A Review of the Federal Conservation Programs in the United States: Examining Motivations, Challenges, and Policy Recommendations for Enhancing the Conservation Reserve Program Adoption

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is the cornerstone of the United States’ agricultural conservation strategy. Since its establishment in 1985, the CRP has played a significant role in promoting the preservation of private-land wildlife, water, and soil. However, a recent comprehensive review of the CRP levels across the United States (U.S.) remains underexplored. Thus, this study holistically reviews the motivations, challenges, and actionable solutions for improving the program and addressing regional enrollment disparities. This review highlights that environmental sustainability and financial incentives are the major motivations for CRP enrollment. Simultaneously, the program’s structural contract, inflexibility, restrictions, and lower rental rates are identified as barriers to its adoption. Recommended actions include outreach programs, redesigning the CRP contract (particularly reducing contract length and restrictions and incentivizing post-CRP contract expiration), and increasing flexibility and rental rates. The authors recommend enhancing the CRP’s targeting of high-impact areas, integrating it with climate goals, and supporting long-term conservation strategies, which can help ensure that the program continues to provide equitable and robust environmental benefits. Future research on comparative studies conducted in various locations in the U.S. may shed light on how regional circumstances affect CRP success, guiding the development of more adaptable and equity-focused program designs.

Introduction

Conservation programs have become global initiatives adopted by various governments, stakeholders, decision-makers, and agencies, for instance, federal conservation programs (FCPs) in the United States (U.S.), largely because of their importance to the environment and ecosystem service provisioning (Goldman & Tallis, 2009; Pathaket al., 2021; Reimeret al., 2018). The U.S. government has exhibited tremendous interest in enrolling and protecting environmentally sensitive lands and their natural resources in federal conservation programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, and Agriculture Conservation Easement Program (Pathaket al., 2021). This interest on the part of the U.S. government has been demonstrated through investing enormous capital in federal conservation programs, where in 2020 alone, the government spent US$2.1 billion, US$1.75 billion, and US$450 million on the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQUIP), and Agriculture Conservation Easement Program, respectively (Pathaket al., 2021; USDA, 2019).

The CRP is the largest federal agricultural private-land retirement program in the U.S. in terms of scale and budget (Morefieldet al., 2016; Oh & Guan, 2016; Stubbs, 2014). The Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Farm Bill, P.L. 99-198) authorized the CRP for the first time, primarily to safeguard the environment and as a tool for supply management to remove land from agricultural production, which would lower the supply of commodities and possibly drive up prices (Stubbs, 2014). However, the program has been approved a series of times. For instance, it was re-authorized in 1990 by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act; in 1996 by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act; in 2002 by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act; in 2008 by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act; and in 2012 by the American Taxpayer Relief Act (Ribaudoet al., 2001; USDA Farm Service Agency, 2013). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) enters into agreements with farmers under the CRP to retire extremely erodible and other ecologically sensitive farmland and pasture (USDA Farm Service Agency, 2013). CRP provides landowners with monetary compensation in exchange for their voluntary removal of land from agricultural production for a period (often 10 to 15 years) to enhance wildlife habitat and the quality of the soil and water (Stubbs, 2014; USDA Farm Service Agency, 2013). The USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) offers technical advice to farmers and ranchers enrolled in the program (Steinmetz, 2018; USDA Farm Service Agency, 2013).

The CRP encompassed approximately 22.9 million acres of environmentally sensitive lands at the end of fiscal year 2023, which received funding of about $1.8 billion (Pratt, 2024) Fig. 1 displays the counties included in the 2023 CRP. The map shows that a significant portion of the Great Plains, where there is little rainfall and a high risk of severe wind erosion, is covered by CRP, spanning from Texas to Montana and North Dakota. Northern Missouri, southern Iowa, eastern Washington, southeastern Idaho, northwest Utah, and the Mississippi River in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi also have smaller CRP tracts.

Fig. 1. A map showing total CRP enrolled (continuing and new) acres by U.S. County, September 2023. Note: (Pratt, 2024).

Furthermore, general and continuous sign-ups are the two primary methods by which farmers and ranchers can enroll in the CRP. Many beneficial effects on the environment have been demonstrated by acres enrolled in the CRP, such as decreased soil erosion, improved water quality due to buffer strips, vegetative cover, less fertilizer use, and greater habitat for wildlife populations (Morefieldet al., 2016; Pathaket al., 2021; Ribaudoet al., 2001; Stubbs, 2014). Although the program has been associated with several improvements in natural resources, there are certain contentious aspects to it, including the effect of allowed activities, such as haying and grazing, on CRP acres on the economy and environment, as well as the program’s decreased enrolled acres due to high crop prices and the reauthorization of the farm bill (Stubbs, 2014).

