Discover the management goals and communication dynamics among family forest owners in the Upper Peninsula through research findings on neighbor influence, peer effects, and voluntary incentive programs. Explore how peer influence shapes forest management decisions and understand the role of community networks in private forest management.
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
INFORMATION AND MANAGEMENT GOALS OF FAMILY FOREST OWNERS IN THE UPPER PENINSULA Miranda Aho1 Audrey L. Mayer1,2(almayer@mtu.edu) Mark Rouleau1 1Department of Social Sciences 2School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University
COMMUNICATION WITH AND AMONG FAMILY FOREST OWNERS Schubert JR and AL Mayer. 2012. Peer influence of nonindustrial private forest owners in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Open Journal of Forestry 2(3):147-155 Lind-Riehl J, S Jeltema, M Morrison, G Shirkey, AL Mayer, MD Rouleau, R Winkler. 2015. Family legacies and community networks shape private forest management. Land Use Policy 45:95-102. Rouleau M, J Lind-Riehl, M Aho, AL Mayer. In prep. Failure to communicate: Inefficiencies in voluntary incentive programs for forest owners in Michigan.
WHAT WE KNOW NIPF owners get information about management from neighbors almost as often as from professional sources; adoption rates are higher (West et al, 1988; Fernholz, 2004; Mercker & Hodges, 2007) Landowners don t know many neighbors (Gass et al, 2005) Number of neighbors known is impacted by the length of ownership and distance from primary residence (Rickenbach & Kittredge, 2009) Landowners may manage based on perceived results of neighbors management (Rickenbach et al, 2005) Peer influence affects management more than professional advice (West et al, 1988) Communities may have opinion leaders that other members follow (Rogers and Schoemaker, 1971)
OUR STUDY Our questions: Are management decisions of WUP family forest owners influenced by the way their neighbors manage their land? If neighbors are influencing each others management, is it indirectly or directly? 34 Interviews: ~50% were influenced by neighbors 32% directly influenced, 38% indirectly influenced, 21% influenced in both ways
VOLUNTARY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS Used by land management agencies to encourage sustainable land use practices on private property Incentives assume rational choice, are mainly economic (tax relief, cost share) Social influence not considered, utilized Many programs for private forests in Michigan: Commercial Forest (timber production, public access) Qualified Forest Property (management plan, timber production) Forest Legacy Program (conservation easements) Forest Stewardship Program (management plan, education) MI Working Forest Carbon Offset Program
VIP ENROLLMENT AND INFORMATION Enrollment low: VIPs require forest management plan, only 5% landowners have them We conducted interviews to figure out why Western 6 counties of Upper Peninsula of Michigan 37 landowners (some VIP participants, some not) 24 program managers and key informants (e.g., private foresters, land and environmental organizations)
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS Landowner questions Program manager/Key informant questions Land tenure Management plans Social/community relationships VIP knowledge Sources of advice and information Knowledge of neighboring properties Characteristics of agency/business Organizational goals Geographic area Responsibilities of position Manner and frequency of contact with landowners Mechanisms and direction of information flow Level of involvement/support for VIPs
FAMILY & NEIGHBORS SHAPE LAND USE Average times coded per interview Percent of Interviews Coded with Theme Themea Overall VIP participants Non-participants Overall VIP participants Non-participants Economic 84 4 94 76 6 2 Family 89 6 94 86 5 7 Neighbors Similarb Neighbors Differentb 97 6 100 95 5 6 87 4 94 81 5 3 Mediab 68 3 94 67 4 2 Opinion leadersb 62 2 75 52 3 1 Organizationsb 81 4 100 71 5 3 VIPsb 62 2 75 52 3 2
COMMUNITY NORMS SHAPE LAND USE Clear-cutting as a land management practice is looked down upon Cultural conflict (Scandinavian vs. American) on community perception of public access to private lands Many landowners knew of Commercial Forest, esp. Public Access clause Public access was important to them, but few wanted public access on their own property
RESULTS: OUTREACH/INFORMATION Landowners Program Managers/Key Informants Family is the most important source of information and norming of land management objectives for non-VIP participants Neighbors was also a source of information (particularly indirect) Opinion leaders (e.g., large landowners, local foresters) were also important sources of information More commonly mentioned by VIP participants Newsletters and emails rarely mentioned (more often mentioned by VIP participants) Outreach passive and one-direction at higher levels (federal, state) Newsletters, emails Outreach active and bi-directional at local levels Walking land with landowner Budget cuts have reduced this outreach
RESULTS: PROGRAM FUNDING Landowners Program Managers/Key Informants Participants far more likely to discuss economic objectives for land management than non-participants Lack of funding for information to public Lack of funding for VIP incentives More likely to manage differently than neighbors Reduce awareness of VIPs to reduce risk of turning away interested landowners and cause poor publicity Lack or inadequate funding never mentioned Non-participants more likely to discuss family traditions or legacy in land management
RESULTS: ROLE OF FORESTERS Landowners Program Managers/Key Informants Identified as good sources of information Foresters must write management plans particularly if local, family members, or neighbors Program managers: Private foresters advocate for VIPs equally as state (MDNR) foresters Do not differentiate between private and public foresters Key informants: Within social network is more important Private foresters do not advocate for VIPs Private foresters see themselves in competition with public foresters
RESULTS: GOVERNMENTAL DISTRUST Landowners Program Managers/Key Informants Anti-government sentiment common Landowners distrust in government caused by: Common reason for not participating in VIP impressions of poor service Distrust of Lansing foresters Inadequate VIP funding Fear of regulations or restrictions on land use, extra taxes or penalties Hidden fees or regulatory burden Private foresters perceive competition from public foresters, low opinion of fit of VIPs with landowner goals
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Outreach to landowners should be more diverse, take advantage of social networks and opinion leaders Current communication (newsletters, websites) is ineffective Local foresters important Private foresters need incentive to be advocates for VIPs VIPs focused on land management for goals related to family traditions and heritage may be well-received May also be much less expensive than current programs Certainly less expensive than raising incentive $ to levels necessary to substantially increase enrollment Distrust of government not related to poor service or lack of funding, but geographic distance and fear of additional regulatory burden Need more localized forest management agency structure Wisconsin county forests as model
