Landowner Satisfaction with Conservation Programs in the Southern United States

Abstract

Landowner satisfaction with conservation programs affects their participation decisions and subsequently effectiveness of these programs in improving environmental quality. This study determined the influence of landownership goals, environmental concerns, frequency of contacts with federal agencies, and socioeconomic factors on landowner satisfaction with available conservation programs in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and East Gulf Coastal Plain sub-geographies of the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative. A generalized ordered logit model for each conservation program was constructed to analyze factors influencing landowner satisfaction levels with these programs. Of the 14 federal conservation programs assessed, the top programs, based on a satisfaction level, included Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The size of agricultural land owned, landownership goals including profit-making and personal recreation, concerns about wildlife habitat losses, and frequent contacts with federal agencies were positively related to landowner satisfaction levels. Better strategies addressing landowner’s environmental concerns, communicating technical knowledge, clarifying contract terms, and supporting financial resource leveraging will help reach the enrolled and non-enrolled landowners to increase their participation in conservation efforts.

1. Introduction

Federal spending on conservation programs facilitating the provision of ecosystem services in the United States has been increasing over the years [1]. For example, between 1996 and 2018, annual federal government spending on conservation programs increased almost trifold from USD 2.6 billion to USD 6.3 billion [1]. The growth of conservation spending indicated that natural resource concerns related to private lands have been increasing. Farm bill conservation programs were the largest programs in terms of budget size. During 2014–2018, a total of USD 29.5 billion was spent on 13 different conservation programs under the 2014 Farm Bill [1]. Similarly, the 2018 Farm Bill allocated USD 29.5 billion of mandatory funding for conservation over the next five years (2019–2023) [2]. The allocated amounts were the same as there were no major changes in the portfolio of available conservation programs for 2019–2023. Thus, voluntary incentive programs were consistently a priority conservation policy tool in the United States. Although they were initially designed to mitigate soil erosion, later, they started to focus on a wide range of environmental issues through land retirements, easements, and working land approaches to best meet the needs and environmental concerns of private landowners and society at large [3].

Overall, conservation programs have been effective in improving environmental quality across the United States [4]. Based on a synthesis of previous studies, Faulkner et al. [5] found that federal conservation programs implemented between 2000 and 2006 demonstrated good results in terms of wildlife habitat restoration and soil erosion reduction in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. For example, habitat restoration and sediment retention were measured in terms of how wetland conservation practices increased tree density (309–563/ha), the presence of bird species, and denitrification potential on restored sites. Similarly, performance evaluations of the Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) at a national level showed that the area of forest lands covered by written forest management plans increased by 12% between 2008 to 2011 [6]. A benefit-to-cost analysis of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in Iowa’s Indian Creek watershed indicated that environmental benefits provided by retired agricultural lands outweighed the cost of payments to landowners by a factor of 1.3 to 4.9 [7]. Quantified environmental benefits included flood damage reduction, water and air quality improvements, and greenhouse gas mitigation. Similarly, an evaluation of the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) in West Virginia found that its conservation easements helped improve wildlife habitat on private lands where private wetlands were located on open agricultural areas and had similar occupancy probabilities and species richness of wintering birds as publicly owned wetlands [8]. After controlling for vegetative characteristics, occupancy probabilities of song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), and swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) were 0.97, 0.37, 0.19, and 0.11, respectively, on restored private lands. Of 61 bird species identified on both sites, 13 species were detected in restored private wetlands, while only three species were detected in public wetlands.

Despite the enrollment of private grasslands in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota into conservation programs, studies indicated that conversion of grasslands and wetlands to croplands occurred, to a large extent, on the lands enrolled in conservation programs rather than on non-enrolled lands [9,10]. Grassland conversion was more favorable because of increased commodity prices for corn, soybean, and wheat; producing these high-priced crops was relatively viable on retired agricultural lands with a history of enrollment in conservation programs because of pre-existing farm operations on remaining unenrolled lands and corresponding returns to scale [9]. Thus, conservation programs did not always result in intended positive environmental outcomes. Although conservation programs were typically established to achieve ecological improvements, their effectiveness was often affected by socioeconomic factors such as private benefits, public attitudes towards conservation, and environmental awareness [11,12]. As socioeconomic factors are underlying causes of most environmental problems, social measures such as public support, relationships among key stakeholders, and attitudes and knowledge of local people have substantial effects on the sustainability of conservation efforts.

Landowner enrollment and adoption of conservation practices are required both for the success of conservation programs and achieving long-term conservation goals [13]. However, several factors affected landowner enrollment and subsequent adoption of required conservation practices in the past [14,15,16,17]. Many landowners expressed that environmental benefits were the primary motives, while monetary incentives were secondary reasons for participation in conservation programs such as ACEP, CRP, CSP, and EQIP [13,18]. However, conservation practitioners believed that monetary considerations were more important than environmental benefits to landowner decisions to enroll in CRP in Nebraska [19]. In addition, property size and environmental attitudes affected positively a landowner’s decision to participate in conservation programs [20,21]. Market rental rates and land productivity were negatively related to CRP enrollments in Colorado and the Corn Belt states because of the opportunity cost of enrollment represented by a loss of potential income [22,23]. Some landowners implemented conservation practices on their private lands without incentive payments and technical assistance because on-farm benefits (e.g., greater soil productivity) outweighed adoption costs [4]. However, landowners who received cost-share payments and relevant technical assistance were more likely to implement conservation practices than those who did not receive such assistance [24]. Similarly, landowners who owned land for environmental purposes implemented more conservation practices than those who owned land for financial reasons [25]. In addition, landowners who witnessed positive environmental outcomes and owned large, contiguous parcels of enrolled lands (>17.40 hectares (ha)) were more likely to implement conservation practices than other landowners [25]. However, land tenure and local regulations might limit the ability to implement specific conservation practices (e.g., prescribed burning [26,27]). Although landowner participation in conservation programs and adoption of conservation practices have been extensively studied [14,21], there is a pressing need to evaluate the experiences of program participants because active landowner participation in conservation programs and subsequent achievement of large-scale conservation goals largely depend on the degree to which they are satisfied with these programs.

Landowner satisfaction is one of the key social criteria reflecting the effectiveness of conservation programs. Landowners who were satisfied with conservation programs were more likely to increase the implementation of conservation practices both on their lands enrolled and non-enrolled in conservation programs [28]. Similarly, landowner satisfaction was associated with landowner retention and re-enrollment in conservation programs, and behavioral persistence reflecting the likelihood that a landowner who currently participated in a conservation program would continue implementing conservation practices after the program payments stop [13,29,30,31]. Therefore, understanding landowner satisfaction is important for improving the long-term participation of landowners and then increasing the cost-effectiveness of conservation programs.

Few studies evaluated landowner satisfaction with conservation programs or identified factors affecting program satisfaction. Egan et al. [32] determined that most landowners in West Virginia were satisfied with FSP overall as well as its key program attributes. Specifically, landowners were satisfied with the quality of forest stewardship plans and technical assistance of foresters who prepared these plans. As a result, landowners implemented most of the prescribed forest management activities such as stand improvement, timber harvesting, grapevine removal, and wildlife habitat improvements. However, some landowners were unsatisfied with FSP because of property tax increases due to filing a forest stewardship plan, inadequate assistance from state foresters, and lack of funding for implementing noncommercial forest stewardship practices. Similarly, Selinske et al. [29] conducted a study in Cape province of South Africa and determined that private forest landowner satisfaction with a voluntary conservation program was related to having a better understanding of management practices and partnership efforts. However, there were also some concerns related to dissatisfaction with the program because of a lack of communication and management support. Thus, program-implementing agencies need to provide continuous and tangible support such as offering outreach and technical assistance and leveraging financial resources from other programs to improve landowner satisfaction levels and meet the agency’s conservation goals.

Two studies measured landowner satisfaction with Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). The WRP, renamed as Wetland Reserve Easements under ACEP after the 2014 Farm Bill, was designed to incentivize landowners to retire their marginal agricultural lands and convert them to wetlands that will provide habitats for wildlife. Forshay et al. [33] found that 70% of landowners participating in WRP in Wisconsin were satisfied with the program. The major reasons for satisfaction included participation in easement planning and implementation, being able to monitor wetland restoration processes, and the availability of monetary incentives. Landowner participation in easement planning and implementation helped tailor conservation plans as per their needs. However, despite overall satisfaction with WRP, some landowners raised concerns about limited communication with NRCS staff. In contrast, Stroman and Kreuter [34] determined that most landowners were dissatisfied with WRP in Texas. Specific reasons for dissatisfaction were related to restrictive easement constraints, inflexible land management options, and unsatisfactory restoration outcomes such as the spread of invasive plant species. Thus, conservation programs that help landowners meet their ownership objectives can potentially enhance landowner satisfaction. Otherwise, conservation programs would not be able to meet their conservation goals, while landowners would not be able to attain ownership objectives, possibly leading to low conservation program enrollment rates and negatively impacting conservation efforts.

The above studies indicated that program characteristics such as cost-share payments, technical assistance, concerns about contract terms, environmental improvement outcomes, and relationship with an agency implementing a conservation program were associated with landowner satisfaction. These program characteristics are the external factors that affect landowner satisfaction. However, how various internal factors, such as private land attributes and environmental concerns, affect landowner satisfaction with conservation programs is still not well understood. Landowner satisfaction indicates how well the conservation program is working from their perspective and can provide guidance that will help make programmatic changes to increase program participation and conservation practice adoption. The broad and active participation of landowners in conservation programs is necessary to obtain large-scale positive ecological outcomes. To this end, a better understanding of landowner satisfaction on a multi-state scale can be helpful in developing a portfolio of conservation programs that will be more effective in meeting the needs of landowners with diverse ownership goals [34]. Each state might vary by natural ecosystems, local regulations, and economic conditions, so landowner satisfaction across states provides in-depth knowledge of overall program effectiveness. Therefore, this study objective was to determine the influence of landownership goals, environmental concerns, frequency of contacts with service-providing agencies, and socioeconomic factors on landowner satisfaction with available conservation programs. Conservation programs are voluntary, and most of them have time-limited contracts with landowners; therefore, program satisfaction is crucial for re-enrollment of private lands under expired contracts and the timely completion of conservation practices.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GCPO LCC) is one of the 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives under the United States Department of the Interior. GCPO LCC aims at achieving shared conservation goals and sustainable natural resource management at a landscape scale in cooperation with various conservation stakeholders. This study was conducted in Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) and East Gulf Coastal Plain (EGCP), which represent two of five sub-geographies of GCPO LCC in the southern United States (Figure 1). The MAV extends from Cairo, Illinois to the confluence of the Mississippi River with the Gulf of Mexico in Louisiana and partly covers six states: Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. The sub-geography encompasses an area of 10 million ha, of which 3.08 million ha are forests and 8.70 thousand ha are grasslands [35,36]. EGCP covers parts of six states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The total area of EGCP is 25 million ha, of which 13.90 million ha are forests and 9.20 thousand ha are grasslands [35,36].

MAV and EGCP are rich in biodiversity and include unique forest ecosystems. In the MAV, bottomland hardwood forests occupy 2.10 million ha and represent the predominant habitat type [37]. Bottomland hardwood forests provide habitat to many priority wildlife species including the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus) and several breeding bird species. In the EGCP, pine forests, including open pine stands, are the predominant habitat type that extends over 9 million ha. Pine forests include four endemic pine species commonly known as the southern yellow pines and include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.), and slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm.). These pine ecosystems provide habitat to threatened and endangered wildlife species such as gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla).

2.2. Conservation Programs in the Southern United States

Federal agencies within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) such as NRCS, Farm Service Agency (FSA), United States Forest Service (USFS), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are tasked, among other responsibilities, to provide technical and financial assistance to private landowners through various conservation programs. Among the Farm Bill conservation programs, EQIP and CSP are the largest working lands programs in terms of budgets allocated for conservation activities [2]. Similarly, CRP and ACEP are the largest land retirement and easement programs in terms of conservation expenditures, although some practices under these programs provide support also for working lands [2]. Working lands are the private lands where landowners actively manage the lands for forestry and/or agricultural crops production. Brief descriptions of USDA conservation programs available in the study area are included in

Table 1. Description of federal conservation programs providing technical and financial assistance to private landowners in Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee) and East Gulf Coastal Plain (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee), United States.

Conservation Program	Federal Agency	Establishment Year	Number of Contracts	Area Covered (ha)	Description
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) a	NRCS	2014	673	70,117	ACEP is a land retirement and easement program that includes agricultural land easements and wetland reserve easements. It pays partly to obtain easements and establish conservation practices. Wetland reserve easements are available for 30 years or in perpetuity.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) b	FSA	2008	5145	Not available	BCAP provides technical and financial assistance (matching, establishment, and annual payments for 5 to 15 years) to establish, cultivate, and harvest eligible biomass crops.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) c	FSA	1985	156,444	1,442,933	CRP is largest land retirement program which provides financial assistance as cost-share and annual rental payments for 10- to 15-year contracts to improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat.
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) a	NRCS	2002	18,835	5,853,989	CSP, a working lands program, provides annual payments for conservation practices for five years to address priority natural resource concerns (e.g., water quality, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, soil quality).
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) a	NRCS	1935	Not available	1,022,585	CTA program does not provide financial assistance; however, it provides technical assistance to any group or individual interested in conserving natural resources and sustaining agricultural production.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) a	NRCS	1996	37,800	1,800,558	EQIP is a working lands program. It provides cost-share and technical assistance through contracts from 1 to 10 years (typically 1 to 3 years). These contracts help to plan and implement conservation practices that address natural resource concerns.
Forest Legacy Program (FLP) d	USFS	1990	101	75,553	FLP protects environmentally important forest areas that are threatened by conversion to non-forest uses. It purchases private forest lands from landowners or protects them through perpetual conservation easements.
Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) e	USFS	1990	Not available	131,097	FSP provides technical assistance to develop a forest management plan. Active forest management enhances and sustains multiple forest resources and contributes to healthy and resilient landscapes.
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI) a	NRCS	1991	Not available	Not available	GLCI is now known as National Grazing Lands Coalition. GLCI helps to maintain and improve the management and the health of grazing lands.
Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) a	NRCS	2003	36	4615	HFRP assists in restoring, enhancing, and protecting private forest lands through 10- or 30-year cost-share agreements or permanent easements for maintaining threatened and endangered species habitats.
Landowner Incentive Program (LIP)	USFWS	2003	Not available	Not available	LIP protects and restores habitats for rare and at-risks species on private lands through cost-share payments.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFWP) f	USFWS	1987	Not available	229,862 *	PFWP provides cost-share and technical assistance to help meet habitat needs of Federal Trust Species (e.g., migratory birds, threatened and endangered species). The partnership agreements include a minimum of 10-year commitment.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) a	NRCS	2014	2055	217,432	RCPP mainly assists other conservation programs, implemented at regional or watershed scales, through partnership agreements of up to five years period.
Southern Pine Beetle Prevention and Restoration Program (SPBPRP) d	USFS	2003	Not available	404,686 **	SPBPRP provides cost-share and technical assistance to restore forest sites affected by southern pine beetle by implementing thinning of pine stands.

^a Natural Resources Conservation Service [38]; ^b U.S. Department of Agriculture [39]; ^c Farm Service Agency [40]; ^d U.S. Forest Service [41]; ^e National Association of State Foresters [42]; ^f U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [43]. * Due to data unavailability and aggregation, this estimate (1987–2011) did not exactly match the study area as it covered PFWP’s southeast region (10 states). ** This figure represented the southern United States (13 states) as of October 2011. It did not match exactly the study area and covered both public and private forests.

.

2.3. Survey Description

Data were collected through a mail survey of landowners in the MAV and EGCP. The sampling frame consisted of landowners who owned at least four ha (10 ac) of land classified as forest or agricultural land and located within one of the two GCPO LCC sub-geographies. The minimum property size was one of the eligibility requirements for landowners to qualify for enrollment in conservation programs. Names and addresses of landowners meeting the selection criteria were obtained from a commercial mailing list provider. Typically, a commercial mailing list provider obtains such information from public records and updates it regularly. In this study, landowners were not classified as either forest or agricultural landowners because such classification may not be appropriate as numerous landowners owned similar proportions of both forest and agricultural lands.

The survey sample size was determined based on the expected response rate and margin of error. At least 384 responses were needed from each sub-geography to limit the margin of sampling error to 5% at a 95% confidence level [44]. It was assumed a minimum survey response rate from approximately 493,000 ownerships representing cropland, pastureland and woodland areas would be 20% [45,46]. A stratified random sampling method was used to ensure equal representation of landowners from both sub-geographies. The survey was sent to 4000 randomly selected landowners (2000 landowners in each sub-geography) in spring 2015 following the Tailored Design Method for conducting mail surveys using four mailing contacts consisting of an introductory letter, survey questionnaire with a cover letter, a reminder and thank you postcard, and a replacement survey questionnaire with a cover letter [47]. The survey instrument was developed based on inputs from forestry and conservation program experts. In addition, a human dimension expert thoroughly reviewed the survey questionnaire to ensure clarity of questions and measurement scales. The structured questionnaire included questions related to the size of private land owned, landownership goals, environmental concerns, frequency of contacts with organizations delivering conservation programs, satisfaction with conservation programs, willingness to participate in a hypothetical conservation program, and socioeconomic characteristics. This study mainly focused on aspects related to landowner satisfaction with conservation programs.

2.4. Non-Response Bias Testing

A potential non-response bias in the survey data was checked by comparing landowner socioeconomic characteristics with those reported in National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) for the years 2011–2013 for the southern United States following the approach implemented by Häbesland et al. [48] and Kang et al. [49]. The comparison characteristics included age, gender, education, household income, and forest land area owned. Similarly, key socioeconomic characteristics such as age, gender, absentee status, forest land area owned, and agricultural land owned were also compared with statistics reported in the 2017 Census of Agriculture for study area states. Similar mean values of variables between this study sample and the NWOS or the Census of Agriculture statistics indicated a potential absence of non-response bias in survey data.

2.5. Econometric Model

Landowners can derive enhanced satisfaction from participating in conservation activities that matter to them and future generations because it helps them address environmental concerns related to their land [50]. They can further improve their personal well-being due to an increased access to various ecosystem services facilitated by conservation programs such as clean air, freshwater, visually appealing landscapes, and recreation [51]. However, there are numerous aspects other than environmental factors that influence landowner satisfaction with conservation programs such as program ability to help landowners achieve their landownership goals, its ability to address and mitigate environmental concerns, and frequency and quality of communications with agencies implementing conservation programs [29,33]. In addition, landowner satisfaction may depend on landowner socioeconomic characteristics because diverse landowners may have different ownership goals and program preferences [34]. Landowner satisfaction with a conservation program can be represented by an approximation of a landowner’s utility and, therefore, a structural approach can be adopted to predict and explain satisfaction levels [52,53]. Given that the landowner satisfaction level was measured with an ordered-response discrete variable, an ordered logit model was specified in terms of probability that a landowner will be satisfied with a given conservation program:

$$\begin{array}{l}P\left(S_i>j\right)=\frac{exp\left({\alpha }_j+X_i\beta \right)}{1+\left[exp\left({\alpha }_j+X_i\beta \right)\right]}\\ j=1,2,\dots ,m-1\end{array}$$

(1)

where j is a level of satisfaction, and j = 1 represents category 1 versus category 2 and 3, j = 2 represents category 1 and 2 versus category 3; X_i is a vector of observed independent variables representing private land attributes, landowner concern about environmental issues, frequency of contacts with a federal agency administering a conservation program, and socioeconomic characteristics; b is a vector of parameters; ${\alpha }_j$ are cut-off points for satisfaction thresholds; and m is the number categories of the ordered-dependent variable. Basic formulation of the ordered choice model implies that it produces an m − 1 set of binary choice models with different constants but a common slope vector, b [54]. This equality of parameters is also known as parallel regression assumption and can be tested as a model specification test [55]. The key problem with ordered choice model is that its assumption is often violated because it is overly restrictive [56]. If the null hypothesis of parallel regression is rejected, then a generalized ordered logit model should be used to avoid incorrect and misleading estimates [56].

A generalized ordered logit model or partial proportion odds model relaxes the parallel regression or proportional odds assumption for all variables. Thus, a generalized ordered logit model is less restrictive than an ordered logit model and more parsimonious than a multinomial logit model [57]. Considering that the parallel regression assumption might be violated only on a subset of variables, a generalized ordered logit model can be expressed as [56]:

$$\begin{array}{l}P\left(S_i>j\right)=\frac{exp\left({\alpha }_j+X{1}_i\beta 1+X{2}_i\beta 2+X{3}_i\beta 3_j\right)}{1+\left[exp\left({\alpha }_j+X{1}_i\beta 1+X{2}_i\beta 2+X{3}_i\beta 3_j\right)\right]}\\ j=1,2,\dots ,m-1\end{array}$$

(2)

where β1 and β2 are the vectors of parameters that do not violate proportional odds assumption, and β3_j is a vector of parameters that vary accordingly to the satisfaction cut-off points in the model and is associated with X3_i, representing a subset of independent variables whose parameters/coefficients across satisfaction levels are allowed to differ.

For each conservation program, a dependent variable represented an overall satisfaction with a conservation program and was measured on a 1–5 point Likert scale where 1 = very unsatisfied, 2 = unsatisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied (

Table 2. Description of variables included in the generalized ordered logit model to quantify the association of private land characteristics and landownership goals, concerns about environmental issues, frequency of contacts with federal agencies, and socioeconomic characteristics on landowner satisfaction with conservation programs based on a mail survey conducted in 2015 in the southern United States.

Variables	Descriptions
	Dependent variable a
SATp	Landowner satisfaction with a conservation program. An ordered categorical variable, where p stands for one of the 14 conservations programs: Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), NRCS Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), Environment Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Forest Legacy Program (FLP), Forest Stewardship Program (FSP), Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI), Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP), Landowner Incentive Program (LIP), Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFWP), Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), and Southern Pine Beetle Prevention and Restoration Program (SPBPRP).
	Independent variables Private land characteristics and landownership goals
FOREST	Continuous variable representing the forest area owned by a landowner (hectares, natural log transformed).
AGLAND	Continuous variable representing the agricultural land area owned by a landowner (hectares, natural log transformed).
WATERb	Binary variable representing clean water provision as a priority in landownership. 1 if yes, 0 otherwise.
LEGACYb	Binary variable representing legacy to heirs as a priority in landownership. 1 if yes, 0 otherwise.
RECREATIONb	Binary variable representing personal recreation as a priority in landownership. 1 if yes, 0 otherwise.
PROFITb	Binary variable representing profitable working land as a priority in landownership. 1 if yes, 0 otherwise.
	Concern with environmental issues c
DRINK	Binary variable representing landowner’s concern with drinking water quality. 1 if concerned, 0 otherwise.
WILDLIFE	Binary variable representing landowner’s concern with loss of wildlife habitat. 1 if concerned, 0 otherwise.
EROSION	Binary variable representing landowner’s concern with soil erosion. 1 if concerned, 0 otherwise.
	Frequency of contact with federal agencies d
NRCS	Binary variable representing frequency of contacts with Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 1 if a landowner contacted NRCS about half of the time or more, 0 otherwise.
FSA	Binary variable representing frequency of contacts with Farm Service Agency (FSA). 1 if a landowner contacted FSA about half of the time or more, 0 otherwise.
USFS	Binary variable representing frequency of contacts with U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1 if a landowner contacted USFS about half of the time or more, 0 otherwise.
USFWS	Binary variable representing frequency of contacts with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1 if a landowner contacted USFWS about half of the time or more, 0 otherwise.
	Socioeconomic characteristics
AGE	Continuous variable representing landowner age in years.
MALE	Binary variable representing landowner gender. 1 if male, 0 if female.
EDUCATIONe	Binary variable representing an education level of a landowner. 1 if a landowner had a four-year college degree or higher, 0 otherwise.
ABSENTEE	Binary variable representing whether a landowner residence address was in a state different from a location of her/his largest land parcel or not. 1 if different, 0 otherwise.
INCOME f	Continuous variable representing household annual income before taxes in 2014 (thousand USD).

^a Original variable was measured on a 1–5 Likert scale: 1 = very unsatisfied, 2 = unsatisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied. It was recoded to a three-point ordered categorical variable where 1 = very unsatisfied and unsatisfied, 2 = neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, and 3 = satisfied and very satisfied. ^b Original variable was measured on a 1–5 Likert scale: 1 = not a priority, 2 = low priority, 3 = medium priority, 4 = high priority, and 5 = essential. It was recoded into a binary variable where the original Likert scale categories above the mean were coded as 1 (priority) and those below the mean as 0 (otherwise). ^c Original variable was measured on a 1–5 Likert scale: 1 = not at all concerned, 2 = slightly concerned, 3 = somewhat concerned, 4 = moderately concerned, and 5 = extremely concerned. It was recoded into a binary variable where the original Likert scale categories above the mean were coded as 1 (concerned), and those below the mean were coded as 0 (otherwise). ^d Original variable was measured on a 1–5 Likert scale: 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = about half of the time, 4 = often, and 5 = always. It was recoded into a binary variable where the original Likert scale categories 3, 4, and 5 were coded as 1 (about half of the time or more), and 1 and 2 coded as 0 (otherwise). ^e Original variable was measured on a nominal scale: 1 = less than high school, 2 = high school or a General Educational Development (GED) test, 3 = some college, 4 = two-year college degree, 5 = four-year college degree, 6 = Master’s degree, 7 = Doctoral degree, and 8 = professional degree (JD, MD). It was recoded into a binary variable where original nominal scale categories above the mean were coded as 1 (four-year college degree or more) and below mean coded as 0 (otherwise). ^f Original variable was measured on an interval scale: 1 = less than USD 30,000, 2 = USD 30,001–USD 40,000, 3 = USD 40,001–USD 50,000, 4 = USD 50,001–USD 60,000, 5 = USD 60,001–USD 70,000, 6 = USD 70,001–USD 80,000, 7 = USD 80,001–USD 90,000, 8 = USD 90,001–USD 100,000, 9 = USD 100,001–USD 110,000, 10 = USD 110,001–USD 120,000, 11 = USD 120,001–USD 130,000, 12 = USD 130,001–USD 140,000, 13 = USD 140,001–USD 150,000 and 14 = more than USD 150,000. It was recoded as a continuous variable using the mid-point value of interval, whereas USD 155,000 was used for the last category.

