Minnesota family forest owner information sources and land management activity Eli Sagor [email_address]   SFEC Research R...
Policies to promote private forestry
Personal networks
Personal networks <ul><li>Purpose:  To investigate ways in which personal networks influence private forest management </l...
Methods <ul><li>Social network analysis: Theory and analytical tools Relationships Embeddedness </li></ul>
Methods <ul><li>Written survey </li></ul><ul><li>Mailed to 1,767 owners of 20+ wooded acres in  1 of 11 counties </li></ul>
5-wave mailing following Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009)  1,002 usable responses Adjusted response rate of 58.6%
Results: Descriptives <ul><li>Age:  Range 17-96 yr. Mean 59.7 yr, median 59 </li></ul><ul><li>Well educated </li></ul><ul>...
Results: Management activity <ul><li>Only 23.1% of respondents had a written management plan prepared by a professional. <...
General sources Any peer Any professional Any Extension, Cons/Env, or Realtor
Percent of respondents who have received info, by general source group
Percent of respondents who have received info, by general source group
Personal (egocentric) networks <ul><li>From whom have you received woodland information? </li></ul>= family member = conse...
What are the characteristics of northern Minnesota family forest owners’ woodland info networks? Range: 0-14 Mean: 2.92 Me...
Network size and ownership size Mean: 2.66 (SE 0.102) Median: 2 n =418  Mean: 3.24 (SE 0.131) Median: 3 n =354 Larger acre...
Network size and written plan status Mean: 3.82 (SE 0.184) Median: 3 n =203  Mean: 2.60 (SE 0.086) Median: 2 n =567 Owners...
Specific sources  named , by group Any peer Any forester or logger Any Extension, Realtor, or  Cons/Env(ERC)
Percent of respondents  naming  at least one specific source, by source group
Percent  naming  at least one specific source, by source group Larger acreage owners more likely to have a professional in...
Percent  naming  at least one specific source, by written plan status Owners with a written plan are more likely to have a...
Satisfaction with network <ul><li>Ease, reliability, relevance, trust, timeliness </li></ul>= respondent = peer = forester...
Satisfaction with network <ul><li>Add a forester or logger: </li></ul>= respondent = peer = forester or logger  
Satisfaction with network <ul><li>Add a peer: </li></ul>= respondent = peer = forester or logger  
Satisfaction with network <ul><li>Add a forester or logger: </li></ul>= respondent = peer = forester or logger = cons / en...
Satisfaction with network <ul><li>Adding new sources to the network makes landowners happier. </li></ul><ul><li>Satisfacti...
General info sources: Take home
Summary <ul><li>Owners with  written management plans  and larger ownerships  are more likely to have obtained information...
Summary <ul><li>Decision architecture: Begin with peers, find professionals when ready to take action? </li></ul><ul><li>H...
Acknowledgments <ul><li>Dissertation committee: </li></ul><ul><li>Dennis Becker </li></ul><ul><li>Pam Jakes </li></ul><ul>...
<ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>(612) 624-6948 </li></ul><ul><li>301J Green Hall </li></ul>
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Minnesota family forest owner information sources and land management activity

816 views
738 views

Published on

Data from a recent study of Minnesota family forest owner information sources and implications for Extension and outreach program design. Presented at the 2011 UMN Sustainable Forests Education Cooperative's Forestry and Wildlife Research Review. http://sfec.cfans.umn.edu/

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
816
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Major existing policies to promote family forest management: Education, Technical Assistance (plans, etc), Cost-share, and Preferential Property Tax status. Sources of all statistics: NWOS table maker. Workshops calculated as # indicating having participated in “Conference, workshop, or videoconferences” / total number owners. No known data source nationally for property tax program enrollment. All results saved as, e.g. butler.miles.2010.NWOS preferred sources info.pdf
  • output Q6 frequencies 100924.spv
  • output Q6 frequencies 100924.spv
  • output Q6 frequencies 100924.spv
  • output Q6 frequencies 100924.spv
  • output Q6 frequencies 100924.spv
  • Minnesota family forest owner information sources and land management activity

