Rancher Preferences for Grassland Conservation in the Great Plains

Dec 3, 2025

By Md. Faizul Kabir, Elliott Dennis, Simanti Banerjee, Gwendŵr Meredith, Mitchell Stephenson, Craig Allen and Timothy Pape 

Acknowledgement: Funding from the USDA Farm Services Agency and research support from UNL Bureau of Sociological Research is gratefully acknowledged. 

Why Grasslands Matter:

Grasslands across the Great Plains are among the world’s most productive and ecologically valuable ecosystems. They support beef cattle production, provide habitat for wildlife, and store substantial soil carbon (Lark 2020). Yet, these landscapes face growing pressure from cropland expansion and woody-plant encroachment (NRCS 2021). On the western edge of the Corn Belt, comprising North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Iowa, millions of acres have been converted to row crops since the mid-2000s (Wright and Wimberly 2013). While crop production provides economic gain through higher production, converting grassland reduces soil productivity, degrades water quality, and diminishes resilience to drought and fire (Zhang et al. 2021). Protecting grasslands is therefore critical not only for environmental stewardship but also for sustaining livestock-based rural economies.

The Role of the Grassland CRP:

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) began in 1985, primarily to retire highly erodible cropland. Over time, it expanded into multiple components: General CRP for competitive land retirement, Continuous CRP for targeted practices (e.g., erosion control, improving water quality), and Grassland CRP for conserving active grazing lands. The Grassland CRP provides the policy context for this article. This program was nationally launched in 2014. It is a working lands program and allows ranchers to continue grazing on enrolled parcels while committing to practices that protect vegetative cover and wildlife habitat on them. Enrollment of Grassland CRP has grown steadily, exceeding 7.7 million acres by 2024, and now accounts for roughly one-third of all CRP acres nationwide (See Figure 1). The Grassland CRP program has notably expanded the scope of CRP. 

How the Program Works:

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) announces Grassland CRP enrollment once a year. To be eligible, land must have a history of grazing and should contain less than 5% tree cover. A cropping history is not mandatory. Applicants must retain the right to use or manage the land during the contract period. After the signup period, FSA scores each offer based on land quality, applicant status, and proposed rental rate. Offers are ranked nationally. Contracts are awarded to applicants who meet the selection threshold that depends on the budget. Participants sign 10 to 15 year contracts that require maintaining grass cover and adhering to a conservation plan. Participants receive annual rental payments typically valued at 75 percent of local pasture rental rates and may qualify for up to 50 percent cost-share on conservation improvements, such as fencing or the installation of water pipelines for grazing animals (Pratt et al. 2024). 

The Study Objective: Understanding Rancher Preferences and Barriers to Participation in the Grasslands CRP

Ranchers manage most of the intact grasslands in the Great Plains and are the primary stewards of these landscapes (NRCS 2021). To increase the popularity of Grassland CRP to ranchers, it is important to understand ranchers’ preferences and attitudes as well as barriers to participating in this program. This information can help policymakers formulate programs that are popular and both economically and environmentally successful in achieving the goals they were intended for. Therefore, we designed a study to understand ranchers’ preferences for Grassland CRP. To do so, we surveyed ranchers across Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. We selected this study area because this part of the Great Plains region is at risk of significant grassland conversion to cropland and other development (Wongpiyabovorn and Wang 2024). This loss can contribute to environmental issues, including soil erosion, nutrient depletion, and reduced soil organic carbon in this region (Augustine et al. 2021; NRCS 2021). 

Survey Procedures: 

In our survey sampling frame, we had two groups of ranchers – those who were already enrolled in the Grassland CRP program and others who were not. The survey was distributed online and by paper mail to 8,718 ranchers (2,007 participants and 6,711 non-participants). We included all enrolled ranchers from the list provided by the USDA FSA to capture their experiences with grassland conservation adoption. At the same time, non-participants were randomly selected, with selection probabilities based on population share from the 2024 beef cow inventory census (USDA 2024b). We sent the survey in October 2025, followed by postcard and letter reminders. By the end of March, we received 560 responses, among which 476 were completed responses (263 participants and 213 non-participants), yielding a response rate of 5.46%. A response rate of this level is not uncommon for surveys conducted in these areas (e.g., Lim and Wachenheim 2022).

Survey Sections:

The survey included five sections collecting information on (1) conservation practices and program participation, (2) program preferences via a discrete choice experiment (DCE), (3) producer social networks, (4) attitudes toward conservation, and finally (5) demographics. The DCE is a survey-based method to elicit preferences and estimate the trade-offs for Grassland CRP contract attributes. We included both existing and hypothetical contract features in DCE questions to capture ranchers’ current valuations and potential preferences for Grassland CRP changes. The attributes, namely: annual rental payment, cost-share, and contract length, reflect features of the current Grassland CRP contract. Rotational grazing and winter grazing were included as hypothetical attributes based on rancher interviews and consultation with field ecologists from the research team and USDA FSA (Pape et al. 2024). Rotational grazing typically provides periods of vegetation recovery that may promote soil regeneration and ecosystem resilience, while winter grazing allows ranchers to use land for extended periods. Considering the importance of these practices in grazing management, future contracts may require ranchers to implement rotational grazing, while ranchers remain concerned that winter grazing might not be allowed in order to protect vegetation and wildlife habitat, particularly during the nesting season of birds. Flexibility in the conservation plan was also added to capture preference for adaptable management practices that meet ranchers’ needs. Figure 2 presents an example of a DCE Choice set that was used in the survey. Our D-efficient choice design achieved 98.13% efficiency, yielding 24 choice sets. We randomly assigned a block of six-choice questions to the respondent. 

Survey Results: 

First, we provide a summary of our responses to give an idea of the profile of the rancher respondents in our data set. Next, we present a descriptive analysis of the rancher preferences, and conclude with a presentation of key barriers to participation. 

Summary Statistics: Respondents (n = 476) had a mean age of 56 years, managed an average of 2,300 acres of rangeland, and owned roughly 280 head of beef cattle. About 20 percent of ranchers practice rotational grazing (22.1 percent of participants and 23.08 percent of non-participants), where animals are moved through 4–15 paddocks every 15–20 days. About 11 percent use management-intensive grazing (14.8 percent of participants and 5.3 percent of non-participants), which is slightly more intensive (animals are rotated through more than 15 paddocks every two weeks or less). These figures illustrate the varying levels of adoption of improved grazing systems (Pape et al. 2025) and highlight the diversity of management approaches across the region.

Descriptive analysis of rancher preferences: One of our study goals is to examine producer preferences for different contractual attributes of the Grassland CRP. Table 1 summarizes rancher preferences for Grassland CRP contract attributes. We see that ranchers favored higher rental payments, the ability to graze in winter, and flexibility in conservation plans, while they disliked mandatory rotational grazing and longer contracts. We also see that, on average, ranchers are likely to choose a program when the rental payment is increased by $10 per acre. The estimated trade-offs in dollars per acre show that ranchers require $6.47 for rotational grazing and $8.19 for longer contracts, but would forgo $7.81, $11.77, and $7.84 for cost-share, winter grazing, and flexibility, respectively.

Table 1: Rancher Preferences: What Matters Most

*From discrete-choice-experiment willingness-to-accept estimates. These results have not yet received peer review.

Barriers to Participation: We asked non-participants in our survey to identify the reasons for not participating in the Grassland CRP. Lack of awareness about the program was the strongest barrier. About 70% of non-participants were at least slightly unaware of the Grassland CRP (see Figure 3). A total of 38% of ranchers were at least slightly unsure if they qualified. A total of 38% of ranchers were at least slightly didn’t want to adopt a new practice. Other barriers include reluctance to work with conservation agents and reduced interest following rejection of the application in a previous signup. In a follow-up question, we also asked ranchers if they had any concerns about the current Grassland CRP features. Among those already participating, the most common concerns were low rental rates and insufficient cost-share to cover up-front practice costs (which aligns with our DCE findings, which indicate that ranchers are willing to pay to receive extra cost-share – see above). Non-participants additionally cited the time-consuming application process. These findings suggest that outreach and education, combined with small program re-designs, can potentially be ways to increase popularity and eventual participation.

