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.

Map of Study SitesMap of Study Sites

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

A Quick Introduction To the DataA Quick Introduction To the Data

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

Conservation Decision-MakingConservation Decision-Making

A Closer Look…A Closer Look…

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