Opinions and Behaviors
of
Landholders Regarding
Conservation Practices and Programs
Final Report for
The Lower Yazoo Basin Project
Sponsored by
Mississippi Chapter
The Nature Conservancy
809 North President Street
Jackson, MS 39215-1028
July 24, 1997
-------
Acknowledgments
Numerous persons and organizations made significant contributions to the Lower
Yazoo Basin Project's study of Opinions and Behaviors of Landholders Regarding
Conservation Practices and Programs. Among the most significant were the members of the
Project Task Force who advised the Project Manager and Consultant as the questionnaire was
developed and helped pretest it. They wrote and mailed the letter describing the project goals
which accompanied the questionnaire, which they mailed to the sample in the county where
they lived. Also, Task Force members made numerous telephone calls to respondents. To
their credit, a 41 percent return rate was obtained from the questionnaire which was
distributed by U. S. Mail. Special appreciation is extended to: Ray Acycock, Jackson, MS;
Bill Brown, Belzoni, MS; Chat Phillips, Yazoo City, MS; Poe Lutkin, Hollandale, MS; and
Ernest Thomas, Vicksburg, MS.
Pat Patterson, Executive Director of the Mississippi Chapter of The Nature
Conservancy, provided valuable advise and support and continuing encouragement as the
program was conceptualized and implemented.
Tax Assessors in each of the LYB counties enabled the Project Manager and Consultant
to obtain official data base files for landholders in each county. Their help contributed
significantly to the attainment of a reliable population from which the sample was drawn.
Jerry W. Robinson, Jr., Ph. D., is Director of the Center for Community Development
at Delta State University, Cleveland, Mississippi and Professor Emeritus in Rural Sociology at
the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, served as the LYB project consultant. Dr.
Robinson has more than 35 years of professional experience in areas related to soil and water
conservation, forest fire prevention, reforestation and the management of Soil and Water
Conservation Districts and Watersheds. He is recognized nationally and internationally for his
contributions Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U. S.
Department of Interior. He provided intellectual leadership to the LYB project, being
responsible for overseeing all aspects related to data collection and tabulation and he prepared
this report.
Albert Nylander, Graduate Research Assistant in the Social Science Research Center at
Mississippi State University, Steven Benjamin, Interim Program Administrator for Delta
Service Corps, and Mark Stiles of Cleveland, MS, coded data, and used the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences to run frequency distributions and statistical tests.
The Environmental Protection Agency helped provide financial support to underwrite
this study through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality.
As Project Director, I wish to express my deep appreciation to each of the above
persons and. organizations for their help and support.
Mark Yarborough, Project Director
Lower Yazoo Basin Project
July 25, 1997
-------
Contents
Page
Acknowledgments i
I. The Problem 1
II. Purpose of the Study 2
III. Methods and Procedures 2
The Study Area and Sampling Procedures 2
Developing the Questionnaire 3
Distributing and Collecting Data 3
Unanticipated Delays 4
Tabulating, Aggregating and Analyzing Data and
Preparing the Final Report 4
IV. Presenting the Results 5
Part One: The Descriptive Analysis of Landholder Characteristics 5
Social, Economic and Demographic Characteristics 5
Attitudes Toward and Participation in Governmental
and Private Organizations 20
Part Two: Additional Interpretative Analysis 31
Methods and Procedures 31
Support for and Participation in Conservation
Practices and Programs 32
Support for Reforestation Among Landholders 53
V. Conclusions 62
-------
I. The Problem
Before this study, there was a lack of scientific information on the knowledge, awareness,
attitudes and behaviors of land holders in the Lower Yazoo Basin (LYB) regarding conservation
practices. This study sought to obtain valid and reliable information the opinions and behaviors of
landowners regarding the numerous conservation programs available: (1) to reduce the cost of on-farm
production, reforestation and habitat improvements; (2) to increase the effectiveness of on-farm and
forest land conservation; and (3) to improve the quality of the habitat for fish and wildlife. Most of
these conservation programs are offered through: the Soil Conservation Service; the Farm Services
Agency (formerly the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service); the U.S. Forest Service;
The Mississippi Department of Forestry; the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Soil and Water
i*
Conservation Districts; the Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service; the U. S. Department of
Interior; private Hunting and Fishing Associations; The Environmental Protection Agency; the Nature
Conservancy; and other private or public sector organizations.
Previous research has documented that the participation of landowners in conservation
programs is influenced by: (1) their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about various programs or
conservation practices; (2) the information they read in or hear through the media; (3) face-to-face
conversations with their friends, neighbors and conservation professionals; and (4) their participation in
outreach and educational programs based on scientific information and presented in an unbiased or
objective manner.
To help the Lower Yazoo Basin Project deal more effectively with the lack of information, a
Task Force of LYB Land Holders was formed to provide advise and guidance to the LYB Project
Manager and the consultant as this survey of landowners was designed, administered, analyzed,
distributed and as policies for conservation programs may be developed and implemented. Also, the
LYB Landowner Task Force played a major role in creating acceptance of the importance of the survey
and in obtaining community input into the survey process.
-------
II. Purposes of the Study
The primary goals of this study were: (1) to provide information which will support the
development of a consensus for policies and selected conservation practices and strategies which might
be used in the region; and (2) to provide guidelines to The Nature Conservancy's Lower Yazoo Basin
Project as it seeks to engage local and state-government agencies, educational institutions, and private
landowners in action projects to help assure that preferred conservation practices are in fact
implemented.
III. Methods and Procedures
The Study Area and Sampling Procedures
A stratified and multi-stage random sample of 373 private sector landowners was selected from
the Delta portion of six counties in the Lower Yazoo Basin. The sample included landowners from the
following counties: Humphreys, Isaquenna, Sharkey, Warren, Washington, and Yazoo. Following is
a description of procedures and steps use to select a scientific sample from the population of
landholders which was stratified into three categories by the number of acres owned.
Using computerized data-base files or hard-copy files from county tax records with the name,
address, and total number of acres owned by each landholder in the delta portion of the six counties,
the total population of landholders was grouped into three categories based on the number of acres
owned. Statistical analysis revealed that one-third of the landholders owned 39.1 acres or less; one-
third owned 39.2 to 112.1 acres; and, one-third of the population owned more than 112.2 acres.
After aggregating landowner data for all six counties into each of the three types (small,
medium and large) of land holders, a stratified random sample was drawn for the LYB Project Area,
with an equal number of landholders owning small, medium and large acreage in each of the three
sample categories. In several cases where landholders who owned multiple tracks of land appeared in
the sample more than once, the second or "duplicate" selection was dropped and a replacement was
selected randomly.
-------
Furthermore, the LYB Project Task Force was a group of knowledgeables aware of who
landholders were and of land use. They advised the consultant on dropping those tracks of land which
were used for manufacturing or other ventures where the adoption or use of conservation practices for
purpose of farming, forestry, or recreation was not feasible. Thus, a total of 373 questionnaires was
distributed in the six-county area. The number of questionnaires distributed in each county was:
Humphreys, 59; Isaquenna, 62; Sharkey, 69; Warren, 65; Washington, 67; and, Yazoo, 51.
Developing the Questionnaire
The consultant worked with the Project Manager and the VLB Task Force to develop the
survey questionnaire which would be distributed to each landholder in the sample. After samples of
questionnaires or reports from similar studies were obtained and analyzed, the Project Manager and the
consultant reached consensus on types of information which should be collected. After a draft copy of
the survey questionnaire was prepared in November of 1996, it was critiqued, reviewed, and
subsequently approved by the Project Manager and the VLB Task Force. Task Force members made
numerous substantive and practical contributions to the content and design of the questionnaire.
The final questionnaire was not distributed to the random sample of landowners until it was
formally approved by the YLB Task Force and the Project Manager. The questionnaire contained 42
types of questions, which contained 102 variables and required approximately 30 minutes to complete.
Distributing and Collecting Questionnaires
Three hundred and seventy three (373) questionnaires were numbered and coded by county and
mailed to the sample of landholders with a cover letter prepared by the consultant. The letter was on
Nature Conservancy letterhead, and it explained the purpose of the survey. The letter was signed by
one of the YLB Task Force members who lived in the same county were the landholder owned land.
Accompanying each questionnaire was a large, self-addressed and stamped envelope which the
respondent could use to return the completed questionnaire. Respondents were assured of
confidentiality and anonymity and urged to return the questionnaire by U. S. Mail to the Office of the
LYB Project Manager within ten days. If questionnaires were not received within three weeks, the
Project Manager mailed a post card to sample members asking them to return the questionnaire soon.
When landholders lived out-of-state, members of the LYB Task Force placed personal calls
asking respondents to complete and return the questionnaire. Finally, when LYB Task Force Members
-------
or the Project Manager, knew landholders included in the sample, they spoke with these landholders by
telephone or in face-to-face conversations to explain the purpose of the survey and to encourage them
to complete and return it. Thanks to the hard work of the LYB Task Fbrce and the Project Manager,
one-hundred and fifty-two, or 41 percent, of the questionnaires which were returned and were usable.
Unanticipated Delays
Work began in September of 1996. With the intent of obtaining a valid sample, every
opportunity was exhausted to obtain an accurate data base of land holders in the LYB project area.
Instead of using a data base from ASCS, which would have included farmers only, a data base was
obtained from the Tax Assessor's Office in each county. Collecting and aggregating the six data base
files required considerable time and effort. Also, this process was costly and it delayed the project for
several reasons.
First, unanticipated difficulty was encountered in obtaining data-base files on landholders from
the offices of the tax assessors in several counties. The consultant purchased data base files from a
private company which maintains tax records for three counties. In two counties, a printed copy of the
landholders was obtained from the lax Assessor's Office and in two other counties, a computer disk
was obtained with that county's data base. It was necessary to convert all of these data into one
computer file before the data would be available for drawing the sample.
Second, the amount of time between the date that the questionnaires were distributed by U. S
Mail and the date that collection of completed questionnaires ended was much longer than anticipated
because the Project Manager and consultant desired to obtain a return rate of 40% or more. Data
collection extended over a four-month period, from mid-February until mid-June of 1997. If the "drop-
off, pick-up method" had been used, as was proposed by the consultant, data collection would have
been completed within two weeks, or less, and the return rate would have been much higher.
Tabulating, aggregating and analyzing the data and preparing the report
The consultant was responsible for the tabulation of the data from completed questionnaires and
for aggregating the data for the first run of simple frequency distributions for grouped data each
variable. Additional statistical analysis (cross tabulations which included statistical procedures to
provide additional insights) were calculated before the final report was prepared. After the final
tabulation and statistical analysis of data was completed, the consultant prepared the report
-------
IV. Presenting the Results
Part One is a descriptive analysis which presents the frequency and percentage distributions for
each variable in terms of respondents' characteristics regarding their: (1) social, demographic and
economic factors; (2) attitudes and opinions toward private organizations and governmental agencies;
(3) attitudes and opinions toward the use of conservation and leisure practices; and (4) behaviors
regarding the use of conservation and leisure practices.
