Next Article in Journal
Multicriterial Heuristic Optimization of Cogeneration Supercritical Steam Cycles
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring a Sustainable Pathway Towards Enhancing National Innovation Capacity from an Empirical Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17156925
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the U.S.: A Social Science Literature Review

by
Yevheniia Varyvoda
1,*,
Allison Thomson
2 and
Jasmine Bruno
2
1
Department of Community, Environment, and Policy, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA
2
Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research, Washington, DC 20004, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6925; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156925
Submission received: 7 June 2025 / Revised: 22 July 2025 / Accepted: 29 July 2025 / Published: 30 July 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

The transition to sustainable agriculture is a critical challenge for the U.S. food system. A sustainable food system must support the production of healthy and nutritious food while ensuring economic sustainability for farmers and ranchers. It should also reduce negative environmental impacts on soil, water, biodiversity, and climate, and promote equitable and inclusive access to land, farming resources, and food. This narrative review synthesizes U.S. social science literature to identify the key factors that support or impede the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the U.S. Our analysis reveals seven overarching factors that influence producer decision-making: awareness and knowledge, social factors, psychological factors, technologies and tools, economic factors, implementation capacity, and policies and regulations. The review highlights the critical role of social science in navigating complexity and uncertainty. Key priorities emerging from the literature include developing measurable, outcome-based programs; ensuring credible communication through trusted intermediaries; and designing tailored interventions. The findings demonstrate that initiatives will succeed when they emphasize measurable benefits, address uncertainties, and develop programs that capitalize on identified opportunities while overcoming existing barriers.

1. Introduction

The U.S. food system is one of the largest and most complex globally, classified as industrial and consolidated [1]. It is deeply integrated into global markets and plays a significant role in the national economy. In 2022, 10.4 percent of total U.S. employment was related to the agricultural and food sectors [2]. The system is characterized by high productivity, driven by advancements in mechanization, agrochemicals, and biotechnology. However, it also faces considerable challenges, including climate-related threats, biodiversity protection, water insecurity, and epidemic levels of diet-related chronic diseases. To address these pressing issues, agricultural systems in the U.S. will need to transition to sustainable practices to conserve land and resources. At the same time, it must continue producing sufficient healthy and nutritious food for equitable and inclusive local and regional food systems [3,4,5,6,7,8]. This challenge will require action and collaboration from farmers, ranchers, policymakers, and communities of practice. It involves leveraging and adopting solutions and practices that enable the production of food for local to global communities while minimizing the adverse impacts of farming on soil, water, biodiversity, and climate and generating economic benefits for farmers.
The concept of sustainability in agriculture is complex and dynamic. It encompasses various environmental, social, economic, and resource-related opportunities and challenges that evolve over time, vary by geographical location and socio-cultural context, and depend on priorities for climate change mitigation and adaptation as well as shifting societal needs [5,9,10]. Many agricultural sustainability programs focus on the environmental aspect while neglecting the economic and social aspects, despite the fact that all three pillars—a healthy environment, economic profitability, and social well-being—equally contribute to sustainable agriculture [3,11,12,13]. Economic and social factors are often identified as crucial elements influencing farmers’ adoption of sustainable agricultural practices [3,14,15]. Moreover, for sustainable agricultural production to support food systems, the nutrition and health dimensions should also be taken into account [16]. To ensure the long-term maintenance and self-reliance of agricultural producers in adopting sustainable practices, programs supporting transitions must embrace all three dimensions of sustainability—economic, social, and environmental—in an integrated and balanced manner.
Social science literature has emphasized the urgency of transitioning U.S. agriculture toward sustainability, especially in response to climate change, resource depletion, and rising health concerns [7,17,18]. These studies emphasize that sustainable transitions demand systems-level change, including economic viability, social equity, and participatory policy design. Social science theoretical approaches have increasingly addressed this complexity, using behavioral, psychological, and institutional frameworks to explore the drivers of adoption, constraints faced by producers, and the role of trust, values, and learning networks [10,19,20]. At the same time, ongoing discussions focus on how best to define, measure, and scale sustainable practices, with overlapping concepts such as regenerative agriculture, best management practices, and climate-smart farming, among others [21,22]. This literature review is situated within the evolving discourse, with a focus on how the growing body of social science evidence can inform pathways toward sustainable agricultural transitions in the U.S. food system.
There are many terms and definitions that overlap in the specific agronomic practice recommendations as well as goals for sustainable agriculture, including agroecological practices, agroecology, best management practices, climate-smart agriculture, conservation agriculture, conservation practices, environmental best management practices, environmentally friendly practices, natural climate solutions, nature-based solutions, organic agriculture, regenerative agriculture, regenerative organic agriculture, regenerative practices, resilient agriculture, and sustainable agricultural practices [17,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. While each term reflects specific goals and methods, they share common principles aimed at environmental protection, economic viability, and social equity. There are many definitions within the lexicon of sustainable agriculture, yet the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has not endorsed any of them [29]. Here we take an inclusive view of sustainable agriculture as referring to agricultural practices and systems that are common to multiple of these definitions.
The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices can support and optimize the health of people, animals, plants, and their shared environment. It can also help adaptation to and mitigation of climate change by reducing emissions, sequestering carbon, and strengthening resilience against extreme weather events [6,30]. From an economic standpoint, these practices can improve long-term sustainability by stabilizing yields, conserving natural resources, and reducing input costs. The incorporation of conservation practices aligns with the growing consumer and corporate demand for sustainably produced food and agricultural products, potentially opening up producer opportunities for improved market access, while ensuring long-term productivity, and providing multiple ecosystem services [31,32,33]. Yet, there remain challenges to the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Research has begun to aid stakeholders in better understanding adoption to inform the mitigation of barriers and support enabling factors of adoption.
Agriculture in the United States is ripe for a sustainability transition [17]. According to a recent McKinsey survey ([18], p. 2), while 90% of U.S. farmers are aware of selected sustainable farming practices, holistic adoption of sustainable systems remains low. Research indicates that the nature of the practice is associated with adoption. For example, sustainable farming practices that require behavioral changes in agriculture are leading the way in terms of adoption, such as fertilizer application based on soil-sampling outcomes. Practices that require changes in the products used, like nitrogen stabilizers or inhibitors, follow closely behind. On the other hand, practices that require changes in equipment tend to have lower levels of adoption [18]. According to a survey, the adoption of sustainable practices is strongly correlated with farmers’ perceived return on investment (ROI). Practices perceived to have the highest ROI, such as applying fertilizer based on soil sampling, reducing or eliminating tillage, and implementing variable-rate fertilization, also have the highest rates of adoption. Both small and large farmers consider crop and commodity premiums offered by buyers of sustainable crops as the most attractive financial incentive to increase the adoption of sustainable farming practices. To drive further adoption of these practices, it will be crucial to establish long-term and reliable sources of economic benefits [18].
Moreover, research has linked factors related to the system or producer to adoption. For instance, farmers specializing in growing specialty crops (e.g., fruits, vegetables) have a higher rate of adopting sustainable practices compared to those focusing on row crops (e.g., grains, oilseeds). Additionally, smaller farmers and specialty crop farmers are more willing to adopt most practices within the next two years (2024–2026) [18]. Such findings enable stakeholders, such as Extension staff, to tailor their outreach to producers about sustainable agricultural practices and transitions.
To understand the complex interplay of behavioral, structural, and institutional factors influencing sustainable agricultural transitions in the United States, this review draws on a range of social and behavioral science theories. Frameworks such as the Theory of Planned Behavior [34], the Norm Activation Theory [35,36], the Values, Beliefs, and Norms approach [37], and the Diffusion of Innovations Theory [38], among others, provide critical insights into food system actors’ decision-making under uncertainty, social influence, and policy complexity. These theories help to contextualize the motivations, perceived barriers, and facilitators that influence the adoption of sustainable practices in real-world settings.
The objective of this study is to synthesize and categorize the overarching factors that influence the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the U.S., as reported in social science literature. This narrative review is guided by three core questions: (1) What are the most frequently cited factors in the U.S. social science literature that influence producers’ adoption of sustainable agricultural practices? (2) How can these diverse factors be conceptually framed to support interpretation and application by the community of practice? (3) What are the most significant research gaps and future research directions that emerge from this review?
While we acknowledge that significant regional differences in agro-ecological, economic, and social contexts exist, a detailed comparative analysis of these variations is beyond the scope of this review and remains a critical direction for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Database and Search Strategy

The Web of Science Core Collection database (ClarivateTM), one of the world’s leading databases of peer-reviewed, full-text scientific literature, was selected as the primary source to locate articles addressing the research and practice of transitioning to sustainable agriculture in the U.S. food system.
To ensure a high-quality and transparent synthesis in this narrative review, the PICO framework was employed to define the scope and formulate research questions, and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed to document the search and screening process [39].
The Population, Intervention, Concept, and Outcome (PICO) framework was applied to inform the search strategy, identify the search terms, as well as inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Population: Agricultural producers, extension agents, agricultural advisers, retailers.
Intervention: Sustainable agricultural practices.
Concept: Social and behavioral science disciplines and sustainable agricultural transitions.
Outcome: Factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
The search terms were selected under two key domains: ‘social science terminology’ and ‘sustainable agriculture terminology’. The following search string was used: (adoption OR attitude* OR behavior* OR engagement OR “decision making” OR perception* OR opinion* OR perspective* OR value*) AND (“sustainable practices” OR “agroecological practices” OR “agro-ecological practices” OR “environmentally friendly practices” OR “conservation agriculture” OR “conservation practices” OR “regenerative agriculture” OR “climate-smart agriculture” OR “nature-based solutions” OR “environmental best management practices” OR “natural climate solutions”) AND (“United States” OR U.S. OR “the US”) AND (intervention OR evaluation OR program).
The following eligibility criteria were used to include a study in our review: (i) the study was published in English between 2010 and 2024; (ii) the review and research studies must relate to the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices generally or one of the specific practices, such as cover crops; (iii) the study location is the United States of America. A study was excluded if it did not meet any of the above-mentioned criteria or if study limitations were overlooked or generically described.
Studies were screened for eligibility. Title and abstract screening were followed by full-text study screening. In the initial stage, a total of 419 records were found in the Web of Science database. Eighty-three studies were selected for further investigation. The study selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram (Supplementary Materials, Figure S1).
The Analyze Results tool in the Web of Science was used to create a visual summary of the selected studies categorized by publication titles and research areas (Supplementary Materials, Figure S2).

2.2. Data Analysis

A data extraction form was developed in Microsoft Word to organize the information [40]. For each study, the following information was extracted: the authors and year of publication, the article title, the publication title, the intervention being studied (sustainable agricultural practice), the social science theory or approach used, the methods employed, and the research implications. Information extracted from each selected study is presented in Supplementary Materials, Table S1.
Out of the 83 studies included in the review, 22 focus solely on crop production, and seven on animal operations, including dairy and beef cattle, hogs, poultry, goats, sheep, and horses. The remaining 54 studies addressed cross-cutting topics not tied to a specific agricultural sector, such as overarching conservation programs, the adoption of specific practices applicable to various farm types, and the roles of diverse stakeholders such as non-operating landowners and agricultural advisers. While a comprehensive and exhaustive list of studies on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices is beyond the scope of this study, Table S1 highlights the variety of social science approaches that can be utilized to advance the transition to sustainable agricultural practices within the U.S. agricultural system. The authors recommend referring to the original studies for a thorough analysis.

3. Results

The results presented below synthesize findings from the reviewed literature across multiple dimensions that influence the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the U.S. food system. While the section is not formally organized by thematic subheadings, the insights presented align with seven overarching factors—awareness and knowledge, social factors, psychological factors, technologies and tools, policies and regulations, economic factors, and implementation capacity—which are further analyzed in Section 4. A visual summary of the frequency with which each of these thematic factors appears across the reviewed literature is provided in Supplementary Materials, Figure S3.
Numerous studies have been conducted to explore the theory and practice surrounding the transition to sustainable agriculture in the United States [9,18,19,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49].
A growing body of social science literature focuses on examining the factors associated with farmers’ decisions regarding the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices [5,10,15,20,24,32,33,41,44,46,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. Adoption must be sustained over time to support and inform the desired sustainability transitions. Therefore, researchers have examined the incentives necessary to maintain the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, even in the face of challenges such as droughts and economic downturns [25,68,69,70,71]. The impact of conservation programs on the adoption of such practices has been extensively studied. For example, studies by Dong and Mitchell [3], Park et al. [69], and Fleming et al. [72] use econometric models to evaluate program effectiveness. Other research, such as that by Maher et al. [73] and Houser et al. [74], has analyzed the financial barriers and opportunities that influence farmers’ decisions. In parallel, a growing body of literature explores the socio-behavioral context. For instance, Ranjan et al. [44] and Pfrimmer et al. [75] examine farmers’ motivation for adoption, while studies by Enloe et al. [76] and Ferraro et al. [77] investigate the impact of partnership and outreach strategies.
Researchers have utilized various social and behavioral science theoretical approaches to explore the factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and the types of interventions that encourage their adoption (Supplementary Materials, Table S2). These theories have been applied to understand decision-making related to sustainable agricultural practices, particularly under conditions of uncertainty, complexity, time-sensitive choices, and social influence. Understanding the drivers of human behavior—such as structural and personal factors—is critical, as this provides valuable insights for better structuring policy interventions, initiatives, and outreach efforts to foster sustainable agricultural transitions [10,54,78].
According to Lang and Rabotyagov (2022) [20] (pp. 1–2), the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices is typically studied from two distinct social science perspectives. The first utilizes the random utility framework, focusing on econometric models to explain how the characteristics of conservation programs and observable socioeconomic factors, such as age, gender, farm size, income, and land operations, influence landowners’ decisions [3,69,73]. The second perspective employs socio-psychological theories and methods to explore the unobservable factors that shape behavior. This includes psychological attributes such as value orientations, beliefs, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [20,34,37,78]. These frameworks offer critical insights into the cognitive and normative dimensions of decision-making and are broadly applied in adoption studies to understand farmer motivations beyond economic considerations.
Multiple studies in various social science disciplines have found several consistent patterns that can be considered predictors regarding the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
At the individual level, adoption is strongly linked to producers’ psychosociological context; farmers who hold relational values like a moral responsibility to steward the land are more likely to adopt multiple conservation practices [9,24,46,74,79,80,81,82,83,84]. This individual motivation is significantly amplified by social context, as engagement in peer-to-peer learning networks and access to credible information are consistently shown to positively influence on-farm decisions [17,67,85,86,87,88]. The importance of social dynamics extends to non-operating landowners (NOLs), whose relationship with farm operators is a critical, yet often overlooked, leverage point for change [89,90].
These individual and social drivers are either enabled or constrained by structural and economic factors. For instance, larger farm operations with greater access to capital and secure land tenure are more likely to adopt and sustain new practices [5,7,14,25,44,46,49,52,91,92,93]. Similarly, financial incentives such as cost-share programs and the potential for greater profitability can increase the likelihood of adoption, though evidence suggests these are not always the primary driver and can sometimes have negative effects [25,55,69,73,92,94,95].
As shown by Maher et al., (2023) [73], depending on improvements in harvest efficiency, some large private ranches may experience positive returns on practice investment even without Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) financial support. In contrast, small public and private ranches are more likely to observe negative returns on investment, even with NRCS financial assistance [92]. In many cases, financial initiatives are not the primary driver of adoption [96] and may even have a negative effect [69]. For example, evidence documented by [69,97,98] suggests that aggregate Conservation Stewardship Payments (CSP) have a statistically significant negative effect on cover crop adoption rates. CSP beneficiaries tend to choose cheaper and simpler conservation practices throughout the duration of their CSP contracts, largely because CSP emphasizes maintaining current practices rather than introducing new ones, and participation in CSP requires a long-term commitment. According to Park et al., (2023), the opposing effects of aggregate EQIP and CSPs on cover crop usage rates can be attributed to variations in policy details, program objectives, and program focus [69]. Reducing the administrative complexity of conservation programs accompanied by information sharing, technical assistance, and training support offered to agricultural producers by the public and private agencies has been shown to positively impact adoption rates [6,43,99].
Studies have shown that the number of years of farming experience can have both positive and negative associations with the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices [57]. For example, the studies conducted by Quintana-Ashwell et al., (2020, 2022) [57,100] suggest that years of farming experience are negatively associated with the number of groundwater-conserving practices employed. When considering the adoption of individual practices, farmers who have refined their operations over time may be less likely to adopt relatively new practices [100]. Han and Niles (2023) [46], in their study, explore the complexity of farmer adoption of best management practices and provide robust evidence that perceived challenges do not disappear when farmers adopt a new practice but may instead hinder the depth of adoption. Therefore, different types of technical assistance and outreach are needed for farmers with varying adoption statuses, histories, and preferences. The authors suggest that technical support and knowledge sharing are especially critical for new innovative farmers, as they experiment with and test new strategies [46].
Multiple studies have explored the impact of social and demographic characteristics on the decision-making process regarding the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Research studies suggest that agricultural producers with higher levels of education and younger age are more inclined to adopt sustainable agricultural practices [7,41,60,61,101]. Evidence also shows that women farmers tend to demonstrate greater engagement in sustainable agricultural initiatives [28,102,103]. Women-led farming enterprises in the U.S. provide valuable opportunities for investment in the transition to sustainable agricultural practices [28]. According to the Census of Agriculture (2022) [104], the U.S. had 1.2 million female producers, accounting for 36% of the country’s 3.4 million producers. Female producers were slightly younger, more likely to be beginning farmers, and more likely to live on the farm they operate than male producers. Farms with one or more female producers accounted for 41% of U.S. agriculture sales and 46% of U.S. farmland [104]. Where women have leadership roles in farming, the decision-making process and sustainability outcomes may differ from those led by men [28]. A transition towards sustainable farming systems requires empowering female agricultural producers by developing and implementing learning and technical assistance programs. These programs should enhance their confidence, skills, and capacity to integrate sustainability practices into their operations, leverage business opportunities around sustainable agriculture, and serve as role models and trusted advisers in promoting sustainable agriculture within their communities and beyond.
The patterns described in the literature reviewed here suggest that the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices depends on effective collaboration and mutual support among stakeholders (e.g., farmers, agrifood business, agrifood foundations, government agencies, cooperative extension professionals), experts from various disciplines (e.g., agriculture, conservation, food systems, environmental management, economics, behavioral science, sociology, psychology, public health), and consumers and communities who create societal pressure, higher demand and acceptance for sustainable agriculture.
However, as emphasized in multiple studies, applying consistent variables that universally influence and explain the adoption of sustainable practices is a challenging task, highlighting the complexity inherent in social-environmental systems [41,59]. Therefore, it becomes necessary to integrate multiple theories with regional or local data in order to generate meaningful insights for the transition to sustainable agriculture [20].