Moreover, different CRP topics, namely the socioeconomic impacts of CRP (Bangsundet al., 2004; Mortensenet al., 1990; Ryberget al., 1991; Sullivanet al., 2004), barriers to conservation participation and adoption of conservation practices (Gyawaliet al., 2003; Steinmetz, 2018), and farmers’ motivation to participate in conservation programs (Barneset al., 2019; Reimer & Prokopy, 2014) have been extensively studied. Nevertheless, little research has been conducted to comprehensively review the empirical reasons for CRP enrollment and the associated challenges faced by landowners in recent years across the U.S. This study aims to review the CRP policy in terms of its opportunities, challenges, and solutions across the U.S. The research questions to explore are as follows: (1) What are the primary motivating factors for landowners’ participation in the CRP? (2) What challenges do forest landowners face when adopting the CRP program? (3) What actionable recommendations can address the challenges landowners face? This is considered crucial because the study’s conclusions may influence CRP policy implementation, encouraging numerous landowners to enroll/re-enroll and enhancing extension agents’ and other stakeholders’ comprehension of the program (Lim & Wachenheim, 2022). This is evident by the assertion of Robertset al. (2006) that review papers are valuable information sources and are frequently the only source of evidence that decision-makers in environmental management and conservation use to evaluate the impact and efficacy of interventions and other measures. Furthermore, the findings of this review will contribute to the body of knowledge and serve as a valuable resource for researchers.

Theoretical Framework for CRP Adoption

CRP adoption is a multifaceted issue involving individual decision-making and institutional dynamics. To comprehensively capture these dynamics, we draw on two theoretical lenses: the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Institutional Theory. TPB allows for examining factors influencing landowner intentions and behaviors concerning CRP participation, while Institutional Theory helps us understand the broader policy framework and context affecting adoption decisions.

The TPB (Ajzen, 1991) posits that individuals’ behaviors are guided by their intentions, which are influenced by attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. For CRP enrollment, landowners’ decisions are not solely based on economic motives but also on their beliefs about the program and the social pressures they perceive (see Fig. 2). Attitudes toward CRP can include environmental, social, and financial components. Research indicates that positive perceptions of soil conservation benefits, wildlife habitat enhancement, and water quality improvements are often linked to higher enrollment willingness (Adhikariet al., 2022; Thapaet al., 2024; Lim & Wachenheim, 2022). Similarly, the attractiveness of the cost-share payments and rental rates as financial incentives can strengthen intentions to enroll. Subjective norms, which involve the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform a behavior, are also significant. Landowners may be influenced by the practices of their peers, neighbors, and the recommendations of agencies like the FSA and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). For example, farmers may be more likely to adopt certain conservation practices if they observe trusted peers doing so or if they receive consistent technical support from agency representatives (Reimeret al., 2018). Perceived behavioral control refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of enrolling in CRP. Suppose landowners view the program as having complex rules, lengthy contracts, or inflexible requirements. In that case, they may be less likely to participate even if they have positive attitudes toward conservation and find the financial incentives attractive (Luteet al., 2018). Therefore, TPB suggests that understanding CRP enrollment decisions requires considering the economic benefits and costs and the social and psychological factors influencing landowners’ intentions.

Fig. 2. Conceptual diagram of the Theory of Planned Behavior for CRP Adoption. Source: Adapted from Ajzen (1991).

TPB provides insight into individual motivations, but Institutional Theory can shed light on the contextual influences of organizational rules and structures on decision-making opportunities and constraints (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). This theory has three principal institutional pressures: coercive, normative, and mimetic (Fig. 3). As a federally implemented policy tool, the CRP’s design likely has a heavy degree of conditioning on the decision to participate. The CRP has many components, such as program eligibility rules, contract length, rental rates, and more, that act as institutional incentives (or disincentives) for enrollment. Inflexible program requirements such as 10- to 15-year contracts and payments below the average crop prices have been identified as key deterrents to CRP enrollment for landowners (Lim & Wachenheim, 2022; Steinmetz, 2018). Additionally, institutional theory often focuses on path dependency; CRP has been reauthorized with the passing of each Farm Bill over the years, locking in some structural components and lacking flexibility to meet the changing needs and desires of landowners (Stubbs, 2014). Institutional legitimacy is also a key component; the trust landowners have in government agencies (such as FSA and NRCS) and conservation non-governmental organizations impacts their participation decision, which can be bolstered with more transparent communication or consistent technical assistance (Reimer & Prokopy, 2014). Therefore, the institutional design of the CRP sets the terms of engagement and impacts the perceptions of fairness and legitimacy, directly influencing the decision to adopt the program. The role of peers and the CRP success stories can, to some extent, influence other landowners to enroll in CRP. This CRP adoption has several outcomes, including water quality, climate mitigation, and biodiversity.

