The greatest strength of both programs relates to the sense of stewardship expressed by program participants; however there are several areas in need of improvement for each program.