4. Discussion

4.1. An Interpretive Framework to Analyze Barriers and Enablers to the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices

Our review of the 83 studies reveals a complex set of factors influencing adoption. To provide analytical clarity, we organize our seven thematic findings into the following three interconnected domains:
  • The Psychosociological Context. This domain encompasses the psychological factors (e.g., values, identity, self-efficacy), social factors (e.g., peer networks, norms), and awareness and knowledge. These represent the internal and relational drivers that shape a producer’s willingness to consider the transition to sustainable agricultural practices.
  • The Economic and Practical Capacity. This domain includes economic factors (e.g., profitability, cost-share), technologies and tools, and implementation capacity. These represent the structural conditions and the tangible resources necessary for the implementable actions on the adoption.
  • The Governance System. This domain, which includes policies and regulations, acts as an external driver that can enable or limit action within the other two domains.
These three domains provide a conceptual structure for interpreting the thematic categories identified in this review: (i) awareness and knowledge, (ii) social factors, (iii) psychological factors, (iv) technologies and tools, (v) economic factors, (vi) implementation capacity, and (vii) policies and regulations are underpinned by theoretical insights from social science literature. For instance, awareness and knowledge are linked to constructs such as perceived behavioral control and subjective norms as outlined in the Theory of Planned Behavior. Social and psychological factors reflect the influence of value systems, moral obligations, and risk perception, drawing on frameworks such as the Norm Activation Model, the Value-Belief-Norm theory, and Cultural Theory of Risk. Economic and institutional dimensions, such as trust in agencies, administrative burden, or contract complexity, correspond with the Diffusion of Innovations framework. Studies also highlight how participation in learning networks and engagement with trusted intermediaries (e.g., crop advisers) influence decision-making, underscoring the relevance of social network and norm-based behavioral models.
A synthesized summary of the key enablers and barriers associated with each thematic factor is presented in Table 1. A more detailed and comprehensive list of enablers and barriers retrieved from the reviewed studies is included in the Supplementary Materials, Table S3.
The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices typically requires concrete incentives, significant effort from agricultural producers, and support from governments and public–private partnerships at both national and local levels. The decision to adopt such practices in response to incentive programs depends on many factors: the terms of the program, the incentives offered, as well as the values, attitudes, and behaviors of farmers, along with economic characteristics, trends in agricultural markets, and the sociocultural context [6,105].

4.2. Critical Research Gaps

A comprehensive review of the literature reveals contextual and methodological gaps in understanding the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Lacking a consolidated framework from implementation science, the current body of social science research often presents fragmented findings, typically centered on producers and farm-level production systems in rural and peri-urban contexts. This dominant emphasis often overlooks other critical actors, such as non-operating landowners, processors, wholesalers, transporters, retailers, and consumers, as well as vital elements of the food system, including processing, distribution, marketing, and the food environment. To highlight these discrepancies, we synthesize the identified gaps into a set of postulates aimed at guiding a more system-oriented and impactful research agenda.
This review reveals that the literature is extensively focused on producers as the primary agents of change in sustainable agriculture. However, growing evidence highlights the critical roles played by NOLs, supply chain intermediaries, such as agricultural retailers and crop advisers, extension agents, conservation professionals, and consumers across the U.S [82,106,107,108,109]. Based on these insights, we postulate that the sustained adoption of sustainable practices is more strongly influenced by the alignment of psychosocial, governance, economic, and implementation interests across the broader food system. Future research should move from siloed analyses of individual actors to a system-level approach that models their complex, interdependent relationships.
The current literature often examines the benefits of adoption in isolation. Based on our findings, we postulate that producer adoption decisions are driven less by the maximization of a single benefit (e.g., profitability) and more by the perceived ratio of synergies to trade-offs across economic, social, and environmental settings. For example, a practice with moderate economic returns but strong community approval and tangible environmental benefits may be more appealing than one with higher returns but adverse social or environmental consequences. Testing this postulate requires longitudinal, mixed-methods studies that quantify economic impacts while simultaneously assessing qualitative shifts in producer identity, social norms, and well-being. Addressing these research gaps is essential for designing policies and programs that are evidence-based, implementable, and aligned with the complex realities of decision-making within the food system.
The literature consistently calls for a better understanding of the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices on rented lands [79] and the critical role of non-operating landowners (NOLs) [89,90]. Given that approximately 40% of farmland in the contiguous 48 states is rented [110], we postulate that the land tenure security and the alignment of sustainability goals within the landowner-tenant relationship are more significant determinants of conservation adoption on rented lands than the individual capability, opportunity, and motivation of the producer alone.
While much of the literature investigates economic and agronomic barriers, a significant body of studies points to the primacy of social and cultural factors. The research consistently identifies a need to better understand complex and non-quantifiable social factors [111], nonfinancial barriers like time, convenience, labor, knowledge [80], and the cultural context of decision-making [112,113]. Therefore, we postulate that the sustained adoption of conservation practices is strongly influenced by psychosocial and cultural determinants, such as farmer identity, trust in advisers, and community norms, which can often outweigh purely economic considerations. Developing a nuanced understanding of these factors requires a synergetic application of evidence-based social and behavioral science theories, integrated with economic models and grounded in implementation science.
Research has extensively focused on identifying barriers to the initial adoption of practices, which creates a critical empirical gap by overlooking the importance of sustaining these practices over time. The literature calls for a deeper understanding of retention rates and the reasons for abandonment [45,63,108], and suggests a shift in focus from non-adopters to the experiences of past adopters [46]. We postulate that the factors influencing the sustained use or abandonment of sustainable practices are distinct from, and often more complex than, the factors driving initial adoption. Addressing this gap requires longitudinal mixed-methods studies capable of capturing the complexity of sustained adoption throughout the lifecycle of planning and design, implementation or construction, operation and maintenance, and monitoring.
The social science literature emphasizes the need for a highly contextual understanding of sustainable agricultural practice adoption. Gaps are identified for specific crops like potatoes [106], distinct production systems like rangelands [112] and organic farms [114], and particular producer populations, including underserved farmers and women [110]. Based on this, we postulate that the adoption is a highly contextual process, where the optimal set of practices and effective interventions is uniquely shaped by the intersection of agro-ecological conditions, market dynamics, food system and farm typologies, and the demographic and psychosocial profile of food system actors. This necessitates the development of a portfolio of site-specific, food system actors-participatory, and comparative case studies and field-based narratives that can generate tailored, evidence- and knowledge-based recommendations.

4.3. Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Social science disciplines provide insights into the design of sustainable agricultural transition programs in the public and private sectors that can increase the likelihood of adoption and effective implementation of practices, ultimately leading to long-term benefits.

4.3.1. Shift from Producer-Centered to Systems-Based Interventions

Effective programs should embrace a system-level approach, recognizing that producers operate within a food system comprising the food supply chain, food environment, and individual factors, along with the crosscutting issues and drivers that shape their decisions.
Develop Outcome-Oriented Programs: Rather than focusing solely on practice implementation, programs should incentivize the measurable results achieved through different conservation practices [25,114,115]. This requires the establishment of clear criteria for measuring sustainability and effectively communicating these outcomes to downstream markets. Providing concrete metrics on environmental, economic, and social performance not only increases the credibility of farmers’ sustainability claims but also fosters shared values that support sustainable agricultural transitions across the food system [82].
Engage Trusted Intermediaries: The acceptance of program initiatives greatly relies on the credibility of the source of information. Recognizing that the level of trust in governmental agencies can be low, it is imperative to engage credible, non-governmental channels [27,68]. Evidence indicates that private sector agribusinesses (e.g., agricultural retailers, crop advisers) may be an effective purveyor of conservation advice and technical assistance for a large proportion of farmers. Enlisting these actors as formal partners and addressing how their contributions are incentivized and compensated offers a promising approach for effectively reaching the majority of producers [27,32,61,66,67,70,74,88,93].

4.3.2. Embrace Heterogeneity and Context in Program Design

Initiatives aimed at supporting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices should be flexible enough to embrace the diversity of producers and the inherent uncertainties of agri-food systems.
Target Interventions to Farmer Typologies: Evidence indicates that interventions targeted to a farmer’s ‘conservation behavior’ type and tailored to their interests and needs are crucial for promoting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices [32,44,53,62,116,117]. When engaging farmers in the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the U.S., where participation is voluntary, it is essential to acknowledge the diversity among farmers. This includes their beliefs, principles, and motivations, as well as the unique environmental and economic characteristics of their livelihoods and agricultural operations. For example, Thompson et al., (2022) revealed that farmers who placed high importance on sustainable practices were driven by concerns for public perception and environmental stewardship, whereas those who placed moderate importance were motivated by potential returns on investment [118]. Using farmer typologies—such as “Conservationists”, “Deliberative”, “Productivists”, and “Traditionalists” [32]—allows for the design of targeted support, whether it is technical assistance for one group or community-based encouragement for another [32,116,119].
Generate Evidence to Navigate Uncertainties: Research findings prove that while sustainable agricultural practices can generate numerous on-farm benefits, they may also result in neutral or negative effects on food system outcomes, depending on how they are implemented [118,120]. For example, the effect of conservation tillage, adopted for erosion control, on soil carbon sequestration has shown inconsistent results across studies [121,122,123,124,125]. This reality underscores the need for an iterative, participatory process of studying practice performance throughout its lifecycle (planning and design; implementation or construction; operation and maintenance; and monitoring) to better understand the implementation context.

4.3.3. Foster Retention Through Social Learning and Practice Complementarity

The ultimate success of a program relies on the sustained, long-term use of practices, rather than on initial adoption alone.
Leverage Peer-to-Peer Social Learning: Research consistently shows that farmer-led mentors, farmer-led networks, and peer learning training programs can have a greater impact compared to traditional methods [16,17,44,126,127,128,129,130,131]. “Intentional social learning” involves identifying farmers who are succeeding with locally appropriate sustainable farming methods, establishing new network connections, and carefully developing processes that facilitate meaningful change [17]. This engagement fosters the knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy necessary for sustained practice not only among farmers, but across a broader range of food system stakeholders, including, but not limited to, landowners, extension agents, and crop advisers [25,60].
Design for Practice Retention and Complementarity: A critical, yet under-explored issue is practice disadoption [45,63]. While the literature currently lacks consensus on the specific reasons producers disadopt sustainable practices [63], this is rather a reflection of the highly contextual nature of producer decision-making. The drivers of disadoption are not universal; a practice may be abandoned due to rising input costs, declining yields, increasing pest pressures, limited self-efficacy, or lack of peer support, among other context-specific reasons. Therefore, it is evident that such decisions are driven by a complex interplay of economic and psychosocial factors. To improve retention, programs should be designed to encourage practice complementarity [23,55,81,132,133]. Recognizing that certain practices can complement one another, producers have the potential to gain additional benefits by combining practices and intensifying their conservation endeavors [55]. By deepening our understanding of adherence to sustainable agricultural practices, we can design programs that are accessible, economically equitable and affordable, socially and culturally acceptable, and advance self-reliance.

4.4. Study Limitations

This review has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the use of a single database restricted the range of papers included in the analysis, potentially overlooking relevant studies available in other databases or sources. Second, the study population was predominantly U.S. farmers and ranchers, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other food system stakeholder groups. Lastly, the primary focus was on food production within the food supply chain, with limited consideration given to other elements such as storage, processing, distribution, retail, and consumption. Future research should address these limitations by expanding the scope of data sources, incorporating diverse elements of the food system, and including a broader range of food system actors to gain a broader multi-stakeholder perspective on the challenges and opportunities for sustainable agricultural transitions. Public health perspectives should also be included in the discussion, as the promotion and adoption of sustainable and healthy diets can significantly accelerate sustainable agricultural transitions. This approach is recognized as a key strategy for addressing alarming trends related to health issues, poor dietary habits, the significant environmental footprint of agriculture, and climate risks.

