naip survey summary report outline · 1. there was an increase in the overall satisfaction of 2010...

1

2010 NAIP Survey: Summary Report

USDA Farm Service Agency

Aerial Photography Field Office Salt Lake City, UT 84119

March 2011

3

Table of Contents Page No. Section 1 – Executive Summary 6 Section 2 – Overview 9 Section 3 – Summary of Survey Results 12 Section 4 – Comparing 2006- 2010 Survey Results 50 Section 5 – Recommendations for NAIP Based on Survey Results 63 Section 6 – Recommendations for Changes to Survey for 2011 65 Appendix A – Alternative Uses of NAIP 67 Appendix B – Recommendations to Improve NAIP 69 Appendix C – Summaries of Open-Ended Questions 71 Appendix D – Questions Omitted From the 2009 Survey 74

Maps, Charts, and Tables

Map 1 – Completed Surveys________________________________________________________10 Map 2 – Did You Use NAIP Imagery When Creating Maps?________________________________18 Map 3 – Did You Use the 2010 NAIP Imagery in Any Appeal Adjudications?___________________20 Map 4 – Month NAIP Was First Received______________________________________________22 Map 5 – Ideal Acquisition Date – Month_______________________________________________24 Map 6 – Ideal Flying Season Start – Month____________________________________________26 Map 7 – Ideal Flying Season End – Month_____________________________________________27 Map 8 – Typical Growing Seasons___________________________________________________28 Map 9 – Image Quality Lightness/Darkness____________________________________________30 Map 10 – Image Quality Contrast____________________________________________________31 Map 11 – Image Quality Color______________________________________________________32 Map 12 – Overall Satisfaction_______________________________________________________34 Map 13 – Did the CLU need to be edited?_____________________________________________35 Map 14 – Primary Importance – Acreage______________________________________________37 Map 15 – Primary Importance – Dollar Value___________________________________________39 Map 16 – Secondary Importance – Acreage____________________________________________41 Map 17 – Secondary Importance – Dollar Value_________________________________________43 Map 18 – Seamline Shapefile_______________________________________________________44 Map 19 – Is the Seamline Shapefile More Useful?_______________________________________45 Map 20 – 4-Band Available_________________________________________________________46 Map 21 – 4-Band Useful___________________________________________________________47 Chart 1 – Question 2______________________________________________________________12 Chart 2 – Question 4______________________________________________________________13 Chart 3 – Question 7______________________________________________________________14 Chart 4 – Question 7______________________________________________________________15 Chart 5 – Question 8______________________________________________________________15 Chart 6 – Question 8______________________________________________________________16 Chart 7 – Question 9______________________________________________________________16 Chart 8 – Question 9______________________________________________________________17 Charts 9 – Question 10____________________________________________________________17 Chart 10 – Question 12____________________________________________________________19 Chart 11 – Question 14____________________________________________________________21 Chart 12 – Question 14____________________________________________________________21 Chart 13 – Question 15____________________________________________________________23 Chart 14 – Question 15____________________________________________________________23 Chart 15 – Question 16____________________________________________________________25 Chart 16 – Question 16____________________________________________________________25 Chart 17 – Question 17____________________________________________________________28 Chart 18 – Question 18____________________________________________________________29 Chart 19 – Question 19____________________________________________________________31 Chart 20 – Question 20____________________________________________________________32 Chart 21 – Question 21____________________________________________________________33 Chart 22 – Question 22____________________________________________________________35 Chart 23 – Question 23____________________________________________________________36 Chart 24 – Question 24____________________________________________________________38 Chart 25 – Question 25____________________________________________________________40 Chart 26 – Question 26____________________________________________________________42 Chart 27 – Question 27____________________________________________________________44 Chart 28 – Question 28____________________________________________________________45

4

Chart 29 – Question 29____________________________________________________________46 Chart 30 – Question 30____________________________________________________________47 Chart 31 – Question 31____________________________________________________________48 Chart 32 – Question 14 Comparison__________________________________________________51 Chart 33 – Comparison of Question 16 over 5 years_____________________________________52 Chart 34 – Comparison of Question 16 over 5 years _____________________________________52 Chart 35 – Comparison of Question 16 over 5 years _____________________________________53 Chart 36 – Comparison of Question 16 over 5 years _____________________________________53 Chart 37 – Comparison of Question 16 over 5 years _____________________________________53 Chart 38 – Comparison of Harvest Times______________________________________________54 Chart 39 – Question 18 Comparison__________________________________________________55 Chart 40 – Question 19 Comparison _________________________________________________55 Chart 41 – Question 20 Comparison _________________________________________________56 Chart 42 – Question 21 Comparison__________________________________________________57 Chart 43 – Question 23 Comparison__________________________________________________57 Chart 44 – Question 24 Comparison _________________________________________________58 Chart 45 – NAIP Activities 2006 _____________________________________________________59 Chart 46 – NAIP Activities 2007______________________________________________________59 Chart 47 – NAIP Activities 2008______________________________________________________60 Chart 48 – NAIP Activities 2009______________________________________________________60 Chart 49 – NAIP Activities 2010______________________________________________________61 Table 1 – NAIP Receive Date________________________________________________________51 Table 2 – Ideal Collection Date_______________________________________________________51

6

Section 1 – Executive Summary The 2010 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Survey was initiated as a means to assess NAIP based on feedback from the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) primary customers, the FSA State and County Offices. Per Notice AP-13, the 2010 NAIP Survey was distributed through a web-based medium to each FSA County Service Center via the State Geographic Information System (GIS) Specialists/Coordinators. Each State and County Office receiving 2010 NAIP (AZ, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, and WI) imagery was directed to complete the survey. The survey: • establishes a standardized feedback mechanism for NAIP acquisition and delivery • allows for adjustment of program strategy as necessary based on survey analysis • will allow for analysis of previous, current, and future year feedback to ensure continued program improvement and development. The following is a brief summary of survey responses: Total Survey Responses = 2,599 (2,233 actually completed the survey) Note: The first three bullets below represent percentages that were calculated with the response of “N/A” removed so that only respondents that were familiar with certain farm programs were accounted for.

