1. HDRU OUTREACH SERIES 10-3
Woodland Owner Cooperation
Dr. Shorna Broussard Allred, Gary R. Goff, Miles K. Luo, and Laura P. Wetzel
Why is Cooperation Important? Research Methods
Landowner cooperation or “cross-boundary In May 2008, a pre-tested mail survey was sent to
management” occurs when managers of adjacent two groups of woodland owners: 1) Master Forest
ownerships jointly undertake management to Owner (MFO) Volunteers and 2) woodland owners
achieve common goals” (Bergmann and Bliss (WO) receiving a visit from an MFO Volunteer.
2004, p. 377). Through aggregation and While MFO Volunteers are also woodland owners,
cooperation across adjacent boundaries, benefits in this study we use the term “woodland owners”
can be achieved that accrue both to the multiple to refer to those receiving an on-site visit from a
owners and to society as well. Benefits include Master Forest Owner Volunteer and present
improved quality and connectivity of wildlife comparative results for these two groups. The
habitat and recreational areas, improved MFO survey covered aspects of the MFO Program
communication among landowners, improved and forestry in general, including demographics,
economies of scale that can eliminate constraints MFO activities, opinions of the program, and use
associated with small parcel timber sales, and of forestry knowledge. The woodland owner
greater landscape level benefits (scenery, healthier survey covered topics of why they own forestland,
ecosystems, etc.) (Kittredge 2003; Rickenbach and how they interact with other woodland owners,
Jahnke 2006). Research has shown that private what kinds of topics and information are discussed
forest landowners are interested and hold favorable among woodland owners, attitudes toward
attitudes toward various forms of forest cooperating with other woodland owners,
management cooperation (e.g. Jacobsen et al. perceived forestry knowledge, and demographics.
2000), but few projects have addressed the The response rate for the MFO Volunteer survey
frequency of landowner cooperation through was 67% (n=95) and the response rate for the
studies of actual behavior (Campbell and Kittredge woodland owner survey was 56% (n=270).
1996; Raedeke et al. 2001). This study provides
insight on the frequency and context of interaction Factor analysis, descriptive statistics, and T-tests
between woodland owners, as well as cooperative were used to analyze forestry knowledge among
activities among these owners. Further analysis respondents. The same tests were conducted
was performed to determine if there was any among landowners who interacted with other
relationship between interaction and forestry owners and those who did not to determine if there
knowledge. was a relationship between perceived forestry
knowledge and landowner interaction. For more
information, please read the full report by visiting:
http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/hdru/pubs/forestpubs.asp.

2. Interaction with Landowners Cooperation Among Landowners
More than two-thirds of respondents (69%) Woodland owners and MFO Volunteers were
indicated that they interact with other forest owners asked if they cooperate with other landowners in
in their community regarding forestry matters. their community on forestry-related activities. In
MFO Volunteers and woodland owners were both the woodland owner survey, 193 respondents
asked how frequently (Figure 1) and in what worked with others on a mean of 0.92 activities
capacity they interacted with other landowners (min=0; max=9; SD=1.69). In fact, 66% reported
(Figure 2). that they do not work with other forest owners.
Among respondents who do cooperate with other
The largest percentage of respondents forest owners, both woodland owners and MFO
communicated with fellow woodland owners a few Volunteers were most likely to watch for
times per year. Very few landowners interacted trespassers on each other’s land, allow access to
with landowners in their community on a daily hunt on each other’s land, and allow access to
basis, while it was fairly common for interactions recreate on each other’s land (Table 1).
to occur weekly, annually, or every few years. Cooperative activities, in which less than 5% of
Figure 1. Frequency of interaction with area forest
both samples participated were: riparian area
owners management, selling timber together to get a better
price, sharing costs of hiring a forester, jointly
leasing land to hunting/fishing groups, sharing
costs of labor, and coordinating the spraying of
herbicides. While the sample sizes were too small
to allow tests of statistical significance, MFO
Volunteers appear to have higher rates of
cooperation than other woodland owners.
Table 1. Current rates of cooperation among woodland
owners
Woodland owners commonly communicated with Activity MFO WO Total
each other casually or incidentally around town Watch for Trespassers on Each Other’s Land 38% 23% 26%
(Figure 2). Although walking around their land Allow Access to Hunt on Each Other’s Land 29% 14% 17%
was a frequent context among landowners, it was Allow Access to Recreate on Each Other’s Land 21% 12% 14%
not included as a choice in the MFO survey. A Improve Wildlife Habitat Across Property 13% 7% 9%
notably high percentage of respondents (20%) Cut Firewood Together 15% 7% 9%
indicated other circumstances for interaction with Share Tools or Equipment 19% 5% 8%
other woodland owners, such as being neighbors Coordinate Trail Building Across Each Other’s Land 6% 5% 5%
(15%), for work or business (15%), or attending Invasive Species Removal 13% 3% 5%
various seminars or workshops (11%). Coordinate Road Access 9% 4% 5%
Apply Jointly for NYS DEC Deer Mgmt Assis. Prgm. 10% 3% 5%
Figure 2. Context of interaction with area forest owners
MFO Volunteers Woodland Owners MFO and WO Combined
60% 55%
51%
50% 45%
41%
40%
26% 24% 25% 26% 26%
30% 22% 24% 20%
16%
20%
10%
0%
Casually in Town Walking Around Land* Organization Meetings Telephone Social Events
.
*Walking around land was not an available option on the MFO survey. Thus, there are no MFO or combined columns
for this choice.