5. Conclusions

This review of U.S. social science literature demonstrates that accelerating the transition to sustainable agriculture requires embracing the complex interplay between psychosociological context, economic and practical capacity, and governing policies. This review’s key contribution is an interpretive framework that provides a structured lens for understanding and addressing adoption barriers and enablers. Key findings highlight the importance of outcome-based program development, credible communication strategies through trusted intermediaries, and tailored, context-aware interventions.
The review underscores the need for deeper insights into the roles and experiences of diverse food system actors, including historically underserved and female farmers, non-operating landowners, and private agribusiness stakeholders. Understanding these diverse perspectives will require longitudinal mixed-method studies capable of examining the long-term benefits and trade-offs of adoption across the entire lifecycle. Future research should also examine the nuanced implementation context and communication strategies that shape change, from fostering peer-to-peer learning networks and leveraging innovative outreach like storytelling to accounting for the critical influence of regional and local heterogeneity in advancing adoption.
The findings suggest that initiatives aimed at transitioning to sustainable agricultural practices must be designed to deliver measurable benefits, navigate uncertainty, and align with the values and realities of food system actors. The interpretive framework and research agenda serve as a guide for researchers, funders, and policymakers in designing participatory, evidence-based, and systems-oriented initiatives needed to build a healthy, equitable, resilient, and sustainable U.S. food system.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17156925/s1, Figure S1: PRISMA chart showing a study number at each stage of the review process; Figure S2: A visual summary of the selected studies categorized by publication titles and research areas; Figure S3: Frequency of overarching thematic factors in the reviewed literature; Table S1: Social science studies exploring the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the United States; Table S2: Social and behavioral science theoretical approaches utilized to explore the transitions to sustainable agricultural practices; Table S3: The examples of enablers and barriers affecting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, as identified by U.S. agricultural producers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.T. and J.B.; methodology, Y.V.; formal analysis, Y.V.; investigation Y.V.; resources, A.T., J.B. and Y.V.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.V.; writing—review and editing, Y.V., A.T. and J.B.; funding acquisition, A.T. and Y.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and publication of this article. This study was supported by the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research.

Acknowledgments

The framing and need for this analysis emerged from a series of online workshops with academic and practitioner experts hosted by FFAR in 2021. We thank LaKisha Odom and Kris Johnson for feedback and guidance on the direction of this project. We are also grateful to Jean McClelland, Assistant Librarian and Liaison to the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, for her methodological guidance in conducting the literature review.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Marshall, Q.; Fanzo, J.; Barrett, C.B.; Jones, A.D.; Herforth, A.; McLaren, R. Building a Global Food Systems Typology: A New Tool for Reducing Complexity in Food Systems Analysis. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 746512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. USDA. Agriculture and Its Related Industries Provide 10.4 Percent of U.S. Employment. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detail?chartId=58282#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2022.1%20million%20full,percent%20of%20total%20U.S.%20employment (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  3. Dong, F.; Mitchell, P.D. Economic and risk analysis of sustainable practice adoption among U.S. corn growers. Agric. Syst. 2023, 211, 103730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jordan, N.; Gutknecht, J.; Bybee-Finley, K.A.; Hunter, M.; Krupnik, T.J.; Pittelkow, C.M.; Prasad, P.V.V.; Snapp, S. To meet grand challenges, agricultural scientists must engage in the politics of constructive collective action. Crop Sci. 2021, 61, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mishra, B.; Gyawali, B.R.; Paudel, K.P.; Poudyal, N.C.; Simon, M.F.; Dasgupta, S.; Antonious, G. Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices among Farmers in Kentucky, USA. Environ. Manag. 2018, 62, 1060–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Piñeiro, V.; Arias, J.; Dürr, J.; Elverdin, P.; Ibáñez, A.M.; Kinengyere, A.; Opazo, C.M.; Owoo, N.; Page, J.R.; Prager, S.D.; et al. A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 809–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Johnson, D.; Almaraz, M.; Rudnick, J.; Parker, L.E.; Ostoja, S.M.; Khalsa, S.D.S. Farmer Adoption of Climate-Smart Practices Is Driven by Farm Characteristics, Information Sources, and Practice Benefits and Challenges. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Matthews, E.D.; Kurnat-Thoma, E.L. U.S. food policy to address diet-related chronic disease. Front. Public Health 2024, 12, 1339859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wardropper, C.B.; Graves, R.A.; Brandt, J.; Burnham, M.; Carter, N.; Hale, R.L.; Hillis, V.; Williamson, M.A. Private land conservation towards large landscape goals: Role of relational values, property rights orientations and perceived efficacy in ranchers’ actions. People Nat. 2024, 6, 1171–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Byerly, H.; Kross, S.M.; Niles, M.T.; Fisher, B. Applications of behavioral science to biodiversity management in agricultural landscapes: Conceptual mapping and a California case study. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Janker, J.; Mann, S. Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: A critical review of sustainability assessment tools. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 1671–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Arulnathan, V.; Heidari, M.D.; Doyon, M.; Li, E.; Pelletier, N. Farm-level decision support tools: A review of methodological choices and their consistency with principles of sustainability assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Smith, A.P.; Metcalf, A.L.; Metcalf, E.C.; Yung, L.; Swinger, B.; Cummins, T.M.; Chaffin, B.C.; Shuver, A.; Slattery, D. U.S. beef producer perspectives on “sustainable beef” and implications for sustainability transitions. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ruzzante, S.; Labarta, R.; Bilton, A. Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. World Dev. 2021, 146, 105599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hayden, J.; Rocker, S.; Phillips, H.; Heins, B.; Smith, A.; Delate, K. The Importance of Social Support and Communities of Practice: Farmer Perceptions of the Challenges and Opportunities of Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems on Organically Managed Farms in the Northern U.S. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Varyvoda, Y.; Foerster, T.A.; Mikkola, J.; Mars, M.M. Promising Nature-Based Solutions to Support Climate Adaptation of Arizona’s Local Food Entrepreneurs and Optimize One Health. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Day, C.; Cramer, S. Transforming to a regenerative U.S. agriculture: The role of policy, process, and education. Sustain. Sci. 2022, 17, 585–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fiocco, D.; Ganesan, V.; Lozano, M.G.d.l.S.; Kalanik, J.; Roen, W. Voice of the US Farmer 2023–2024: Farmers Seek Path to Scale Sustainably. 2024. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/voice-of-the-us-farmer-2023-to-24-farmers-seek-path-to-scale-sustainably (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  19. Lu, J.; Ranjan, P.; Floress, K.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Church, S.P.; Eanes, F.R.; Gao, Y.; Gramig, B.M.; Singh, A.S.; Prokopy, L.S. A meta-analysis of agricultural conservation intentions, behaviors, and practices: Insights from 35 years of quantitative literature in the United States. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 323, 116240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lang, Z.; Rabotyagov, S. Socio-psychological factors influencing intent to adopt conservation practices in the Minnesota River Basin. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 307, 114466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Miller-Klugesherz, J.A.; Sanderson, M.R. Good for the soil, but good for the farmer? Addiction and recovery in transitions to regenerative agriculture. J. Rural Stud. 2023, 103, 103123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Drescher, M.; Hannay, J.; Feick, R.D.; Caldwell, W. Social psychological factors drive farmers’ adoption of environmental best management practices. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 350, 119491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Silva, E.M.; Wezel, A.; Stafford, C.; Brives, J.; Bosseler, N.; Cecchinato, N.; Cossement, C.; Ranaldo, M.; Broome, M. Insights into agroecological farming practice implementation by conservation-minded farmers in North America. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1090690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Frankel-Goldwater, L.; Wojtynia, N.; Dueñas-Ocampo, S. Healthy people, soils, and ecosystems: Uncovering primary drivers in the adoption of regenerative agriculture by US farmers and ranchers. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 7, 1070518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Reimer, A.; Doll, J.E.; Boring, T.J.; Zimnicki, T. Scaling up conservation agriculture: An exploration of challenges and opportunities through a stakeholder engagement process. J. Environ. Qual. 2023, 52, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Guynn, S.; Player, W.K.; Burns, M. Underserved farmers’ barriers to adoption of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service climate-smart agricultural practices in South Carolina. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2024, 13, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dingkuhn, E.L.; O’Sullivan, L.; Schulte, R.P.O.; Grady, C.A. Navigating agricultural nonpoint source pollution governance: A social network analysis of best management practices in central Pennsylvania. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0303745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gomori-Ruben, L.; Reid, C. Using TAPE to assess agroecology on women-led farms in the U.S.: Support for environmental and social practices. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2023, 13, 129–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Malone, T.; Golan, H.E. Limited Understanding and Different Perceptions of Agricultural Sustainability Point to the Need for More Consumer Education; Farm Foundation: Oak Brook, IL, USA, 2024; p. 16. [Google Scholar]
  30. Schattman, R.E.; Rowland, D.L.; Kelemen, S.C. Sustainable and regenerative agriculture: Tools to address food insecurity and climate change. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2023, 78, 33A–38A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. McGuire, R.; Williams, P.N.; Smith, P.; McGrath, S.P.; Curry, D.; Donnison, I.; Emmet, B.; Scollan, N. Potential Co-benefits and trade-offs between improved soil management, climate change mitigation and agri-food productivity. Food Energy Secur. 2022, 11, e352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Upadhaya, S.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Schulte, L.A. Farmer typologies integrating latent and observed characteristics: Insights for soil and water conservation outreach. Land Use Policy 2023, 134, 106889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Thompson, N.M.; Reeling, C.J.; Fleckenstein, M.R.; Prokopy, L.S.; Armstrong, S.D. Examining intensity of conservation practice adoption: Evidence from cover crop use on U.S. Midwest farms. Food Policy 2021, 101, 102054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schwartz, S.H. Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and empirical test. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1973, 9, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1977; Volume 10, pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bergtold, J.S.; Caldas, M.M.; Ramsey, S.M.; Sanderson, M.R.; Granco, G.; Mather, M.E. The gap between experts, farmers and non-farmers on perceived environmental vulnerability and the influence of values and beliefs. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 316, 115186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Younas, A.; Ali, P. Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles. Evid. Based Nurs. 2021, 24, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Prokopy, L.S.; Floress, K.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Church, S.P.; Eanes, F.R.; Gao, Y.; Gramig, B.M.; Ranjan, P.; Singh, A.S. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2019, 74, 520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kleinman, P.J.A.; Spiegal, S.; Rigby, J.R.; Goslee, S.C.; Baker, J.M.; Bestelmeyer, B.T.; Boughton, R.K.; Bryant, R.B.; Cavigelli, M.A.; Derner, J.D.; et al. Advancing the Sustainability of US Agriculture through Long-Term Research. J. Environ. Qual. 2018, 47, 1412–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Golden, L.A.; Hubbard, M.L.; Som Castellano, R.L.; Lyons, J. Examining cover crop agri-environmental program participation: Evidence from a western US farmer survey. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 357, 120763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ranjan, P.; Church, S.P.; Floress, K.; Prokopy, L.S. Synthesizing Conservation Motivations and Barriers: What Have We Learned from Qualitative Studies of Farmers’ Behaviors in the United States? Soc. Nat. Resour. 2019, 32, 1171–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pathak, S.; Wang, H.; Tran, D.Q.; Adusumilli, N.C. Persistence and disadoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the Mississippi Delta region. Agron. J. 2024, 116, 765–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Han, G.; Niles, M.T. An adoption spectrum for sustainable agriculture practices: A new framework applied to cover crop adoption. Agric. Syst. 2023, 212, 103771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Carlisle, L.; Montenegro de Wit, M.; DeLonge, M.S.; Iles, A.; Calo, A.; Getz, C.; Ory, J.; Munden-Dixon, K.; Galt, R.; Melone, B.; et al. Transitioning to Sustainable Agriculture Requires Growing and Sustaining an Ecologically Skilled Workforce. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Christopher, J. Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices in the United States: A Study on Farmer Behavior. Int. J. Agric. 