Policy and Program Implications:

The findings of this study reinforce a central lesson from decades of conservation-program evaluation: producers are most responsive to voluntary, flexible, and financially sufficient payments. Flexibility matters because the way to manage grazing lands can change year to year largely driven by weather and grass availability. Shorter contracts reduce producer risk, while clear payment structures and meaningful cost-sharing support enrollment. Mandates to engage in rotational grazing or management-intensive grazing can discourage participation. However, promoting existing practices can effectively support both ranchers and grassland ecosystems. Ultimately, the Grassland CRP reflects an important shift in U.S. conservation policy, moving from land retirement towards working land programs with the overall objective of reducing land conversion from grass to crops. Enhancing outreach and awareness, encouraging rather than mandating new practices, and prioritizing flexibility will allow Grassland CRP to align with broader conservation goals and with ranchers already practicing good grazing management.

References:

Augustine, D., A. Davidson, K. Dickinson, and B. Van Pelt. 2021. “Thinking Like a Grassland: Challenges and Opportunities for Biodiversity Conservation in the Great Plains of North America.” Rangeland Ecology and Management 78:281–295.

Kabir, Md Faizul, E. Dennis, S. Banerjee, G. Meredith, T. Pape, M. Stephenson, and C. Allen. 2025. “Evaluating Rancher Preferences and Policy Design for Grassland Conservation in the Northern U.S. Great Plains.” Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Lark, T.J. 2020. “Protecting our prairies: Research and policy actions for conserving America’s grasslands.” Land Use Policy 97.

Lim, S., and C.J. Wachenheim. 2022. “Predicted enrollment in alternative attribute Conservation Reserve Program contracts.” Land Use Policy 117.

NRCS. 2021. “A Framework for Conservation Action in the Great Plains Grasslands Biome, Working Land s for Wildlife.” Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 

Pape, T., G. Meredith, D. Sandahl, M.F. Kabir, S. Banerjee, C. Allen, E. Dennis, and M. Stephenson. 2025. “Actor-network analysis of partners facilitating regenerative ranching practices in the US Northern Great Plains.” Rangelands.

Pape, T., G. Meredith, D. Sandahl, M.F. Kabir, S. Banerjee, C. Allen, E. Dennis, and M. Stephenson. 2024. “Understanding the values that inform regenerative ranching in the Northern U.S. Great Plains.” Agriculture and Human Values.

Pratt, B., A. Nagler, B. Rashford, Z. Raff, R. Iovanna, and S. Wallander. 2024. “Understanding the CRP Grasslands Signup.” In Agricultural and Applied Economics Association,2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA. Available at: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu.

USDA. 2024a. “Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Statistics.” Available at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/reports/conservation-statistics/crp [Accessed June 4, 2025].

USDA. 2024b. “USDA - National Agricultural Statistics Service - Surveys - Cattle Inventory.” 2024. Available at: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Cattle_Inventory/ [Accessed November 10, 2024].

Wongpiyabovorn, O., and T. Wang. 2024. “Revisiting Land Use Conversion Trends in the Margins of U.S. Corn Belt.” Choices Magazine 39.

Wright, C.K., and M.C. Wimberly. 2013. “Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(10):4134–4139.

Zhang, X., T.J. Lark, C.M. Clark, Y. Yuan, and S.D. Leduc. 2021. “Grassland-to-cropland conversion increased soil, nutrient, and carbon losses in the US Midwest between 2008 and 2016.” Environmental Research Letters 16(5).

Md Faizul Kabir
PhD Candidate
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
mkabir9@unl.edu

Elliot Dennis
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
elliott.dennis@unl.edu

Simanti Banerjee
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
simanti.banerjee@unl.edu

Gwendŵr Meredith
Assistant Professor
School of Natural Resources
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
gmeredith7@unl.edu

Mitchell Stephenson
Associate Professor
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
mstephenson@unl.edu

Craig Allen
Professor
School of Natural Resources
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
callen3@unl.edu

Timothy Pape
Assistant Professor
School of Earth, Environment & Society
Bowling Green State University
tpape@bgsu.edu