    1. 1. Minnesota family forest owner information sources and land management activity Eli Sagor [email_address] SFEC Research Review February 2011
    2. 2. Policies to promote private forestry
    3. 3. Personal networks
    4. 4. Personal networks <ul><li>Purpose: To investigate ways in which personal networks influence private forest management </li></ul>
    5. 5. Methods <ul><li>Social network analysis: Theory and analytical tools Relationships Embeddedness </li></ul>
    6. 6. Methods <ul><li>Written survey </li></ul><ul><li>Mailed to 1,767 owners of 20+ wooded acres in 1 of 11 counties </li></ul>
    7. 7. 5-wave mailing following Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009) 1,002 usable responses Adjusted response rate of 58.6%
    8. 8. Results: Descriptives <ul><li>Age: Range 17-96 yr. Mean 59.7 yr, median 59 </li></ul><ul><li>Well educated </li></ul><ul><li>Ownership tenure: Mean of 26 years, median 24. Only 4% had acquired first woodland in previous 5 yr. </li></ul><ul><li>Frequent visitors to MN woodlands: 64% once/mo or more </li></ul>
    9. 9. Results: Management activity <ul><li>Only 23.1% of respondents had a written management plan prepared by a professional. </li></ul><ul><li>Management activities </li></ul><ul><li>82.9% had harvested timber in the past For personal use: 75.4% For sale: 55.5% </li></ul><ul><li>89.0% had implemented one or more activities </li></ul><ul><li>74.5% had implemented four or more </li></ul>
    10. 10. General sources Any peer Any professional Any Extension, Cons/Env, or Realtor
    11. 11. Percent of respondents who have received info, by general source group
    12. 12. Percent of respondents who have received info, by general source group
    13. 13. Personal (egocentric) networks <ul><li>From whom have you received woodland information? </li></ul>= family member = conservation group = forester = logger
    14. 14. What are the characteristics of northern Minnesota family forest owners’ woodland info networks? Range: 0-14 Mean: 2.92 Median: 2 n =774
    15. 15. Network size and ownership size Mean: 2.66 (SE 0.102) Median: 2 n =418 Mean: 3.24 (SE 0.131) Median: 3 n =354 Larger acreage owners have larger networks ( p ≤0.005)
    16. 16. Network size and written plan status Mean: 3.82 (SE 0.184) Median: 3 n =203 Mean: 2.60 (SE 0.086) Median: 2 n =567 Owners with written plans have larger networks ( p ≤0.005)
    17. 17. Specific sources named , by group Any peer Any forester or logger Any Extension, Realtor, or Cons/Env(ERC)
    18. 18. Percent of respondents naming at least one specific source, by source group
    19. 19. Percent naming at least one specific source, by source group Larger acreage owners more likely to have a professional in their network. All differences ns except professionals.
    20. 20. Percent naming at least one specific source, by written plan status Owners with a written plan are more likely to have a professional in their network. All differences ns except professionals.
    21. 21. Satisfaction with network <ul><li>Ease, reliability, relevance, trust, timeliness </li></ul>= respondent = peer = forester or logger How does satisfaction change with network composition? 
    22. 22. Satisfaction with network <ul><li>Add a forester or logger: </li></ul>= respondent = peer = forester or logger  
    23. 23. Satisfaction with network <ul><li>Add a peer: </li></ul>= respondent = peer = forester or logger  
    24. 24. Satisfaction with network <ul><li>Add a forester or logger: </li></ul>= respondent = peer = forester or logger = cons / env group  
    25. 25. Satisfaction with network <ul><li>Adding new sources to the network makes landowners happier. </li></ul><ul><li>Satisfaction = 2.43 + .199*s (where s = # sources; p < 0.001) </li></ul>= respondent = peer = forester or logger  
    26. 26. General info sources: Take home
    27. 27. Summary <ul><li>Owners with written management plans and larger ownerships are more likely to have obtained information from all sources. </li></ul><ul><li>Most landowners named both peers and professionals in their networks. </li></ul><ul><li>As network size increases, so does satisfaction. </li></ul>
    28. 28. Summary <ul><li>Decision architecture: Begin with peers, find professionals when ready to take action? </li></ul><ul><li>How to influence early decision process? Different perspectives valued. </li></ul><ul><li>Declining budgets & PFM capacity: Need efficient, effective interventions. </li></ul>
    29. 29. Acknowledgments <ul><li>Dissertation committee: </li></ul><ul><li>Dennis Becker </li></ul><ul><li>Pam Jakes </li></ul><ul><li>Mike Kilgore </li></ul><ul><li>David Knoke </li></ul><ul><li>Funding: </li></ul><ul><li>USFS State & Private, Cooperative Forestry </li></ul><ul><li>UMN Extension </li></ul>Others: Mark Rickenbach Tricia Knoot Jon Breschak Kelly Crosset Rachel Brummel David Kittredge Mel Baughman
    30. 30. <ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>(612) 624-6948 </li></ul><ul><li>301J Green Hall </li></ul>

    ×