Upload
shavonne-carroll
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Presentation 2.1: Understanding Interface
Landowners
Outline
• Introduction• Characteristics of Southern forest owners• Family owned forests• Interface forests and forest owner• Residential migration• Management issues in the interface• Summary
Introduction
• Is forest fragmentation really happening as everyone seems to think?
• Can interface landowners have wrong priorities?
• Are some management goals the result of misunderstanding and misinformation?
Categories of ownership
• 215 million acres of southern U.S. is forest
• 25 million acres (12%) public ownership
• 61 million acres (28%) forest industry
• 127 million acres (59%) family forests
Family forests in the South 2003
Sizeof forest(acres)
Total acreage andpercent of forests
this size (million acres)
Number of owners and
percent of forests this size
1-9 7.255 (5.7%) 2,424,000 (56.1%)
10-49 26.890 (21%) 1,338,000 (31%)
50-99 18.996 (14.9%) 288,000 (6,7%)
100-499 43.993 (34.5%) 243,000 (5.6%)
500-999 11.132 (11%) 18,000 (0.4%)
1000-4999 13.749 (10.8%) 8,000 (0.2%)
5000+ 5.543 (4.3%) <1,000 (<0.1%)
Total Family Forest
127.559 4,320,000
Family forest ownership
31%
0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
5.6%
6.7%
56.1%
1-9 Acres
10-49 Acres
50-99 Acres
100-499 Acres
500-999 Acres
1000-4999 Acres
5000+ Acres
Size of family forests
6%21%
15%34%
9%
11% 4%1-9 Acres
10-49 Acres
50-99 Acres
100-499 Acres
500-999 Acres
1000-4999 Acres
5000+ Acres
Fragmentation of forests
• Majority of forested land is in large tracts (greater than 100 acres)
• More than 50 million forested acres (23%) are divided into parcels less than 100 acres
• About 90% of owners will seek assistance on how to manage their small forested lands
Ownership objectives
•Economic values
•Ecological values
•Social values
•Concerned about:
•insects and disease (61%)
•family legacy (58%)
•fire (57%)
•rising property taxes (52%)
•increase in regulations (34%)
Types of forest owners
• Timber managers Investments and best management
practices• Resident conservationists
Preserving natural beauty, wildlife and natural values
• Affluent weekenders Second homes on land
• Low-income rural residents Inherited the land
Characteristics of interface regions
• Tourist destination
• Retirement destination
• Resource production
• Trade and professional centers
• Counterculture opportunities
Motivation for forest ownership
• Spirituality• Farming• Recreation• Social Ties• Build Estate• Finance
• Live Simply• Naturalism• Ruralism• Escapism• Parenting• Region
Categories of ownership
• New owners fall into six markets according to forest ownership needs and abilities: Absentee investors (4%) Career professional (13%) Wildlife preservationists (16%) New pioneer farmers (21%) Planners (21%) Young families (19%)
Management actions
• Strive to be economically feasible and ecologically sustainable
• Increase concerns about fire, invasive species, and trespassing
• Fewer verbal agreements
• Increased specific site restoration requirements
Embracing land management
• New owners are not adverse to management.
• More concerned about protecting amenities and ecological qualities than maximizing profit.
" I would be willing to accept less money from a timber sale if the logging actions
protected other forest qualities."
49%
35%
16%Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Willingness to cut trees for…
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Timber $ Health Scenic
Probably will not do
Might do
Already do
Willingness to…
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Test Soil Inspect Land Write Plan UseHerbicide
Plant forPrivacy
Probably not
Might do
Already do
Residential migration
• New development increases pressure on amenities
• Newcomers’ concerns about management practices
• Dangerous
• Offensive odors
• Traffic
• Competes with additional housing development and retail stores
Professionals can help because …
• Most landowners are not opposed to managing their land
• Many landowners do not know
• possible management options• the amount of funds required for management• the benefits of management
• Professionals can address issues through Professionals can address issues through various methodsvarious methods
%Agree
%Neutral
%Disagre
e
Are a trusted source of knowledge about how to manage the trees on my land
54 38 8
Are more interested in making money than in the ecological health of my land
31 46 23
Are more interested in cutting timber than in the ecological health of my land
30 45 25
I don’t know anything about professional foresters 40 36 24
I would be willing to harvest a few trees and saw them up for lumber using a small, portable sawmill
42 25 33
I would be willing to accept less money from a timber sale if the logging actions protected other forest qualities
49 35 16
Trusting foresters
• Foresters are more interested in ____ than the health of my forest.
Cutting Timber
30%
45%
25%Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Making Money
31%
46%
23% Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Addressing challenges
• Try new methods of reaching landowners
• Work to develop trust
• Find tools to produce amenity and ecological quality
• Work with landowners to develop a formal management plan
Summary
Interface landowners are shaping the future of forestry. Natural resource professionals can help best by understanding the various characteristics of the landowners.
Exercise 2.1:Who Lives in the
Interface?
Exercise 2.1 Discussion Questions
• What type professionals service and agency program would best serve your landowners?
• How do you make these landowners aware of your services and programs?
• Is this landowner worth your time or should you focus your scarce energies elsewhere? Why or why not?
Exercise 2.2:Creating a Department of
Interface Resources
• Natural resources agencies are struggling to remain relevant to interface landowners. