Conservation & the Absentee Conservation & the Absentee Landowner: Landowner:
Attitudes & BehaviorAttitudes & Behavior
Peggy PetrzelkaPeggy PetrzelkaUtah State UniversityUtah State University
Acknowledgements: Great Lakes Protection Fund, Acknowledgements: Great Lakes Protection Fund, Conservation Innovation Grant, Agren, Inc., Sandra Conservation Innovation Grant, Agren, Inc., Sandra Marquart-Pyatt, Stephanie Malin, Brian Gentry & Marquart-Pyatt, Stephanie Malin, Brian Gentry & John Wyek.John Wyek.
Innovating Outreach to Great Innovating Outreach to Great Lakes Basin Absentee LandownersLakes Basin Absentee Landowners
Non-point source pollution is the primary pollution Non-point source pollution is the primary pollution threat facing Great Lakes with surface runoff a threat facing Great Lakes with surface runoff a major factor impacting quality of the Great Lake major factor impacting quality of the Great Lake Basin.Basin.
Goals of Three-Year Project:Goals of Three-Year Project: Reduce amount of nutrients & sediment entering the Reduce amount of nutrients & sediment entering the
Great Lakes through installation of vegetative filter Great Lakes through installation of vegetative filter strips.strips.
Improve ability of natural resource agencies in Great Improve ability of natural resource agencies in Great Lakes Basin to market conservation practices to Lakes Basin to market conservation practices to absentee landowners.absentee landowners.
Survey MethodsSurvey Methods
Conducted in Spring 2007Conducted in Spring 2007
Absentee landowner names : Absentee landowner names : Obtained through county tax rolls Obtained through county tax rolls Included only those living outside of countyIncluded only those living outside of county Double checked by agency staffDouble checked by agency staff
Survey sent to “primary contact” on tax Survey sent to “primary contact” on tax roll or mailed to names onroll or mailed to names on property deedproperty deed
Response RatesResponse Rates
Wisconsin - 67% response rate, Wisconsin - 67% response rate, n=275n=275
New York - 57% response rate, New York - 57% response rate, n= 73n= 73
Michigan - 66% response rate, Michigan - 66% response rate, n=556n=556
Total Total N=904N=904
Important Topics Regarding LandImportant Topics Regarding Land(% indicating ‘yes’)(% indicating ‘yes’)
Soil/Land ConservationSoil/Land Conservation
Wildlife ConservationWildlife Conservation
Water ConservationWater Conservation
Govt. Conservation Govt. Conservation ProgramsPrograms
77%77%
75% 75%
66%66%
52%52%
Influences Upon Decision-MakingInfluences Upon Decision-Making(1=not at all to 4=a good deal)(1=not at all to 4=a good deal)
Conservation/concern for Conservation/concern for environmentenvironment
Recreational or wildlife valueRecreational or wildlife value
Need for incomeNeed for income
3.223.22
3.213.21
2.102.10
Level of InvolvementLevel of Involvement in Conservation Programs in Conservation Programs
Currently or previously enrolled in state or Currently or previously enrolled in state or federal conservation programsfederal conservation programs
YesYes 24%24%NoNo 69%69%Don’t knowDon’t know 7%7%
If yes, type of programs If yes, type of programs (n=253)(n=253)Set aside (WRP/CRP)Set aside (WRP/CRP) 58%58%Cost shareCost share 14%14%BothBoth 6%6%Don’t KnowDon’t Know 32%32%
Important Sources of InformationImportant Sources of Information(1=not important to 4=very important)(1=not important to 4=very important)
SWCDSWCD
DNRDNR
NRCSNRCS
Operator/Operator/Tenant Tenant
SpouseSpouse
2.432.43
2.412.41
2.342.34
2.242.24
2.172.17
Top-line ConclusionsTop-line Conclusions
Low involvement in traditional Low involvement in traditional conservation programs conservation programs
No natural resource agency ranks highly No natural resource agency ranks highly as an important information source for as an important information source for decisionsdecisions
YetYet, conservation clearly important , conservation clearly important As topics of importance to them regarding their As topics of importance to them regarding their
land land As factors influencing their decision-making on As factors influencing their decision-making on
the land.the land.
Set-Aside (CRP/WRP) and Cost Set-Aside (CRP/WRP) and Cost Share Program InvolvementShare Program Involvement
A Closer Look …A Closer Look …
Table 1. Logistic Regression Results Predicting Participation in Set-Aside Table 1. Logistic Regression Results Predicting Participation in Set-Aside Programs Programs (N=551)(N=551)
• Socio-Economic CharacteristicsSocio-Economic Characteristics Exp(B)Exp(B) Sig.Sig.AgeAge -.009-.009 .991.991 .387.387
Acres (logged)Acres (logged) .913.913 2.4912.491 .005**.005**
GenderGender -.142-.142 .868.868 .672.672
EducationEducation .335.335 1.3981.398 .007**.007**
Household IncomeHousehold Income -.200-.200 .819.819 .117.117
Distance live from landDistance live from land .234.234 1.2641.264 .394.394
Lease landLease land 1.1921.192 3.2953.295 .000***.000***
Farming BackgroundFarming Background -.243-.243 .785.785 .375.375
• Factors Influencing Decision-MakingFactors Influencing Decision-Making Need for incomeNeed for income .261.261 1.2981.298 .049*.049*
Not enough knowledgeNot enough knowledge -.431-.431 .650.650 .001***.001***
• Information sourcesInformation sources
Farm Service AgencyFarm Service Agency 1.0371.037 2.8212.821 .000***.000***
Natural Resources Conservation ServiceNatural Resources Conservation Service -.123-.123 .884.884 .464.464
Soil Water Conservation DistrictSoil Water Conservation District -.248-.248 .781.781 .137.137
InterceptIntercept -1.482-1.482 .227.227 .000.000
Pseudo R-SquarePseudo R-Square .320.320
Log-likelihoodLog-likelihood 406.666406.666
dfdf 1313
pp .000.000
*p<.05, **p<.01,***p<.001 *p<.05, **p<.01,***p<.001
Table 2. Logistic Regression Results Predicting Cost Share Table 2. Logistic Regression Results Predicting Cost Share Participation Participation (N=551)(N=551)
• Socio-economic CharacteristicsSocio-economic Characteristics Exp(B)Exp(B) Sig.Sig.AgeAge -.001-.001 .999.999 .945.945Acres (logged)Acres (logged) .866.866 2.3792.379 .069*.069*GenderGender .030.030 1.0301.030 .957.957EducationEducation .323.323 1.3811.381 .084*.084*Household IncomeHousehold Income -.111-.111 .895.895 .551.551Distance live from landDistance live from land .173.173 1.1891.189 .684.684Lease landLease land -.186-.186 .831.831 .693.693Farming BackgroundFarming Background -.724-.724 .485.485 .094*.094*
• Factors influencing decision Factors influencing decision makingmaking
Need for incomeNeed for income -.065-.065 .937.937 .760.760Not enough knowledgeNot enough knowledge -.243-.243 .784.784 .231.231
• Information sourcesInformation sources
Farm Service AgencyFarm Service Agency .344.344 1.4101.410 .116.116Natural Resources Conservation ServiceNatural Resources Conservation Service .512.512 1.6691.669 .066*.066*Soil Water Conservation DistrictSoil Water Conservation District -.100-.100 .905.905 .690.690
InterceptIntercept -2.855-2.855 .058.058 .000.000Pseudo R-SquarePseudo R-Square .172.172 Log-likelihoodLog-likelihood 199.326199.326 dfdf 1313 p .001
Key FindingsKey Findings
Larger landowners & those with higher Larger landowners & those with higher levels of education are more likely to levels of education are more likely to participate in conservation programsparticipate in conservation programs
Not enough knowledge is a factor Not enough knowledge is a factor inhibiting participation in conservation inhibiting participation in conservation programsprograms
Patterns in Land OwnershipPatterns in Land Ownership
42% of private agricultural land in the United 42% of private agricultural land in the United States is farmed by someone other than the States is farmed by someone other than the owner owner (“non-operator owner” AELOS 1999, p. 248)(“non-operator owner” AELOS 1999, p. 248)
Many ag landowners no longer live on the Many ag landowners no longer live on the land land (or even in the state the land is located—Duffy 2008, p. 12)(or even in the state the land is located—Duffy 2008, p. 12)
Iowa landowners not living on owned farmland :Iowa landowners not living on owned farmland : 37% in 198237% in 1982 44% 44% iin 2007n 2007
Iowa farmland owned by Iowa residents :Iowa farmland owned by Iowa residents : 94% in 198294% in 1982 79% in 200779% in 2007
Patterns in Land OwnershipPatterns in Land Ownership
Ownership of agricultural land by women is Ownership of agricultural land by women is on the rise, particularly by older women on the rise, particularly by older women (Duffy 2008, p. 14)(Duffy 2008, p. 14)
Despite these changes :Despite these changes : We know very little about today’s landownersWe know very little about today’s landowners Even less about absentee landowners of Even less about absentee landowners of
agricultural landagricultural land Research which does exist seldom differentiates Research which does exist seldom differentiates
between male & female landowners.between male & female landowners.
Research QuestionResearch Question
For those absentee landowners who rent For those absentee landowners who rent their land, what factors influence their their land, what factors influence their involvement in conservation decisions ?involvement in conservation decisions ?
Involvement in Conservation Involvement in Conservation PracticesPractices
Who is the primary decision-maker (owner Who is the primary decision-maker (owner or tenant) regarding conservation or tenant) regarding conservation practices used on land? practices used on land? (0=no involvement, (0=no involvement, 1=involvement)1=involvement)
20% of female & 32% of male landowners 20% of female & 32% of male landowners indicate they’re the primary decision indicate they’re the primary decision maker on conservation practices used on maker on conservation practices used on their land.their land.
Logistic Regression Results Predicting Logistic Regression Results Predicting Participation in Conservation Decision-MakingParticipation in Conservation Decision-Making
FemaleFemale ExpExp
(B)(B)MaleMale ExpExp
(B)(B)AgeAge -0.086*-0.086* 0.9180.918 -0.018-0.018 0.9820.982
Land’s importance as source of incomeLand’s importance as source of income -0.898*-0.898* 0.4080.408 -0.108-0.108 0.8980.898
RetiredRetired -1.137*-1.137* 0.3210.321 -0.012-0.012 0.9880.988
Acquired through inheritanceAcquired through inheritance -0.823*-0.823* 0.4370.437 -0.044-0.044 0.9570.957
Own land with siblingOwn land with sibling -2.732-2.732** 0.0650.065 0.2260.226 1.2531.253
Own land with spouseOwn land with spouse 1.8261.826** 6.2106.210 0.0500.050 1.0511.051
Land farmed by local farmerLand farmed by local farmer -1.429*-1.429* 0.2400.240 -0.487**-0.487** 0.6140.614
R squareR square .261.261 .056.056
*p<.05, **p<.01*p<.05, **p<.01
Additional FindingsAdditional Findings
For both male & female landlords, when For both male & female landlords, when renting to a local farmer, less involved in renting to a local farmer, less involved in conservation decision making on the land. conservation decision making on the land.
In addition, older, retired women who have In addition, older, retired women who have inherited the land & own it with siblings are inherited the land & own it with siblings are less involved in conservation decision-less involved in conservation decision-making on their land. None of these factors making on their land. None of these factors appear to be obstacles for involvement of appear to be obstacles for involvement of male landowners.male landowners.
Conservation ImplicationsConservation Implications
Different approaches for outreach needed Different approaches for outreach needed based on type of landowner.based on type of landowner.
Should landowners, tenants, or both be Should landowners, tenants, or both be the focus of outreach? the focus of outreach?
Is conservation hindered by tenants’ Is conservation hindered by tenants’ reluctance to conserve land they don’t reluctance to conserve land they don’t own? Or do landlords not want to disrupt own? Or do landlords not want to disrupt relationship with tenants? Or both?relationship with tenants? Or both?
More Conservation ImplicationsMore Conservation Implications
Little is known about absentee Little is known about absentee landowners’ motivation to conserve - or landowners’ motivation to conserve - or the most effective messages & media to the most effective messages & media to reach these landowners.reach these landowners.
Yet absentee landowners represent a Yet absentee landowners represent a significant opportunity to expand acres significant opportunity to expand acres enrolled in conservation programs.enrolled in conservation programs.
Need for a successful Absentee Need for a successful Absentee Landowner Outreach & Enrollment Landowner Outreach & Enrollment ProgramProgram