Table 8.8. Among all 506 surveyed owners, the degree of satisfaction with their experiences an owner of farm or ranchland protected through a conservation by type of “as easement,” reason for the response option they chose Response Options Don’t Very Know or Very Won’t satisfied Satisfied Answer Types of Reasons % % % % % 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 68 32 0 0 1 (45% of all 506 owners) Program met expectations; no negative effects; they micromanage us 65 34 0 0 1 n=119 (24% don’t Easement money used to buy agricultural land, to pay down the or otherwise farm’s mortgage, improve the operation n=61 79 (12%) 21 0 0 0 Saving the land for self or family because of its heritage and/or lifestyle value n=57 79 19 0 0 2 (11%) Used easement proceeds to meet personal or family needs (other than those of farm/ranch operation), e.g., to cover education, children’s health care costs n=49 69 31 0 0 0 (10%) Working with helpful, pleasant staff from the relevant program agencies n= 43 79 21 0 0 0 (8%) Doing the right thing for the community or country: saving land to produce food, protect wildlife habitat, prevent flooding n=42 71 27 0 0 2 (8%) 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 40 51 7 2 0 n=43 (8%) The amount paid for the easement was inadequate n=22 5 73 18 4 0 (4%) 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 10 70 20 0 0 (2%) 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
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
FinalTextJuly22.docx