2024, 9, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Read, D.J.; Wainger, L. Assessing intervention effectiveness at promoting voluntary conservation practice adoption in agrienvironments. Conserv. Biol. 2023, 37, e14009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Liu, T.; Bruins, R.J.F.; Heberling, M.T. Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Best Management Practices: A Review and Synthesis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Lee, D.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Zhu, Z.; Nowatzke, L. Conditional Causal Mediation Analysis of Factors Associated with Cover Crop Adoption in Iowa, USA. Water Resour. Res. 2018, 54, 9566–9584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Upadhaya, S.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Schulte, L.A. Individual- and county-level factors associated with farmers’ use of 4R Plus nutrient management practices. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2023, 78, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rudnick, J.; Khalsa, S.D.S.; Lubell, M.; Leinfelder-Miles, M.; Gould, K.; Brown, P.H. Understanding barriers to adoption of sustainable nitrogen management practices in California. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2023, 78, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, S.; Ulrich-Schad, J.D.; Leffler, A.J.; Avemegah, E.; Perkins, L. Dewormers, Dung Beetles, and Decision Making: Understanding Rangeland Livestock Producers’ Parasiticide Use. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 90, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Canales, E.; Bergtold, J.S.; Williams, J.R. Conservation intensification under risk: An assessment of adoption, additionality, and farmer preferences. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2024, 106, 45–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Soldo, C.; Wilson, R.S.; Walpole, H.; Shaffer-Morrison, C.D. Farmer willingness to implement constructed wetlands in the Western Lake Erie Basin. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 321, 115928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Quintana-Ashwell, N.; Gholson, D.; Kaur, G.; Singh, G.; Massey, J.; Krutz, L.J.; Henry, C.G.; Cooke, T.; Reba, M.; Locke, M.A. Irrigation Water Management Tools and Alternative Irrigation Sources Trends and Perceptions by Farmers from the Delta Regions of the Lower Mississippi River Basin in South Central USA. Agronomy 2022, 12, 894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Das, S.; Berns, K.; McDonald, M.; Ghimire, D.; Maharjan, B. Soil health, cover crop, and fertility management: Nebraska producers’ perspectives on challenges and adoption. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2022, 77, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Walpole, H.D.; Wilson, R.S. Why Do we Conserve?: Identifying Mechanisms in Agricultural Conservation Practice Adoption Decisions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2022, 35, 340–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Doran, E.M.B.; Zia, A.; Hurley, S.E.; Tsai, Y.; Koliba, C.; Adair, C.; Schattman, R.E.; Rizzo, D.M.; Méndez, V.E. Social-psychological determinants of farmer intention to adopt nutrient best management practices: Implications for resilient adaptation to climate change. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 276, 111304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Luther, Z.R.; Swinton, S.M.; Van Deynze, B. What drives voluntary adoption of farming practices that can abate nutrient pollution? J. Soil Water Conserv. 2020, 75, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pradhananga, A.K.; Davenport, M.A. Predicting Farmer Adoption of Water Conservation Practices Using a Norm-based Moral Obligation Model. Environ. Manag. 2019, 64, 483–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gedikoglu, H. Disadoption of conservation practices: Cases of injecting manure and soil testing. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020, 63, 1301–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Adusumilli, N.; Wang, H. Analysis of soil management and water conservation practices adoption among crop and pasture farmers in humid-south of the United States. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2018, 6, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Singh, A.S.; Eanes, F.R.; Prokopy, L.S. Assessing Conservation Adoption Decision Criteria Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Case Studies from Three Midwestern Watersheds. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2018, 31, 503–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Eanes, F.R.; Singh, A.S.; Bulla, B.R.; Ranjan, P.; Prokopy, L.S.; Fales, M.; Wickerham, B.; Doran, P.J. Midwestern US Farmers Perceive Crop Advisers as Conduits of Information on Agricultural Conservation Practices. Environ. Manag. 2017, 60, 974–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Eanes, F.R.; Singh, A.S.; Bulla, B.R.; Ranjan, P.; Fales, M.; Wickerham, B.; Doran, P.J.; Prokopy, L.S. Crop advisers as conservation intermediaries: Perceptions and policy implications for relying on nontraditional partners to increase U.S. farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation practices. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wallander, S.; Paul, L.A.; Ferraro, P.J.; Messer, K.D.; Iovanna, R. Informational nudges in conservation auctions: A field experiment with U.S. farmers. Food Policy 2023, 120, 102504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Park, B.; Rejesus, R.M.; Aglasan, S.; Che, Y.; Hagen, S.C.; Salas, W. Payments from agricultural conservation programs and cover crop adoption. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2023, 45, 984–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tallis, H.; Polasky, S.; Hellmann, J.; Springer, N.P.; Biske, R.; DeGeus, D.; Dell, R.; Doane, M.; Downes, L.; Goldstein, J.; et al. Five financial incentives to revive the Gulf of Mexico dead zone and Mississippi basin soils. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Fleming, P. Agricultural Cost Sharing and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay: Estimating Indirect Effects of Environmental Payments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2017, 99, 1208–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fleming, P.; Lichtenberg, E.; Newburn, D.A. Evaluating impacts of agricultural cost sharing on water quality: Additionality, crowding In, and slippage. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2018, 92, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Maher, A.T.; Quintana Ashwell, N.E.; Tanaka, J.A.; Ritten, J.P.; Maczko, K.A. Financial barriers and opportunities for conservation adoption on U.S. rangelands: A region-wide, ranch-level economic assessment of NRCS-sponsored Greater Sage-grouse habitat conservation programs. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 329, 116420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Houser, M.; Campbell, B.; Jacobs, A.; Fanok, S.; Johnson, S.E. Farmers’ participation in incentivized conservation programs: Exploring barriers and opportunities for innovative designs. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2024, 79, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pfrimmer, J.; Gigliotti, L.M.; Stafford, J.; Schumann, D.; Bertrand, K. Motivations for enrollment into the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in the James River Basin of South Dakota. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2017, 22, 382–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Enloe, S.K.; Schulte, L.A.; Tyndall, J.C. Public–Private Partnerships Working Beyond Scale Challenges toward Water Quality Improvements from Private Lands. Environ. Manag. 2017, 60, 574–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ferraro, P.J.; Fooks, J.; Iovanna, R.; Kecinski, M.; Larson, J.; Meiselman, B.S.; Messer, K.D.; Wilson, M. Conservation outreach that acknowledges human contributions to climate change does not inhibit action by U.S. farmers: Evidence from a large randomized controlled trial embedded in a federal program on soil health. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Delaroche, M. Adoption of conservation practices: What have we learned from two decades of social-psychological approaches? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 45, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ranjan, P.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Church, S.P.; Eanes, F.R.; Floress, K.; Gao, Y.; Gramig, B.M.; Singh, A.S.; Prokopy, L.S. Understanding the relationship between land tenure and conservation behavior: Recommendations for social science research. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Vaske, J.J.; Landon, A.C.; Miller, C.A. Normative Influences on Farmers’ Intentions to Practice Conservation Without Compensation. Environ. Manag. 2020, 66, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lu, J.; Church, S.P.; Ranjan, P.; Usher, E.M.; Prokopy, L.S. Bridging systems thinking mindsets and farm management: The role of agricultural conservation planning in farmers’ adoption of conservation practices. J. Rural Stud. 2024, 111, 103372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yue, C.; Lai, Y.; Wang, J.; Mitchell, P. Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Product Attributes and Farm Program Features. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Raynor, E.J.; Coon, J.J.; Swartz, T.M.; Morton, L.W.; Schacht, W.H.; Miller, J.R. Shifting Cattle Producer Beliefs on Stocking and Invasive Forage: Implications for Grassland Conservation. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 72, 888–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Palm-Forster, L.H.; Suter, J.F.; Messer, K.D. Experimental Evidence on Policy Approaches That Link Agricultural Subsidies to Water Quality Outcomes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 101, 109–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Asprooth, L.; Norton, M.; Galt, R. The adoption of conservation practices in the Corn Belt: The role of one formal farmer network, Practical Farmers of Iowa. Agric. Hum. Values 2023, 40, 1559–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Ikendi, S.; Pinzón, N.; Koundinya, V.; Taku-Forchu, N.; Roche, L.M.; Ostoja, S.M.; Parker, L.E.; Zaccaria, D.; Cooper, M.H.; Diaz-Ramirez, J.N.; et al. Climate smart agriculture: Assessing needs and perceptions of California’s farmers. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1395547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Surdoval, A.; Jain, M.; Blair, E.; Wang, H.; Blesh, J. Financial incentive programs and farm diversification with cover crops: Assessing opportunities and challenges. Environ. Res. Lett. 2024, 19, 044063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Beethem, K.; Marquart-Pyatt, S.T.; Lai, J.; Guo, T. Navigating the information landscape: Public and private information source access by midwest farmers. Agric. Hum. Values 2023, 40, 1117–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ranjan, P.; Wardropper, C.B.; Eanes, F.R.; Reddy, S.M.W.; Harden, S.C.; Masuda, Y.J.; Prokopy, L.S. Understanding barriers and opportunities for adoption of conservation practices on rented farmland in the US. Land Use Policy 2019, 80, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ulrich-Schad, J.D.; Babin, N.; Ma, Z.; Prokopy, L.S. Out-of-state, out of mind? Non-operating farmland owners and conservation decision making. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 602–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. O’Hara, J.K.; Reyes, J.; Knight, L.G.; Brown, J. Why has the adoption of rotational grazing declined in parts of the United States? Rangelands 2023, 45, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dyer, H.; Maher, A.T.; Ritten, J.P.; Tanaka, J.; Maczko, K. Ranch Profitability of Improving Soil Health on Rangelands. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 77, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yoder, L.; Houser, M.; Bruce, A.; Sullivan, A.; Farmer, J. Are climate risks encouraging cover crop adoption among farmers in the southern Wabash River Basin? Land Use Policy 2021, 102, 105268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Beetstra, M.A.; Wilson, R.S.; Doidge, M. Conservation behavior over time: Examining a Midwestern farmer sample. Land Use Policy 2022, 115, 106002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Levers, L.R.; Pradhananga, A.K.; Peterson, J.M. Willingness to Accept for Perennial Crop Adoption: The Influence of Trust in Environmental and Government Organizations. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. (JAWRA) 2021, 57, 1004–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Snorek, J.; Freidberg, S.; Smith, G. Relationships of regeneration in Great Plains commodity agriculture. Agric. Hum. Values 2024, 41, 1449–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Reistad, G.; Krome, M. An Analysis of the Conservation Stewardship Program in Wisconsin; Michael Fields Agricultural Institute: East Troy, WI, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  98. Campbell, L. Conservation Stewardship Program Is Falling Short, Say Critics. Available online: https://modernfarmer.com/2020/03/conservation-stewardship-program-is-falling-short-say-critics/ (accessed on 13 November 2024).