• 83% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with 2010 NAIP delivery time in regards to various farm program usage.

• 87% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the date the imagery was flown in regards to various farm program usage.

• 88% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the overall quality of the imagery in regards to farm program usage.

• 85% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the acquisition and delivery of the 2010 NAIP imagery.

• NAIP imagery was used approximately 4.8 million times in generating maps to assist with FSA programs.

• 2,599 survey responses are the second most since the survey began (2006 – 2,986). The following general conclusions may be drawn:

1. There was an increase in the overall satisfaction of 2010 NAIP from 2009. However, there is still room for program improvement.

2. As was the case last year, improvement on the speed of delivery to the FSA State and County Offices from the time of acquisition may yield the greatest overall improvement to the program. The thin client transition will change the delivery paradigm.

3. Users still do not seem to be aware of data contained in the seamline shapefile and that 4-band imagery is available.

4. Image quality ratings increased for 2010 across all categories including color, contrast and lightness/darkness.

7

5. According to the responses, customer satisfaction with the quality of the imagery is up 4% from 81% in 2009 to 85% in 2010.

9

Section 2 - Overview In 2010, FSA completed the 9th year of acquiring NAIP. The USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO) is responsible for the acquisition, data ingestion, quality assessment, data delivery, and archiving of the NAIP imagery. FSA continues to adjust and modify NAIP processes to keep pace with technological advances in geospatial data acquisition and delivery as well as to meet the needs of FSA Service Centers and State Offices, their primary NAIP customers. Feedback from NAIP users is vital for program improvement. To facilitate this, APFO prepared a survey for FSA State and County Office response. This is the sixth year for the NAIP Survey, with numerous changes from previous surveys. Several questions were eliminated or modified, and new questions were created. A great deal of the 2010 survey focuses on NAIP imagery in relation to FSA farm program usage. The 2005 NAIP Survey was administered using email and spreadsheets, whereas the 2006 through 2010 NAIP surveys were completed utilizing a web survey engine. This helped alleviate human error in survey scoring and analysis for most responses. Per AP-13, FSA State Offices were to take one survey per State Office, and County Service Centers were to take one survey per county administered. This instruction was not always adhered to and as a result based on analysis of the data, multiple responses from the same County can skew the survey result significantly (approximately 8% of counties took the survey multiple times). Surveys were taken over a 33-day period, between January 24 and February 25, 2011. The format of the survey varied to include the following types of questions: multiple choice, open ended, select all that apply, and numerically rated. After the close of the survey, responses were downloaded from the survey website in a variety of formats, including a survey summary, raw answers, and parsed answers as needed. While analysis of survey returns could be performed endlessly, it is understood that the results herein only scratch the surface of potential analysis. APFO hopes to keep the current survey format stable for future years, streamlining questions and tightening user inputs as necessary. This will allow for a quality comparison of past and future survey results, enhancing feedback for program improvement.

10

Map 1 – Completed Surveys

The graphic above depicts the 2010 NAIP Surveys that were completed via the web survey engine as of the closing date of the survey. Identification of counties that completed the survey was based on answers to question #5: “What is your 5-digit state and county FIPS code?” Counties in green responded to the question by selecting a FIPS code from a drop down menu. Most states were very close to 100% completion. About 91% of the 2010 NAIP counties responded. A few respondents (21) marked county FIPS codes that were not part of 2010 NAIP. These are identified in red above.

12

Section 3 – Summary of Survey Results

The following section is a statistical breakdown of the survey on a question by question basis. At the end of this section there are a few examples of additional analysis, performed by comparing responses to multiple questions. Question 1. Name: 74% of respondents answered this question; responses varied. This question was optional. Question 2. Position: Respondents were asked to identify their current position from a drop down menu. If the position was not listed, “other” could be chosen and the position typed in. A summary of “other” positions can be found in Appendix C.

Chart 1 – Question 2

Question 3. Today's Date: Responses ranged between Jan 24th and Feb 25th, 2011. January 25th was the date with the most participation (survey was taken 344 times on this date).

21.4%

2.7%

73.0%

0.1%0.8%

2.0%

Position

County Executive Director

CLU Data Manager

Program Technician

State GIS Coordinator

State GIS Specialist

Other (please specify)

13

Question 4. Where do you work? Options were “State Office” or “County Service Center”. If “State Office” was chosen, respondents skipped question 6.


Question 5. What is your 5-digit State and County FIPS Code? Responses varied. Question 6. What is your 2-digit State FIPS Code? Responses varied. Survey questions 7, 8, and 9 deal with NAIP user satisfaction in relation to various FSA farm programs. This differs from previous surveys as this section only dealt with compliance. The programs/uses addressed in the 2010 survey are: compliance, TERRA (Tool for Environmental Resource Results Assessment), CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) administration, BCAP (Biomass Crop Assistance Program), CLU (Common Land Unit) maintenance tool, grain bin tool, farm loans, FSA map series tool, acreage reporting, and an option to choose other for uses that were not listed. These programs/uses were included in the survey based upon input from FSA state GIS specialists and other FSA employees. Possible choices for questions 7, 8, and 9 were as follows: Very Satisfied Satisfied

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

State Office County Service Center

28

2571

Where do you Work?