). The original Likert scale was then recoded into a three-point categorical variable, where very unsatisfied and unsatisfied were recoded as 1 (unsatisfied), neither satisfied nor unsatisfied as 2 (neutral), and satisfied and very satisfied as 3 (satisfied) to balance the number of observations among different satisfaction levels and facilitate econometric analysis [58]. Of 60 conservation programs included in the survey, 14 programs were selected for further analysis because they were federal programs available in the entire study area, whereas the remaining programs were state programs available only in their respective states. The selected conservation programs varied in terms of contract length, objectives, implementation modalities (i.e., direct implementation versus partnership), assistance type, and policy introducing the program (Table 1).

The generalized ordered logit model estimated individual econometric models for each of the 14 conservation programs by using user-written STATA command gologit2 [56]. Unlike an ordered logit model, a generalized ordered logit model consisted of a series of individual binary logit models. Since a dependent variable (landowner satisfaction) had a three-point ordinal scale, two binary logit models were estimated for each conservation program (first logit: 1 vs. 2 and 3; second logit: 1 and 2 vs. 3). Each econometric model had an identical set of 18 independent variables selected based on existing literature and described in the following section. Odds ratios (exp β) were computed to determine the magnitude of the independent variable association with landowner satisfaction with a conservation program.

The constructed generalized ordered logit model has some advantages over the traditional ordered logit model as it is less restrictive and does not assume monotonic impacts across different satisfaction levels [57]. For example, an increase in an educational level may be sufficient to change the landowner satisfaction level from unsatisfied to neutral, but it may not be sufficient to change the level from neutral level to satisfied. Due to less restrictive estimate parameter criteria, the model is likely to have a better fit. The generalized ordered logit model also does not require passing the model specification test. The only disadvantage is that if there are more than three levels in a dependent variable, the interpretation of intermediate parameters requires caution because the sign of the estimate does not always determine the direction of the effect [59].

2.6. Variables

Four categories of independent variables were selected to represent private land characteristics and landownership goals, landowner concern about environmental issues, frequency of contacts with federal agencies administering conservation programs, and landowner socioeconomic characteristics. Descriptions of independent variables are provided in Table 2. Private land characteristics were represented by two independent variables including size of forest land owned (FOREST) and size of agricultural land owned (AGLAND), whereas landownership goals represented by four variables: clean water provision (WATER), legacy to heirs (LEGACY), personal recreation (RECREATION), and profit making (PROFIT).

Landowners with a larger property (>40.45 ha) were more satisfied with conservation programs than landholders with relatively smaller properties and, therefore, more willing to participate in such programs because program assistance could help them reduce investment risks and increase returns [20,21]. Landowners could diversify their income by incorporating several land-use options such as including easement establishment and other environment-friendly land prescriptions. Thus, it could be more cost-effective for a landowner to implement conservation practices on a larger area (>17.40 ha) due to economies of scale [25]. In addition to property size, conservation program ability to help landowners achieve ownership objectives could also contribute to landowner satisfaction. In particular, landownership goals such as personal recreation and environmental motives had been reported as positively associated with program satisfaction, whereas financial investment was associated negatively [33,60]. Thus, landowners with financial investment motives were more likely to be unsatisfied with the conservation programs involving perpetual easements [60]. Family tradition and intention to pass the property to heirs was also an important landownership objective. As landowners have to give up development rights related to enrolled private lands, satisfaction with conservation programs of landowners who owned lands for family tradition or intended to pass the property to heirs was affected negatively [61]. Thus, when conservation goals and landownership objectives do not necessarily conflict with each other, and if the program can facilitate more effective attainment of ownership objectives, a landowner is more likely to be satisfied with the program.

Concerns about environmental issues such as water quality, soil erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, and spread of invasive species were major reasons for increased enrollments in conservation programs [10,13,19,25]. Program enrollment can help landowners address water quality impairment because of their farming practices, maintain land productivity, and fulfill their hunting hobbies [10,25]. Therefore, this study used three independent variables to determine the relationship between landowner concerns about environmental issues and their satisfaction with conservation programs. These were concerns related to drinking water quality (DRINK), loss of wildlife habitat (WILDLIFE), and soil erosion (EROSION). Most of the selected conservation programs help address these environmental concerns associated with private lands and assist landowners in increasing land productivity. Thus, if landowners are facing challenges from specific environmental problems, they are more likely to be satisfied with technical and financial assistance offered by conservation programs to help mitigate these problems [32].

Agencies implementing conservation programs provide landowners with information about environmental problems and how to address them and assist landowners with technical, financial, and administrative aspects related to implementing conservation practices on private lands needed to mitigate environmental issues [13,62]. Most studies indicated that landowner satisfaction with a conservation program depended on the communication effectiveness of the agency implementing the program [60,63]. For example, face-to-face contacts were particularly helpful and effective in providing assistance in implementing planned conservation activities and clarifying contractual requirements [61]. As this study assessed the federal conservation programs that were available in the entire study area, only the contact frequency of landowners with federal agencies including NRCS (NRCS), FSA (FSA), USFS (USFS), and USFWS (USFWS) were included in econometric models. Frequent contacts with federal agencies can help improve landowner satisfaction by addressing technical or administrative issues and thus assisting them in implementing more conservation activities.

Independent variables including landowner age (AGE), gender (MALE), education level (EDUCATION), residence status (ABSENTEE), and household income (INCOME) represented landowner socioeconomic characteristics. Satisfaction represents a type of personal attitude; therefore, it may have cognitive, affective, and conative components related to a conservation program such as familiarity with environmental problems, personal feelings or evaluations, and commitment to protecting environmental quality [64]. Socioeconomic characteristics, to some extent, affect a personal attitude referring to positive or negative feelings towards an object, issue, or person such as conservation program, environmental problem, or agency implementing a conservation program [65]. For example, Stroman and Kreuter [34] studied the effects of these socioeconomic factors on landowner satisfaction with WRP in Texas. They found that only gender was a significant factor where female landowners were 70% more likely to be satisfied with a conservation easement than male landowners. Understanding the effects of socioeconomic characteristics on satisfaction with conservation programs will help develop programs tailored to specific landowner groups, improve their effectiveness, and increase the likelihood of implementing conservation practices on private lands.

3. Results

3.1. Non-Response Bias and Landowner Socioeconomic Characteristics

Of 4000 survey questionnaires sent to landowners, a total of 920 included incorrect addresses, deceased landowners, and those with no forest or agricultural land. A total of 1017 usable questionnaires were returned resulting in a response rate of 33.02%. The mean values of selected key socioeconomic characteristics of landowners were comparable to NWOS statistics except for forest land area owned (

Table 3. Comparison of mean values reported in the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) and 2017 Census of Agriculture with the study sample.

Variables	Sample	NWOS	2017 Census of Agriculture
Age (years)	65.82	62.90	58.78
Gender (male, %)	76.64	76.70	72.33
Education level (above high school, %)	73.92	72.10	NA
Annual household income (USD)	84,952.72	81,907.45	NA
Residence status (absentee, %)	12.99	NA	24.97
Forest land area (ha)	101.03	32.80	38.22
Agricultural land area (ha)	90.83	NA	95.91

). In NWOS, the size of forest land owned (32.80 ha) was three times smaller than in this study survey (101.03 ha). Similarly, another set of socioeconomic characteristics was also compared with the 2017 Census of Agriculture data and did not vary from census estimates except for forest land area owned and residence status (Table 3). Census estimates reported 38.22 ha as the average size of forest land owned and 24.97% as the population of absentee landowners. In the case of the absentee landowner population, they were underrepresented in this study sample, while landowners who owned large parcels of forest land (>101.03 ha) were overrepresented. Thus, there was no detectable non-response bias except for forest land area owned and residence status (absentee ownership). Consequently, reported estimates in this study might be more representative of landowners with large land parcels and landowners who resided nearby their private lands.

On average, landowners were 66 years old, had a household income of USD 84,953 per year, and owned 101.03 and 90.83 ha of forest and agricultural land, respectively. The most frequently reported income category (18.91%) was household income greater than USD 150,000 per year. Male landowners accounted for 76.64%, whereas female landowners for 23.36%. In terms of education, 47.22% of landowners had completed a four-year college degree or attained a higher education level, whereas 52.78% of landowners had an education level lower than a four-year college degree. Of the total landowners who reported their frequency of contacts with federal agencies for technical and financial assistance, NRCS, FSA, USFS, and USFWS were contacted about half of the time or more by 29.87%, 29.46%, 10.21%, and 12.62% of landowners, respectively.

Table 4. Average values of the independent variables used in a generalized ordered logit model by a conservation program to determine the influence of landownership goals, environmental concerns, frequency of contacts with federal agencies, and socioeconomic factors on landowner satisfaction with an available conservation program based on a mail survey conducted in 2015 in the southern United States.

Variables	ACEP	BCAP	CRP	CSP	CTA	EQIP	FLP	FSP	GLCI	HFRP	LIP	PFWP	RCPP	SPBPRP
FOREST (ha)a	99.98	91.97	95.82	96.61	85.03	98.79	93.65	101.29	86.15	97.52	93.62	85.38	87.17	99.70
AGLAND (ha)a	112.50	99.61	120.08	125.60	122.10	132.93	78.52	91.65	82.49	89.82	98.96	89.67	86.06	75.62
WATER	0.60	0.59	0.60	0.61	0.62	0.61	0.59	0.60	0.61	0.60	0.60	0.58	0.59	0.57
LEGACY	0.72	0.70	0.71	0.71	0.73	0.71	0.71	0.72	0.72	0.70	0.72	0.71	0.70	0.70
RECREATION	0.52	0.52	0.50	0.49	0.51	0.49	0.55	0.54	0.52	0.51	0.53	0.57	0.56	0.57
PROFIT	0.56	0.56	0.58	0.59	0.58	0.62	0.56	0.53	0.57	0.56	0.57	0.55	0.55	0.57
DRINK	0.82	0.83	0.80	0.82	0.80	0.82	0.83	0.81	0.83	0.81	0.83	0.84	0.82	0.84
WILDLIFE	0.77	0.76	0.75	0.75	0.74	0.74	0.75	0.73	0.75	0.76	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.74
EROSION	0.73	0.72	0.75	0.74	0.74	0.73	0.71	0.70	0.73	0.73	0.72	0.72	0.71	0.72
NRCS	0.43	0.37	0.44	0.44	0.46	0.45	0.38	0.39	0.41	0.41	0.38	0.39	0.38	0.36
FSA	0.45	0.40	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.39	0.39	0.41	0.42	0.41	0.40	0.41	0.38
USFS	0.12	0.10	0.10	0.11	0.07	0.10	0.10	0.09	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.09	0.11	0.09
USFWS	0.15	0.14	0.13	0.14	0.11	0.13	0.13	0.12	0.13	0.15	0.13	0.14	0.13	0.13
AGE (years)	63.32	63.10	63.42	63.19	63.69	62.98	63.45	63.48	63.30	62.80	63.31	63.18	62.88	63.39
MALE	0.84	0.86	0.82	0.85	0.87	0.86	0.87	0.87	0.86	0.85	0.86	0.87	0.87	0.87
EDUCATION	0.49	0.47	0.46	0.46	0.45	0.48	0.45	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.44	0.47	0.46	0.47
ABSENTEE	0.09	0.09	0.07	0.09	0.07	0.08	0.10	0.08	0.10	0.08	0.09	0.11	0.09	0.10
INCOME(1000 USD)	93.21	94.81	93.16	94.65	91.79	95.98	90.86	90.58	93.28	94.13	90.96	92.30	93.35	93.29
Obs.	201	161	234	198	190	205	157	165	174	172	166	159	158	152

The information in the table relates to the following conservation programs: Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), Environment Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Forest Legacy Program (FLP), Forest Stewardship Program (FSP), Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI), Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP), Landowner Incentive Program (LIP), Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFWP), Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), and Southern Pine Beetle Prevention and Restoration Program (SPBPRP). ^a Natural logarithms of forest area owned and agricultural land owned were used in a regression analysis.

presents the average values of the independent variables for each of the 14 conservation programs. Except for the size of agricultural land, the average values of other variables did not vary substantially across programs. Average estimates of agricultural land size ranged from 75.62 to 132.93 ha (Table 4).

3.2. Landowner Satisfaction Levels with Conservation Programs

Landowner recoded satisfaction levels with each of the 14 federal conservation programs are presented in

Table 5. Landowner satisfaction level with federal conservations programs based on a mail survey conducted in 2015 in the southern United States.

Conservation Program a	Satisfied		Neutral		Unsatisfied		Total Observations
	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
ACEP	88	19.13	290	63.04	82	17.83	460
BCAP	42	10.94	300	78.13	42	10.94	384
CRP	213	38.52	277	50.09	63	11.39	553
CSP	95	21.11	307	68.22	48	10.67	450
CTA	141	30.52	280	60.61	41	8.87	462
EQIP	124	26.22	288	60.89	61	12.90	473
FLP	37	9.89	302	80.75	35	9.36	374
FSP	78	19.07	300	73.35	31	7.58	409
GLCI	55	13.78	299	74.94	45	11.28	399
HFRP	58	14.22	311	76.23	39	9.56	408
LIP	54	13.60	299	75.31	44	11.08	397
PFWP	38	9.87	307	79.74	40	10.39	385
RCPP	39	10.13	307	79.74	39	10.13	385
SPBPRP	55	14.36	280	73.11	48	12.53	383

^a ACEP = Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, BCAP = Biomass Crop Assistance Program, CRP = Conservation Reserve Program, CSP = Conservation Stewardship Program, CTA = NRCS Conservation Technical Assistance, EQIP = Environment Quality Incentives Program, FLP = Forest Legacy Program, FSP = Forest Stewardship Program, GLCI = Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, HFRP = Healthy Forest Reserve Program, LIP = Landowner Incentive Program, PFWP = Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, RCPP = Regional Conservation Partnership Program, and SPBPRP = Southern Pine Beetle Prevention and Restoration Program.

. Among landowners who expressed their satisfaction levels for conservation programs, 38.52% were satisfied with CRP, 30.52% with CTA, 26.22% with EQIP, 21.11% with CSP, and 19.13% with ACEP. Large portions of landowners (50.09 to 80.75% depending on the program) reported that they were neither satisfied nor unsatisfied with available federal assistance programs, whereas 7.58 to 17.83% were unsatisfied. The selection of a neutral category might indicate that a landowner was satisfied in some respects (e.g., financial incentive) of a conservation program but unsatisfied with other aspects (e.g., ecological outcome). On average, landowners who reported ratings for CRP, CTA, EQIP, CSP, and ACEP owned an area of agricultural land that was 34.60 ha larger than landowners who reported ratings for other conservation programs (Table 4).

3.3. Factors Related to Landowner Satisfaction with Conservation Programs

Likelihood ratio tests implemented for each of the 14 empirical models using a generalized ordered logit model approach indicated that the overall model fits were statistically significant in all models except two models related to Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFWP; χ2 = 14.26, df = 18, p = 0.71) and Southern Pine Beetle Prevention and Restoration Program (SPBPRP; χ2 = 22.47, df = 18, p = 0.21). Therefore, PFWP and SPBPRP models were omitted in further analysis. Regression results for each of the remaining 12 conservation programs are presented in

Table 6. Results of generalized ordered logit models to quantify the impact of private land characteristics and landownership goals, concerns about environmental issues, frequency of contacts with federal agencies, and socioeconomic characteristics on landowner satisfaction with conservation programs based on a mail survey conducted in 2015 in the southern United States.

	ACEP		BCAP		CRP		CSP		CTA		EQIP
Variable	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob
FOREST	0.96	0.96	0.95	0.95	1.11	1.11	1.17	1.17	1.01	1.01	1.13	1.13
	(0.11)	(0.11)	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)
AGLAND	0.76 *	1.21	0.85	1.63 *	0.73 **	1.23 *	0.52 ***	1.51 ***	0.65 **	1.22	0.58 ***	1.25 *
	(0.11)	(0.18)	(0.19)	(0.40)	(0.11)	(0.15)	(0.10)	(0.24)	(0.12)	(0.17)	(0.09)	(0.16)
WATER	1.91	1.91	1.01	1.01	0.69	0.69	1.54	1.54	1.16	1.16	1.09	1.09
	(0.77)	(0.77)	(0.57)	(0.57)	(0.25)	(0.25)	(0.72)	(0.72)	(0.53)	(0.53)	(0.45)	(0.45)
LEGACY	0.59	0.59	0.41	0.41	0.37*	1.34	0.49	0.49	0.55	0.55	0.53	0.53
	(0.23)	(0.23)	(0.24)	(0.24)	(0.21)	(0.54)	(0.23)	(0.23)	(0.25)	(0.25)	(0.22)	(0.22)
RECREATION	1.13	1.13	2.01	2.01	0.97	0.97	1.50	1.50	0.80	0.80	0.70	0.70
	(0.37)	(0.37)	(1.00)	(1.00)	(0.30)	(0.30)	(0.58)	(0.58)	(0.30)	(0.30)	(0.24)	(0.24)
PROFIT	0.90	0.90	2.60 *	2.60 *	2.31 **	2.31 **	1.46	1.46	1.74	1.74	1.88	1.88
	(0.33)	(0.33)	(1.46)	(1.46)	(0.78)	(0.78)	(0.66)	(0.66)	(0.72)	(0.72)	(0.75)	(0.75)
DRINK	0.60	0.17 ***	0.57	0.57	0.99	0.99	0.86	0.86	1.23	1.23	1.13	1.13
	(0.32)	(0.11)	(0.38)	(0.38)	(0.41)	(0.41)	(0.44)	(0.44)	(0.58)	(0.58)	(0.51)	(0.51)
WILDLIFE	2.02 *	2.02 *	6.40 ***	6.40 ***	2.68 **	2.68 **	1.85	1.85	2.64 **	2.64 **	1.69	1.69
	(0.86)	(0.86)	(3.93)	(3.93)	(1.04)	(1.04)	(0.85)	(0.85)	(1.23)	(1.23)	(0.69)	(0.69)
EROSION	0.83	17.10 **	0.60	0.60	0.56	1.81	1.08	1.08	1.47	1.47	1.35	1.35
	(0.40)	(18.99)	(0.37)	(0.37)	(0.30)	(0.83)	(0.55)	(0.55)	(0.72)	(0.72)	(0.58)	(0.58)
NRCS	1.02	1.02	2.25	2.25	1.31	1.31	5.95 ***	5.95 ***	1.44	9.22 ***	9.81 ***	9.81 ***
	(0.45)	(0.45)	(1.38)	(1.38)	(0.50)	(0.50)	(3.00)	(3.00)	(0.93)	(4.69)	(4.49)	(4.49)
FSA	1.26	1.26	0.89	0.89	2.44 **	2.44 **	1.98	1.98	1.36	1.36	1.10	1.10
	(0.55)	(0.55)	(0.55)	(0.55)	(0.96)	(0.96)	(0.95)	(0.95)	(0.62)	(0.62)	(0.46)	(0.46)
USFS	0.88	0.88	1.77	1.77	1.84	1.84	0.41	2.01	0.13 ***	0.13 ***	0.90	0.90
	(0.49)	(0.49)	(1.27)	(1.27)	(1.04)	(1.04)	(0.32)	(1.25)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.50)	(0.50)
USFWS	3.17 **	3.17 **	4.61 **	4.61 **	0.63	0.63	1.03	1.03	3.70 **	3.70 **	0.58	0.58
	(1.66)	(1.66)	(3.19)	(3.19)	(0.32)	(0.32)	(0.59)	(0.59)	(2.44)	(2.44)	(0.30)	(0.30)
AGE	1.02	1.02	1.01	1.01	1.04 ***	1.04 ***	1.02	1.02	1.03	1.03	1.01	1.01
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
MALE	0.81	0.81	1.24	1.24	1.18	1.18	1.13	1.13	1.20	1.20	0.93	0.93
	(0.36)	(0.36)	(0.84)	(0.84)	(0.46)	(0.46)	(0.56)	(0.56)	(0.65)	(0.65)	(0.45)	(0.45)
EDUCATION	0.77	0.77	2.03	2.03	1.65 *	1.65 *	0.82	0.82	5.21 **	1.05	0.93	0.93
	(0.25)	(0.25)	(1.00)	(1.00)	(0.49)	(0.49)	(0.31)	(0.31)	(3.42)	(0.43)	(0.31)	(0.31)
ABSENTEE	1.75	1.75	0.83	0.83	1.28	1.28	1.18	1.18	0.57	0.57	1.17	1.17
	(1.06)	(1.06)	(0.65)	(0.65)	(0.78)	(0.78)	(0.84)	(0.84)	(0.44)	(0.44)	(0.73)	(0.73)
INCOME	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.02 **	0.99	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Constant	3.89	0.01 ***	3.67	0.00 ***	0.72	0.00 ***	1.31	0.00 ***	1.26	0.00 ***	8.13	0.01 ***
	(5.11)	(0.01)	(7.32)	(0.00)	(0.96)	(0.00)	(2.06)	(0.00)	(2.13)	(0.00)	(11.35)	(0.01)
Obs.	201	201	161	161	234	234	198	198	190	190	205	205
Standard errors in parentheses. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. a Odds ratio for the first logit: ‘unsatisfied’ vs. ‘neutral and satisfied’ category (1 vs. 2 and 3). b Odds ratio for the second logit: ‘unsatisfied and neutral’ vs. ‘satisfied’ category (1 and 2 vs. 3).
	FLP		FSP		GLCI		HFRP		LIP		RCPP
Variable	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob	Odds Ratioa	Odds Ratiob
FOREST	0.94	0.94	0.99	1.70 ***	1.00	1.00	1.16	1.16	0.92	0.92	0.84	0.42 ***
	(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.21)	(0.32)	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.20)	(0.20)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.19)	(0.13)
AGLAND	0.82	0.82	0.58 ***	0.58 ***	0.83	1.56 **	0.87	0.87	0.63 **	1.00	0.77	2.36 **
	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.18)	(0.34)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.13)	(0.19)	(0.18)	(0.83)
WATER	2.79	2.79	1.04	1.04	0.75	10.84 **	0.23 *	2.45	1.21	1.21	1.54	1.54
	(1.89)	(1.89)	(0.54)	(0.54)	(0.49)	(10.37)	(0.18)	(2.03)	(0.63)	(0.63)	(0.95)	(0.95)
LEGACY	0.26 **	0.26 **	0.95	0.95	0.25 **	0.25 **	0.78	0.78	0.91	0.91	0.35 *	0.35 *
	(0.18)	(0.18)	(0.48)	(0.48)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.42)	(0.42)	(0.49)	(0.49)	(0.23)	(0.23)
RECREATION	3.06 **	3.06 **	0.74	0.74	1.29	1.29	1.04	1.04	1.24	1.24	2.72 *	2.72 *
	(1.72)	(1.72)	(0.33)	(0.33)	(0.60)	(0.60)	(0.50)	(0.50)	(0.54)	(0.54)	(1.46)	(1.46)
PROFIT	2.28	2.28	1.56	1.56	1.29	1.29	1.12	1.12	1.59	1.59	2.79 *	2.79 *
	(1.40)	(1.40)	(0.74)	(0.74)	(0.66)	(0.66)	(0.59)	(0.59)	(0.79)	(0.79)	(1.72)	(1.72)
DRINK	0.44	0.44	0.66	0.66	1.11	1.11	0.69	0.69	0.75	0.75	0.91	0.91
	(0.36)	(0.36)	(0.38)	(0.38)	(0.77)	(0.77)	(0.51)	(0.51)	(0.46)	(0.46)	(0.61)	(0.61)
WILDLIFE	2.74	2.74	1.18	1.18	3.64 **	3.64 **	5.99 ***	5.99 ***	2.49 *	2.49 *	1.96	1.96
	(1.87)	(1.87)	(0.61)	(0.61)	(2.21)	(2.21)	(4.11)	(4.11)	(1.35)	(1.35)	(1.23)	(1.23)
EROSION	1.59	1.59	2.45	2.45	1.41	1.41	1.32	1.32	0.50	0.50	1.17	1.17
	(1.13)	(1.13)	(1.42)	(1.42)	(0.92)	(0.92)	(0.87)	(0.87)	(0.29)	(0.29)	(0.77)	(0.77)
NRCS	1.96	1.96	0.72	0.72	4.00 **	4.00 **	1.73	1.73	3.37 **	3.37 **	1.20	1.20
	(1.52)	(1.52)	(0.42)	(0.42)	(2.66)	(2.66)	(1.12)	(1.12)	(1.98)	(1.98)	(0.84)	(0.84)
FSA	5.84 **	5.84 **	3.78 **	3.78 **	1.68	1.68	2.43	2.43	2.45	2.45	3.19 *	3.19 *
	(4.64)	(4.64)	(2.15)	(2.15)	(1.06)	(1.06)	(1.56)	(1.56)	(1.40)	(1.40)	(2.17)	(2.17)
USFS	0.71	0.71	1.13	1.13	0.53	11.23 ***	0.31	6.61 **	1.30	1.30	0.24	7.95 *
	(0.62)	(0.62)	(1.04)	(1.04)	(0.52)	(9.81)	(0.34)	(5.42)	(0.97)	(0.97)	(0.23)	(9.32)
USFWS	54.03 ***	54.03 ***	3.03	3.03	0.90	0.90	4.75 **	4.75 **	2.40	2.40	4.63 *	4.63 *
	(60.06)	(60.06)	(2.32)	(2.32)	(0.62)	(0.62)	(3.35)	(3.35)	(1.69)	(1.69)	(4.21)	(4.21)
AGE	0.98	1.11 **	1.00	1.00	0.97	1.09 **	0.91 **	1.05	1.00	1.12 ***	1.01	1.01
	(0.03)	(0.05)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.03)	(0.04)	(0.03)	(0.03)
GENDER	0.38	20.41 **	0.46	0.46	0.57	0.57	0.73	0.73	1.76	1.76	1.50	1.50
	(0.46)	(31.28)	(0.28)	(0.28)	(0.35)	(0.35)	(0.43)	(0.43)	(1.06)	(1.06)	(1.13)	(1.13)
EDUCATION	7.85 ***	0.43	9.08 **	1.29	6.47 ***	0.61	6.38 ***	0.45	1.74	1.74	1.95	1.95
	(6.16)	(0.37)	(8.01)	(0.66)	(4.39)	(0.39)	(4.47)	(0.30)	(0.76)	(0.76)	(1.03)	(1.03)
ABSENTEE	7.43 *	7.43 *	0.33	0.33	1.61	1.61	0.81	0.81	0.91	0.91	1.45	1.45
	(8.18)	(8.18)	(0.27)	(0.27)	(1.33)	(1.33)	(0.68)	(0.68)	(0.73)	(0.73)	(1.23)	(1.23)
INCOME	0.99	0.99	1.00	1.00	0.99	0.99	0.99 *	0.99 *	0.99	0.99	1.00	1.00
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Constant	48.17	0.00 ***	39.38 *	0.07	93.44 *	0.00 ***	3571.18 ***	0.00 ***	20.75	0.00 ***	2.46	0.00 ***
	(129.29)	(0.00)	(77.35)	(0.13)	(218.54)	(0.00)	(10,267.16)	(0.00)	(40.19)	(0.00)	(5.46)	(0.00)
Obs.	157	157	165	165	174	174	172	172	166	166	158	158

Standard errors in parentheses. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. ^a Odds ratio for the first logit: ‘unsatisfied’ vs. ‘neutral and satisfied’ category (1 vs. 2 and 3). ^b Odds ratio for the second logit: ‘unsatisfied and neutral’ vs. ‘satisfied’ category (1 and 2 vs. 3).

.

Landownership objectives and size of agricultural land owned were associated with satisfaction levels. Landowners who had an objective of passing land to their children or heirs were 65.00 to 74.90% less likely to change their satisfaction from a lower to a higher level with Forest Legacy Program (FLP; p < 0.05), Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI; p < 0.05), and Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP; p < 0.10) than landowners with other ownership objectives. Landowners who owned land for personal recreation were almost three times more likely to be satisfied with FLP (p < 0.05) and RCPP (p < 0.10) than other landowners. Similarly, the profitability objective was also associated positively with landowner satisfaction with three Farm Bill conservation programs: Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP; p < 0.10), CRP (p < 0.05), and RCPP (p < 0.10). Landowners with profitability objective were 2.31 to 2.79 times more likely to be satisfied with BCAP, CRP and RCPP than landowners who did not have this objective. Size of agricultural land owned was associated with landowner satisfaction with all conservation programs at a less than 10% significance level, excluding FLP (p = 0.32) and Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP; p = 0.40). However, the effects of the size of agricultural land varied in terms of both sign and magnitude of association with individual programs and across different programs. For example, a 1% increase in the size of the agricultural land owned by landowners was associated with a 27.50% decrease in the probability that the landowner satisfaction with CRP would change from the unsatisfied category to the combined neutral and satisfied category. Yet, a 1% increase in the size of the agricultural land owned by landowners was associated with a 23.40% increase in the probability that landowner satisfaction with CRP would increase from the combined unsatisfied and neutral category to the satisfied category.

The frequency of landowner contacts with federal agencies was associated with a change in landowner satisfaction for most conservation programs. If landowners contacted NRCS frequently (about half the time or more), they were 3.37 to 9.81 times more likely to improve their satisfaction from a lower to a higher level with CSP (p < 0.01), EQIP (p < 0.01), GLCI (p < 0.05), and Landowner Incentive Program (LIP; p < 0.05). Similarly, the frequency of contacts with FSA and USFWS were also positively associated with the landowner satisfaction level for several conservation programs (Table 6). Landowners who made frequent contacts with FSA were 2.44 to 5.84 times more likely to increase their satisfaction from a lower to a higher level with CRP (p < 0.05), FLP (p < 0.05), FSP (p < 0.05), and RCPP (p < 0.10) than those who did not frequently contact FSA. Likewise, landowners who had frequent contacts with USFWS were 3.17 times more likely to increase their satisfaction level from unsatisfied to the combined neutral and satisfied category or from the combined unsatisfied and neutral category to the satisfied category with ACEP (p < 0.05), 4.61 times with BCAP (p < 0.05) and RCPP (p < 0.10), 3.70 times with CTA (p < 0.05), 54.03 times with FLP (p < 0.01), and 4.75 times with HFRP (p < 0.05) than landowners who made infrequent contacts. However, an increase in landowner contact frequency with USFS was not always associated with an increase in satisfaction with the program. For example, landowners who made frequent contacts with USFS were 87.30% less likely to improve their satisfaction from a lower to a higher level with CTA (p < 0.01) than landowners who did not contact USFS. An increased communication frequency between landowners and federal agencies contributed to an increase in landowner satisfaction in most conservation programs.

Landowner concern about environmental issues and socioeconomic characteristics were also associated with their satisfaction level. Landowners who were concerned about a loss of wildlife habitat were two to six times more likely to increase their satisfaction from a lower to a higher level with ACEP (p < 0.10), BCAP (p < 0.01), CRP (p < 0.05), CTA (p < 0.05), GLCI (p < 0.05), HFRP (p <0.01), and LIP (p <0.10) than landowners who did not express this environmental concern. Landowner age had a relatively small and partial, but a statistically significant effect on satisfaction with CRP (p < 0.01), FLP (p < 0.05), GLCI (p < 0.05), HFRP (p < 0.05), and LIP (p < 0.01). For example, a year increase in age of a landowner was associated 8.70% decrease in the probability that her/his satisfaction with HFRP would change from the unsatisfied category to the combined neutral and satisfied category. However, a year increase in age for a landowner was associated with a 4.40 to 11.50% increase in the probability that landowner satisfaction with CRP, FLP, GLCI, and LIP would change from the combined unsatisfied and neutral category to the satisfied category. Similarly, landowners satisfied with CTA (p < 0.05), FLP (p < 0.01), FSP (p < 0.05), GLCI (p < 0.01), and HFRP (p < 0.01) were 5.21 to 9.08 times more likely to increase from the unsatisfied category to the combined neutral and satisfied category when landowner education changed from less than a four-year college degree to a higher education level. However, similar increases in education levels had no impact on the change of landowner satisfaction from the combined unsatisfied and neutral category to the satisfied category with CTA, FLP, FSP, GLCI, and HFRP. Thus, landowner age had the greatest effect at a higher satisfaction level, whereas education level had the greatest effect at a lower satisfaction level. In other words, increases in landowner age increased the likelihood of change in the satisfaction level from the combined unsatisfied and neutral category to the satisfied category, but not from the unsatisfied category to the combined neutral and satisfied category. Similarly, an increase in the education level increased the probability of a satisfaction level change from the unsatisfied category to the combined neutral and satisfied category, but not from the combined unsatisfied and neutral category to the satisfied category.

4. Discussion

Conservation programs have been established to facilitate the implementation of conservation practices that improve the production of valuable ecosystem services such as wildlife habitat, water quality, reduced soil erosion, and soil quality enhancement, among others. In addition, conservation practices help improve biodiversity and the resiliency of natural ecosystems and local communities. Although numerous studies indicated that conservation programs were mostly successful in producing positive ecological outcomes, the economic and social consequences of conservation efforts are still not well understood. For example, it is not clear whether landowner participation in a conservation program increased their private benefits, enhanced social networks, and increased property values. Some studies found that aggregate benefits of a conservation program exceeded the monetary costs associated with program establishment and maintenance [7,66]. However, monetary incentives and technical assistance to facilitate conservation of private lands that helped achieve positive outcomes extending beyond ecological impacts, for example, landowner satisfaction, have been little discussed and investigated [67]. Thus, the program’s ecological and social outcomes, which might be related to each other, are important aspects potentially affecting a wider public support for conservation programs.

The evaluation of landowner satisfaction with conservation programs can indicate whether program participation contributed to achieving landowner’s ownership and conservation goals. As conservation programs are voluntary in nature, program satisfaction affects landowner enrollment, retention, and re-enrollment decisions, which, in turn, affect landowner satisfaction, the adoption of conservation practices, and behavioral persistence after program stops [13,29,30,31]. Thus, landowner satisfaction with conservation programs and ecological outcomes were linked to each other. A better understanding of landowner satisfaction will help better align conservation programs with landowner needs related to technical and financial assistance and ownership objectives and increase the large-scale adoption of conservation activities.

In terms of landowner satisfaction with conservation programs, CRP, CTA, EQIP, CSP, and ACEP were the most preferred among the 14 federally available programs. However, landowner satisfaction was not limited to a specific conservation program type, for example, land retirement or working land programs, or easements. Since 1996, funding allocations for working land programs have been increasing, while funding levels for land retirement and easements have been decreasing [1]. The shift to working land programs implies that conservation policies have been increasingly focusing on agricultural production as well as environmental protection on private lands through enhancing landowner participation in short-term conservation contracts (mostly shorter than five years) [3]. The CRP, CTA, EQIP, CSP, and ACEP were administered through NRCS and FSA, which have local offices in almost every county. Currently, CRP, CTA, EQIP, CSP, and ACEP typically receive more federal funding than other conservation programs resulting in a larger geographic coverage and addressing a wider range of natural resource concerns. As these conservation programs have been operational for decades, familiarity with program requirements, because of established communication channels for dissemination of program information and feedback collection, might have had positive impacts on satisfaction with these programs.

Landowner satisfaction can originate from fulfilled landownership goals [29,68]. Landowners tend to implement different management practices to achieve their landownership goals in a cost-effective manner [69]. However, they might be unable to implement important conservation practices because of a lack of technical know-how and high startup costs [61]. In such a context, face-to-face technical assistance and cost-share payments to offset the cost of required conservation practices can help increase landowner motivation to implement conservation practices and satisfaction with a given program. This study suggested that landownership objectives related to ecological (e.g., clean water provision), social (e.g., personal recreation), and economic (e.g., profit-making) aspects were associated positively with landowner satisfaction only to a limited extent. Stroman and Kreuter [34] found that landowners with financial investment motives as an ownership objective were 44.1% more likely to be unsatisfied with perpetual conservation easements than landowners with other objectives. However, this study indicated that landowners with profit-oriented objectives were 2.3 to 2.8 times more likely to be satisfied with conservation programs such as BCAP, CRP, and RCPP. A possible reason for this discrepancy can be that programs analyzed in this study did not include perpetual easements. This implies that BCAP, CRP, and RCPP might have helped landowners diversify their land-use options and improve economic returns from the private lands. Enrolled CRP lands can potentially receive annual rental payments higher than opportunity costs associated with current land use, if enrolled lands include marginal and infertile land removed from active farming practices [70]. Landowners who intended to pass their properties to their children and heirs were mostly unsatisfied with conservation programs (e.g., CRP, FLP, GLCI, and RCPP). This finding was inconsistent with previous studies. For example, Daniels et al. [61] mentioned that landowners were more determined to protect private lands and conduct sustainable forestry practices if their motivation was to pass the property to future generations. However, in contrast to our study, Daniels et al. [61] did not mention specific conservation programs during focus group discussions with landowners, which could be a reason for different findings. Increasing flexibility in management restrictions could help improve landowner satisfaction with a conservation program and help attain landownership objectives that are complementary with conservation program objectives. In particular, landowners who inherited or purchased private lands and enrolled in a conservation program were more interested in negotiating the contract terms [34]. Assisting landowners in achieving their ownership goals can encourage them to continue implementing conservation practices beyond program expiration.

An increased frequency of contacts with federal agencies was associated with greater program satisfaction. This trend of influencing overall program satisfaction through better communication was similar to other studies on landowner satisfaction with conservation programs [33,60,63]. However, landowner satisfaction with conservation programs could also be affected by frequent contacts with federal agencies administering other conservation programs. For example, CRP, which is administered by FSA, benefited from frequent landowner contacts with NRCS, which provides technical assistance to prepare conservation plans. Likewise, landowner satisfaction with HFRP was associated with frequent contacts with USFWS and not NRCS which administers the program. This trend can possibly be because landowners might benefit largely due to specialized knowledge of USFWS staff in terms of threatened wildlife species [71]. Innovative ideas to address landowner concerns might emerge from collaboration and networking among federal agencies, as federal agencies and other conservation practitioner organizations are connected through workshops, online platforms, and other coordinating activities in the GCPO LCC region [72]. Frequent contacts with a conservation agency did not always result in positive experiences. For example, landowners who made frequent contacts with USFS were more unsatisfied with the CTA program than those landowners who made few or no contacts. A possible explanation is that the USFS structure is more focused on the management of national forests than private forests which might have contributed to limited utility to private landowners; thus, outreach activities in coordination with other federal agencies can be useful in improving the presence of USFS among landowners and help address landowner environmental concerns [6].

Landowner environmental concerns, age, and education levels were also associated with landowner satisfaction with several conservation programs. In particular, landowner satisfaction with ACEP, BCAP, CRP, CTA, GLCI, HFRP, and LIP was strongly related to landowner concerns about wildlife habitat losses. Previous studies also indicated that pro-environmental attitudes strongly influenced conservation behavior and landowner willingness to implement conservation practices [10,31]. As these conservation programs supported wildlife habitat improvements, landowners who were concerned about wildlife habitat might be more satisfied with these programs. Consequently, they participated more actively in implementing conservation practices that addressed their environmental concerns resulting in positive impacts for wildlife habitat improvements. Landowner age and education level higher than a four-year college degree were also positively related with program satisfaction; however, their effects were not constant or monotonic across satisfaction levels. Thus, to increase enrollment, outreach efforts should be intensified to educate landowners about how conservation programs can address landowners’ environmental concerns and improve provision of ecosystem services they are interested in.

Conservation agencies might need to increase their public engagement through organizing program orientations and monitoring visits to encourage landowner participation and implementation of planned conservation activities. As 50.09 to 80.75% of landowners were neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, this provides a unique opportunity for federal agencies and their partners to increase the area of private lands under active conservation practices. Increased communication about difficulties arising from contractual obligations with landowners can help improve their participation in conservation programs and increase their satisfaction. Better coordination for the planning of conservation activities among federal agencies and other conservation organizations can help them better understand landowner environmental concerns, determine their assistance needs, and identify priorities for large-scale conservation goals and outreach activities. Landowners were usually concerned about complicated and lengthy administrative processes resulting from inconsistencies and a top-down approach used by the program administering agencies [73]; therefore, conservation agencies should maintain similar standards of contract terms in nearby counties and increase local control in decision making. For example, when a landowner enrolls her/his land in multiple counties of a region and faces varying contract terms, incentives, and service delivery of a conservation program, it may result in negative effects on her/his overall satisfaction with the conservation program.

5. Conclusions

Unlike most of the past studies, this study focused on evaluation of landowner satisfaction based on multiple conservation programs implemented in the southern United States. This study determined the influence of private land attributes and environmental concerns on landowner satisfaction with available conservation programs. As landowners are one of the key stakeholders of conservation efforts at a landscape level, evaluating their satisfaction provides a better understanding of the management obstacles and identifies opportunities for expanding conservation practices on private lands. Three main insights were derived from this research, and they are relevant in any socio-ecological context.

First, this study showed how private land attributes, such as property size and landownership goals, were associated with program satisfaction. Landowners with relatively large cropland parcels were more satisfied with conservation programs than those who owned relatively smaller parcels. In addition, landowners were more likely to be satisfied with available conservation programs, if they owned land for profit making and personal recreation than other ownership goals. These findings imply that aiding landowners in achieving their landownership goals could help increase their participation in conservation programs. Using available conservation program funding, landowners might have more opportunities to address their environmental concerns and optimize the long-term productivity of their lands.

Second, a positive influence of landowner concern about wildlife habitat losses on their satisfaction indicated that more landowners might be interested in wildlife habitat improvements on their private properties. Wildlife habitat improvement is one of the key conservation practices supported by most conservation programs. This finding implies that continuing support for the wildlife habitat improvements might help address landowner concern and increase their participation in conservation efforts because it can help achieve not only this but also other related landownership goals, such as recreation.

Third, consistent with previous studies, this study also indicated that program satisfaction was linked to the frequent contacts with an agency administering the program. In addition, this study found that landowner satisfaction was improved by not only contacting a federal agency overseeing the program but also contacting other relevant agencies. However, it was found that an improvement of landowner satisfaction may not always occur. This finding implies that a better coordination among federal agencies might help improve the efficiency of their respective conservation programs if they are implemented in the same geographic areas.

This study has a few caveats. First, originally, a five-point Likert scale was used to measure satisfaction with individual conservation programs. The ‘neither satisfied nor unsatisfied’ category attracted the largest number of responses. Thus, future research can address this limitation by avoiding the ‘neither satisfied nor unsatisfied’ satisfaction category if a survey questionnaire includes multiple conservation programs simultaneously. As an example, a four-point Likert scale consisting of very unsatisfied, unsatisfied, satisfied and very satisfied categories, can be used to elicit landowner satisfaction levels. Second, a generalized ordered logit model was somewhat complex to interpret. Therefore, a conventional ordered logit or probit model can replace it, but it will require large data sets to obtain sample estimates that are asymptotically equivalent to population estimates. Third, this study lacked some of the relevant exploratory variables related to whether a landowner participated in a particular conservation program, had acreage enrolled in the program, and how familiar the landowner was with a conservation program being evaluated as well as other characteristics such as contract length, the minimum area required to qualify for enrollment, and required conservation activities. These program-specific variables were not included in this study because information about landowner satisfaction with 60 conservation programs was collected through a single survey questionnaire. Future research can improve analysis of program satisfaction by collecting these relevant data from landowners for each conservation program implemented at a federal level.