  99. Reimer, A.P.; Prokopy, L.S. Farmer Participation in U.S. Farm Bill Conservation Programs. Environ. Manag. 2014, 53, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Quintana-Ashwell, N.; Gholson, D.M.; Krutz, L.J.; Henry, C.G.; Cooke, T. Adoption of water-conserving irrigation practices among row-crop growers in Mississippi, USA. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Pilgeram, R.; Dentzman, K.; Lewin, P. Women, race and place in US Agriculture. Agric Hum. Values 2022, 39, 1341–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sachs, C.; Barbercheck, M.; Braiser, K.; Kiernan, N.E.; Terman, A.R. The Rise of Women Farmers and Sustainable Agriculture; University of Iowa Press: Iowa City, IA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  103. Schmidt, C.; Goetz, S.J.; Tian, Z. Female farmers in the United States: Research needs and policy questions. Food Policy 2021, 101, 102039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. USDA. Census of Agriculture Highlights. Female Producers. Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/Census22_HL_FemaleProducers.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2024).
  105. Allen, K.E.; Quinn, C.E.; English, C.; Quinn, J.E. Relational values in agroecosystem governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 35, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Maas, A.; Fuller, K.B.; Hatzenbuehler, P.; McIntosh, C. An exploration of preferences for soil health practices in potato production. Farming Syst. 2023, 1, 100054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Smith, M.; Lal, P.; Vedwan, N. Motivations underlying farmers’ management decisions and willingness to adopt sustainable practices: A case study of the northeastern United States. J. Rural Stud. 2023, 103, 103138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Smith, M.M.; Bentrup, G.; Kellerman, T.; MacFarland, K.; Straight, R.; Ameyaw, L.; Stein, S. Silvopasture in the USA: A systematic review of natural resource professional and producer-reported benefits, challenges, and management activities. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 326, 107818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Boufous, S.; Hudson, D.; Carpio, C. Farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices: A meta-analysis. PLOS Sustain. Transform. 2023, 2, e0000037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Burnett, J.W.; Szurmlo, D.; Callahan, S. Farmland Rental and Conservation Practice Adoption; EIB-270; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2024.
  111. Petersen-Rockney, M. Social risk perceptions of climate change: A case study of farmers and agricultural advisors in northern California. Glob. Environ. Change 2022, 75, 102557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Bruno, J.E.; Jamsranjav, C.; Jablonski, K.E.; Dosamantes, E.G.; Wilmer, H.; Fernández-Giménez, M.E. The landscape of North American Rangeland Social Science: A Systematic Map. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 73, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Brunson, M.; Huntsinger, L.; Meredith, G.; Sayre, N. The future of social science integration in rangelands research. Rangelands 2022, 44, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Mpanga, I.K.; Tronstad, R.; Guo, J.; LeBauer, D.S.; Idowu, O.J. On-farm land management strategies and production challenges in United States organic agricultural systems. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 3, 100097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Brummitt, C.D.; Mathers, C.A.; Keating, R.A.; O’Leary, K.; Easter, M.; Friedl, M.A.; DuBuisson, M.; Campbell, E.E.; Pape, R.; Peters, S.J.W.; et al. Solutions and insights for agricultural monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) from three consecutive issuances of soil carbon credits. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 369, 122284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Oliver, M.D.; Stout, M. Examining natural resource management through a community development theoretical lens. Community Dev. 2022, 53, 130–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Balukas, J.A.; Bell, K.P.; Bauer, D.M. Classifying private landowners to improve understanding of management decisions and conservation opportunities in urbanizing forested landscapes. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Thompson, C.D.; Severe, E.; Norris, A.J.; Gudmundsen, J.; Lewis, M.; Currit, E.; Newbold, N.; Abbott, B.W. Improving sustainable agriculture promotion: An explorative analysis of NRCS assistance programs and farmer perspectives. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2022, 20, 1079–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Upadhaya, S.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Schulte, L.A. Developing farmer typologies to inform conservation outreach in agricultural landscapes. Land Use Policy 2021, 101, 105157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Malone, M.; McClintock, N. A critical physical geography of no-till agriculture: Linking degraded environmental quality to conservation policies in an Oregon watershed. Can. Geogr. Geogr. Can. 2023, 67, 74–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Bai, X.; Huang, Y.; Ren, W.; Coyne, M.; Jacinthe, P.A.; Tao, B.; Hui, D.; Yang, J.; Matocha, C. Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate-smart agriculture practices: A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2019, 25, 2591–2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ogle, S.M.; Alsaker, C.; Baldock, J.; Bernoux, M.; Breidt, F.J.; McConkey, B.; Regina, K.; Vazquez-Amabile, G.G. Climate and soil characteristics determine where no-till management can store carbon in soils and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 11665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ogle, S.M.; Swan, A.; Paustian, K. No-till management impacts on crop productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 149, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Luo, Z.; Wang, E.; Sun, O.J. Can no-tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta-analysis of paired experiments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Gelardi, D.L.; Rath, D.; Kruger, C.E. Grounding United States policies and programs in soil carbon science: Strengths, limitations, and opportunities. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1188133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Reicosky, D.; Brandt, D.; Reeder, R.; Lal, R.; Montgomery, D.R. Plowing: Dust storms, Conservation Agriculture, and need for a “Soil Health Act”. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2023, 78, 105A–108A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Pape, A.; Prokopy, L.S. Delivering on the potential of formal farmer networks: Insights from Indiana. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 72, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Gosnell, H. Regenerating soil, regenerating soul: An integral approach to understanding agricultural transformation. Sustain. Sci. 2022, 17, 603–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kilpatrick, S.; Johns, S. How farmers learn: Different approaches to change. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2003, 9, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Laforge, J.M.L.; McLachlan, S.M. Learning communities and new farmer knowledge in Canada. Geoforum 2018, 96, 256–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Wood, B.A.; Blair, H.T.; Gray, D.I.; Kemp, P.D.; Kenyon, P.R.; Morris, S.T.; Sewell, A.M. Agricultural Science in the Wild: A Social Network Analysis of Farmer Knowledge Exchange. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Gong, S.; Bergtold, J.S.; Yeager, E. Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers. Agric. Food Econ. 2021, 9, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Canales, E.; Bergtold, J.S.; Williams, J.R. Conservation practice complementarity and timing of on-farm adoption. Agric. Econ. 2020, 51, 777–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. A summary of the enablers and barriers affecting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by U.S. agricultural producers, as identified by social science studies.
Table 1. A summary of the enablers and barriers affecting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by U.S. agricultural producers, as identified by social science studies.
DomainCategoryEnablersBarriers
The Psychosociological ContextAwareness and KnowledgeAwareness of environmental impacts, formal education, evidence of conservation benefits, access to trustworthy, evidence-based information, and trusted advisers.Lack of standardized terminology, inadequate knowledge, outdated or irrelevant information from public sources.
Social FactorsStrong peer networks, societal pressure, consumer preferences for sustainability, and availability of social learning opportunities.Distrust between farmers and advisers, social risk perception, and disconnection from the public.
Psychological FactorsFarmers’ self-efficacy, moral responsibility to protect the land, and systemic thinking.Resistance to change, perceived inefficiencies, and trade-offs between profits and environmental benefits.
The Economic and Practical CapacityTechnologies and ToolsInnovative technologies, precision tools, and compatible systems enhance adoption.High costs, complexity of new tools, and limited trialability of technologies.
Economic FactorsAccess to financial programs, diversification of income, and high-quality resources like fertile soil.High input costs, market competition, and limited land access due to rental agreements.
Implementation CapacityPre-existing infrastructure, complementary practices, demonstration sites and field days.Excessive paperwork, labor demands, and localized limiting factors like water access.
The Governance SystemPolicies and RegulationsPolicies and programs like Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), conservation easement, and incentives aligned with farmers’ goals.Complex regulations, policy misalignment, and inadequate attention to non-operating landowners.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Varyvoda, Y.; Thomson, A.; Bruno, J. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the U.S.: A Social Science Literature Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156925

AMA Style

Varyvoda Y, Thomson A, Bruno J. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the U.S.: A Social Science Literature Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156925

Chicago/Turabian Style

Varyvoda, Yevheniia, Allison Thomson, and Jasmine Bruno. 2025. "Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the U.S.: A Social Science Literature Review" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156925

APA Style

Varyvoda, Y., Thomson, A., & Bruno, J. (2025). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the U.S.: A Social Science Literature Review. Sustainability, 17(15), 6925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156925

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop