Distribution of Private vs. Public Forestland in the U.S.

Source: Butler & Leatherberry 2004

Problem…

• Traditional agency outreach efforts – limited capacity

• Limited landowner engagement – e.g. only 3% with written management plans (Butler and Leatherberry 2004)

Opportunity…

• Landowners tend to use peers in decision-making1

• Not just about information - informer matters2

• “Peer exchange” 1Sagor 2003; 2Gootee 2010

Study Aim

Examine peer exchange in the landowner community within the context of

landowner networks

MethodsComparative Case-Study

• 5 individual cases

• Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews – 61 total

• Observation

Analysis • Complete transcription of

interviews

• Thematic coding

• Synthesis of individual cases

• Cross-case synthesis of findings

Case Selection and Overview

• Diversity of organizational models

– Forest and non-forest landowner

• 3 Models:

– Extension ‘Master Volunteer’ program

– Woodland owner cooperative

– Landcare – U.S. and Australia

Case Selection and Overview

Common bond:

forum for local landowner interaction

Key Findings

Atmosphere

Information flow

Peer Exchange

Attractive, comfortable learning environment

- “Like-minds”

Multiple incentives for involvement

- Social opportunities

- Volunteering; ownership

Key Findings: Atmosphere

“…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]

Info access:

- Networking power

Key Findings: Information Flow

“…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]

Info access:

- Networking power

Info type:

- Local focus

- “Hands-on” learning opportunities

Key Findings: Information Flow

“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]

Influence of info:

- Refine and achieve goals

- Increased awareness

- Increased interest/involvement

* Foundations for potential behavior change

Key Findings: Information Flow

Not explicit goal of groups product

Diversity in member background and experience

Key Findings: Peer Exchange

“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]

Comparing benefits of ‘peer’ knowledge vs. ‘pro’ knowledge

Key Findings: Peer Exchange

Peer•“Practical” information

• Management tips, on-ground experience, demonstration

• Opportunistic knowledge gain• Group events = forum

Pro• “Technical” information

• Research, legal guidance, financial assistance, technical mgt. advice

• Seek out for specific questions, direct answers

Two sources of info: mutual support and clarification

‘Great Equalizer’

– Similar levels of comfort between peers and pros

– Blurring of traditional roles

Key Findings: Peer Exchange

Take Home Message

• Credible, comfortable learning environment

• Localized, experiential knowledge and technical knowledge

• Network

• Influenced: awareness, involvement, goals.

Take Home Message

Alternative information channel for reaching family

forest owners

ReferencesButler, B.J. & E.C. Leatherberry (2004). America’s family forest owners. Journal of

Forestry. Oct/Nov 2004. pp 4-9.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/.

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.

Rickenbach, M., Serving members and reaching others: The performance and social networks of a landowner cooperative, Forest Policy and Economics (2009).

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Ed. New York: The Free Press.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.

Photo credit: All photographs are property of Amanda Kueper

Acknowledgements• Research Team: Eli Sagor, Dr. Dennis

Becker• 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

• Committee: Dr. Kristen Nelson, Dr. Dan Philippon

• Organizations: Interviewees; Case contacts: Nicole Strong, Paul Bader, Dr. Jerry Moles, John Nicholas, and Barbara Lanskey

• Transcribing Assistants: Sheena Ahrar, Sarah Olson, Tacy Kraus, Mohamed Elaby, Erich Kern, Eli Sagor

Questions?kuepe011@umn.edu

Interested in woodland owner peer networks?

woodlandownernetworks.ning.com