Issrm 2011 kueper

442 views

Published on

Talk given by Amanda Kueper for the 2011 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, titled "Learning from landowners: exploring peer exchange in the private landowner community through landowner networks."

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
442
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Important to engage landowners.
  • Peer-to-peer learning can thus be understood as the two-way exchange of ideas and information between landowners and family, friends, and other landowners within a community-based, or ‘bottom-up,’ system. This system is contrasted with the one-way absorption of ideas  from professional foresters, educators, and government officials in the traditional expert-oriented, or ‘top-down,’ information system.  Delivery of content?
  • How and to what extent is peer exchange fostered and utilized within these various organizational models? 2) How do these models influencelandowners and contribute to informationdissemination within the landowner community?3) How can the examples provided by these models be translated to inform future peer exchange and information outreach efforts in the family forest landowner community, specifically?
  • Purposive sampling techniqueSemi-structured interview guide61 total – approx. 1 hour each
  • 2.3 Influence of information access on participants, broader landowner community, and landscapeParticipantsBehavior – refining existing goals, facilitating achievementHowever, while stated behavior change on individual properties was variable among cases, groups consistently influenced participants in ways that underlaypotential behavioral change.Awareness Participant language concerning the effect of group involvement on their thought processes – using words such as “eye-opener,” “enormous…universe of information,” and “wholeness to a vision” – indicated that the groups opened them up to information and ways of thinking of which they were never previously cognizant. Increased involvement in landowning paradigmIncreased knowledge and confidenceKey products - while behavior change was difficult to ascertain in this study, these other products – newfound awareness, shifts in perception, increased involvement in the landowner community, increased confidence – captured landowner energy as well, and could also lead to behavior changeDiffusion beyond groupLandowner community – passive and active diffusionLandscapesBarriers
  • 2.3 Influence of information access on participants, broader landowner community, and landscapeParticipantsBehavior – refining existing goals, facilitating achievementHowever, while stated behavior change on individual properties was variable among cases, groups consistently influenced participants in ways that underlaypotential behavioral change.Awareness Participant language concerning the effect of group involvement on their thought processes – using words such as “eye-opener,” “enormous…universe of information,” and “wholeness to a vision” – indicated that the groups opened them up to information and ways of thinking of which they were never previously cognizant. Increased involvement in landowning paradigmIncreased knowledge and confidenceKey products - while behavior change was difficult to ascertain in this study, these other products – newfound awareness, shifts in perception, increased involvement in the landowner community, increased confidence – captured landowner energy as well, and could also lead to behavior changeDiffusion beyond groupLandowner community – passive and active diffusionLandscapesBarriers
  • 2.3 Influence of information access on participants, broader landowner community, and landscapeParticipantsBehavior – refining existing goals, facilitating achievementHowever, while stated behavior change on individual properties was variable among cases, groups consistently influenced participants in ways that underlaypotential behavioral change.Awareness Participant language concerning the effect of group involvement on their thought processes – using words such as “eye-opener,” “enormous…universe of information,” and “wholeness to a vision” – indicated that the groups opened them up to information and ways of thinking of which they were never previously cognizant. Increased involvement in landowning paradigmIncreased knowledge and confidenceKey products - while behavior change was difficult to ascertain in this study, these other products – newfound awareness, shifts in perception, increased involvement in the landowner community, increased confidence – captured landowner energy as well, and could also lead to behavior changeDiffusion beyond groupLandowner community – passive and active diffusionLandscapesBarriers
  • 2.3 Influence of information access on participants, broader landowner community, and landscapeParticipantsBehavior – refining existing goals, facilitating achievementHowever, while stated behavior change on individual properties was variable among cases, groups consistently influenced participants in ways that underlaypotential behavioral change.Awareness Participant language concerning the effect of group involvement on their thought processes – using words such as “eye-opener,” “enormous…universe of information,” and “wholeness to a vision” – indicated that the groups opened them up to information and ways of thinking of which they were never previously cognizant. Increased involvement in landowning paradigmIncreased knowledge and confidenceKey products - while behavior change was difficult to ascertain in this study, these other products – newfound awareness, shifts in perception, increased involvement in the landowner community, increased confidence – captured landowner energy as well, and could also lead to behavior changeDiffusion beyond groupLandowner community – passive and active diffusionLandscapesBarriers
  • While the framework for this exploratory research centered on peer exchange as a mechanism for information dissemination, the data ultimately yielded insight on a variety of factors that worked in concert with peer exchange to enable the study groups to be effective learning environments and tools for information access and communicationThis study found that the peer-based nature of the study organizations fostered a credible, comfortable learning environment in which landowners could access localized, experientialknowledge from their peers, in addition to technicalknowledge gained from professionals affiliated with the group. Additional contributing factors to the appeal and functionality of this environment included strong leadership, practical or hands-on learning opportunities, and the satisfaction of multiple landowner needs – informational, social, and emotional. The network created out of this environment provided an information resource that could benefit both members and the broader landowner community. Involvement with the group and access to group resources influenced participants’ awareness of and involvement in issues and activities that pertained to the landowning lifestyle, and facilitated refinement and accomplishment of participants’ management goals. These insights provide an important contribution to the knowledge base concerning the value of peer exchange and landowner organizations to the private landowner community, and provide specific considerations for practitioners seeking alternative information channels for reaching the masses of family forest owners in the United States.
  • While the framework for this exploratory research centered on peer exchange as a mechanism for information dissemination, the data ultimately yielded insight on a variety of factors that worked in concert with peer exchange to enable the study groups to be effective learning environments and tools for information access and communicationThis study found that the peer-based nature of the study organizations fostered a credible, comfortable learning environment in which landowners could access localized, experientialknowledge from their peers, in addition to technicalknowledge gained from professionals affiliated with the group. Additional contributing factors to the appeal and functionality of this environment included strong leadership, practical or hands-on learning opportunities, and the satisfaction of multiple landowner needs – informational, social, and emotional. The network created out of this environment provided an information resource that could benefit both members and the broader landowner community. Involvement with the group and access to group resources influenced participants’ awareness of and involvement in issues and activities that pertained to the landowning lifestyle, and facilitated refinement and accomplishment of participants’ management goals. These insights provide an important contribution to the knowledge base concerning the value of peer exchange and landowner organizations to the private landowner community, and provide specific considerations for practitioners seeking alternative information channels for reaching the masses of family forest owners in the United States.
  • Issrm 2011 kueper

    1. 1. Learning from Landowners: Exploring Peer Exchange in the Private Landowner Community through Landowner Networks<br />June 8th, 2011<br />Presenter: Amanda Kueper - kuepe011@umn.edu<br />University of Minnesota Extension<br />Co-authors: Eli S. Sagor1, Dennis R. Becker2<br />U of M Extension1, U of M Dept. of Forest Resources2<br />Funded by: USDA – Forest Service State and Private Forestry<br />
    2. 2. Distribution of Private vs. Public Forestland in the U.S.<br />Source: Butler & Leatherberry 2004<br />
    3. 3. Problem…<br />Traditional agency outreach efforts – limited capacity<br />Limited landowner engagement – e.g. only 3% with written management plans(Butler and Leatherberry 2004)<br />
    4. 4. Opportunity…<br />Landowners tend to use peers in decision-making1<br />Not just about information - informer matters2<br />“Peer exchange” <br />1Sagor 2003; 2Gootee 2010<br />
    5. 5. Study Aim<br />Examine peerexchange in the landowner community within the context of landownernetworks<br />
    6. 6. Methods<br />Comparative Case-Study<br /><ul><li>5 individual cases
    7. 7. Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews – 61 total
    8. 8. Observation</li></ul>Analysis <br /><ul><li>Complete transcription of interviews
    9. 9. Thematic coding
    10. 10. Synthesis of individual cases
    11. 11. Cross-case synthesis of findings</li></li></ul><li>Case Selection and Overview<br />Diversity of organizational models<br />Forest and non-forest landowner<br />3 Models:<br />Extension ‘Master Volunteer’ program<br />Woodland owner cooperative<br />Landcare – U.S. and Australia<br />
    12. 12. Case Selection and Overview<br />Common bond:<br />forum for local landowner interaction<br />
    13. 13. Key Findings<br />Atmosphere<br />Information flow<br />Peer Exchange<br />
    14. 14. Key Findings: Atmosphere<br />Attractive, comfortable learning environment<br />- “Like-minds”<br />Multiple incentives for involvement<br /><ul><li>Social opportunities
    15. 15. Volunteering; ownership</li></li></ul><li>“…you have a meeting, and afterwards maybe a barbeque or a couple beers, and just sit down and talk … Surprisingly enough, you’ll find you get a lot of good ideas when … the formalities are done … you’d be surprised at how much people open up.” [4-9] <br />
    16. 16. Key Findings: Information Flow<br />Info access: <br /> - Networking power<br />
    17. 17. “…we never feel uncomfortable anymore because we know where to direct the question. … I mean don’t be … nervous if you don’t know the answer because somebody’s gonna know the answer and there’s always … enough help around.” [1-8]<br />
    18. 18. Key Findings: Information Flow<br />Info access: <br /> - Networking power<br />Info type:<br /> - Local focus<br /> - “Hands-on” learning opportunities<br />
    19. 19. “We make a lot of field trips out to various places when we're going through the program, we went to all the different class members' properties … we'd talk about stuff in class, but then we'd go out and do it on the ground, or look at it, and that was probably the part that seemed the most important to me.” [1-6]<br />
    20. 20. Key Findings: Information Flow<br />Influence of info:<br /> - Refine and achieve goals<br /> - Increased awareness<br /> - Increased interest/involvement<br />* Foundations for potential behavior change<br />
    21. 21. Key Findings: Peer Exchange<br />Not explicit goal of groups product<br />Diversity in member background and experience<br />
    22. 22. “Some of the members are very knowledgeable about the woods. Twice, three times as much as I am. So … every time I go to a meeting, I just try to sit by a new one, so I can learn something.” [2-1]<br />
    23. 23. Key Findings: Peer Exchange<br />Comparing benefits of ‘peer’ knowledge vs. ‘pro’ knowledge<br />Peer<br /><ul><li>“Practical” information
    24. 24. Management tips, on-ground experience, demonstration
    25. 25. Opportunistic knowledge gain
    26. 26. Group events = forum</li></ul>Pro<br /><ul><li> “Technical” information
    27. 27. Research, legal guidance, financial assistance, technical mgt. advice
    28. 28. Seek out for specific questions, direct </li></ul> answers<br />
    29. 29. Key Findings: Peer Exchange<br />Two sources of info: mutual support and clarification<br />‘Great Equalizer’<br />Similar levels of comfort between peers and pros<br />Blurring of traditional roles<br />
    30. 30. Take Home Message<br />Credible, comfortable learning environment <br />Localized, experientialknowledge and technicalknowledge<br />Network<br />Influenced: awareness, involvement, goals. <br />
    31. 31. Take Home Message<br />Alternative information channel for reaching family forest owners<br />
    32. 32. References<br />Butler, B.J. & E.C. Leatherberry (2004). America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry. Oct/Nov 2004. pp 4-9.<br />Catanzaro, P. et al. (2008) What is peer-to-peer learning? Woodland Owner Networks Blog entry dated 25 June 2008. http://woodlandownernetworks.wordpress.com/2008/06/25overview/.<br />Gootee, R. S., Blatner, K. A., Baumgartner, D. M., Carroll, M. S., & Weber, E. P. (2010). Choosing what to believe about forests: differences between professional and non-professional evaluative criteria. Small-scale Forestry, 9(2), 137-152.<br />Rickenbach, M., Serving members and reaching others: The performance and social networks of a landowner cooperative, Forest Policy and Economics (2009).<br />Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Ed. New York: The Free Press.<br />Sagor, E. S. (2003). Nonindustrial private forest landowners and sources of assistance. In P. Jakes, Proceedings from "Forestry cooperatives: what today's resource professionals need to know." Nov. 18, 2003. (pp. 3-12). St. Paul, MN.<br />Photo credit: All photographs are property of Amanda Kueper<br />
    33. 33. Acknowledgements<br />Research Team: Eli Sagor, Dr. Dennis Becker<br />Funders: United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service; Council of Graduate Students; International Programs in Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences; the Organization of Tropical studies; Sigerfoos Fellowship<br />Committee: Dr. Kristen Nelson, Dr. Dan Philippon <br />Organizations: Interviewees; Case contacts: Nicole Strong, Paul Bader, Dr. Jerry Moles, John Nicholas, and Barbara Lanskey <br />Transcribing Assistants: Sheena Ahrar, Sarah Olson, Tacy Kraus, Mohamed Elaby, Erich Kern, Eli Sagor<br />
    34. 34. Questions?kuepe011@umn.edu<br />Interested in woodland owner peer networks? <br />woodlandownernetworks.ning.com<br />

    ×