3. Relationships Between Interaction Among Landowner programs and organizations such as the
Landowners and Forestry Knowledge New York Master Forest Owner Volunteer (NY
Statistical analysis was used to determine if there MFOV) Program are important because they are
was any relationship between landowner associated with higher rates of cooperation than the
interaction and perceived forestry knowledge. general population of woodland owners. Natural
Woodland owners were asked if they interact with resource professionals may help to facilitate future
other landowners and if they were familiar with cooperation, leading to increased general
various principles of forest management. knowledge about forest resources. The results of
Woodland owners who reported interacting with this study, as well as similar research on the Maine
other forest owners had a mean familiarity score of Master Gardener Program and the Texas Master
3.45 (1=not at all familiar and 5=very familiar), Naturalist Program, indicate that local peer-to-peer
while woodland owners who did not interact with programs can encourage higher rates of
other forest owners had a mean familiarity score of cooperation and sharing of information that may
2.92. The mean score for the total population was ultimately lead to personal growth, economic
3.26, indicating a relatively neutral level of benefits, more effective management of property,
perceived forestry knowledge. Further analysis and healthier, higher-quality ecosystems (Peronto
among those who do and do not interact with other & Murphy 2009; Bonneau et al. 2009) While the
forest owners shows that interaction was related to NY MFOV Program currently encourages peer
higher perceived forestry knowledge to 3.45 learning, it does not strongly emphasize cross-
(F=14.290, df=1, p<0.001). boundary management. Such emphasis may be
beneficial towards increasing peer-to-peer
Conclusions and Recommendations interaction.
This study examined discussion oriented References
interactions among woodland owners as well as Bergmann, S.A. and J.C. Bliss. 2004. Foundations of cross-
on-the-ground forest management activities. A boundary cooperation: Resource management at the
majority of respondents reported interacting with public-private interface. Society and Natural Resources
17(5): 377-393.
other forest owners in their town or community Bonneau, L., Darville, R., Legg, M., Haggerty, M., & Wilkins,
regarding forestry matters, reflecting a sense of R.N. 2009. Changes in Volunteer Knowledge and
community among woodland owners. Most Attitudes as a Result of Texas Master Naturalist
communicated with fellow woodland owners a few Training. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 157-172.
Campbell, S.M. and D.B. Kittredge. 1996. Ecosystem-based
times per year and interactions were most likely to management on multiple NIPF ownerships. Journal of
occur casually or incidentally in town. Forestry 94(2): 24-29.
Jacobsen, M.G., Abt, R.C., and D.R. Carter. 2000. Attitudes
For neighborly cooperative forestry-related toward joint forest planning among private landowners.
Journal of Sustainable Forestry 11(3): 95-111.
activities, both MFO Volunteers and woodland Kittredge, D.B. 2003. Private forestland owners in Sweden:
owners were most likely to watch for trespassers Large-scale cooperation in action. Journal of Forestry
and allow access for hunting or recreating on each 101(2)41-46.
Peronto, M., & Murphy, B. (2009). How Master Gardeners View
other’s land. MFO Volunteers typically have and Apply Their Training: A Preliminary Study.
higher rates of cooperation than other woodland Journal of Extension [On-line], 47(3) Article 3RIB2.
owners. Two-thirds of woodland owners did not Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2009june/rb2.php
engage in any joint activities with other forest Raedeke, A.H., Nilon, C.H, and J.S. Rikoon. 2001. Factors
affecting landowner participation in ecosystem
owners and there was little collaboration on more management: a case study in south-central Missouri.
active forest management activities, such as hiring Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1): 195-206.
a professional forester together or selling timber Rickenbach, M. and A.D. Jahnke. 2006. Wisconsin Private Sector
Foresters’ Involvement in Nonindustrial Private
together. Regardless, interaction with other forest Forestland Cross-boundary Forestry Practices. Northern
owners was associated with statistically higher Journal of Applied Forestry (23)2: 100-105.
perceived forestry knowledge.

4. Author Contact Information:
Shorna Broussard Allred, Ph.D
Associate Professor
Department of Natural Resources
Human Dimensions Research Unit
Cornell University
Office: (607) 255-2149
www.human-dimensions.org
srb237@cornell.edu
Gary R. Goff
Senior Extension Associate
Director of NY MFO/COVERTS Program
Cornell University
Office: (607) 255-2824
grg3@cornell.edu
Miles K. Luo
Research Assistant
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
mkl67@cornell.edu
Laura P. Wetzel
Research Assistant
Department of Biology and Society
Cornell University
lpw9@cornell.edu
For more information on the Master Forest Owner Volunteer
Program, the Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU), our
program areas, and past publications, please visit:
www.cornellmfo.info and www.dnr.cornell.edu/hdru.
TO CITE THIS REPORT:
Broussard Allred, S., Goff, G.R., Luo, M.K., and L.P.
Wetzel. 2010. Woodland Owner Cooperation.
Cornell University Human Dimensions Research
Unit, HDRU Outreach Series Publication No. 10-3,
January 2010.