69th SWCS International Annual Conference “Making Waves in Conservation: Our Life on Land and Its Impact on Water” July 27-30, 2014 Lombard, IL

1. Women Non-operating Landowners:
Preliminary Results from a Multi-
Region Study
Peggy Petrzelka, USU
peggy.petrzelka@usu.edu
Ann Sorensen, AFT
asorensen@niu.edu
Supported by Rachel’s Network, USDA ERS1

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

3. What we know….
 NOLs own 42% of US ag land base (AELOS
1999).
 IA: (Duffy & Johanns 2012)
 Land under owner operator status dropped from
55% in 1982 to 40% in 2012
 Owners are aging, females > important
 49% of ag landowners = WNOLs, own 47% of
farmland & lease 52% of all acres.
 No comparable WNOLs info. in other states, a
critical gap in the data

5. Landlord-Tenant Relationship
 With so much farmland rented, the NOLs-tenant
relationship clearly plays a significant role in U.S. ag.
 Land tenure, has social, economic & environmental
implications (Gilbert & Harris 1984)
 Uneven power relations
 Rental rates may not reflect value of land asset, &
 Reduced land stewardship.

6. Women Non-Operating
Landowners (WNOLs)
 WNOLs face more gendered barriers than MNOLs to
managing their land for long-term sustainability.
 WNOLS self-censor, reluctant to discuss sustainable ag
practices because they’ll ‘scare away good tenants.”
(Carolan 2005)
 WNOLS describe inequitable power relations with male
tenants & express feelings of exclusion & alienation from
the farm decision-making.

7. Women Non-Operating
Landowners (WNOLs)
 Tenants dismiss WNOLS who want soil
conservation measures saying authoritatively that
they are not practical or effective (Eells 2008).
 WNOLs less likely to be involved in decisions about
conservation if older, retired, inherited the land, co-
owned the land with a sibling, or rented to a farmer
not related to them.
 MNOLs more involved unless a non-relative farmed
the land (Petrzelka & Marquart-Pyatt 2011).

8. WNOLs & farm decision-
making
 Women deeply committed to healthy farmland, farm families
& farm communities (Bregendahl & Hoffman 2010).
 Opportunity to reach WNOLs will reach high point over the
next decade as men pass away & women in their 60s, 70s &
80s inherit farmland.
 Older women may own about 75% of transferred farmland in
the next two decades (Kohl 1999).

9. Landlord-tenant relations may
differ regionally
 In CA & the South, relationships seen as coercive (Wells
1987) while in Midwest are complementary & harmonious
(Salamon 1992). BUT gender was not taken into account.
 In Midwest, women often “inherit” a tenant who may be a
neighbor, friend, or family member, goes to church with her
& is part of her community.
 Tremendous social pressure to forego questions or
problems related to farm management & express or imply
criticism of the tenant (Eells and Adcock 2012).

10. Landlord-tenant relations may
differ regionally
 These obstacles may or may not be present in other
regions of the country.
 Social origins of farm production systems vary
region to region.
 Northern Plains and Midwest historically “family
farming,” CA = “corporate farming,” South =
“share cropping.” (Pfeffer 1983)

11. Research Questions
 How does gender & non-operator land
ownership factor into conservation
decision-making & behavior on ag land?
 To what extent do gender & non-operator
landownership factors vary regionally?
 How does that affect conservation
implementation on leased land?

12. Methods
 Convene WNOLs in the USDA Production Regions.
 Meet for 3-4 hr to pilot test survey and discuss issues
faced as landowners.

13. Demographic Characteristics
Appalachia
(n=8)
Corn
Belt
Northern
Plains
Lake
States
(n=10)(n=6) (n=5)
Household Income
< $25,000 1 0 1 0
$25,001 - $175,000 4 3 2 10
> 175,001 1 1 1 0
Average Age 71 72 69 58
Average Acreage 179 475 912 106
Method of Acquisition of Land
Purchased 4 5 2 7
Inherited 3 1 3 2
Indicated own land with others 0 3 2 5
Identify as Farmer/Rancher 8 3 3 7

14. Decision Making on Land
Appalachia
(n=8)
Corn
Belt
Northern
Plains
Lake
States
(n=10)(n=6) (n=5)
Primary decision maker for land
Myself 8 5 4 7
Tenant primarily responsible for
making following decisions
Crop inputs (e.g. fertilizer, seed,
chemicals)
2 4 4 5
Tillage & harvesting practices 5 4 4 6
Crop varieties/rotations 4 4 4 6
Conservation practices 1 2 2 2
Livestock decisions (e.g.
stocking rate, rotational
grazing)
4 3 1
1

15. Conservation Decision Making
Appalachia
(n=8)
Corn
Belt
Northern
Plains
(n=5)
Lake
States
(n=10)(n=6)
When making conservation decisions
regarding my land it is important to considerŦ
Soil quality 1.57 1.33 1.4 1.2
Water quality 1.43 1.4 1.5 1.1
Future availability of land for agriculture 1.75 1.33 1.4 1.5
Need for income from the land 1.88 1.83 1.4 2.8
Needs of the tenant 3 2 1.8 2.4
Wildlife habitats 2 1.5 2.2 1.2
Biodiversity 1.86 2 2.75 1.5
Endangered species 2.14 2 2.4 1.4
Surrounding communities 2.57 2.33 2 2.62
Ŧ
On a scale where 1=Strongly Agree to 5=Strongly Disagree

16. Enrollment in Conservation
Programs Ŧ
Appalachia
(n=8)
Corn
Belt
Northern
Plains
Lake
States
(n=10)(n=6) (n=5)
# indicating enrolled or have received
financial or technical support in past
five years in:
Conservation Reserve Program 4 2 2 2
Cost Share 2 2 0 3
Planning Assistance 3 3 0 1
Conservation Easements 3 2 1 1
Ŧ
Number represents respondents indicating “yes”

17. Lease Characteristics
Appalachia
(n=8)
Corn
Belt
Northern
Plains
Lake
States
(n=10)(n=6) (n=5)
Lease Agreement
Cash rent with fixed payment 7 2 4 7
Crop share 0 1 0 2
Cash rent & crop share 1 0 0 1
Type of Lease
Written 5 4 3 6
Verbal 2 2 2 3
Duration
Year to year 6 6 3 7
Other 2 0 2 3

18. Qualities of current or
potential renters
Important qualities when evaluating
potential rentersŦ Appalachia
(n=8)
Corn
Belt
(n=6)
Northern
Plains
(n=5)
Lake
States
(n=10)
Trustworthiness 4 4 4 4
Length of time they (or their family) have
rented from my family
2 2.83 2.4 2.5
Ability to avoid contaminated waterways
(chemicals, nutrients, etc.)
3.86 4 4 3.9
Ability to maintain soil productivity 3.63 3.83 4 3.9
That they care about me 3.25 3.67 4 3.2
That they care about my land 3.88 3.67 4 4
Ability to avoid soil erosion 3.86 4 3.67 3.87
Amount of rent they will pay per acre 3.25 3.4 3.6 2.66
Ability to maintain wildlife habitat 2.86 3 3.25 3.65
Ŧ
On a scale where 1=Not at all important to 4=Very important

19. Interest in Land Management
Information Activities
Appalachia
(n=8)
Corn
Belt
(n=6)
Northern
Plains
(n=5)
Lake
States
(n=10)
Interest in following activitiesŦ
Access to education materials
developed expressly for WNOLs
3.63 3 3.4 3.5
Working with gov. agency that
provide conservation services
targeted to WNOLs
3.13 2.83 3 2.9
Belonging to network of women
farmland owners who face similar
challenges as you do
3.63 2.83 3.6 3.4
Participating in free discussions
with your peers on a regular basis to
compare notes/chat with women
conservation professionals
3.25 2.5 3.6 3.5
Ŧ
On a scale where 1=Not at all interested to 4=Very interested

20. Hungry for information, yet
invisible…..
e.g. California
--Executive Director of
CA Assoc. of Resource
Conservation Districts
--North Bay Food
Systems Advisor
--Farm Advisor for UC
Napa
--American Farmland
Trust
--CA Women for Ag --Natural Resource
Conservation Service
--VP, Director of the Ag
Exp. Stn, Director of
Cooperative Extension
--Strategic Initiative
Leader, Sustainable
Food Systems, Food
and Society Fellow
--Assoc. Cooperative
Extension Specialist
--Community Alliance
with Family Farmers
--CA Farm Link --Farms Reach
--Rangeland
Conservation Services

21. Preliminary Conclusions
 Already detecting regional differences
 In most regions, these women are “invisible”
 WNOLs want more information, more
networking with other WNOLs, access to more
informal participatory discussions
 Empowering these women should help us get
more conservation on the ground