14

Neither Unsatisfied Very Unsatisfied N/A or not sure Respondents were encouraged to select all programs that applied. Chart 3 graphically illustrates the amount of responses to question 7. Chart 4 shows satisfaction of delivery time as a percentage. The blue columns represent responses of either “Very Satisfied” or “Satisfied” and the red columns represent responses of either “Unsatisfied” or “Very Unsatisfied”. Responses of N/A were not counted towards the percentage results. The same is true for the following charts illustrating the data from questions 8 and 9. Question 7. With regards to using NAIP imagery for the following programs, how satisfied were you with the delivery time of the 2010 NAIP imagery? (check all that apply).


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Satisfaction With Delivery Time

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither

Unsatisfied

Very Unsatisfied

N/A or Not Sure

15


Question 8. With regards to using NAIP imagery for the following programs, how satisfied are you with the dates the imagery was flown? (check all that apply).


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100% 88.0%84.4%

86.4%

68.9%

90.3%

72.7% 69.9%

82.0%85.6%

74.1%

6.8% 4.6% 4.6% 3.3% 5.5% 3.0% 2.7% 5.1% 6.6% 5.4%

Satisfaction of Delivery Time as a Percentage

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Satisfaction With Acquisition Date

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither

Unsatisfied

Very Unsatisfied

N/A or Not Sure

16


Question 9. With regards to using NAIP imagery for the following programs, how satisfied are you with the overall quality of the imagery? (check all that apply)


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 90.4% 88.9% 89.9%

75.0%

92.3%

77.3%74.9%

86.2% 89.1%

77.8%

4.4% 2.4% 2.6% 2.2% 2.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.9% 4.2% 3.2%

Satisfaction of Acquisition Date as a Percentage

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Satisfaction With Overall Quality

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither

Unsatisfied

Very Unsatisfied

N/A or Not Sure

17


Question 10. Did you use NAIP imagery when creating maps? This question is new this year. The idea is to get a “ball park” idea of how often NAIP is used to generate any kind of map for FSA program support. Responses were either yes or no.


0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0% 91.5% 90.3% 90.9%

77.6%

92.3%

80.6% 77.3%

87.0% 90.6%79.8%

4.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.1% 4.0% 2.6% 2.8% 3.8% 4.4% 4.0%

Satisfaction of Overall Quality

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No

90.8%

9.2%

Did you use NAIP imagery when creating maps?

18

Map 2 – Did you use NAIP imagery when creating maps?

Question 11. Approximately how many times did you use the 2010 NAIP imagery when generating maps? If respondents answered “Yes” to question 10, they were asked to approximate how many times NAIP was used to create maps; if “No”, question 11 was skipped. There were 2,179 responses given. The range of values was from 999,999,999 to 0. Since some of the values entered are probably incorrect, it is difficult to do an accurate analysis of this survey question. With the values that were likely incorrect omitted, the average response was 1,202 times.

Question 12. Did you use the 2010 NAIP imagery in any appeal adjudications? This question was also new this year. It was designed to see how much NAIP is being used in appeal adjudications. This is when imagery is used as a form of evidence in legal situations.

19


A majority responded “No” to this question which was nearly the exact opposite of question 10. Map 3 below illustrates the counties that answered “Yes”.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Yes No

4.9%

95.1%

Did you use the 2010 NAIP imagery in any appeal adjudications?

20

Map 3 – Did you use the 2010 NAIP imagery in any appeal adjudications?

Question 13. How many times was the 2010 NAIP imagery used in appeal adjudications? If “Yes” was answered on question 12, respondents were asked to enter how many times NAIP was used in appeal adjudications. For those that answered this question, the average amount that NAIP was used was 4.98 times. The total amount that NAIP was used was 607 times. Question 14. On what date did you first receive your 2010 NAIP imagery? This question had a range of dates from April 15, 2010 to February 25, 2011. “Have not received yet” was also an option. As of the close of the survey, 3.5% of respondents had not received their NAIP imagery yet. October was the month that was reported the most with October 1st, 2010 the most reported single date (109 times).

21



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

On what date did you first receive your 2010 NAIP imagery?

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11

First Receipt of Imagery by Month

22

Map 4 – Month NAIP was first received

Question 15. If 2010 NAIP imagery for your area could have been collected on a single day, what day would have been ideal? This question had a range of dates from April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. The most frequent ideal collection date was July 15, 2010 (12.4% of responses) and July was the ideal collection month (37% of responses).

23



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Ideal Collection Date

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10

Ideal Collection Date - Month

24

Map 5 – Ideal Acquisition Date-Month

Question 16. Given that a single date is not possible, what flying season do you feel would have been acceptable to meet your farm program needs? This question asked what flying season would have been ideal to meet program needs. The respondents were asked to enter a start date and an end date. Based upon all responses, the average start date was 9/25/2010 and the average end date was 11/19/2010. July 1, 2010 was the most frequently entered start date and August 15, 2010 was the most frequently entered end date. Because this question allowed users to enter a date, the results are skewed, as outliers were common. In the graphs below, the probable outliers were not accounted for. However, the outliers are shown in the maps.

25



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr

-10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug

-10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr

-11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug

-11

Sep-

11

Oct

-11

Nov

-11

Ideal Flying Season Start Date - Month

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr

-10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug

-10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr

-11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug

-11

Sep-

11

Oct

-11

Nov

-11

Dec

-11

Ideal Flying Season End Date - Month

26

Map 6 – Ideal Flying Season Start-Month

27

Map 7 – Ideal Flying Season End-Month

Question 17. Did 2010 have typical growing seasons? This question had 3 possible choices: “Crops Were Harvested Earlier Than Normal”, “Crops Were Harvested at About the Normal Time”, “Crops Were Harvested Later Than Normal”. The map below illustrates a trend of early harvest around the Great Lakes.

