Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
6 <br />and tobacco farms. Equine operations (horse farms) were included in the sample. A total of 583 <br />surveys were mailed in late January 1998. <br />Methodology of Result Tabulation <br />The total number of survey responses received was 165. Forty-eight were returned as <br />undeliverable. In order to find the percentage of response, the undeliverable (48) were <br />subtracted from 583 (total mailed), yielding a total of 535 surveys delivered. Then, the total of <br />responses received (165) was divided by the total of surveys delivered (535), yielding a response <br />rate of 30.8%. Out of the 165 total respondents, 159 surveys were used for tabulation, as some <br />were returned blank or from citizens who didn't have an agricultural operation. <br />All surveys included apostage-paid envelope for returning responses. Survey responses were <br />mailed to the Soil and Water Conservation District office, where they were collected by the <br />graduate intern. The intern opened all envelopes and entered the responses into a Microsoft <br />Access database. After tabulations were completed, the individual survey forms were destroyed. <br />This procedure ensured the confidentiality of responders. (Although not required, several <br />responders wrote their names and addresses on the survey forms.) <br />The tabulation of survey responses was performed in order to obtain aggregate results instead of <br />individual ones. Although the intent of some questions was to find the respondent's individual <br />preferences ranked in order, this was not possible due to varied methods of answering the <br />questions. Many respondents did not follow the directions to "rank in order" or "mark only <br />one". Since more than one choice was often checked, each response received a single count. <br />Each option presented in the questions had a 100% chance of being chosen. Although the total <br />number of surveys equaled 159, various respondents did not answer each question. As a result, <br />the raw numbers of answers in the "total #" column do not always sum to 159. <br />The figures representing numbers of workers employed by the agricultural operation were not <br />figured out of 100%. Since they are raw numbers of workers, there is not a maximum number of <br />employees possible. In addition, the average years of operation was also not figured in terms of <br />percent. <br />Lastly, the responses to the policy questions at the end of the survey were often marked with <br />more than one choice. It was common for the respondent to mark "no" with "need more <br />information". It was difficult to obtain an accurate gauge of the individual responses in those <br />categories since there was a higher percentage in each from being consolidated. A spreadsheet <br />of aggregated results from the survey is provided as Appendix B. <br />The last page of the survey provided an opportunity for respondents to provide further remarks. <br />Many comments were received from survey respondents, covering a range of issues that address <br />their concerns for the future of farming as well as suggestions for new methods of achieving <br />their visions. These comments are included as Appendix C. <br />Highlighted Results of Survey Questions <br />Several of the results obtained from the survey responses echoed many familiar sentiments <br />expressed within Orange County. These highlighted results address many of the farmers' <br />perceptions of changes in land surrounding or otherwise affecting their operations. Also noted <br />1998 Orange County Agricultural Survey <br />