Fig. 3. Conceptual diagram of the Institutional Theory Framework for CRP Adoption. Source: Adapted from DiMaggio and Powell (1983).

Integrating the TPB with Institutional Theory offers a more comprehensive explanation of CRP participation. TPB explains how landowners’ attitudes, social influences, and perceptions of control shape their intentions to enroll or not in CRP. Institutional theory provides context by framing these personal choices within broader policy structures that may support or hinder landowner behavior. The combined framework highlights that individual motivations (such as environmental stewardship or profit motives) are interconnected with institutional factors (like contract design, rental rates, and program complexity). Both behavioral strategies (such as peer outreach and customized support) and institutional reforms (including increased flexibility and improved incentives) are necessary to enhance CRP participation.

Methods

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Using a formal technique for conducting systematic reviews in the conservation and environmental sciences, this study established a clear objective and set of questions for the review (Pullin & Stewart, 2006). The main objective was to assess CRP’s opportunities, constraints, and potential areas for policy improvement. The review objective was the central guideline for selecting articles to be reviewed (Filosoet al., 2017). The scholarly articles used for this review were obtained from the Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases. The inclusion criteria were papers published between 2000 and 2025, in English, peer-reviewed, reports, theses, with at least one case study, and pertinent book chapters. This time frame was selected to guarantee that the most current developments and patterns in the subject were discussed, mirroring the last 25 years of research. In addition, such papers should address CRP by shedding light on the reasons for participation, opportunities, barriers, and recommendations and providing empirical, qualitative, and quantitative examples of the lived experiences of landowners or farmers. Studies that did not concentrate on the U.S., full-text papers that were not available, publications written in languages other than English, and studies that had nothing to do with CRP in the targeted location were excluded.

Literature Search Process

A deliberate combination of broad keywords was used to find pertinent literature. The keywords for the literature search were “Conservation Reserve Program,” or “CRP,” “Landowner,” “Participation,” “Opportunities,” “Barriers,” and “United States.”. After examining the titles, abstracts, and full texts, and eliminating duplicate studies, only 11, 2, and 4 of the 752 studies that this search produced in the Google Scholar database, 49 studies in ScienceDirect, and 194 studies in Web of Science were relevant to the current review paper. The selection process followed a systematic review approach to ensure the inclusion of studies that provided empirical insights into landowner motivations, challenges, and program-related outcomes. Studies that lacked direct relevance to CRP implementation in the U.S. or did not provide primary data were excluded.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

A mixed-method approach was used to synthesize quantitative and qualitative data in the literature relevant to CRP to accomplish the review questions or objectives (Husket al., 2016; Jungbluthet al., 2024). The information obtained from the selected papers was stored in an Excel spreadsheet, where each column represented a particular attribute, such as authors, year, title, journal, keywords, and key findings. The selected studies were analyzed thematically for recurring themes and trends. The selected papers were themed into motivations, obstacles, and recommendations to address research questions one, two, and three. Interviews with landowners and farmers were conducted to support the identified themes. This approach enabled the systematic integration of diverse empirical evidence to critically examine the consistency and divergence of findings across geographic regions and methodological designs.

Results

Description of Literature

The results from the literature search using Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science are presented in Table I. The total number of selected studies was 17 (with most case studies in the Midwest), of which 12 were journal articles, 1 was a USDA report, and 4 were dissertations. The publication dates, from 2003 to 2024, demonstrate a persistent interest in CRP and why landowners/farmers choose to participate. These studies employed various research methodologies, including qualitative (interviews and focus groups), quantitative (surveys), and mixed methods. In the context of CRP, this varied methodological approach offers insight into factual data and the landowners’ subjective experiences. In addition, the selected studies explored factors influencing participation, opportunities, and obstacles in conservation programs, particularly CRP, across different regions of the U.S. This geographic diversity allows for a more nuanced understanding of region-specific dynamics, such as climatic variability, land-use patterns, and socioeconomic contexts that influence program enrollment.

Table I. Selected Literature

No	Authors	Year	Title
1.	Thapa, Bhawna, Binod P. Chapagain, Scott T. McMurry, Loren M. Smith, and Omkar Joshi	2024	Understanding landowner participation in the Conservation Reserve Program in the US High Plains region.
2.	Steinmetz, Alexandra Corcoran Meyers	2018	It Should’ve Never Been Broke Out’: Understanding Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program in Southwest Kansas and Southeast Colorado.
3.	Adhikari, Ram K., Robert K. Grala, Stephen C. Grado, Donald L. Grebner, and Daniel R. Petrolia	2022	Landowner satisfaction with conservation programs in the southern United States.
4.	Reimer, Adam P., Riva CH Denny, and Diana Stuart	2018	The impact of federal and state conservation programs on farmer nitrogen management.
5.	Allen, Arthur W., and Mark W. Vandever	2012	Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contributions to wildlife habitat, management issues, challenges and policy choices–an annotated bibliography.
6.	Patterson, Dawn Kathryn Glaser	2007	Landowner decision-making, land retirement, and wildlife conservation: The Conservation Reserve Program and the Reinvest in Minnesota Program in southeastern Minnesota.
7.	Mishra, Ashok K., and Aditya R. Khanal	2013	Is participation in agri-environmental programs affected by liquidity and solvency?
8.	Loftus, Timothy T., and Steven E. Kraft	2003	Enrolling conservation buffers in the CRP.
9.	Lim, Siew, and Cheryl Wachenheim	2022	Predicted enrollment in alternative attribute Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
10.	Wachenheim, Cheryl, David C. Roberts, Neeraj Dhingra, William Lesch, and John Devney	2018	Conservation reserve program enrollment decisions in the prairie pothole region.
11.	Vukina, Tomislav, Xiaoyong Zheng, Michele Marra, and Armando Levy	2008	Do farmers value the environment? Evidence from a conservation reserve program auction.
12.	Chang, Hung-Hao, Dayton M. Lambert, and Ashok K. Mishra	2008	Does participation in the conservation reserve program impact the economic well-being of farm households?
13.	Lute, Michelle L., Caitlyn R. Gillespie, Dustin R. Martin, and Joseph J. Fontaine	2018	Landowner and practitioner perspectives on private land conservation programs.
14.	Stukes, Kayla Ann Marie	2023	Landowners’ Participation in Conservation Programs: Understanding Barriers and Opportunities.
15.	Young, Sarah Hazel	2014	Farmer Decision Making and Likelihood to Participate in the Conservation Reserve Program.
16.	Atkinson, Lorilie M., Rebecca J. Romsdahl, and Michael J. Hill	2011	Future participation in the conservation reserve program in North Dakota.
17.	Reimer, Adam P., and Linda S. Prokopy	2014	Farmer Participation in U.S. Farm Bill Conservation Programs.

Landowners’ Motivations for Participating in the CRP

Environmental Sustainability and Conservation Benefits

A plethora of research has discovered that one of the paramount reasons landowners enroll or re-enroll in the USDA CRP is their positive impact on environmental quality. The findings of Thapaet al. (2024) indicated that most of the landowners in their survey from Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska enrolled in the CRP due to its benefits, such as conservation benefits (mean agreement = 4.02 on a 5-point Likert scale; standard error = 0.06), preventing soil erosion and sedimentation (mean agreement = 4.25 on a 5-point Likert scale; standard error = 0.04), and improving soil productivity (mean agreement = 3.74 on a 5-point Likert scale; standard error = 0.04). They further revealed that landowners perceived CRP as important because it improved water quality and availability (mean agreement = 3.99 on a 5-point Likert scale; standard error = 0.06). In addition, Adhikariet al. (2022) found that landowners with environmental concerns, particularly the loss of wildlife habitat, had a two to six times higher chance of increasing their satisfaction with CRP from a lower to a higher level (p < 0.05) in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and the East Gulf Coastal Plain. The USDA report by Allen and Vandever (2012) showed that landowners engage in CRP because of wildlife habitat benefits.

Comparably, Patterson (2007) identified that 52% of the CRP respondents surveyed in Minnesota were enrolled in the program mainly because of wildlife conservation, water quality, and soil erosion. Vukinaet al. (2008) found that the significance of environmental benefits, especially those that increase the future soil production of their property, and the strength of their environmental scores are the main factors that their surveyed farmers in North Carolina consider when placing their bids for the CRP auction. Akin to the above, the environmental health benefit of CRP is the most crucial indicator among other indicators of farmers’ willingness to enroll in the program across central, northwestern, and southwestern Ohio (Young, 2014). Other research, particularly Luteet al. (2018), showed that most of their surveyed landowners acknowledged CRP-related ecosystem services, such as increase pollinators (mean agreement = 3.19 on a 5-point Likert scale; standard deviation = 1.34 and reduce erosion (mean agreement = 4.30 on a 5-point Likert scale; standard deviation = 0.84), as the reasons for joining the program. Interestingly, landowners in counties with comparatively higher wind and water erosion indices were more likely participate in CRP than those in counties with comparable natural amenity indices (Changet al., 2008). Additionally, these environmental motivations appear consistent across both first-time and returning enrollers, suggesting that conservation awareness has become increasingly embedded in land management decisions.

Profitability/Financial Incentives

Economic motivations are another key driving force for farmers and landowners to engage in the CRP. In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and East Gulf Coastal Plain, landowners with a financial motive as their objective were 2.31 to 2.79 times more likely to be pleased and engaged in the CRP than those without this objective (Adhikariet al., 2022). Similarly, according to Thapaet al. (2024), one of the top three management reasons for landowners when deciding whether to participate in CRP on their property is profit maximization. In addition, the respondents’ rental rate (average per acre = $33.29), which had a mean score of 3.91 on a 5-point Likert scale, was the most important consideration in their choice to sign up for CRP (Thapaet al., 2024). Moreover, some landowners in southwest Kansas and southeast Colorado view CRP as a financial solvency, savior, and leverage (Steinmetz, 2018). For instance, CRP as financial leverage was espoused by the respondents as an opportunity to earn “extra income for anything from paying college tuitions to purchasing new equipment” whereas CRP as a savior meant that it “was salvation in a time of difficulty and an opportune fit because it allowed farmers to remove their less productive land from production and focus efforts on land that would turn a profit” (Steinmetz, 2018, pp. 23–24).

Reimeret al. (2018, p. 7) disclosed that 49% of their CRP respondents in the Midwest, particularly Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan, “most commonly used funds to install physical structures, such as field buffers and filter strips along waterways and agricultural ditches.” Loftus and Kraft (2003) revealed that in southernmost Illinois, landowners with more debt and depend less on farm-generated income relative to their overall family income are more likely to participate in conservation buffers in the CRP. Furthermore, according to Wachenheimet al. (2018), the U.S. federal-funded setup costs and rental payments in the Prairie Pothole Region (Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota) were directly linked to the farmers’ likelihood of enrolling in CRP. Atkinsonet al. (2011) identified three key economic incentives— “market prices, cost-sharing opportunities, and expected cost of production”—as the focal driving motives and considerations for conservation participation, such as CRP, among their surveyed respondents in North Dakota. These findings suggest that, beyond immediate income support, landowners often strategically integrate CRP payments into broader financial planning, particularly in regions prone to economic volatility or uncertain crop yields.

Recreational Opportunities and Place Attachment

Some studies show that the recreational opportunities provided by CRP at least inform landowners’ enrollment decisions. For instance, Thapaet al. (2024) revealed that recreational opportunities, such as wildlife watching and hunting, were considered important by surveyed landowners in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska. Similarly, respondents in a study conducted by Adhikariet al. (2022) in the East Gulf Coastal Plain and Mississippi Alluvial Valley expressed interest in the social objectives of conservation programs, especially recreation, which they view as contributing factors to some extent. Moreover, Stukes (2023) found that place-based attachment, particularly place identity (p < 0.002), place satisfaction (p < 0.003), and family legacy (p < 0.020) significantly influenced the participation desires of their surveyed forest landowners in Georgia in conservation programs, such as CRP. These emotional and cultural aspects of land ownership, such as valuing the property of family heritage, aesthetics, or personal use, are critical in sustaining long-term conservation behavior. In some rural areas, preserving access to wildlife-rich landscapes for hunting or passive enjoyment may be consistent with conservation goals and local customs, adding to the attractiveness of the CRP beyond financial gain. This illustrates that CRP can fulfill non-material values linked with land, potentially increasing commitment to conservation activities even when economic benefits are secondary.

Social Connections and Access to Technical Assistance

The experiences of landowners who have enrolled in the CRP and the technical assistance provided through contact with conservation agencies, such as the FSA) and the NRCS, can, to some extent, motivate other landowners to participate in the program. Similarly, Reimeret al. (2018) found that farmers who interact more frequently with conservation agencies for technical assistance and have close social ties with other adopters in their study areas (Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan) are more likely to adopt conservation practices. Comparably, Adhikariet al. (2022) and Loftus and Kraft (2003) revealed that the frequent visits of landowners and farmers to their FSA office in the East Gulf Coastal Plain and Mississippi Alluvial Valley and the NRCS office in southernmost Illinois, respectively, for technical assistance (such as best management practices and other relevant information) influenced their CRP participation decisions. In the same vein, Mishra and Khanal (2013) showed that farmers’ internet access plays a crucial role in determining whether to participate in FCPs, such as CRP, since it facilitates their connection with FSA for technical assistance and gives instant access to information concerning the application process, price information, farm programs, and production. These findings emphasize the role of both formal institutional support and informal social networks in determining conservation behavior. The effects of peer-to-peer learning and community demonstration, where landowners observe their neighbors’ CRP involvement outcomes, can normalize program participation and reduce the perceived risks. Furthermore, landowners with a strong relationship with the agency staff may feel more confident navigating the enrollment process and are more likely to stay engaged over time. Thus, increased access to technical knowledge and supportive networks serves as both an enabling and reinforcement mechanism for ongoing CRP engagement.

Major Barriers to CRP Adoption

Rule Complexity, Inflexibility, and Contract Nature

A factor that demotivates landowners’ participation in conservation programs, such as CRP, is the perceived complexity of program enrollment rules and inflexibility. This barrier is evidenced by the study by Luteet al. (2018), who found that the intricacy of the CRP rule served as a crucial obstacle to adopting the program. For example, they pointed out three significant listed negatives of CRP by the landowners in Nebraska (mean agreement > 3 on a 5-point Likert scale), mainly, “…CRP land 1) creates weed problems on their own CRP land and 2) adjacent lands, and 3) landowners receive more pressure to allow hunting.” (Luteet al., 2018, p. 7)). Additionally, Wachenheimet al. (2018) disclosed that stricter rules negatively affected CRP enrollment on the use of enrolled land, especially for farmers who kept livestock in the Prairie Pothole Region.

Moreover, the results of Steinmetz (2018, pp. 1–3) unearth that the landowners in Southwest Kansas and Southeast Colorado believed that the CRP “ …is complicated by rules which lack ‘common sense’. ... Broader program concerns included a shifting program focus, inconsistent enforcement of rules, and one-size-fits-all management.” Similarly, Reimer and Prokopy (2014) found showed that farmers with limited time or finances may find participation difficult because of the system’s intricacy among their respondents in Northwest Indiana. Furthermore, landowners were reluctant to participate for various reasons, including less production flexibility and aversion to entering into contracts with the federal government, according to the surveyed landowners in southernmost Illinois (Loftus & Kraft, 2003). Other studies have also indicated that longer CRP contract lengths demotivated landowners to enroll or re-enroll (Adhikariet al., 2022; Lim & Wachenheim, 2022; Wachenheimet al., 2018). These structural flaws often create the impression that the program is intended for large-scale, full-time landowners, potentially alienating smallholders, part-time farmers, and individuals with various land uses. In addition, ambiguity in regulation interpretation by local FSA offices may lead to inconsistent implementation, generating frustration and uncertainty among potential participants. Such inconsistencies in communication and enforcement foster a lack of confidence, particularly among new or first-time applicants.

Lower Rental Rate and Lack of CRP Knowledge

Some landowners who have enrolled or are yet to enroll postulate that the rental rate of CRP is not cost-effective or sufficiently high to compensate them for retiring their agricultural lands into conservation. The majority of Nebraska survey participants put this economic factor, more precisely, that crop production is more profitable than CRP (mean agreement >3 on a 5-point Likert scale), among other reasons, not to participate in CRP (Luteet al., 2018). Similar, 69% of the participants in the study reported by Atkinsonet al. (2011) agreed or strongly agreed that CRP does not provide enough revenue to be attractive, which is why it is not being adopted. On the other hand, landowners’ accessibility to CRP information and comprehension of the program influence their enrollment decisions. Atkinsonet al. (2011) evaluated landowners’ participation in conservation programs in North Dakota and found that a lack of knowledge of conservation programs, such as the CRP, about their concept, scope, resources, and relevance inhibits landowners from enrolling in those programs. This lack of awareness is more pronounced in underprivileged or socially disadvantaged farming communities, where outreach attempts may be inadequate or culturally misaligned. Furthermore, some landowners may find existing informational materials that are too technical or not immediately applicable to their farming circumstances, which discourages further investigation. Without clear, accessible, and locally relevant communication, landowners may misinterpret program requirements, undervalue benefits, or entirely avoid participation.

Solutions for Improving CRP Adoption

Higher Rental Payment and Cost Share

The federal government’s commitment to ensuring an increase in rental payments, cost share, and other financial incentives in CRP would go a long way to attract more landowners to enroll in the program. The findings of Wachenheimet al. (2018) revealed that farmers are willing to participate in CRP if the program’s conditions are favorable, such as an increase in the government cost share for stand establishment. According to Lim and Wachenheim (2022), improving the program’s participation requires better knowledge of the primary drivers of farmers’ participation in CRP and offering larger rental payments, cost shares, and mid-contract modified payments. This stresses the significance of aligning CRP incentives with market realities, particularly during high commodity prices when the opportunity costs for enrolling land are higher. Furthermore, specific financial incentives for new farmers or those working in marginal areas may increase inclusivity and widen CRP’s reach.

Increase Flexibility

Landowners postulated that more flexibility in the CRP is a key remedy to address apathy toward the program’s participation (Lim & Wachenheim, 2022). Wachenheimet al. (2018) indicated that introducing flexible attributes of CRP contracts, such as removing land use constraints, will entice new farmers to enroll and current farmers to re-enroll in the program. More specifically, being flexible with land use activities, such as grazing, mowing, and haying on CRP lands, can, to a larger extent, boost the program’s participation (Hoduret al., 2002; Steinmetz, 2018). Reimer and Prokopy (2014) proposed that CRP flexibility and complexity and other future conservation policies must be balanced, ensuring that more landowners engage in those programs, leading to environmental sustainability. Program rigidity, particularly when it ignores area land use patterns or environmental constraints, can deter long-term commitment. Offering adaptive management choices to address droughts, invasive species, and wildlife concerns may assist landowners in maintaining compliance while retaining program advantages. This flexibility could also help encourage mixed-use conservation initiatives that align with landowners’ changing goals.

CRP Contract and Design

Some studies have proposed several solutions to address the challenges of CRP adoption, particularly by reducing the 10- to 15-year enrollment contract. According to Luteet al. (2018), most former CRP landowners in Nebraska preferred a shorter CRP contract (3-5 years), with a mean agreement of 3.67 on a Likert scale of 5 and a standard deviation of 1.01. Lim and Wachenheim (2022) suggested that landowners in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming were more inclined toward shorter CRP contracts. The CRP design was a significant barrier; therefore, Thapaet al. (2024) proposed that to harness landowners’ willingness to engage in CRP, policymakers should develop programs that reflect the conservation advantages of wetlands and consider a variety of non-financial incentives. Stukes (2023) suggested that conservation programs, such as CRP should leverage cultural values and land connections to ensure broader participation. Staggered contract designs, such as tiered commitments or phased renewals, may provide landowners with more manageable entry points into the program. Incorporating design elements that address land tenure insecurity, succession planning, or farm transitions may make the CRP more appealing to multigenerational and absentee landowners.

Outreach, Education, and Training

More outreach and education initiatives should be made available to prospective and existing CRP landowners regarding any difficulties they may face with the FSA and other conservation agencies. Adhikariet al. (2022) argued that increased participation in conservation activities can be achieved by better reaching enrolled and non-enrolled landowners through improved approaches that address their environmental concerns, communicate technical information, explain contract terms, and facilitate financial resource leveraging. Increasing the cultural competency of support staff, intensifying community outreach and education, improving landowner and practitioner relationships, and providing customized support are essential to enhancing CRP participation (Allen & Vandever, 2012; Luteet al., 2018; Stukes, 2023). Community-based approaches, such as collaboration with local conservation districts, cooperative extension agencies, or farmer networks, can foster trust and knowledge transmission. Multilingual information, field demonstrations, and peer-to-peer mentorship can help varied landowner groups to understand better and apply program elements. Such techniques fill knowledge gaps and promote a greater sense of agency and ownership in conservation decision-making.

Discussion

Several motivations, such as economic, environmental, technical assistance, and recreational opportunities, propel landowners to enroll in conservation programs, especially CRP in the U.S. CRP’s goal of retiring agricultural lands in environmentally sensitive areas for conservation to provide environmental benefits, such as improving water quality, reducing soil erosion, enhancing wildlife habitat, and sequestering carbon, seemed to resonate with the objectives of most landowners, as demonstrated by our findings (Luteet al., 2018; Thapaet al., 2024; Vukinaet al., 2008). Landowners’ conservation efforts are needed for this climate change dispensation. For instance, landowners who sign up for the tree planting CRP practice significantly contribute to carbon sequestration, thereby reducing global warming and climate change impacts (Gorte, 2009; Uri, 2001). The second most important motivation is cost share and other financial assistance (Allen & Vandever, 2012; Atkinsonet al., 2011). The financial rewards given to enrolled landowners go beyond the immediate conservation outcomes. These payments assist landowners in defraying the ongoing costs of sustainable land management, such as habitat restoration, invasive species control, or postponed agricultural production, in addition to promoting involvement in the CRP. This is consistent with the research by Loftus and Kraft (2003), Luteet al. (2018), and Lim and Wachenheim (2022), which emphasizes the value of incentive systems in lowering financial barriers and encouraging private landowners to practice long-term stewardship.

However, dissatisfaction with the CRP, especially its lower rental rates and limited financial support, could imply that payments offered may be insufficient to meet landowners’ broader management needs. The funds obtained via CRP contracts are frequently insufficient to cover the cost of purchasing necessary equipment, maintaining forested land, or implementing conservation measures. Apart from restricting the program’s capacity to achieve long-term conservation goals, this financing imbalance can discourage proactive stewardship. To couple it up, the complexities, administrative inflexibility, and structural limitations of CRP design remain huge barriers to its adoption by many landowners, as highlighted by this review paper. The program’s long-term land use limitations are frequently seen as economically restricted, its eligibility requirements are rigorous, and the enrollment process can be complicated. Owing to these concerns, many landowners continue their business-as-usual agricultural production rather than dedicate their land to conservation, particularly among smaller or risk-averse farmers. In addition, following contract expiration, a fraction of CRP-enrolled lands switch back to intensive agricultural production, casting doubt on the sustainability of conservation gains in the long run (Bigelowet al., 2020; Bigelow & Hellerstein, 2020). In addition, participation has been unequal, with ecologically vulnerable areas in other regions (northeast, west, and south) continuing to be underrepresented, while the Great Plains or Midwestern states, such as Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, and North Dakota account for a disproportionately large amount of enrollments (Pratt, 2024; Rosenberget al., 2024). This reduces the potential scope and effect of the program, especially in regions that require ecological restoration.

Among the remedies presented earlier to address enrollment problems, redesigning the CRP contract is crucial. This aligns with the findings of Wachenheimet al. (2018), who highlighted that changing the design of CRP contracts could help address a several ongoing problems in the program. They contend that participation rates might be raised by modifying contract conditions to suit better landowners’ operational realities, such as providing more flexible contract periods, modifying payment schedules, or streamlining administrative procedures. Crucially, these modifications can be implemented while maintaining the program’s primary conservation goals and balancing landowner involvement with ecological integrity. Moreover, although CRP has shown quantifiable conservation benefits, a change to longer-term conservation easements, improved targeting of marginal areas, more robust incentives for post-contract stewardship, and combining CRP initiatives with the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and EQIP, may be necessary to increase its effectiveness. Future adjustments should also consider regionally tailored support mechanisms that consider the unique agroecological and socioeconomic contexts in underrepresented areas.

Limitations

Our study had inherent limitations, such as publication bias. For instance, studies with positive results on CRP, such as its benefits, are more likely to be published, which can skew review conclusions. Most of the selected studies focused on the short- or medium-term outcomes of CRP, so this review may not fully reflect CRP’s long-term ecological and economic impacts. Additionally, our study may oversimplify or generalize results across different contexts, as CRP outcomes vary depending on local environmental, social, and policy conditions. CRP’s motivations, participation challenges, and policy recommendations are understudied; this has limited our analysis to comprehensively examining how these aspects of CRP differ across various regions of the U.S., particularly in the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Across the U.S., CRP has been shown to be an effective instrument for promoting soil conservation, enhancing water quality, and sustaining wildlife habitat, especially in agricultural areas susceptible to degradation. It directly contributes to Sustainable Development Goals 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), 13 (Climate Action), 15 (Life on Land), and 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Based on the discussion above, it can be concluded that CRP has produced significant environmental advantages, but there are some key challenges that require urgent attention to improve effectiveness of CRP.

Recommendations should be turned into practical policy actions to improve CRP’s effectiveness, including increased rental payments, higher cost-share support, flexible contracts, and targeted communication. First, program participation would be more economically competitive with crop production if CRP rental rates were better aligned with local land values and if incentives were introduced for high-priority conservation areas. Landowners’ financial barriers could be further reduced by raising the cost-share levels for initial practice establishment. Second, instead of allowing full land retirement, USDA might offer more flexible contracts that include partial land-use practices and allow mid-contract adjustments to meet changing conservation goals. Additionally, increasing programme visibility and trust can be achieved through partnerships with conservation organisations, universities, and extension agencies to expand outreach, education, and training. Finally, a policy could allocate specific funding for digital decision-support tools, farmer-to-farmer demonstration projects, state and municipal extension programmes, and multilingual materials to improve accessibility and encourage participation among various landowners.

Furthermore, future research could attempt to answer the following questions. First, following the expiration of a CRP contract, longitudinal studies are required to monitor the ecological results of the lands, mainly to ascertain whether improvements in soil health and biodiversity will last. Furthermore, studies should examine the socioeconomic factors affecting landowners’ continued conservation efforts after leaving the program. Additionally, finding underrepresented ecological hotspots, such as riparian buffers and wetlands, which might be found using finer-scale spatial analysis, could be aided by more targeted enrollment. Lastly, comparative research across different regions in the U.S. may provide information about how local conditions influence CRP success, guiding the creation of more flexible and equity-focused program designs. In doing so, policymakers can better ensure that CRP evolves in a direction that equitably maximizes conservation benefits while meeting the diverse needs of U.S. landowners.

Acknowledgment

Our heartfelt appreciation goes to the editor and anonymous reviewers for their helpful reviews and comments.

Conflict of Interest

We declare that we are not associated with any organization with a financial or non-financial stake in the materials discussed in this paper.