the survey was their willingness to answer a number of open-ended questions, including one towards the end of the interview that was asked of all respondents and that generated an average of 37 words per person. Table 2.2. Length of the survey’s telephone interviews in minutes: average time, minimum and maximum, as well as the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles, by type of owner (1) Time Measure (2) All 504a Cases (3) Owners (4) Operator-Owners of Protected Land for Just One Year - 2011 (5) Operator-Owners of Protected Land for More than One Year Minutes Minutes Minutes Average 37 30 37.6 41.3 Minimum 12 12 18 17 25th percentile 27 22 29 31 50th percentile 36 26 36.5 40.5 75th percentile 44 35 42.3 47 Maximum 89 86 88 89 Interviews (504)a 153 102 246 aIn two of the total of 506 cases, the owners filled out a Word-processed questionnaire and returned it by e-mail. 2The three sets of cases to the right (153 + 102 + 246) add up to 501 rather than 504 because there were data missing in three cases. 6. Structure of the Interviews The average interview length varied considerably with the type of owner being surveyed: a) For non-operator owners it was 30 minutes (column 3 of Table 2.2), while for operator-owners who had had conservation easements on their land for just one year (since some time in 2011), the mean was 7.6 minutes higher (37.6—column 4). b) The difference resulted from the many questions asked of operator-owners that were not asked of non-operators. Farmers and ranchers in the sample were questioned about their 2011 crops and livestock, their marketing outlets, their use of management systems (e.g., organic, Integrated Pest Management), and about any processing of agricultural products, among other potential aspects of their operations. c) If the easement took effect in 2010 or earlier, the average rose 3.7 more minutes—to 41.3 (column 5). This third group of respondents was asked additional questions—about their farm or ranch operations in the first year they both owned and operated protected land, so that the earlier operations could be compared to 2011 to learn if program participants had expanded or contracted their operations after the easement took effect. Chapter 3 Operator
Table 8.8. Among all 506 surveyed owners, the degree of satisfaction with their experiences “as an owner of farm or ranchland protected through a conservation easement,” by type of reason for the response option they chose Types of Reasons Response Options Very satisfied % Satisfied % % Very % Don’t Know or Won’t Answer % Gave Positive Reasons n=432 66 33 0.2 0.2 0.6 Satisfaction from having prevented agricultural land from being developed; having preserved it for agriculture n=228 (45% of all 506 owners) 68 32 0 0 1 Program met expectations; no negative effects; they don’t micromanage us n=119 (24% 65 34 0 0 1 Easement money used to buy agricultural land, to pay down the farm’s mortgage, or otherwise improve the operation n=61 (12%) 79 21 0 0 0 Saving the land for self or family because of its heritage and/or lifestyle value n=57 (11%) 79 19 0 0 2 Used easement proceeds to meet personal or family needs (other than those of farm/ranch operation), e.g., to cover children’s education, health care costs n=49 (10%) 69 31 0 0 0 Working with helpful, pleasant staff from the relevant program agencies n= 43 (8%) 79 21 0 0 0 Doing the right thing for the community or country: saving land to produce food, protect wildlife habitat, prevent flooding n=42 (8%) 71 27 0 0 2 Gave Negative Reasons n=101 23 63 11 2 1 The process of negotiating the easements was flawed: too long, complicated, confusing, hard to get information about it n=43 (8%) 40 51 7 2 0 The amount paid for the easement was inadequate n=22 (4%) 5 73 18 4 0 Critical of easement regulations, such as limits on impervious surfaces and required buffers along streams n=21 (4%) 10 76 14 0 0 Critical of restrictions on building family homes or non-agricultural facilities like a cell phone tower n=10 (2%) 10 70 20 0 0 Other problems with easements: that the easement is perpetual, difficult to get loans for eased land, the concern that regulations will 20 50 10 10 10