28


Map 8 – Typical Growing Seasons

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Crops Were Harvested Earlier Than Normal

Crops Were Harvested at About the Normal

Time

Crops Were Harvested Later Than Normal

23.5%

67.5%

9.0%

Did 2010 have typical growing seasons?

29

Questions 18 through 20 address the image quality of the 2010 NAIP imagery. Survey takers were asked to respond with the following options for each question: Excellent Good Fair (Neutral) Poor Unusable N/A or Not Sure The responses of “Poor” or “Unusable” were concentrated in Wisconsin. Question 18. Rate the image quality in terms of darkness/lightness 79.7% answered “Excellent” or “Good”. 2.8% answered “Poor” or “Unusable”.


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Excellent Good Fair (neutral) Poor Unusable N/A or Not Sure

515

1293

319

622

78

Rate the image quality in terms of darkness/lightness

30

Map 9 – Image Quality-Lightness/Darkness

Question 19. Rate the image quality in terms of contrast 78.8% answered “Excellent” or “Good”. 3.6% answered “Poor” or “Unusable”.

31


Map 10- Image Quality Contrast

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Excellent Good Fair (neutral)

Poor Unusable N/A or Not Sure

509

1279

322

78 378

Rate the image quality in terms of contrast

32

Question 20. Rate the image quality in terms of color 78.7% answered “Excellent” or “Good”. 4.1% answered “Poor” or “Unusable”.


Map 11 – Image Quality Color

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Excellent Good Fair (neutral)

Poor Unusable N/A or Not Sure

540

1245

312

87 6 79

Rate the image quality in terms of color

33

Question 21. Overall, how satisfied are you with 2010 NAIP acquisition and delivery in your County/State? This question allowed respondents to choose between the following: Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither Unsatisfied Very Unsatisfied N/A or Not Sure 85.3% were either “Very Satisfied” or “Satisfied” with the overall acquisition and delivery. 4.2% were either “Unsatisfied” or “Very Unsatisfied”.


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither Unsatisfied Very Unsatisfied

N/A or Not Sure

574

1361

15972

23 80

Overall, how satisfied are you with 2010 NAIP acquisition and delivery in your County/State?

34

Map 12 – Overall Satisfaction

Question 22. Did CLU need to be edited to match the 2010 NAIP Imagery? This question tracks whether or not CLU needed to be edited due to land use change or due to imagery shifts from previous NAIP years. Possible responses to this question were:

A. Yes, in locations of land use change B. Yes, due to shifts in the imagery from previous base imagery C. Both A and B D. No E. Not Sure

About 48% of respondents made some sort of edit to the CLU.

35


Map 13 – Did the CLU need to be edited?

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Yes, in locations of

land use change

Yes, due to shifts in the

imagery from previous base

imagery

Both A and B No Not Sure

527

137

436

831

338

Did CLU need to be edited to match the 2010 NAIP Imagery?

36

Questions 23 through 26 address crop types and dollar values as well as crops and acreage. Respondents chose from a drop down of crop types as well as an option to choose “other” and input an unlisted crop type. In the maps for each of the questions, only the 17 crop types with the highest number of responses are displayed. All other responses are grouped into the “other” category. A summary of “other” answers can be found in Appendix C. Question 23. The crop type of primary importance in your area in terms of largest amount of acreage is: This question tracks which crop has the largest acreage for the survey takers local area. Corn (for grain) accounted for 33.9% of responses. Soybeans accounted for 15.6%.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Alfa

lfa

Alm

onds

App

les

Bean

s

Blue

berr

ies

Cher

ries

Chris

tmas

Tre

es

Corn

(Oth

er)

Corn

For

Gra

in

Corn

For

Sila

ge

Cott

on (O

ther

)

Cott

on (U

plan

d)

CRP

Fallo

w

Gra

pes

Gra

ss

Gra

zing

Hay

(All

Type

s)

Hay

(Coa

stal

Ber

mud

a)

Hay

(Fes

cue)

Hay

(Gra

ss)

Hay

(Im

prov

ed G

rass

)

Hay

(Mix

ed F

orag

e)

Hay

(Mix

ed G

rass

)

Hay

(Oth

er)

Mix

ed F

orag

e

Nur

sery

Oat

s (S

prin

g)

Ora

nges

Past

ure

(Gra

ss)

Pean

uts

Peca

ns

Pota

toes

Pota

toes

, Sw

eet

Rice

Sorg

hum

For

Gra

in

Soyb

eans

Spec

ialit

y Cr

ops

Stra

wbe

rrie

s

Suga

rcan

e

Tim

ber

Toba

cco

(Bur

ley)

Toba

cco

(Flu

e-Cu

red

)

Toba

cco

(Oth

er)

Tom

atoe

s

Tree

s, T

imbe

r

Vege

tabl

es

Wat

erm

elon

Whe

at (D

urum

)

Whe

at (S

prin

g)

Whe

at (W

inte

r)

Whe

at F

or G

rain

Oth

er (p

leas

e sp

ecify

)

The crop type of primary importance in your area in terms of largest amount of acreage is:

37

Map 14 – Primary Importance-Acreage

Question 24. The crop type of primary importance in your area in terms of highest dollar value is: This question tracks which crop has the highest dollar value for the survey takers local area. Corn (for grain) accounted for 30.9% of responses. Soybeans accounted for 17.9% and Cotton (Upland) accounted for 9%.

38


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

The crop type of primary importance in your area in terms of highest dollar value is:

39

Map 15 – Primary Importance-Dollar Value

Question 25. The crop type of secondary importance in your area in terms of largest amount of acreage is: This question tracks which crop is of secondary importance in terms of largest acreage for the survey takers local area. Soybeans accounted for 32.6% of responses. Corn for grain accounted for 19.8% and Hay (all types) 5.8%.

40


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Alfa

lfa

App

les

Bean

s

Blue

berr

ies

Cane

berr

ies

Cant

alou

pe

Chris

tmas

Tre

es

Corn

For

Gra

in

Cott

on (O

ther

)

CRP

Flow

ers

Frui

ts

Gra

ss

Gra

ss fo

r So

d

Gre

ens

Hay

(Coa

stal

Ber

mud

a)

Hay

(Fes

cue)

Hay

(Im

prov

ed G

rass

)

Hay

(Mix

ed G

rass

)

Hay

(Per

enni

al G

rass

)

Lent

ils

Mix

ed F

orag

e

Oat

s (F

all)

Oni

ons

Past

ure

(Gra

ss)

Peac

hes

Peas

Pepp

ers

Pota

toes

, Sw

eet

Rice

Sorg

hum

For

Gra

in

Soyb

eans

Squa

sh

Suda

n Fo

r Hay

Suga

rcan

e

Tim

ber

Toba

cco

(Flu

e-Cu

red

)

Tom

atoe

s

Vege

tabl

es

Whe

at (D

urum

)

Whe

at (S

prin

g)

Whe

at F

or G

rain

The crop type of secondary importance in your area in terms of acreage is:

41

Map 16 – Secondary Importance-Acreage Question 26. The crop type of secondary importance in your area in terms of dollar value is: This question tracks which crop is of secondary importance in terms of dollar value for the survey respondents local area. Soybeans accounted for 30.7% of responses. Corn for grain accounted for 22.4% and Hay (all types) 4.8%.

42


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Alfa

lfaAl

mon

dsAp

ples

Barl

ey (S

prin

g)Be

ans

Bean

s (D

ry)

Blue

berr

ies

Cabb

age

Cane

berr

ies

Cano

laCa

ntal

oupe

Carr

ots

Cher

ries

Chri

stm

as T

rees

Corn

(Oth

er)

Corn

For

Gra

inCo

rn F

or S

ilage

Cott

on (O

ther

)Co

tton

(Upl

and)

Cran

berr

ies

CRP

Fallo

wFl

ower

sFo

rage

Soy

bean

/Sor

ghum

Frui

tsG

rape

sG

rass

Gra

ss fo

r See

dG

rass

for S

odG

razi

ngG

reen

sH

ay (A

ll Ty

pes)

Hay

(Coa

stal

Ber

mud

a)H

ay (C

oast

al)

Hay

(Fes

cue)

Hay

(Gra

ss)

Hay

(Im

prov

ed G

rass

)H

ay (M

ixed

For

age)

Hay

(Mix

ed G

rass

)H

ay (O

ther

)H

ay (P

eren

nial

Gra

ss)

Hay

(Tim

othy

)Le

ntils

Mill

etM

ixed

For

age

Nur

sery

Oat

s (Sp

ring

)O

nion

sO

rang

esPa

stur

e (G

rass

)Pe

ache

sPe

anut

sPe

asPe

cans

Pepp

ers

Pota

toes

Pota

toes

, Sw

eet

Pum

pkin

sRi

ceSo

rghu

m F

or G

rain

Sorg

hum

For

Sila

geSo

ybea

nsSp

ecia

lity

Crop

sSq

uash

Stra

wbe

rrie

sSu

dan

For H

aySu

gar B

eets

Suga

rcan

eSu

nflo

wer

sTi

mbe

rTo

bacc

o (B

urle

y)To

bacc

o (F

lue-

Cure

d )

Toba

cco

(Oth

er)

Tom

atoe

sTr

ees,

Tim

ber

Vege

tabl

esW

ater

mel

onW

heat

(Dur

um)

Whe

at (O

ther

)W

heat

(Spr

ing)

Whe

at (W

inte

r)W

heat

For

Gra

inO

ther

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

The crop type of secondary importance in your area in terms of dollar value is:

43

Map 17 – Secondary Importance-Dollar Value Question 27. A Seamline Shapefile is delivered with each Compressed County Mosaic. Are you aware that this shapefile contains acquisition time and date information for each camera exposure used to create the Compressed County Mosaic? This question was new for the 2009 NAIP Survey. Even after 2 years, a large majority of respondents are not aware of the information contained in the shapefile attributes. Several states had all responses as “No”.

44


Map 18 – Seamline Shapefile

22.8%

77.2%

Aware of Seamline Shapefile information?

Yes

No

45

Question 28. Is the Seamline shapefile index more useful than the previously provided county digital ortho quarter quad index? If the answer to question 27 was “Yes”, respondents were sent to question 28; if no, 28 was skipped. Answer options were “Yes”, “No”, and “Not Sure”. This question was somewhat open ended as “Not Sure” was the clear majority answer. Only 25% of survey takers answered this question.


Map 19 – Is the seamline shapefile more useful?

30.1%

2.9%

67.0%

Is the Seamline shapefile index more useful than the doqq index?

Yes

No

Not Sure

46

Question 29. Did you know that 4-band (RGB plus Near-infrared) imagery was available? Approximately 2/3 of respondents claim to have not known that 4-band imagery is available to them. All states were acquired in 2010 with 4-band imagery.


Map 20 – 4-Band Available

33.8%

66.2%

Did you know that 4-band (RGB plus Near-infrared) imagery was available?

Yes

No

47

Question 30. Was the 4-band imagery useful? If question 29 was answered “No”, question 30 was skipped. Possible answers were “Yes”, “No”, “Not Sure”, and “Not Applicable”.


Map 21 – 4-band Useful

34.3%

9.6%42.2%

13.9%

Was the 4-band imagery useful?

Yes

No

Not Sure

Not Applicable

48

Question 31. Mark the following activities that the 2010 NAIP imagery was useful for. (Select all that apply) Question 31 allowed NAIP users to identify various activities that they use NAIP for. The options were: Disaster preparedness or response General planning activities Measurement services (area/distance) Government coordination and communications with other Federal, State, or local agencies Historical purposes (prior year crop disaster measurements, change detection, etc.) Other (please specify) Respondents were asked to check all that apply and if necessary, select the “other” option and identify other uses. These other uses are summarized in Appendix C.


Question 32. Do you have any recommendations to improve the NAIP program? This question allowed for open ended responses. There were 394 responses. A summary of these responses can be found in Appendix B.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Disaster preparedness or

response

General planning activities

Measurement services

(area/distance)

Government coordination and communications

with other Federal, State, or

local agencies

Historical purposes (prior

year crop disaster

measurements, change

detection, etc.)


741

1410

1941

689

1189

424

Activities that the 2010 NAIP imagery was useful for

50

Section 4 – Comparing Survey Results Over 5 Years Other than the general questions (Name, Where do you work?, Position, etc.) at the beginning of the survey, there are 10 questions from the 2010 NAIP Survey that were essentially identical to questions asked in the 2006 - 2009 NAIP Surveys. The questions were: Question 14: On what date did you first receive your 2010 NAIP imagery? Question 15: If 2010 NAIP imagery for your area could have been collected on a single day, what day would have been ideal? Question 16: Given that a single date is not possible, what flying season do you feel would have been acceptable to meet your farm program needs? Question 17: Did 2010 have typical growing seasons? Question 18: Rate the image quality in terms of darkness/lightness: Question 19: Rate the image quality in terms of contrast: Question 20: Rate the image quality in terms of color: Question 21: Overall, how satisfied are you with 2010 NAIP acquisition and delivery in your County/State? Question 23: The crop type of primary importance in your area in terms of largest amount of acreage is: Question 24: The crop type of primary importance in your area in terms of highest dollar value is: Question 31: Mark the following activities that the 2010 NAIP imagery was useful for. (Select all that apply) The responses to these 10 questions will be analyzed over time in the following charts and tables. Question 14 Comparison: On what date did you first receive your 2010 NAIP imagery? This date has been fairly consistent over the past 5 years except for 2008 (see table 1). Chart 32 shows the percentage of survey takers that had not received any NAIP imagery by the close of the respective annual surveys.

51

Year Most Frequently Entered

Date

2006 10/1/2006 2007 11/1/2007 2008 1/26/2009 2009 10/1/2009 2010 10/1/2010

Table 1

Chart 32-Question 14 Comparison

Question 15 Comparison: If 2010 NAIP imagery for your area could have been collected on a single day, what day would have been ideal? All but one of the 5 past years said July 15th would be the ideal collection date (see table 2).

Year Most Frequently Entered

Date

2006 7/15/2006 2007 7/15/2007 2008 8/1/2008 2009 7/15/2009 2010 7/15/2010

Table 2

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

0.95%

0.00%

0.71%

4.46%

3.53%

Percent Not Received by Survey Close

52

Question 16 Comparison: Given that a single date is not possible, what flying season do you feel would have been acceptable to meet your farm program needs? The responses to this question have been pretty consistent over the past 5 years. Most respondents prefer the flying season to begin in July and end in August. This is somewhat of a short time frame considering different growing seasons for crops and the grand scale of the NAIP program. The following charts compare the responses.

Chart 33 – Comparison of Question 16 Over 5 Years


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2006

start month

end month

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Jan-

07

Feb-

07

Mar

-07

Apr

-07

May

-07

Jun-

07

Jul-0

7

Aug

-07

Sep-

07

Oct

-07

Nov

-07

Dec

-07

2007

start month

end month

53




0

100

200

300

400

500

Jan-

08

Feb-

08

Mar

-08

Apr

-08

May

-08

Jun-

08

Jul-0

8

Aug

-08

Sep-

08

Oct

-08

Nov

-08

Dec

-08

2008

start month

end month

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Jan-

09

Feb-

09

Mar

-09

Apr

-09

May

-09

Jun-

09

Jul-0

9

Aug

-09

Sep-

09

Oct

-09

Nov

-09

Dec

-09

2009

start month

end month

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr

-10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug

-10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

2010

start month

end month

54

Question 17 Comparison: Did 2010 have typical growing seasons? For 4 of the past 5 years, respondents reported that crops were harvested at about the normal time by large margins. In 2009, over 60% reported a late harvest. This could be attributed to weather and climate fluctuations or other variables. The trend appears to be that harvests will continue at normal times in the future.

Chart 38 – Comparison of harvest times

Question 18 Comparison: Rate the image quality in terms of darkness/lightness: This question tracked over 5 years how respondents rated the image quality based upon lightness and/or darkness. Subjectivity plays a part in this question (as well as the next two). From 2006 – 2010, “Good” was selected as the large majority (see chart 28). Only in 2006 was there a measurable percentage that selected “Unusable” (4.8%). Question 19 Comparison: Rate the image quality in terms of contrast: This question tracked over 5 years how respondents rated the image quality based upon contrast. Again, the trends are similar to question 18 (see chart 29).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Crop Harvests Over the Last 5 Surveys

Crops Were Harvested Earlier Than Normal

Crops Were Harvested at About the Normal Time

Crops Were Harvested Later Than Normal

55

Chart 39 – Question 18 Comparison


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Rate the image quality in terms of darkness/lightness

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Unusable

N/A Not Sure

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Rate the image quality in terms of contrast

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Unusable

N/A Not Sure

56

Question 20 Comparison: Rate the image quality in terms of color: Question 20 was tracked over 5 years to see trends on how respondents rated the imagery based upon color.


Analyzing “Excellent” and “Good” ratings from the 3 previous questions, it appears that in 2008, respondents were most satisfied with image quality and least satisfied in 2006. Question 21 Comparison: Overall, how satisfied are you with 2010 NAIP acquisition and delivery in your County/State? The responses over the last 5 years somewhat mirror the previous questions. The highest percentage of satisfaction was in 2007 and 2008 whilst the lowest was for 2006 (see chart 42).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Rate the image quality in terms of color

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Unusable

N/A Not Sure

57

Chart 42– Question 21 Comparison

Question 23 Comparison: The crop type of primary importance in your area in terms of largest amount of acreage is: The response to this question has been consistent over the past five years. Corn for grain received the highest percentage of responses by a large margin. Soybeans always had the second most responses. After that, the responses varied between cotton, wheat, and hay. Only the top 5 crops were checked.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Overall, how satisfied are you with NAIP acquisition and delivery in your County/State?

very satisfied

satisfied

neither

unsatisfied

very unsatisfied

N/A Not Sure

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

corn

for

grai

nso

ybea

nsco

tton

(upl

and)

hay

(all

type

s)w

heat

(win

ter)

corn

for

grai

nso

ybea

nsco

tton

(upl

and)

graz

ing

hay

(all

type

s)co

rn fo

r gr

ain

soyb

eans

whe

at (w

inte

r)ha

y (a

ll ty

pes)

hay

(mix

ed fo

rage

)co

rn fo

r gr

ain

soyb

eans

hay

(all

type

s)gr

azin

gco

tton

(upl

and)

corn

for

grai

nso

ybea

nsco

tton

(upl

and)

hay

(all

type

s)w

heat

(win

ter)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Primary Importance - Largest Acreage

58

Question 24 Comparison: The crop type of primary importance in your area in terms of highest dollar value is: Like question 23, corn for grain has consistently been at the top followed by soybeans. The analysis of questions 23 and 24 emphasize results on a national scale. Results would be different for regional scales. For example, if the Sacramento River valley was the focus area, rice would clearly be the crop of primary importance.


Question 31 Comparison: Mark the following activities that the 2010 NAIP imagery was useful for. (Select all that apply) The options for question 31 were the same over the last 5 years: Disaster preparedness or response General planning activities Measurement services (area/distance) Government coordination and communications with other Federal, State, or local agencies Historical purposes (prior year crop disaster measurements, change detection, etc.) Other (please specify) Charts 45-49 illustrate the responses to question 31. Respondents identified “Measurement services (area/distance)” the most over the past 5 years with “Historical purposes…” the second most. It would appear that NAIP imagery is continually important as a base for calculating field acreage as well as being historically valuable.

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

corn

for

grai

n

soyb

eans

cott

on (u

plan

d)

hay

(all

type

s)

whe

at (w

inte

r)

corn

for

grai

n

soyb

eans

cott

on (u

plan

d)

hay

(all

type

s)

pean

uts

corn

for

grai

n

soyb

eans

cott

on (u

plan

d)

whe

at (w

inte

r)

corn

for

sila

ge

corn

for

grai

n

soyb

eans

cott

on (u

plan

d)

hay

(all

type

s)

alfa

lfa

corn

for

grai

n

soyb

eans

cott

on (u

plan

d)

hay

(all

type

s)

whe

at (w

inte

r)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Primary Importance - Dollar Value

59

Chart 45– NAIP Activities 2006


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


response



(area/distance)



local agencies


year crop disaster measurements,

change detection, etc.)


2006

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000


response



(area/distance)



local agencies





2007

60



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


response



(area/distance)



local agencies





2008

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800


response



(area/distance)



local agencies





2009

61


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000


response



(area/distance)



local agencies





2010

63

Section 5 – Recommendations for NAIP Based on Survey Results

The purpose of the NAIP survey is to help assess and improve the program from year to year. Many conclusions may be drawn from the results of the 2010 NAIP Survey. As discussed in the previous year’s survey results, improvements to NAIP could be calculated in a purely statistical manner, where customer satisfaction is assessed each year, with a goal of 100% satisfaction. However, due to factors out of our control, such as weather, early and late crop harvest dates, fires, crop types, processing and equipment issues, the technology curve, and so forth, 100% satisfaction is by no means a realistic goal for NAIP. A more realistic measurement of success is in looking at the trends from year to year. Program improvement should be based on an increase in satisfaction of the primary customer (FSA State and County Offices). NAIP is one method by which FSA program activities may take place, and is currently accepted as a means to update a State’s official FSA ortho base for GIS. Except for some poor delivery issues in some states, 2010 could be considered a good year for NAIP. Overall satisfaction in 2010 was up from 2009. Overall satisfaction is based on the combined percentage of respondents indicating that they were either very satisfied or satisfied with overall acquisition and delivery of NAIP imagery. In 2009, overall satisfaction was 81% compared to 85% for 2010. Specifically, suggestions to improve NAIP based on survey results include:

1. Based on comments from respondents, the top “complaint” was delivery time. There were many concerns about when the county offices first receive the imagery. Ideally, these concerns will be addressed with the migration to the thin client environment.

2. Question 27 asked if respondents were aware of the data included with the seamline shapefile. About 77% said they were not aware of the data. This is similar to 2009 as well; 73% reported the same thing. More instruction should be provided to the county and state offices regarding the seamline shapefiles and associated data.

3. Question 29 asked if respondents knew that 4-band (RGB plus Near-infrared) imagery was available. About 66% answered no to this question. It is important that state and county offices are made aware of near infrared imagery as it will be available through web services.

4. Continue to improve the color/contrast/light/dark specifications. Because of the subjectivity here, a perfect specification is difficult to attain.

5. Encourage state office personnel to work with county office personnel to determine ideal acquisition seasons for NAIP. Based upon responses, many county office personnel would like their flying seasons altered.

65

Section 6 – Recommendations for Changes to Survey for 2011 Most likely, the NAIP survey will continue into the future and will be administered by APFO. A 2011 NAIP Survey will be issued some time near the beginning of 2012, with an approved notice from FSA. Using the same survey medium will continue to allow for comparative analysis of multi-year survey data, as the method and many of the questions would remain consistent. Several minor changes to the survey, based on errors or oversights discovered in the 2010 NAIP Survey, are outlined below:

1. Take away the “other” option to manually enter FIPS codes and only include a list of FIPS codes that received NAIP. This may eliminate errant FIPS codes.

2. Consider a range of values or a minimum and maximum value on question 11 (How many times was NAIP used in creating maps). Respondents entered values that were most likely incorrect, which really inhibited the analysis.

3. Consider adding logic to certain questions so that only county office personnel can respond. Examples include questions regarding map creation and use in appeal adjudications.

4. Consider removing the questions regarding crops and importance based upon acreage and dollar values. The responses have been essentially the same over the last five years; corn and soybeans are clearly the top responses.

5. Question 30 (Was the 4-band imagery useful?) should only have yes or no as an answer option.

6. As NAIP imagery will be delivered in a thin client environment in 2011, new questions should be created to survey this change.

67

Appendix A – Alternative Uses of NAIP Question 31 of the 2010 NAIP Survey asked the respondents to list the activities for which FSA County and State Offices use NAIP. This question was a ‘select all that apply’ type of question, and was accompanied by the additional option for an open ended response. Of the ‘select all that apply’ categories, the following is a list of the standard responses (shown in Section 3) with percentages of the total number of customers responding. Except for general planning services, there was a noticeable decrease in all choices from 2009 (2009 percentage in parentheses).

• 87% of respondents find NAIP useful for measurement services (94%) • 63% of respondents find NAIP useful for general planning activities (63%) • 53% of respondents find NAIP useful for historical purposes (70%) • 33% of respondents find NAIP useful for disaster preparation (46%) • 31% of respondents find NAIP useful for government coordination (45%)

19% chose “Other” as an option. Here, respondents could manually identify other NAIP usage. In general, alternative uses included but were by no means limited to:

• Acreage certification • Crop certification • CLU maintenance • Compliance • Crop identification • Contract violations • CRP evaluation • Estate planning • Farm record maintenance • General monitoring • Grain bin locating • Irrigation practice changes • Land use change monitoring • Local law enforcement • Map making • Mapping windmills • New cropping • New land breaking • Oil well discovery • Reconstitutions • Sodbusting • Spot checking • Updating CLU • Updating field boundaries • Wetland compliance

69

Appendix B – Recommendations to Improve NAIP Question 32 of the 2010 NAIP Survey asked what recommendations customers may have to improve the NAIP program? Open ended responses varied greatly, but general trends noted the following:

• Deliver the imagery in a more timely manner • Fly the imagery in a more timely manner • Fly more often • Fly twice a year • Fly complete county and state coverage every year • Improve quality • Lower NAIP horizontal accuracy offset specification to 1 meter • Improve image clarity • Increase resolution • Overcome infrastructure, hardware, and software issues • Increase training

71

Appendix C – Summaries of Open-Ended Questions Question 2 asked for the respondent’s position. “Other” was chosen 2% of the time. The following is a summary of those positions.

• Acting County Executive Director • Chief Field Technician • CLU Data Manager • County Operations Trainee • Farm Loan Officer Trainee • Lead Program Technician • Primary CLU Editor

Questions 23 to 26 allowed respondents to enter crops not listed on the dropdowns in regards to crop importance. The following is a summary of those responses. 23. The crop type of primary importance in your area in terms of largest amount of acreage is:

• All vegetables • Citrus • Clams • Cut foliage – fern • Olives

24. The crop type of primary importance in your area in terms of highest dollar value is:

• Citrus • Clams • Cut foliage - fern • Peppermint and spearmint • Vineyard

25. The crop type of secondary importance in your area in terms of largest amount of acreage is:

• Cut foliage - fern • Fish • Native grass • Orchards • Tropical fruit

26. The crop type of secondary importance in your area in terms of highest dollar value is:

• Cut foliage - fern • Fish • Native grass • Orchards

72

• Tropical fruit

74

Appendix D – Questions Omitted From the 2010 Survey The following questions from the 2009 NAIP survey were omitted for 2010. There were various reasons for removing questions. A reason is provided for each question. Did you use 2009 NAIP imagery for compliance purposes? How satisfied are you with the delivery time of the 2009 NAIP imagery in order for it to be useful for acreage compliance work? Based on what is visible on the imagery for acreage compliance work, how satisfied are you with the dates the imagery was flown? How satisfied are you with the overall quality of the imagery for acreage compliance work? The previous four questions were reworked and lumped into questions 7-9 in the 2010 survey. Web Mapping Services (WMS) using Geospatial Data Warehouse (GDW) data are available to you by adding the Image Web Service to your ArcMAP Session. Do you use these services? If you do use the WMS associated with the GDW, how useful is it? The above questions were removed because the GDW was less relevant in 2010. Do you use the USDA Resource Data Gateway? If you do use the USDA Resource Data Gateway, how useful is it? The above questions were omitted because trends show a large majority are not aware of the Data Gateway or do not use it. How many requests for copies of the NAIP imagery, either hard copy or softcopy does your office receive? There was no longer a desire to track this.

naip survey summary report outline · 1. there was an increase in the overall satisfaction of 2010...

Documents