Part Two interprets the results further by using cross tabulations and statistical tests to explain
correlations and relationships among variables such as: (1) the relationship between demographic and
occupational variables and support for conservation practices; (2) support for reforestation in relation
••
to whether the landholder owns wetland or desires to reforest marginal farm land; (3) opinions toward
conservation programs and practices and how these opinions might influence decisions related to
conservation; and (4) level of support for reforestation in general and particularly in regard to
marginally productive agricultural lands.
Part One: The Descriptive Analysis of Landholder Characteristics
Social, Demographic and Economic Characteristics
Data on the social and economic characteristics and behavior of the 152 respondents are
presented in Tables 1 through 30. Opinions and behavior of respondents are presented in tables 31 -
45. Table 1 reveals that the number of persons who completed and returned the questionnaire varied
considerably among the six counties, with only 15 persons or 9.9 percent of the 152 respondents were
from Humphreys County to 29 or 19.1 percent from Sharkey County. While the response rates in
Warren, Isaquenna, and Yazoo Counties were acceptable, they did not approach what had been
expected. Variation among return rates for the counties might be attributed to persistent efforts of
members of the Lower Yazoo Task Force. Thirteen respondents did not respond to the question about
where they lived.
Place of residence: Table 2 shows that 24 or 15.8 percent of the respondents lived out of state,
with only 29.6 percent or 45 of the respondents actually living in the same county where they owned
the land. A high number, 38, of the respondents lived elsewhere in Mississippi, and 34 respondents, or
22 percent, lived in an adjacent county The response rate of 41 percent to a mailed questionnaire is
-------
excellent when one considers the fact that approximately 70 percent of the respondents did not live in
the same county where their LYB landholdings were located. The LYB Task Force and Project
Manager are to be commended for their efforts to obtain a such a high response rate.
Most of the 27 respondents (16 percent) who did not live in Mississippi resided in an adjacent
state - Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana or Tennessee (see Table 4). However, the remaining 11
respondents were distributed throughout the U.S. Data in Table 2 reveal that 11 respondents did not
respond to the question which asked where they resided.
Table 1. County where respondents own land in the LYB
LYB County
Humphreys
Isaquenna
Sharkey
Yazoo
Warren
Washington
No Response
Total
Table 2. County
County of Residence
Same County as Land
Adjacent County
Elsewhere in Mississippi
In State Adjacent to Mississippi
Elsewhere in United States
No Response
Total
Frequency
15
26
29
22
27
20
13
152
where respondents
Frequency
45
34
38
14
10
11
152
Percent
99
17.1
19.1
14.5
17.8
13.2
8.6
100
reside
Percent
29.6
224
25
92
66
7.2
100
Place of and Length of Residence and Land Tenure: Data in Table 3 show that more than
half of the respondents had lived in the present LYB county for more than 50 years, and 30 percent or
46 respondents had resided in the present county for less than 31 years. At least, one can conclude that
-------
the respondents are noi very mobile when it comes to moving around the state or country (see Table
3). Also, in response to other questions which are not presented in the tables, seventy five or 49.3
percent of the respondents reported that they had lived in the present county all of their life.
Furthermore, 82.9 percent or 126 respondents reported that they "expected to live in the present
county for the next five years." Also! 93 percent of the respondents reported that they owned their
place of residence, three percent rented, and there was no response from four percent.
Table 3. Number of years respondent has lived in
present county
Years Lived in County
Low: 0-31 years
Medium: 32 - 49
High: 50 - 80
No Response
Total
Frequency
46
46
50
10
152
Percent
30.3
30.3
32.9
6.5
100
Table 4. State of residence for respondents who do not live in
Mississippi
Region
Adjacent State -(AK; AL; LA; TN)
Other Southeastern U S. State
Northeastern U. S
Midwest
Southwest
West
No Response or in Mississippi
Total
Frequency
16
2
2
3
3
1
125
152
Percent
10.5
1.3
1.3
2.0
2.0
.7
82.2
100
Ownership outside of the LYB: Since most of the respondents did not reside in the same
county where they owned LYB land, it is not surprising that twenty seven respondents owned farm
land (see Table 5) and twenty six owned forest land outside (see Table 7) of the LYB area. Acres of
farm land owned tended to be fewer than 411, with nine respondents owning more than 500 acres (see
-------
Table 6). However, acres of forest lands owned tended to be larger, with 10 respondents owning from
1,200 to 25,000 acres, ten owning 150 to 1,000 acres, and the remaining one-third owning fewer than
120 acres of forest land (see Tables 5-8).
Table 5, Respondents' status regarding ownership of farmland
outside of the Lower Yazoo Basin Project area
Owns Land Outside LYB Area Frequency Percent
No 113 74.3
Yes 27 17.8
No Response 12 7.9
Total 152 100
Table 6. Number of acres of farmland owned by respondents
outside the Lower Yazoo Basin Project area
Acres Owned
Low: 1-60 acres
Medium: 83-411
High: 500 - 4,500
No Response
Total
Frequency
5
11
9
129
154
Percent
3.2
7.1
5.8
83.8
99.9
Table 7. Respondents' status on ownership of forest land outside
of the Lower Yazoo Basin Project area
Owns Forest Land Frequency Percent
Outside LYB Area
No
Yes
No Response
Total
108
26
18
152
71.1
17.1
11.8
100
-------
Table 8. Number of acres of forest land owned by respondents
outside the Lower Yazoo Basin Project area
Acres Owned Outside LYB Area
Low: 1 - 120 acres
Medium: ISO- 1,000
High: 1.200-25,000
No Response
Total
Frequency
10
10
10.
122
152
Percent
6.6
6.6
66
80.2
100
Gender, Education, Race and Age of Respondents: Sixty-eight percent of the respondents
were male, and 40 or 26 percent were female (see Table 9). The number of females was sligfitly
higher dian expected. But when the age distribution of the respondents is considered, see Table 9, one
notes that 31.8 percent of the respondents were beyond 65 years of age. Cross tabulations are expected
to show that a majority of the respondents beyond 65 years of age will be female and non-farmers.
More than 77 respondents (48 percent) graduated from college, with 14.5 percent having a
graduate degree (see Table 11). Twenty three percent or 35 respondents have a high school diploma
or less and 22.4 have at least attended college. Surprisingly, only 15 of the respondents are African
Americans, two are "other" and 126 or 83 percent are Caucasian (see Table 10). When number of
acres owned in the Lower Yazoo Basin project acre is presented in Table 14, one will note that 12.5
percent of the respondents owned fewer than 39 acres. This may account for the small number of
African Americans among the respondents.
Table 9. Respondents* status by gender
Gender
Female
Male
No Response
Total
Frequency
40
104
8
152
Percent
26.3
68.4
5.3
100
-------
Table 10. Respondents* status by race
Race
Other
African American
Caucasian
No Response
Total
Frequency
2
15
126
9
152
Percent
1.3
9.9
82.9
5.9
100
Table 11. Respondents* status by level of education
Level of Education
Less than High School
High School Graduate
Some College
College Degree
Some Graduate School
Graduate Degree
No Response
Total
Frequency
6
29
34
42
10
22
9
152
Percent
3.9
19.1
22.4
27.6
66
14.5
5.9
100
Two thirds of the respondents were more than 50 years of age, with 49 or 31.8 percent being
66 or more years old (see Table 12). Of note is the fact that the age of the respondents coincides with
national and state statistics regarding an aging rural population and the fact that much farm land is
owned by absentee landlords.
Table 12. Respondents' status by age
Years of Age
Low: 29 -50 years
Medium: 52 - 65
High: 66-90
No Response
Total
Frequency
49
45
49
11
154
Percent
31.8
29.2
31.8
7.1
99.9
10
-------
Household Income: Range of household income among the respondents varied considerably
(see Table 13), with 31.5 percent earning less than $54,999 per year and 34.2 percent earning more
than $75,000 per year. The largest number of respondents in any category was in the $95,000 or
more household income per year, with 38 or 25 percent of the respondents in the highest category.
Conversely;-9.9 percent or seven households earned less than $24,999 per year, and eight were in the
$15,000 to $24,999 range.
Table 13. Respondents' status by range of household income
Range of Household Income
Less than $15.000
15,000-24,999
25,000-34,999
35,000-44.999
45,000-54.999
55,000-64,999
65,000-74.999
75,000-84,999
85,000-94,000
95,000 or more
No Response
Total
Frequency
7
8
10
6
15
11
5
11
3
38
38
152
Percent
46
5.3
66
3.9
99
72
33
72
2.0
25
25
100
Size of land holdings: Respondents who owned more than 112.2 acres or more were over
represented in the questionnaires that were returned. While 33.3 percent of the stratified random
sample included persons who owned more than 112.2 acres, 66.5 percent of respondents were from
the category of "large acreage landholders." Persons who owned large tracks of land were five times
more likely to complete and return the questionnaire than -were persons who owned fewer than 39
acres. Also, only 27 or 17.8 percent of persons who owned between 40 -112.1 acres of land returned
a completed questionnaire (see Table 14), and 12.5 percent of the small acreage land holders returned
questionnaires.
Acreage in forest lands: When return rates are compared for persons who owned forest lands,
one notes in Table 15 that the return rates for small, medium, and high landholders of forest land are
almost identical. However, 86 or 55.8 percent of the respondents either did not own forest land or did
II
-------
not respond to this question. Only 38 or 24.6 percent of the respondents owned land dedicated to
aquaculture.
Table 14. Number of acres owned in Lower Yazoo Basin Counties
Acres in. Yazoo Basin
Small: 39 or fewer acres
Medium: 40 - 1 12 acres
Large: 120 or more acres
No Response
Total
Frequency
19
27
101
5
152
Percent
12.5
17.8
66.5
33
100.1
Table 15. Number of forested acres owned in LYB
Forested Acres Owned
Small: 1 - 50 acres
Medium: 60 - 200
Large: 201 - 4600
No Response or None
Total
Frequency
21
24
23
86
154
Percent
13.6
15.6
149
55.8
99.9
Acreage in aquaculture and pasture: The variation of respondents by aquaculture acreage
owned was small among the three sample types — 12 respondents owned fewer than 10 acres; 11
owned 11 to 75 acres; and 15 owned from 100 to 4,800 acres. The same phenomenon appears among
respondents who owned pasture land and other types of acres. As expected, only 19 respondents
reported that they owned pasture acreage (see Table 17). Also, only 22 responded reported that they
had land devoted to other types of use in the LYB (see Table 18). However, 52 or 34.2 percent of the
respondents reported that they owned acreage which had been designated as wetland by the NRPS (see
Table 19).
12
-------
Table 16. Number of aquaculture acres owned in LYB
Acres Owned in
Aquaculture
Small: 1-10 acres
Medium: 11-75
Large 100 - 4800
No Response or None
Total
Table 17. Number
Acres of Pasture
Small. 50 - 160 acres
Medium: 200 - 400
Large. 570-2100
No Response or None
Total
Table 18.
Other Acres
Small. 1 - 25 acres
Medium: 32 - 65
Large 100 - 975
No Response or None
Total
Frequency
12
11
15
116
154
of pasture land acres
Frequency
5
7
7
135
154
Percent
7.8
7.1
97
75.3
99.9
owned in LYB
Percent
3.2
4.5
45
87.7
99.9
Other acres owned in LYB
Frequency
7
6
9
132
154
Percent
45
39
58
85.7
99.9
Ownership of Wetlands: Eighty three or 54.6 percent of the respondents reported that they
owned land which had been officially designated as wetlands (see Table 19). The presence of so many
wetlands owners among the respondents provides opportunity for The Nature Conservancy and other
conservationists to expand the amount of LYB land that may be included in Conservation Reserve
Programs.
13
-------
Table 19. Respondent owns acreage in LYB that has been
designated as wetland by NRPS
Owns Wetland Acres
No,
Yes
No Response
Total
Frequency
52
83
17
152
Percent
34.2
54.6
11.2
100
Farmer or Non-Farmer and Farming as Primary Occupation: Fewer respondents than was
expected, only 59 or 38.3 percent, reported that they were actually engaged in farming (see Table 20);
and among the 152 respondents, only 50 or 32.9 percent regarded farming as their primary occupation
(see Table 21). Seventeen landholders did not respond to this question. Number of acres fanned
Table 20 . Respondents* status by farm or non-farm
Farm Status
Non-farm
Farm
No Response
Total
Frequency
86
59
7
152
Percent
56.6
388
4.6
100
varied considerably, from as few as 10 up to 35,000 (see Table 22). The majority of the
respondents, 24, were in large acreage category, with from 2,400 to 35,000 acres being in production
agriculture; 23 farmed 125 to 2,300 acres; and only 11 farmed 1 to 120 acres (see Table 22).
Table 21. Farming as respondents' primary occupation
Farming is Primary
Occupation
No
Yes
No Response
Total
Frequency
85
50
17
152
Percent
55.9
32.9
11.2
100
14
-------
Table 22. Total number of acres farmed in LYB
Acres Farmed
Small: 1 - 120 acres
Medium: 125 - 2,300 acres
Large: 2,400 - 35,000 acres
No Response
Total
Frequency
11
23
24
96
154
Percent
7.1
14.9
15.6
62.3
99.9
Leasing land to farm: Fifty eight respondents who farmed indicated that they leased land for
farm purposes (see Table 23), and the number of acres leased ranged from less than 50 to as high as
6,000. Twenty respondents leased from 1,400 to 6,000 acres to farm (see Table 24).
Table 23. Respondents* status on leasing land to farm in LYB
Leases Land to Farm
No
Yes
No Response
Total
Frequency
54
58
40
152
Percent
35.5
382
26.3
100
As revealed in Table 23, apparently some of the persons who did not farm responded "NO" to
the question about whether they leased land to farm since the response for "No" and "Yes" is 112 or
more than the total number of persons who regarded themselves to be farmers.
Table 24. Number of acres leased to farm
Acres Leased
Small 1 - 250 acres
Medium: 260- 1,200
Large. 1,400-6,000
No Response
Total
Frequency
16
18
20
98
152
Percent
104
11 6
13
65
100
Leasing Land for Hunting, Fishing or Recreation: Thirty-two or 21 percent of the
respondents reported that they leased land for leisure (see Table 25). Nine respondents reported that
15
-------
they leased from 900 to 5,500 acres, eight leased from 200 to 640 acres and five leased less than 140
acres (see Table 26). Conversely, 57.9 percent or 88 respondents leased out land to others for
recreation and leisure (see Table 27). The number of acres leased out for all purposes ranged from a
Table 25. Respondents' status on leasing land for hunting, fishing, or
recreation in LYB
Leases Land for Recreation
No
Yes
No Response
Total
Frequency
102
32
18
152
Percent
67.1
21 1
11.8
100
high of 8,000 acres to as few as 10 (see Table 28). Only 14 respondents reported that they leased out
land to others for leisure, with nine respondents leasing out more than 600 acres (see Table 29).
Only eleven respondents reported that they leased out wetland property that they owned to
others for hunting, with half of these landholders leasing out fewer than 500 acres, two leased out
1,000 to 1,500 acres, and three leased out 2,800 to 5,000 acres. Only eight respondents received
income for leasing out hunting rights on land that they owned, and seven of the eight leased out fewer
than 600 acres for hunting rights, while one landholder leased out 3,000 acres for hunting. The
overwhelming majority of the respondents did not lease out wetland or other property for hunting or
fishing.
Table 26. Number of acres leased for hunting, fishing, or recreation
in LYB
Acres Leased
Small: 1-150 acres
Medium: 200 - 640
Large: 900 - 5,500
No Response
Total
Frequency
5
8
9
132
154
Percent
3.2
52
58
857
99.9
16
-------
Table 27. Respondents' status on leasing out LYB land to others
for recreation
Leases out land for Frequency Percent
recreation
Total
No
Yes
No Response
55
88
9
152
36.2
57.9
5.9
100
Table 28. Number of acres of land in LYB leased out to others
Acres Leased Out
Small: 1-68 acres
Medium: 77 - 265
Large: 272 - 8,000
No Response
Total
Frequency
21
30
32
71
154
Percent
13.6
19.5
20.8
46.1
100
Table 29. Number of LYB acres leased out to others for hunting,
fishing, or recreation
Acres Leased Out
Small: 10 - 500
Medium. 600- 1,000
Large 1,500-5,000
No Response
Total
Frequency
5
5
4
138
152
Percent
3.3
3.3
2.6
90.8
too
Land tenure practices: About one third of the respondents reported (see Table 30) that they
would like to have land they owned reforested; and, 59.2 percent stated that they did not wish to
reforest their land. Preferences for agricultural usages seemed to prevail. Among the primary reasons
for reforesting land were: (1) to improve the habitat for wildlife - 48 respondents; (2) to obtain an
economic return- 43 respondents; (3) to improve water quality - 30 respondents; and (4) to improve
17
-------
habitat for waterfowl - 27 respondents (see Table 31). Forty-four percent of the respondents stated
that there were no factors which limited their participation in the reforestation of land (see Table 32).
Table 30. Status of respondent regarding owning land in LYB
that they would like to have reforested
Desires to reforest Frequency Percent
No 90 59.2
Yes 49 32.2
No Response 13 8.6
Total 152 100
Table 31. Reasons respondent would like to reforest land
Reasons Frequency
1. To improve habitat for wildlife 48
2. To improve water quality (deer, turkey, etc.) 30
3. To obtain an economic return 43
4. To improve habitat for waterfowl 27
5. To improve the beauty of the landscape 21
Table 32. Respondent has factors that limit participation in
reforestation of land
Presence of limiting factors
No
Yes
No Response
Total
Frequency
67
50
35
152
Percent
44.1
32.9
23.0
100
Attitudes Toward and Participation in Private and Governmental Organizations
Respondent's opinions toward and involvement in a wide range of private and governmental
organizations were obtained. Questions were directed primarily toward those organizations which
were associated with production agriculture, forestry, and environmental issues related to
conservation, fish and wild life. Data presented in Table 33 reveal that memberships were more likely
to be held in Delta Council - 42, Delta Wildlife - 32, and Ducks Unlimited - 27. Only two
18
-------
Table 33. Respondents' membership status and opinions regarding in private
organizations
Membership
Current
Organizatibn Member
Delta 42 yes
Council 62 no
Delta 32 yes
Wildlife 67 no
Foundation
Ducks 27 yes
Unlimited 71 no
International 2 yes
Audubon 86 no
Society
Mississippi 12 yes
Wildlife 80 no
Federation
National 12 yes
Wild Turkey 78 no
Federation
The Nature 7 yes
Conservancy 83 no
Sierra Club 1 yes
83 no
Opinions
Strongly No
Support Support Opinion Oppose
29 44 45 0
26 45 0 0
19 42 50 2
7 16 76 8
17 33 52 4
14 23 66 2
10 27 65 4
5 9 54 17
Strongly
Oppose
0
0
0
2
8
0
3
22
respondents belonged to the International Audubon Society; 12 were members of the Mississippi
Wildlife. Federation and of the National Wild Turkey Federation; seven belonged to the Nature
Conservancy; and, onlv one was a member of the Sierra Club.
High levels of support seems to exist for those private organisations to which members tend to
belong. For example, no respondent opposed Delta Council or Delta Wildlife Foundation. Only two
respondents opposed Ducks Unlimited or the National Wild Turkey Federation. Seven opposed the
19
-------
Nature Conservancy. Ten opposed or strongly opposed the International Audubon Society, 12 opposed
the Mississippi Wildlife Federation, and thirty nine opposed or strongly opposed the Sierra Club. In
general, there was more support for organizations which have a regional focus and more opposition for
those organizations with a national and international focus (see Table 33). Skewness of opinions in the
"strongly support" or "support" direction created problems for construction of scales and indexes for
purposes of statistical analysis, which follows in Part Two.
Opinions toward Government Agencies: The level of support or strong support for agencies
of the federal government operating within the LY6 project area seems to be much stronger (see Table
34) than the support for "outside" private organizations which have come to the area (see Table 33)
and which may be seen to have a national mission. While 74 opinions of opposition were registered
for the eight private organizations (see Table 33), only 58 opinions of opposition were indicated
toward public agencies(see Table 34).
Respondents tended to be quite supportive of ASCS, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries and Parks, the Mississippi Forestry Commission, SCS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While twenty seven respondents opposed the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, forty eight either supported or strongly supported the US EPA (see
Table 34).
20
-------
Table 34. Respondents' opinions toward government agencies
Opinions
Agency
Farm Service:
ASCS
MS Dept. of
Environment
Quality
MS Dept. of
Wildlife,
Fisheries, and
Parks
MS Forestry
Commission
National
Resource
Conservation
Service (ASCS)
U. S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
U. S. E. P. A.
U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Strongly
Support
34
10
39
31
27
29
11
26
' Support
68
42
62
68
53
58
37
71
No
Opinion
37
66
33
39
52
43
57
44
Oppose
2
7
1
0
0
6
18
5
Strongly
Oppose
0
5
1
0
0
3
9
I
Respondents' Awareness of and Participation in Conservation Programs
A major focus of this study was to determine if opinions and awareness of conservation
programs was associated with landholder's actual participation in conservation programs. Behavior is
more easily to measure and is more specific than attitudes, knowledge or opinions. Thus, the
21
-------
questionnaire sought data on participation in conservation programs and whether respondents were
sufficiently committed to participate in selected conservation programs without outside financial
support. It asked, "Would landholders use and pay for conservation practices, especially those
practices for which there might not be a financial return?"
Tables 35 through 38 present data about respondents' awareness of, attitudes toward and
participation in eight to ten conservation practices or farm programs which are sponsored by state or
federal agencies. The number of respondents who were aware of the eight practices was not as high as
had been expected. For example, about or less than a third of the respondents were not aware of Farm
Services Agency Cost-Share, Forestry Incentive Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners
Program, Water Bank and Wetlands Reserve Program. About fifty percent of the respondents,were
aware of Delta Wildlife and Ducks Unlimited, while only 62 were aware of the Conservation Reserve
Program. More importantly, while 33 respondents had participated in Farm Services Agency (ASCS)
Cost Share programs, fewer than 15 responded had participated or was currently participating in any
of the remaining seven conservation programs (see Table 35).
Table 35. Respondents' awareness of and participation in conservation
programs
Agency
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Delta Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited
Farm Services Agency Cost-Share
(formerly ASCS)
Forestry Incentive Program (FIP)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners
Program
Water Bank
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
Aware
of
62
73
72
43
51
41
41
53
Has
Participated
15
8
14
33
11
4
10
12
Currently
Participating
15
8
5
20
1
10
2
10
22
-------
Opinions about Conservation Practices: The questionnaire contained six attitude or opinion
statements which were used to form an "Index of Landholder Opinions Toward Selected Conservation
Practices." Statistical tests for significance will be calculated in Part Two of data analysis to determine
the relationship between opinions about conservation practices and other variables which are of interest
to The Nature Conservancy and policy makers. The six statements and the opinions of the
respondents are presented in Table 36.
Data reveal that while opinions of most landholders tended to be supportive of conservation
practices, this was not the overwhelming opinion of many respondents. For example, a large number
(at least 20 per cent) of the respondents reported that the had "No Opinion" on every item in this
Index, with more than half having no opinion about the "conservation aspects of the 1996 Farm Bill."
Highly relevant to The Nature Conservancy is the fact that: (1) 103 respondents favored "the
reforestation of marginally productive agriculture lands;" and (2) eighty one respondents felt that it
was appropriate for the federal government to acquire and reforest land from "willing sellers" while
seventy one supported such action by the state government. The introduction of the phrase "willing
sellers" into items five and six in the above Index appears to make a significant difference in
landholder opinions. For example, only fifty eight respondents supported the statement which asked if
the respondents if they supported "the state or federal government acquiring land for reforestation"
when the phrase "willing sellers" was not included.
Easement Preferences: Use of easements for Wetland Reserve Programs can be a
controversial issues for some landholders. It was interesting to leam that the majority of the
landholders (92) reported that they had "no opinion" on the use of easements for Wetland Reserve
Programs (see Table 37). About 20 percent preferred perpetual easements and eleven percent
preferred 30-year easements.
Adoption of On-Fann Conservation Practices - With Outside Financial Support: Data in
Table 38 present information on the adoption or use of ten conservation practices in farming. As
expected, the practice which was used most frequently was crop rotation, while terracing was used less
frequently. About one third of all respondents used Drop/Overfall Pipes and conservation tillage.
One fifth used cover crops, integrated pest management, winter flooding, no till, and straight levees.
These items will be aggregated to form an "Index of Conservation Farming Practices" and statistical
tests for significance will be calculated to determine the relationship between actual use of
23
-------
conservation practices and other variables which are of interest to The Nature Conservancy and policy
makers.
Table 36. Respondents' opinions toward selected conservation practices
Opinion
Opinions of Agency Programs
1. Respondents' opinion about reforestation
of marginally productive agriculture lands.
2. Respondents' opinion about participating
in the Wetlands Reserve Program.
3. Respondents' opinion about state or
federal agencies acquiring land for
reforestation.
4. Respondents' opinion about the
conservation aspects of the 1996 Farm Bill.
5. Respondents opinion about the state
acquiring land from willing sellers for
reforestation purposes when it is adjacent to
state - operated wildlife management areas.
6. Respondents opinion about the federal
government acquiring land from willing
sellers for reforestation purposes when it is
adjacent to federally-operated wildlife
management areas.
Strongly
Support
33
25
17
3
4
18
Support
70
48
41
44
67
63
No
Opinion
35
55
48
85
40
39
Strongly
Oppose Oppose
4 1
5 4
27 7
4 2
14 2
16 5
Table 37. Types of Wetland Reserve Program Easements
preferred by respondents
Program
30-year easements
Perpetual easements
No Opinion
No Response
Frequency
17
30
92
13
Percent
11.2
197
60.5
86
Total
152
100
24
-------
Table 38. Respondents' 'status regarding use of the
following conservation farming practices
Conservation practice
1. Conservation Tillage
2. Cover Crops
3. Crop Rotation
4. Drop/Overfall Pipes
5. Grassed Waterways
6. Integrated Pest Management
7. No-Till
8. Straight Levees
9. Terracing
10. Winter Flooding
Use
43
30
63
49
19
29
31
27
9
36
Does Not Use
35
30
26
36
39
44
34
37
36
32
Adoption of On-Farm Conservation Practices - Without Outside Financial Support: Of
special interest is the fact that a number of respondents were using on farm conservation practices and
underwriting all of the costs that were associated with the use of such practices. For example, data in
Table 38 present the frequency of use for most of the conservation practices which are also presented
in Table 39 without outside financial support. The drop in frequency ofon-farm use for each
conservation practice is slight. It is not significant and the rank in frequency of use of each practice
without outside financial support is the same as it is with outside support.
25
-------
Table 39. Respondents NOT receiving outside financial support
for conservation practices used
Conservation practices used with no outside Frequency
support
Conservation tillage 39
Cover crops 23
Crop rotation 51
Drop/overfall pipes 33
Grassed waterways 17
Impounding water for waterfowl 41
Pumping water for waterfowl habitat 22
Integrated pest management 26
No-till 19
Reforestation 7
Straight levees 5
Opinions on the Quality of the Environment: While about 20 percent of the respondents
reported that they did "not know" if the quality of the environment has improved or gotten worse, the
majority of the landholders who responded to statements about the quality of die environment in die
county believe that the quality of the environment has either remained the same or improved during the
past 10 years. Only 12 respondents believed that "wildlife-related recreational opportunities" has
gotten worse; twenty six reported that the"beauty of the landscape" has worsened; twenty two reported
that the "quality of water in streams and lakes" has worsened; seventeen reported that "drinking water
quality" has gotten worse; and thirteen reported that "air quality" has gotten worse. Conversely, sixty
percent of the landholders responded positively on each of the above items (see Table 40).
26
-------
Table 40. Respondents' opinions on the quality of the environment
Opinions
Environment in the County
Wildlife-Related Recreational
Opportunities
Beauty of Landscape
Quality of Water in Streams
and Lakes
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Has
Improved
61
32
49
28
23
Same
33
52
33
61
65
Has Gotten
Worse
12
26
22
17
13
Don't Know
33
28
35
32
33
Responsibility for the Environment: The overwhelming choice among actions proposed for
improving the quality of the environment was "more public education and involvement," with 32.2
percent of the respondents electing this option. Only 10 percent favored "stricter enforcement of
present laws or regulation," and four percent favored "more stringent environmental laws." Of note is
the fact that 72 or 47.4 of the landholders elected not to respond to this question (see Table 41).
Furthermore, respondents are divided on who is primarily responsible for protecting the quality of the
environment with 24.3 percent believing individual citizens should be primarily responsible; 21
percent prefer that the major responsible party should be state government; 20.4 percent prefer that
local government be responsible; and, only six percent believe that the federal government should have
27
-------
primary responsibility for the environment. Note in Table 42, however, that 21 percent of the
landholders did not respond to the question about, "Who is primarily responsible for maintaining the
quality of the environment?"
Table 41. Respondents' opinion about actions that should be taken to
improve the environment
Preferred Actions
Nothing
More Stringent Environmental Laws
Stricter enforcement of present laws or regulations
More public education and involvement
Other
No Response
Total
Frequency
5
6
15
49
5
72
152
Percent
3.3
3.9
9.9
32.2
3.3
47.4
100
Table 42. Respondents' opinions about who is primarily responsible
for protecting the quality of the environment in their county
Responsible Party
Federal Government
State Government
Local Government
City Government
Individual Citizens
Other
No Response
Frequency
9
32
31
6
37
5
32
Percent
5.9
21.1
20.4
3.9
24.3
3.3
21.1
Total . 152 100
28
-------
Participation in Outdoor Recreation and Leisure Activities: Respondents tended to be
active participants in recreation and leisure activities, with 108 or 71 percent reporting that they
engage in leisure activities (see Table 43). A majority of the respondents think there are adequate
opportunities for leisure in the LYB region (see Table 44). Furthermore, favorite choices for leisure
Table '43. Respondents' status regarding participation in outdoor
recreational or leisure activities
Participates in outdoor recreation Frequency Percent
No 26 17.1
Yes 108 71.1
No Response 18 11.8
Total 152 100
and recreation were hunting (52%), fishing (48%), boating (27.6%), and site seeing (25%). Ten to
twenty percent of the respondents participated in birdwatching, camping, hiking, waterskiing, and
snow skiing, and fewer than nine percent engage in jet skiing or other activities (see Table 45). No
Table 44. Respondents' opinion about whether there are adequate
opportunities (places) for outdoor recreation or leisure activities in
the Lower Yazoo Basin area
Opinion on Adequate
Opportunity for Leisure
No
Yes
No Response
Total
Frequency
31
87
34
152
Percent
20.4
57.2
22.4
100
29
-------
doubt participation is several of these leisure activities is related to income. For example, one must
travel considerable distance from the LYB to areas where snow skiing is available and boats are
expensive. Wether there is a significant relationship between participation in fishing and hunting and
the adoption and use of on-farm conservation practices remains to be seen.
Table 45. Respondents' status regarding participation in the following
outdoor leisure and recreational activities
Participates in Recreational Activity Frequency Percent
Birdwatching 29 19.1
Boating 42 27.6
Camping 25 16.4
Fishing 73 48
Hiking 23 15.1
Hunting 79 52
Jet Skiing 8 5.3
Site Seeing 38 25
Snow Skiing 16 10.5
Water Skiing 20 13.2
Other 13 8.6
30
-------
Part Two. Additional Interpretative Analysis
Part Two of this report presents additional results derived from cross tabulation and tests
for significance and correlations among a number of key variables, such as: (1) selected
demographic and occupational variables and opinions toward and participation in conservation
practices, organizations, and agencies; (2) relationships regarding opinions toward and
participation in conservation programs and organizations; (3) opinions about the quality of the
environment in relation to opinions toward and participation in conservation programs; and (4)
support for reforestation among landholders with various characteristics of owners of wetland or
marginal farm land.
Methods and Procedures
Earlier analysis revealed that opinions or level of support among landholders toward
conservation programs and practices and toward government agencies and private groups was
skewed strongly in the positive direction. Even after the five levels of support or opposition
toward organizations or conservation practices were collapsed into three levels, as follows, data
were still skewed strongly in a positive direction "Strongly support" and "support" responses
were combined or coded into one category; "no opinion" or undecided were left as one category;
and "oppose" or "strongly oppose" were combined into one category. This decision of three
groupings was justified because of the few number of respondents who expressed opinions of
opposition or strong opposition toward conservation programs, governmental agencies and/or
private sector organizations. Furthermore, collapsing the responses from five into three
categories strengthened the researcher's confidence in those statistical tests of significance which
were run.
It must be noted that some researchers might regard the use of statistical tests of
significance and tests for correlation as being limited with such a small number of respondents
(152), especially when their responses are divided into additional subcategories for cross
tabulation and statistical tests. Chi square, Pearson's R, and occasionally a few other statistical
tests were calculated for tests of significance and correlations for each cross tabulation. When
test for significance result in a .05 confidence level, the results are presented following the
appropriate table. Tests which were not significant are not presented. In several cases indexes
and scales were constructed by grouping responses in similar categories. Explanations on how
indexes were constructed will be described as results are presented.
31
-------
Support for and Participation in Conservation Practices and Programs
Data in this section presents results for cross tabulations on support for and participation
in conservation practices with concentration on respondents' demographic, socio-economic
characteristics, and other variables. Table 46 presents the cross tabulations between the three
sample types based on number of acres owned (small, 0 - 39; medium, 40 - 112; and large, 120
or more), and level of support for a number of conservation practices.
Level of support for conservation practices was obtained by forming an index for "Level
of Support for Conservation Issues" by developing a total score for each respondent to the six
conservation issues which were presented earlier in Table 36. To develop the index or scale,
scores were determined and aggregated for each respondent as follows: "strongly oppose and
oppose" were scored as "1"; "no opinion" was scored as "2"; and, "support or strongly support"
were scored as "3". After determining the aggregate score for each respondent, three categories
of support for this index were derived as follows: "no to low support" respondent scores ranged
from 6 through 11; the range for "low support to no opinion" was 12 through 13; and "high
support" ranged from 14 through 18.
While results presented in Table 46 are not statistically significant, the tabulation reveals
that level of support by landholders for conservation increases as number of acres owned
increases and that lack of support decreases with acres owned. Fifty-nine percent of the
landholders with more than 120 acres fall into the "high support "category. Tests for
significance were influenced by the fact that so few landholders (only 15) with fewer than 39
acres responded to the survey, while 81 landholders with 120 or more acres did. Nevertheless,
data in Table 46 are useful and revealing.
32
-------
Table 46: Crosstabulation of support for conservation issues with the respondents' by number
of acres owned in the Lower Yazoo Basin counties.
Number of acres owned in Lower
Yazoo Basin counties
Index of
support for
conservation
issues
Total
no to low
support
low support
to no opinion
High support
Low: 39 or
fewer
acres
1
6.7%
5
33.3%
9
60.0%
15
100.0%
Medium:
40-112
acres
2
8.3%
5
20.8%
17
70.8%
24
100.0%
High 120
or more
acres
15
18.5%
18
22.2%
48
59.3%
81
100.0%
Total
1
150
2
23.3
7
61.7
12
1000
Table 47: Crosstabulation of index of support for conservation issues with
farmers/non farmers.
Do you farm?
Index of
support for
conservation
issues
Total
no to low
support
low support
to no opinion
high support
no
12
16.2%
23
31.1%
39
52.7%
74
100.0%
yes
6
12.0%
6
12.0%
38
76.0%
50
100.0%
Total
18
14.5%
29
23.4%
77
62.1%
124
100.0%
33
-------
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymp
Sig
(2-sided)
Pearson
Chi-Square
N of Valid Cases
7.619
124
.022
a- 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5.
The minimum expected count is 7.26.
Data in Table 47 show the relationship between "support for conservation issues" (the
same Index presented in Table 46) for 124 respondents who were either "farmers and non-
farmers." Note that the data in this table are more symmetrical or less skewed — there are
usable data from 74 non-farmers and SO farmers. It is clear that stronger levels of support for
conservation issues exist among farmers than respondents who are not farmers, with 76% of the
fanners being in the high support category. As revealed in the boxes following Table 47,
statistical tests for significance and correlations Chi-Square are significant beyond the .05
confidence level.
Data in Table 48 present cross tabulations on the index which measures level of support
for conservation issues "support for conservation issues" (the same Index presented in Table 46
and 47) by whether the respondent is male or female. Note that there were 121 usable files, with
33 females and 88 males. Data analysis reveal that more males tended to be more supportive of
conservation issues than females and the Chi-Square test was significant at the .021 level.
Table 48: Crosstabulation of support for conservation issues with male or female.
Level of
support for
conservation
issues
Total
no to low
support
low support
to no opinion
high support
Are you male
female
3
9.1%
13
39.4%
17
51.5%
33
1000%
or female?
male
14
159%
14
159%
60
68.2%
88
1000%
Total
17
14.0%
27
22.3%
77
63.6%
121
100.0%
34
-------
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson
Chi-Square
N of Valid Cases
Value
7.774a
121
Asymp.
Sig.
df (2-sided)
2 .021
a- 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than
5. The minimum expected count is 4.64.
Table 49: Crosstabulation of support for conservation issues with respondents' education.
Respondents' Education
Level of
support for
conservation
issues
Total
no to low
support
low support
to no opinion
high support
high
school or
less
4
14.8%
10
37.0%
13
48.1%
27
100.0%
some
college
3
10.3%
6
20.7%
20
69.0%
29
100.0%
Graduate
school
college degree or
graduate experience
8
22.2%
3
8.3%
25
69.4%
36
100.0%
3
11.1%
7
25.9%
17
630%
27
100.0%
Total
18
15.1%
26
21 8%
75
63.0%
119
1000%
Data presented in Table 49 show cross tabulations between "support for conservation
issues" and level of education. As has been reported in each of the above descriptions, there is
high support for conservation issues, and the opinions tend to be skewed so heavily in the
positive direction that they do not appear to be influenced by level of respondents' education.
For example, one can note in the totals for the bottom row of Table 49 that the number of
respondents for each of the five levels of education ranges from 27 to no more than 36, thus there
are no noteworthy directional trends. // appears that all respondents in the LYB Project Area
tend to be very supportive of conservation issues whether they are highly educated or not, and
35
-------
this finding is statistically different from the results found in most studies of attitudes toward
conservation.
Cross tabulations and tests, for statistical significance were calculated on the Index of
Support for Conservation Issues and age of respondents. Frequency distributions for age were
reported earlier in Table 12, where it was noted that respondents tended to be older, with no one
being less than 29 years of age. While Chi-Square tests were not statistically significant,
Pearson's R for correlation was significant at the .01 level of confidence. Perhaps this accounts
for the fact that among the older group, only 47.6 percent were "highly supportive of
conservation issues." Conversely, one should note that the percent of respondents (76.7%) who
are between 29 and 49 years of age and sixty-eight percent of the persons in the SO -64 years, of
age group differed slightly — they were "highly supportive of conservation issues."
Furthermore, persons more than 65 were twice as likely (21.4% versus 9.3%) than the younger
group to fall in the "no to low support" category. Fewer than 15 percent of the respondents for
all three age categories were in the "no to low support" category.
Table 50: Crosstabulation of support for conservation issues with respondents' age.
Age of respondent
Level of
support for
conservation
issues
Total
no to low
support
low support
to no opinion
high support
29-49
4
93%
6
14 0%
33
76 7%
43
1000%
50-64
5
143%
6
17.1%
24
68 6%
35
1000%
65 and
above
9
21.4%
13
31 0%
20
47.6%
42
100.0%
Total
18
15.0%
25
20 8%
77
64.2%
120
100.0%
Correlation
Value
Approx.
Sig
Pearson's R
N of Valid Cases
-234
120
.010
36
-------
Cross tabulations and tests for statistical significance were calculated on the Index of
Support for Conservation Issues and respondents' ranges of household income. Results are
presented in Table 51. Frequency distributions for income were presented earlier in Table 13. To
facilitate cross tabulations, categories of income were collapsed from ten to three groupings, as
follows: less than $45,000, $45,000 to $74,999, and more than $75,000. It was noted earlier
that the number of households with low levels of income is much fewer than the population in
the LYB project area. The number of home owners is higher too. Thus, data are influenced by
the high number of respondents who are large landholders, highly educated, and who have high
levels of household income. One should note, however, that this is a study of land holders,
persons who have the authority and power to make land tenure decisions. Thus, for purpose of
this study, their opinions are likely to be very useful.
Statistical tests are not significant and cross tabulations on these two variables do not
reveal insights which are different from results reported above. A majority of the persons in all
three household income groups are in the "high support" category of conservation issues, as was
the case with all educational levels. Also, fewer than 12.6 percent of the respondents were
among the "no to low support" category.
Table 51: Crosstabulatlon of support for conservation issues with respondents' income.
Income
less than $45.000 to
$45.000 $74,999
Level of
support for
conservation
issues
Total
no to low
support
low support
to no opinion
high support
4
16.0%
6
240%
15
60.0%
25
1000%
4
138%
7
241%
18
621%
29
100.0%
more than
$75,000
3
91%
5
152%
25
75 8%
33
100 0%
Total
11
126%
18
207%
58
667%
87
1000%
Data presented in Table 52 show cross tabulations between the Index of Support for
Conservation Issues and the "Index of Total Participation in Conservation Programs." The Index
of Total Participation in Conservation Programs was constructed using the 10 items presented in
Table 38. The index was derived by scoring participation in each practice as "1" and no
37
-------
participation as "0." Then using the same methods that were used to construct the Index of
Support for Conservation Issues, the respondents were divided into three categories. No
participation was defined as a score of 0, low to medium participation was a score of 1 - 3, and
medium to high participation in conservation programs was a score of 4 - 6.
Data analysis from the cross tabulation (see Table 52) reveal that frequency and level of
participation in conservation programs is low and that statistical tests are not significant. While
there were 125 persons who responded to the questions in these two indexes, only 16
respondents appeared in the top two levels of participation.
Treble 52: Crosstabulation of support for conservation issues with respondents' total participation
conservation cost/share programs.
T otal participation in conservation cost/shar£""
programs
low to medium to
no medium high
participation participation participation
in in in
conservation conservation conservation
cost/share cost/share cost/share
programs programs programs Total
Level of
support for
conservation
issues
Total
no to low
support
low support
to no opinion
high support
15
138%
26
23 9%
68
62 4%
109
1000%
2
25 0%
6
75 0%
8
1000%
1
125%
3
37 5%
A
50 0%
8
100 0%
18
14 4%
29
23 2%
78
62 4%
125
100.0%
Cross tabulations and tests for statistical significance were calculated between the
"Index of Participation in Conservation Programs" (the same Index of Participation that was
presented in Table 52) and the County where the respondents owned land (see Table 53). The
results are not statistically significant and the statistical trends among the six counties are
similar. By far, a large majority of the 139 respondents whose results were usable reported that
they do not participate in conservation programs. However, one must that while the data for this
cross tabulation include 139 useable cases, and only 58 of all 152 respondents reported that they
were farmers.
38
-------
Table 53: Crosstabulation of total participation in conservation cost/share programs by county when land is owned.
County
Level of participation iN
conservation cost/shae
programs
Total
no
participation
low to
medium
medium to
high
Humphreys
13
86.7%
1
6.7%
1
6.7%
15
100.0%
Issaquena
23
88.5%
3
11.5%
26
100.0%
Sharkey
27
93.1%
1
3.4%
1
3.4%
29
100.0%
Yazoo
20
90.9%
1
4.5%
1
4.5%
22
100.0%
Warren Washington
24
88.9%
2
7.4%
1
3.7%
27
100 0%
17
85.0%
1
5.0%
2
10.0%
20
100.0%
Total
124
89.2%
6
4.3%
9
6.5%
139
100.0%
39
-------
Data presented in Table 54- present results from cross tabulations between two indexes:
"Level of Support for Conservation Issues," and "Level of Participation in Conservation Practices
WITHOUT Outside Financial Support." Table 39, which was presented in an earlier section, list the
eleven conservation practices which were used to derive this index and presents the frequency
distributions for each practice. The same tabulation and aggregation methods were used to calculate
independent scores for each respondent. This "Index on Level of Participation in Conservation
Practices WITHOUT Outside Financial Support" was created because of the high number of
respondents who reported that they were using conservation practices without any outside financial
support. Score categories were aggregated as follows: low was 1 - 3, medium was 4-6, and high
was 7-11. Note that data from only 61 respondents were available for the items in the two indexes.
While there is high support for conservation issues, it is not matched by high use of
conservation practices without outside financial support. Only five landholders had high level of
participation in conservation practices without outside financial support. It appears that most
respondents were likely to use only one or two practices without outside support. Statistical tests
between the two variables were not significant.
Table 54: Crosstabulation of support for conservation issues with respondents' total particip£h£)M
conservation practices in which respondent did not receive any outside financial support
Total participation in conservation practice
in which respondent did not receive any
outside financial support
low medium high
participation participation participation
Level of
support for
conservation
issues
Total
no to low
support
low support
to no opinion
high support
4
12 9%
7
22 6%
20
64 5%
31
100 0%
5
21 7%
18
78.3%
23
100.0%
2
28.6%
5
71.4%
7
100.0%
Total
9
14 8%
9
14.8%
43
70.5%
61
100 0%
Cross tabulations were calculated between the "Index for Level of Support for Conservation
Issues" and respondents' "Opinions about the Quality of the Environment in their County." Data
presented earlier in Table 40 indicate that many respondents tended to believe that the environment
40
-------
had either improved or remained the same. Few indicated that the quality of the environment had
gotten worse. Data in Table 55 indicate that opinions of respondents on both of these indexes lean
toward a positive direction. However, the relationship is not statistically significant. Forty-three of
the seventy respondents who have high support for conservation issues believe that the environment
has either improved or stayed the same over the last 10 years. Again, the few number of responses in
the first column limits the usefulness of statistical tests for significance.
Table 55: Crosstabulation of support for conservation issues with respondents' opinions of
local environment
Opinions of the local environment in last 10 yrs
Level of
support for
conservation
issues
Total
have gotten have stayed the
worse same
no to low
support
low support
to no opinion
high support
1
20.0%
4
80.0%
5
100.0%
6
16.7%
7
19.4%
23
63.9%
36
100.0%
have
improved
4
13.8%
5
17.2%
20
69.0%
29
100.0%
Total
10-
14.3%
13
18.6%
47
671%
70
1000%
Data presented in Table 56 show results from cross tabulations for 147 respondents between
the Index on Participation in Conservation programs and the number of acres owned — the three
categories that were used for sample type. While results are not statistically significant, as expected
the majority of the respondents report that they do not participate in conservation practices. Nineteen
useable cases reported that they do not use any of the conservation practices.
41
-------
Table 56: Crosstabulation of total participation in conservation cost/share programs with thfi.
number of acres owned in Lower Yazoo Basin counties.
Number of acres owned in Lower
Yazoo Basin counhes
Total participation in
conservation cost/share
programs
Total
no
participation
low to
medium
medium to
high
Low. 39 or Medium
fewer 40-112
acres acres
19 27
1000% 900%
2
67%
1
33%
19 30
1000% 1000%
High 120
or more
acres
82
83.7%
7
71%
9
92%
98
1000%
Total
128
871%
9
61%
10
6.8%
147
100.0%
Data presented in Table 57 show cross tabulations between use of conservation practices and
whether or not the respondents are farmers. All 59 of the farmers appeared in the 145 usable cases,
with 86 of the respondents not being farmers. While the total number of farmers reporting the use of
conservation programs is small (only 13), farmers are twice as likely as landholders who are not
farmers to use conservation programs — 10.2% versus 3.5%. Chi-Square test was not significant,
Table 57: Crosstabulation of total participation in conservation cost/share
programs with farmers and non farmers.
Do you farm?
Total participation in
conservation cost/share
programs
Total
Correlation
no
participation
low to
medium
medium to
high
no
80
930%
3
35%
3
35%
86
1000%
yes
47
797%
6
10.2%
6
10.2%
59
1000%
Total
127
87.6%
9
6.2%
9
6.2%
145
100.0%
Approx.
Value Sig
Pearson's R
N of Valid Cases
188 024
145
42
-------
but Pearson's R value was . 188 and significant at the .024 level.
As was indicated in Table 33 and described earlier, the survey obtained information on the
types and number of private organizations to which landholders belonged. An "Index of Total
Private Organizational Involvement" was created and three categories of participation in private
organizations were established: none to low, medium, and high. Cross tabulations were run between
participation in conservation programs and the number of private organizations to which respondents
belong. The notion was that participation in private organizations which support conservation goals
and use of conservation practices would be related The cross tabulations which follow reveal a
statistical significance, but the relationship is negative because of the high number of respondents
(62 out of 81 cases) who did not participate in private organizations or in conservation cost-share
programs.
Table 58: Crosstabulation of participation in conservation cost/share programs with organization
involvement.
Private organizational involvement
conservation cost/sh
programs
Total
Pearson
Chi-Square
N of Valid Cases
no to low medium high
involvement involvement involvement Total
lare participation
low to
medium
medium to
high
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
12.970* 4
81
62 8
91.2% 80.0%
2
2.9%
4 2
5 9% 20 0%
68 10
1000% 100.0%
Asymp
Sig.
(2-sided)
.011
1 71
33 3% 87.7%
1 3
33 3% 3 7%
1 7
33 3% 8 6%
3 81
100.0% 1000%
a 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5.
The minimum expected count is .11.
43
-------
Correlation
Approx
Value . Sig.
Pearson's R
N of Valid Cases
.292.
81
008
Data which follow in Table 59 show cross tabulations between the Index of Participation in
Conservation Programs and an index that is introduced here for the first time - "Opinions or Support
for Private Organizations." To develop the index or scale, scores were determined on each of eight
private organizations as follows: "strongly oppose" or "oppose" were scored as "1"; "no opinion", was
scored as "2"; and, "support" or "strongly support" were scored as "3". After determining the
aggregate score for each respondent, three categories of support for the "Index of Support for Private
Organizations" were established as follows: no support 12 - 15; no opinion to low support 16 - 19,
and support to high support 20 - 26.
Again, the notion was that support for conservation programs would be positively related to
opinions toward or support for private organizations which support conservation efforts. This was
not the case. Data in Table 59 are not statistically significant, primarily because of the large number
of "no opinion" responses and the lack of participation in conservation programs. Only 14 of the 93
respondent cases in this situation participated in conservation practices.
I able 59: Crosstabulation of participation in conservation cost/share programs with
support for private organizations.
Support for private organizations
no opinion to support to
no support low support high support
Total participation in
conservation cost/share
programs
Total
no
participate
low to
medium
medium to
high
3
75.0%
1
25 0%
4
100.0%
54
88 5%
2
33%
5
82%
61
1000%
22
78 6%
3
10 7%
3
10 7%
28
1000%
Total
79
84 9%
5
5.4%
9
97%
93
100.0%
44
-------
It was noted earlier (see Table 39) that a number of landholders who used conservation
practices reported that they did not receive outside support to help underwrite the cost associated
with the practice. Thus, cross tabulations were calculated between the use of cost/share conservation
practices and whether or not respondents received outside support to help underwrite the costs. The
three categories in the Index for Use of Conservation Practices Without Outside Support were
used in these calculations. Statistical tests were not significant, when cross tabulations and
statistical analysis were calculated among the two indexes (see Table 60). Further, only two
respondents who used conservation practices without outside support had a high level of
participation in conservation cost share programs and eight had no participation in conservation
cost/share programs. To illustrate the situation more clearly, 58 or 79.5 % of the 73 respondents did
not participate in cost/share programs for which financial support might be available. (See earlier
section on opinions toward conservation issues and use of conservation practices without outside
financial support.)
Table 60: Crosstabulatlon of participation in conservation cost/share programs with participation
in conservation practices in which respondent did not receive any outside financial support.
Participation in conservation practices in
which respondent did not receive any
outside financial support
conservation
cost/share programs
Total
low medium high
participation participation participation
participation
low to
medium
medium to
high
31
81.6%
2
5.3%
5
13 2%
38
100.0%
19
76 0%
4
16 0%
2
80%
25
100.0%
8
80 0%
2
20.0%
10
1000%
Total
58
79 5%
6
82%
9
12 3%
73
100 0%
As was mentioned earlier, the survey asked respondents' opinions regarding the quality of
the environment in the county where land was owned. Data presented in Table 61 present cross
tabulations between participation in conservation programs and opinions about the quality of the
environment. Statistical test for Chi-Square is significant at the .048 level, with most of the
respondents believing that the quality of the environment had improved tending not to participate in
conservation programs.
45
-------
Table 61: Crosstabulation of participation in conservation programs with respondent
opinions of the local environment.
Op mions of the local environment
Participation in
conservation
cost/share program.
Total
no
participation
low to
medium
medium to
high
have gotten
worse
2
40.0%
2
40.0%
1
20 0%
5
100.0%
have stayed
the same
34
82.9%
2
49%
5
12.2%
41
100.0%
inlasMOyl
have
improved
31
86.1%
2
5.6%
3
8.3%
36
100.0%
B*
Total
67
81.7%
6
7.3%
9
11.0%
82
100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson
Chi-Square
N of Valid Cases
Value
9.598a
82
Asymp
Sig
df (2-sided)
4 .048
a 7 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than
5 The minimum expected count is 37
Cross tabulations and statistical tests of significance were calculated for farmer, non-farmer
participation in conservation programs. Data presented in Table 62 reveal no significance;
however, the percentage and number of farmers who fall in the medium and high rage of
participation of conservation programs without financial support is much higher than the numbers for
respondents who are not farmers.
46
-------
Table 62: Crosstabulation of participation in conservation practices with no
outside financial support with farmer and non farmer.
Do you farm?
Participation in
conservation practices
(no financial support)
Total
low
participation
medium
participation
high
participation
no
15
68.2%
5
22.7%
2
9.1%
22
100.0%
yes
23
46.9%
18
36.7%
8
16.3%
49
100.0%
Total
38
53.5%
23
32.4%
10
14.1%
71
100.0%
Data presented in Table 63 were derived from cross tabulations of two indexes of behavior,
one of the strongest types of measurements that can be made. The Index of Participation in
Conservation Programs Without Outside Financial Support and the "Index of Organizational
Involvement" (membership) both measure behavior of respondents. For this Index of
Organizational Involvement, low levels were 0-2, medium scores were 2-4, and high levels were 5
-8. Further, statistical tests and correlations are significant, but the relationship is negative, e.g.
most of the cases fall into no levels participation in conservation and no to low involvement in
private organizations.
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson
Chi-Square
N of Valid Cases
Value
15.8158
46
Asymp.
Sig.
df (2-sided)
4 .003
a- 7 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than
5. The minimum expected count is 39
47
-------
63: Crosstabulation of participation in conservation practices with no outside financial
with private organizational involvement
Private organizational involvement
conservation practice
(no financial support)
Total
no to low medium high
involvement involvement involvement Total
low
participation
medium
participation
high
participation
21
61.8%
11
32.4%
2
5.9%
34
100.0%
2
22.2%
3
33 3%
4
44 4%
9
1000%
23
50.0%
3 17
100.0% 37.0%
6
130%
3 46
100.0% 100.0%
Correlation
Value
Approx.
Sig
Pearson's R
N of Valid Cases
394
46
007
Another measure was to test for the relationship between attitudes and behavior, e.g. level of
support or opinions toward private organizations and participation in conservation practices without
outside financial support. Using the two indexes which have been described above, cross tabulations
48
-------
Table 64: Crosstabulation of participation in conservation practices (with no outside financ'Ql
support) with support of private organizations.
Support of private organizations
Participation in
conservation practice
(no financial support) .
Total
low
participation
medium
participation
high
participation
no support
1
33.3%
1
33.3%
1
33.3%
3
100.0%
support to
no opinion high support
16
57.1%'
7
25.0%
5
17.9%
28
100.0%
7
43.8%
8
50.0%
1
6.3%
16
100.0%
Total
24
51.1%
16
34.0%
7
14.9%
47.
100.0%..
and statistical analysis were calculated. Results are presented in Table 64. As in Table 63, most
respondents fall into the low participation row and the fewest number were in the high participation
row. Thus, tests are not significant.
Table 65: Crosstabulation of participation in conservation practices with no outside financial
support with respondents' opinions of the local environment
Opinions of the local environment in last 10 yrs
have gotten have stayed
worse the same
Participation in
conservation practices
(no financial support)
Total
low
participation
medium
participation
high
participation
4
80 0%
1
20 0%
5
100.0%
13
59.1%
8
36.4%
1
4.5%
22
100.0%
have
improved
14
51 9%
8
29.6%
5
18.5%
27
100.0%
Total
31
57 4%
17
31.5%
6
11.1%
54
100.0%
Proceeding to seek additional information which might help to explain relationships among
variables, cross tabulations were calculated between the "Index of Participation in Conservation
Practices Without Outside Financial Support" and the "Index of Opinions Toward the Local
Environment." Results presented in Table 65 indicate that there are only 54 respondents with
49
-------
complete responses on these two indexes. However, statistical tests are not significant. High levels
of participation remain low, as has been the case for previous analysis.
Data presented in Table 66 show cross tabulations between opinions toward the quality of
the environment in the county where the land is owned and the number of acres owned, or the three
sample types. While results from this cross tabulation are not statistically significant, an
overwhelming number of the respondents who owned large acreage indicated that the quality of the
environment has either remained the same (43.8%) or improved (50%) in the past 10 years. No
respondent who was a small acreage owner reported that the quality of the environment had gotten
worse.
Table 66: Crosstabulation of respondents' opinions of the local environment over
the past 10 years with the number of acres owned in Lower Yazoo Basin counties.
Number of acres owned in Lower
Yazoo Basin counties
Opinions of Have gotten
the local worse
environment
Have stayed
the same
Have improved
Total
Low: 39 or
fewer
acres
6
85.7%
1
14.3%
7
1000%
Medium*
40-112
acres
1
11.1%
5
55.6%
3
33 3%
9
100.0%
High 120
or more
acres
4
63%
28
43.8%
32
50 0%
64
100.0%
Total
5
63%
39
48.8%
36
45 0%
80
100 0%
Data presented in Table 67 include cross tabulations for farmers and non-farmers on their
opinions about the quality of the environment. Again, only five respondents believed that the quality
of the environment had gotten worse, three non farmers and two farmers. Distributions between the
non-farmer and farmer respondents on if the environment had stayed the same or gotten better were
almost identical. See Table 67, which follows.
50
-------
Table 67: Crosstabulation of respondents' opinions of the local
environment over the past 10 years with farmers and non farmers.
Do you farm?
•
Opinions of
the local
environment
Total
Have gotten
worse
Have stayed
the same
Have improved
no
3
7.7%
21
53.8%
15
38.5%
39
100.0%
yes
2
5.0%
20
50.0%
18
45.0%
40
100.0%
Total
5
6.3%
41
51.9%
33
41.8%
79
100.0%
Additional cross tabulations regarding opinions toward the quality of the environment were
run with level of education and results are presented in Table 68 and reveal that there were 80 usable
cases. As has been the case with every cross tabulation on the quality of the environment, no
statistical relationship was found. Persons with high school or less education were most likely to
believe that the quality of the environment had improved, and the highest number of observations on
the "quality of the environment remaining the same for the last 10 years" was by persons who had a
college degree or a graduate degree. See Table 68, which follows.
51
-------
I
-------
Correlation
Approx
Value Sig.
Pearson sR .312 .015
N of Valid Cases 60
When cross tabulations were run for level of household income and opinions about the
quality of the environment, statistical correlation was found for Pearson's R at the .015 level.
Among the 28 usable cases in the $75,000 or more category, none reported that the quality of the
environment had gotten worse. Conversely, among the respondents in the less than $45,000
category, 68.2% believed that the quality of the environment had remained the same or gotten worse.
See Table 70, which follows.
Support for Reforestation Among Landholders
A major purpose of this study was to gather information about opinions toward reforestation
and the degree of support among landholders for reforestation of wetlands and marginally productive
agricultural land. Data presented in Table 19 indicated that 52 landholders owned land that had
been declared as wetlands by the National Resource Conservation Service (formerly SCS). In this
section, the results from cross tabulations and statistical tests for significance are presented in
relation to the landholder's ownership of wetlands and whether respondents were leasing out lands
owned for recreational purposes, the desire to reforest lands owned, opinions on five of the separate
items in the Index of Opinion Toward Conservation Issues, age, place of residence and number of
acres of wetlands owned. Several relationships of significance and high interest emerge.
Data in Table 71 reveal that the are 41 usable cases for cross tabulation. Of the 17
respondents who appeared in this table, only six who owned indicated that they leasing out this
wetland for recreational purposes. These data suggest that little income is being generated among
these landholders from leasing wetlands for recreational purposes in the LYB project area. The test
for Chi-Square was not significant.
53
-------
Table 71: Crosstabulation for ownership of land that has been
designated as wetlands by the NRCS with are you currently leasing
out land owned for recreational purposes.
Leases Out Land for
Recreation
Owns Wetlands no
yes
Total
No
21
65.6%
11
34.4%
32
100.0%
Yes
6
50.0%
6
50.0%
12
100.0%
Total
27
61.4%
17
38.6%
44
100.0%
Data in Table 72 present cross tabulations between opinions toward the reforestation of
wetland and marginally productive agricultural lands by whether or not they owned wetlands Of
the 152 respondents, 136 were eligible for analysis for these two variables. Statistical tests reveal a
strong relationship between support for reforestation, even though 88 respondents indicated that they
did not own wetlands. Of the 136 eligible respondents, 99 supported reforestation of marginally
productive agricultural land. Worth noting is the fact that none of the respondents who owned
wetlands opposed the reforestation of marginally productive agricultural lands Statistical tests are
significant at the .032 level of confidence and a strong correlation exist between these two variables.
See data and results presented in Table 72 and the two boxes which follow it.
Table 72 . Cross tabulations for opinion about the ownership of
wetlands with opinions about reforestation of marginally productive
agricultural lands
Ownership of Wetlands Opinions about reforestation of
marginally productive agnc lands
No
Yes
Totals
oppose no
opinion
5 25
7
5 32
support
58
41
99
Totals
88
48
136
54
-------
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson
Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
6.874-
8.666
6.817
136
df
2
2
1
Asymp.
Sig
(2-tailed)
.032
.013
.009
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expressed count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.76.
Symmetric Measures
Other
Number
valid cases
Pearson's R
Spearrman
Correlation
Value
.225
217
136
Asymp.
Std.
Error
.065
073
Approx.
T
2.669
2574
Approx
Sig
.009-
.011-
a. Based on normal approximation
Data presented in Table 73 were derived from cross tabulation of 131 eligible cases who
responded to the two variables, "opinion about participating in the Wetlands Reserve Program" and
"a desire to reforest land that they owned." Again, support for participating in the WRP program was
high and 33 of the respondents who owned wetland expressed support for participating in the WRP
program. No opinion responses were much higher among those respondents who did not desire to
reforest land that they owned. Only two respondents who owned forest lands opposed participation
in the WRP program, while only seven of the 86 who reported that they "did not desire to reforest
land they owned" opposed the WRP program.
These data indicate that the Nature Conservancy and other organizations such as the U. S.
Forest Service and the Mississippi Department of Forestry have and opportunity to expand their
55
-------
program in the LYB project area. Statistical test for significance and correlation are positive, at the
.002 and .001 levels. See results which are presented in Table 73 and the two boxes after it.
Table 73. Cross tabulation of opinion about participating in Wetlands
Reserve Program with desire to reforest land owned
Desires to reforest land
owned
No
Yes
Total
Opinion about participating in
Wetland Reserve Program
oppose no support Total
opinion
7 44 35 86
2 10 33 45
9 54 68 131
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp.
Sig
(2-tailed)
Pearson
Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Lmear
Association
N of Valid Cases
a. 2 cells (33 3%) have expressed
expected count is 1 76
12.651- 2 .002
13061 2 .001
10052 1 .002
131
count less than 5. The minimum
Symmetric Measures
Value Asymp Approx Approx
Std. T Sig
Error
Other Pearson's R
Spearman
Correlation
N of valid
cases
278 081 3288 001-
298 081 3542 001-
131
a. Based on normal approximation
56
-------
Data presented in Table 74 contain the results from cross tabulation of the 134 eligible
respondents who desired to reforest land they owned compared with opinions about a specific
statement concerning whether respondents supported or opposed a policy which would allow state
and federal agencies to acquire land far reforestation. More specific questions about the acquisition
of land for reforestation follow in additional cross tabulations.
Forty percent or 54 respondents supported and 33 opposed federal and state agencies
acquiring land for reforestation purposes. Respondents who indicated "no opinion" comprised more
than one-third of the cases, with 36 or 41% of the respondents who did not desire to reforest land
they owned stating that they held "no opinion" on this issue. The percentage of all respondents
favoring action by state and federal agencies is slightly higher (50%) among landholders who desire
to reforest land than it is for those who do not desire to reforest land (34%). Results indicate that the
number of "oppose" and "no opinion" is higher among persons who do not desire to forest land that
they own than it is among respondents who desire to reforest land owned.
Again, data suggest that there is a distinct educational and programmatic opportunity in
reforestation for The Nature Conservancy, the U. S. Forest Service, the Mississippi Department of
Forestry, Delta Wildlife Foundation, and other organizations. While the data in this table are
interesting and revealing, statistical tests for differences and correlations approached significance but
were not.
Table 74. Cross tabulation for respondents' opinion about state or
federal agencies acquiring land for reforestation with
ownership of land that may or mav not desire to reforest
Desires to reforest land
owned
NO
Yes
Total
Opinion about state and
agencies acquiring land
reforestation
oppose no
opinion
21 36
12 11
33 47
federal
for
support
30
24
54
Total
87
47
134
57
-------
Data in Table 75 present cross tabulations for respondents' opinions about the state acquiring
land from willing sellers for reforestation when that land is adjacent to state-operated wildlife
management areas with the desire to reforest land owned. While statistical tests were not significant,
frequency of opposition and no opinions were higher among respondents who did not desire to
reforest land they owned. Also, 68% or 32 respondents who desired to reforest land they owned
supported action by the state to acquire land for reforestation, while only 56% or 49 of the
respondents who did not desire to reforest land supported the state acquiring land for reforestation.
Only four respondents who desired to reforest land they owned opposed acquisition of land for
reforestation by the state, but three times as many (12) who did not desire to reforest land they
owned opposed such action.
Table 75. Cross tabulation for respondents' opinions about the State
acquiring land adjacent to state-operated wild life management
areas from willing sellers for reforestation with desire
to reforest land owned
Desire to Reforest Land Opinions about state acquiring
land adjacent to state-operated
wild life management areas from
willing sellers for reforestation
No
Yes
Total
oppose
12
4
16
no
opinion
27
11
38
support
49
32
81
Total
88
47
135
Data presented in Table 76, which follows, show cross tabulations for respondents's opinion
about the Federal Government acquiring land adjacent to federally-operated National Wildlife
Refuges from willing sellers for reforestation with the desire of respondents to reforest land that they
owned. Distributions in Table 76 vary only slightly from the previous one. Respondents appear to
hold essentially the same opinion about state or federal government acquiring land adjacent to wild
life management areas and/or wild refuges from willing sellers. The majority (57%) of the 132
respondents favor such action, but the results are not statistically significant, and frequencies in both
of the "no opinion" response cells are high, with 27 or 30% of the respondents who do not desire to
reforest land indicating that they have no opinion on this issue. Opportunities for the development of
proactive educational programs seem to abound.
58
-------
Table 76. Cross tabulation for respondents1 opinions about the Federal
Government acquiring land when it is adjacent to federally-operated
National Wildlife Refuges from willing sellers for reforestation with
^^^^^^^^^^ desire to reforest land owned
Desire to Reforest Land Opinions about Federal
Government acquiring land
adjacent to federally-operated
National Wildlife Refuges from
willing sellers for reforestation
No
Yes
Total
oppose
14
5
19
no
opinion
27
10
37
support
44
32
76
Total
85
47
132
Data presented in Table 77 were obtained from cross tabulation of the respondents' desire to
reforest land that they own with age. As revealed in Table 12, Part One of this report, almost one
third of the respondents are 66 or more years of age. The percent of respondents who are more than
66 of age and do not desire to reforest land they own is almost four times greater (73% versus 27%
or 34 persons versus 13) than for those who do. Also, the cases in the 50 to 65 year age group who
do not desire to reforest land that they own are almost two to one against such action. Among the
youngest age group, there are more respondents who desire to reforest land they own. Statistical
tests for relationships and differences were not significant.
Table 77. Cross tabulations of ownership that respondents' desire to
reforest land owned with years of age
Desires to Reforest Age of Respondents
Land Owned
No
Yes
Total
29 to 49
years
25
19
44
50 to 65
years
26
15
41
66 years
or more
34
13
47
Total
85
47
132
59
-------
Data present in Table 78 were derived from cross tabulations by the desire to reforest land
owned with place of residence. Categories for places of residence were collapsed so comparisons
could be made between local landholders and absentee landlords regarding desire to reforest land
owned. Data reveal that respondents who live elsewhere in the United States or elsewhere in
Mississippi are much less likely to desire to reforest land that they own. Eighteen or 82% of those
who live elsewhere in the U. S. reported that they had no desire to reforest land, and 40 or 58% of
those who lived outside of the LYB project area, or elsewhere in Mississippi, reported that they had
no desire to reforest land they owned.
Conversely, when respondents lived in the same county as their land, only 14 or 35% stated
that they desired to reforest land they owned. In brief, approximately two thirds of the 84
respondents who did not live in the LYB project area had no desire to reforest land they owned.
Among the respondents who desired to reforest land that they owned, the largest number, 29 or 61%,
lived elsewhere in Mississippi and only four lived elsewhere in the United States. One wonders if
their desires are influenced by the prevalence of timber in "hill" areas of the state. Chi-Square test
were significant beyond the .05 level of confidence.
Table 78. Cross tabulations for respondents' desire to reforest land owned by
place of residence
Desires to Reforest Land Owned Place of Residence
Same
County
No
Yes
Total
26
14
40
Elsewhere
in Miss
40
29
69
Elsewhere
mU.S
18
4
22
Total
84
47
131
Chi-Sauare Tests
Value
Chi-Square
N of Valid Cases
4
.136
df
2
sig level
05
131
60
-------
Data presented in Table 79, which are divided into two parts, compares the number of
respondents who reported that they owned wetlands with those who desire to reforest wetlands with
the number of wetland acres owned. Because the number of eligible cases was so small, only 44, and
with only IT'owners of wetland indicating that they desire to reforest it, the frequency distributions
were not collapsed.
Of note is the fact that two thirds, or 21 of the respondents who owned fewer than nine acres,
reported that they desired to reforest the wetland they owned. This response may be due to the fact
that the types of production agriculture which prevail in the LYB project area are not conducive to
small scale acreage. Also, it may be that these holders of small acreage use their lands for recreation
and reforestation will benefit wildlife. For all of the remaining cells in parts one and two of the
table, no more than one case is observed in any cell. Finally, 61% of the respondents who owned
wetland reported that they desired to reforest it. Chi-Square test was not an appropriate tests for this
analysis; however, a Pearson's R value of .302 was derived and it is significant at the .046 level of
confidence.
Table 79 - Part I. Cross tabulations of ownership of wetlands that respondents'
desire to reforest with number acres owned
Desires to Reforest Wetland
Owned
No
Yes
Total
Table 79 - Part II. Cross
respondents' desire
Desires to Reforest Wetland
Owned
No
Yes
Total
Category of Wetland acres owned
1-9 10-74 75- 500-
499 599
11 1
21 1 1 1
32 1 1 2
tabulations of ownership of wetlands
to reforest with number acres owned
Categories of Wetland Acres Owned.
1.000 to 5.000
1000- 1500- 2000- 5000 +
4999 1999 4999
1111
1
2111
: 1 - 699
600-
649
1
1
2
that
Total
17
27
44
650-
999
1
1
61
-------
Symmetric Measures
Other
N of valid
cases
Value
Pearson's R .302
Spearman .194
Correlation
44
Asymp
Std.
Error
.093
.154
Approx
T
2.051
1.285
Approx.
Sig
.046-
.206-
a. Based on normal approximation
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp.
Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson a
Chi-Square 5'925 2 -052
N of Valid Cases 132
3 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than
5. The minimum expected count is 1.93.
V. Conclusions
There is overwhelming support for conservation practices and programs and for public
organizations among the 152 respondents to the Lower Yazoo Basin Project's survey of Opinions
and Behaviors of Landholders Regarding Conservation Practices and Programs. Support for
private organizations lagged behind support for public, especially governmental, organizations and
agencies. Support is strongest among younger landholders who own large tracts of land, who earn
higher levels of income and among farmers who operate large acreage. The Nature Conservancy,
and several other private sector organizations, do not have high levels of identity, memberships or
support among most of the landholders. While a 41% response rate to mailed-out questionnaires
may not be entirely representative of all landholders in the LYB Project Area, the survey does have
considerable scientific validity. If the "drop-off, pick-up method" had been used as was
recommended by the consultant, a return rate of more than 90% could have been obtained, and 300
or more cases would have been preferable.
62
-------
There is strong support for reforestation and other programs to improve the quality of the
environment and to improve the habitat for wildlife. Also, the belief prevails that the quality of the
environment has improved or at least remained the same during the past 10 years. Interestingly, the
opinion among respondents with various levels of education about the quality of the environment
does not vary significantly. Respondents who are strongly supportive of public organizations and
their conservation practices tend to own larger tracks of land, to have higher levels of income and to
have graduated from college.
Many respondents were undecided on numerous issues about the use of conservation
practices or participating in formal conservation programs. And, many were not aware of these
programs or participating in private organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, or Delta Wjjdlife
Foundation. It appears that private organizations which support programs and practices to improve
the quality of the environment face a major marketing and educational challenge. Most landholders
simply do not belong to these organizations and were uninformed about their work. Frequently, the
respondents indicated that they had "no opinion" about the work of many private and public
organizations which focus their efforts primarily in areas related to conservation.
Absentee and older landholders present a challenge to The Nature Conservancy and other
private and public organizations. Older and absentee landholders are less concerned about issues
related to reforestation and improving the quality of the habitat or environment in the LYB Project
Area. Also, only a very few of the landholders receive income from leasing out wetlands for
recreation. Landholders less than SO years of age are much more supportive of reforestation and
more likely to participate in conservation practices than persons beyond 66 years of age Also, the
questionnaire sought landholder opinion about the role of the state or federal government in
acquiring marginally productive agricultural land for reforestation. Younger respondents where
much more supportive of intervention by state and federal government than were older respondents.
Also, LYB Project Area residents were more supportive of government intervention than were
absentee landholders.
Strong support for conservation practices may be undergirded by the fact that many of the
landholders are "outdoors people." In addition to the fact that 58 are outdoors often because they are
farmers, men and women frequently engaged in hunting, fishing, boating, site seeing, birdwatching,
etc. However, males have higher levels of support for conservation programs than females.
63
-------
Only 58 or slightly more than one-third of the respondents were farmers. This may account
for the fact that there was so little participation in conservation programs among the 152
respondents. In fact, there is a negative correlation between participation in cost/share conservation
programs and support for private organizations.
Results from this study provide The Nature Conservancy and other private and public
organizations concerned about the quality of the habitat for wildlife with two major opportunities
and challenges. First, those respondents who are most supportive of conservation practices to
improve the quality of the environment tend to be younger, highly educated, have much higher levels
of income and operate large acreage. One can safely assume that these landholders could be
mobilized to help develop and implement policies which will improve the quality of the habitat in
the LYB Project Area. Second, a large number of respondents answered that they had "no opinion"
on many issues, and that they had no involvement or participation in many practices related to
conservation and/or improving the quality of the environment. The Nature Conservancy and other
organizations have the opportunity to develop and implement major marketing and mass
communication programs to inform landholders about economic, physical, social and aesthetic
benefits from participating in programs and practices which will improve the quality of the
environment and benefit wildlife.
64
------- |