Women Non-operating Landowners: Preliminary Results from a Multi-

Region Study

Peggy Petrzelka, USUpeggy.petrzelka@usu.edu

Ann Sorensen, AFTasorensen@niu.edu

Supported by Rachel’s Network, USDA ERS1

Slide 1

1 Ann, wasn't sure which e-mail you wanted on here so please fill in.Peggy Petrzelka, 7/19/2014

What we know….

NOLs own 42% of US ag land base (AELOS 1999).

IA: (Duffy & Johanns 2012) Land under owner operator status dropped from

55% in 1982 to 40% in 2012 Owners are aging, females > important 49% of ag landowners = WNOLs, own 47% of

farmland & lease 52% of all acres.

No comparable WNOLs info. in other states, a critical gap in the data

Landlord-Tenant Relationship

With so much farmland rented, the NOLs-tenant relationship clearly plays a significant role in U.S. ag.

Land tenure, has social, economic & environmental implications (Gilbert & Harris 1984) Uneven power relations Rental rates may not reflect value of land asset, & Reduced land stewardship.

Women Non-Operating Landowners (WNOLs)

WNOLs face more gendered barriers than MNOLs to managing their land for long-term sustainability.

WNOLS self-censor, reluctant to discuss sustainable agpractices because they’ll ‘scare away good tenants.” (Carolan 2005)

WNOLS describe inequitable power relations with male tenants & express feelings of exclusion & alienation from the farm decision-making.

Women Non-Operating Landowners (WNOLs)

Tenants dismiss WNOLS who want soil conservation measures saying authoritatively that they are not practical or effective (Eells 2008).

WNOLs less likely to be involved in decisions about conservation if older, retired, inherited the land, co-owned the land with a sibling, or rented to a farmer not related to them.

MNOLs more involved unless a non-relative farmed the land (Petrzelka & Marquart-Pyatt 2011).

WNOLs & farm decision-making

Women deeply committed to healthy farmland, farm families & farm communities (Bregendahl & Hoffman 2010).

Opportunity to reach WNOLs will reach high point over the next decade as men pass away & women in their 60s, 70s & 80s inherit farmland.

Older women may own about 75% of transferred farmland in the next two decades (Kohl 1999).

Landlord-tenant relations maydiffer regionally

In CA & the South, relationships seen as coercive (Wells 1987) while in Midwest are complementary & harmonious (Salamon 1992). BUT gender was not taken into account.

In Midwest, women often “inherit” a tenant who may be a neighbor, friend, or family member, goes to church with her & is part of her community.

Tremendous social pressure to forego questions or problems related to farm management & express or imply criticism of the tenant (Eells and Adcock 2012).

Landlord-tenant relations maydiffer regionally

These obstacles may or may not be present in other regions of the country.

Social origins of farm production systems vary region to region.

Northern Plains and Midwest historically “family farming,” CA = “corporate farming,” South = “share cropping.” (Pfeffer 1983)

Research Questions

How does gender & non-operator land ownership factor into conservation decision-making & behavior on ag land?

To what extent do gender & non-operator landownership factors vary regionally?

How does that affect conservation implementation on leased land?

Methods

Convene WNOLs in the USDA Production Regions.

Meet for 3-4 hr to pilot test survey and discuss issues faced as landowners.

Demographic Characteristics

Appalachia (n=8)

Corn Belt

NorthernPlains

LakeStates(n=10)(n=6) (n=5)

Household Income< $25,000 1 0 1 0$25,001 - $175,000 4 3 2 10> 175,001 1 1 1 0

Average Age 71 72 69 58Average Acreage 179 475 912 106Method of Acquisition of Land

Purchased 4 5 2 7Inherited 3 1 3 2

Indicated own land with others 0 3 2 5

Identify as Farmer/Rancher 8 3 3 7

Decision Making on Land

Appalachia (n=8)

Corn Belt

Northern Plains

Lake States(n=10)(n=6) (n=5)

Primary decision maker for landMyself 8 5 4 7

Tenant primarily responsible for making following decisions

Crop inputs (e.g. fertilizer, seed, chemicals) 2 4 4 5

Tillage & harvesting practices 5 4 4 6Crop varieties/rotations 4 4 4 6Conservation practices 1 2 2 2Livestock decisions (e.g. stocking rate, rotational grazing)

4 3 1 1

Conservation Decision Making

Appalachia (n=8)

Corn Belt

Northern Plains(n=5)

Lake States(n=10)(n=6)

When making conservation decisions regarding my land it is important to considerŦ

Soil quality 1.57 1.33 1.4 1.2Water quality 1.43 1.4 1.5 1.1Future availability of land for agriculture 1.75 1.33 1.4 1.5Need for income from the land 1.88 1.83 1.4 2.8Needs of the tenant 3 2 1.8 2.4Wildlife habitats 2 1.5 2.2 1.2Biodiversity 1.86 2 2.75 1.5Endangered species 2.14 2 2.4 1.4Surrounding communities 2.57 2.33 2 2.62

Ŧ On a scale where 1=Strongly Agree to 5=Strongly Disagree

Enrollment in Conservation Programs Ŧ

Appalachia (n=8)

Corn Belt

Northern Plains

Lake States(n=10)(n=6) (n=5)

# indicating enrolled or have received financial or technical support in past five years in:

Conservation Reserve Program 4 2 2 2Cost Share 2 2 0 3Planning Assistance 3 3 0 1Conservation Easements 3 2 1 1

Ŧ Number represents respondents indicating “yes”

Lease CharacteristicsAppalachia

(n=8)

Corn Belt

Northern Plains

Lake States(n=10)(n=6) (n=5)

Lease AgreementCash rent with fixed payment 7 2 4 7Crop share 0 1 0 2Cash rent & crop share 1 0 0 1

Type of LeaseWritten 5 4 3 6Verbal 2 2 2 3

DurationYear to year 6 6 3 7Other 2 0 2 3

Qualities of current or potential renters

Important qualities when evaluating potential rentersŦ Appalachia

(n=8)

Corn Belt (n=6)

Northern Plains (n=5)

LakeStates (n=10)

Trustworthiness 4 4 4 4Length of time they (or their family) have rented from my family 2 2.83 2.4 2.5

Ability to avoid contaminated waterways (chemicals, nutrients, etc.) 3.86 4 4 3.9

Ability to maintain soil productivity 3.63 3.83 4 3.9That they care about me 3.25 3.67 4 3.2That they care about my land 3.88 3.67 4 4Ability to avoid soil erosion 3.86 4 3.67 3.87Amount of rent they will pay per acre 3.25 3.4 3.6 2.66Ability to maintain wildlife habitat 2.86 3 3.25 3.65

Ŧ On a scale where 1=Not at all important to 4=Very important

Interest in Land Management Information Activities

Appalachia (n=8)

Corn Belt (n=6)

Northern Plains(n=5)

Lake States(n=10)

Interest in following activitiesŦ

Access to education materials developed expressly for WNOLs 3.63 3 3.4 3.5

Working with gov. agency that provide conservation services targeted to WNOLs

3.13 2.83 3 2.9

Belonging to network of women farmland owners who face similar challenges as you do

3.63 2.83 3.6 3.4

Participating in free discussions with your peers on a regular basis to compare notes/chat with women conservation professionals

3.25 2.5 3.6 3.5

Ŧ On a scale where 1=Not at all interested to 4=Very interested

Hungry for information, yet invisible…..

e.g. California--Executive Director of CA Assoc. of Resource Conservation Districts

--North Bay Food Systems Advisor

--Farm Advisor for UC Napa

--American Farmland Trust

--CA Women for Ag --Natural Resource Conservation Service

--VP, Director of the Ag Exp. Stn, Director of Cooperative Extension

--Strategic Initiative Leader, Sustainable Food Systems, Food and Society Fellow

--Assoc. Cooperative Extension Specialist

--Community Alliance with Family Farmers

--CA Farm Link --Farms Reach

--RangelandConservation Services

Preliminary Conclusions

Already detecting regional differences

In most regions, these women are “invisible”

WNOLs want more information, more networking with other WNOLs, access to more informal participatory discussions

Empowering these women should help us get more conservation on the ground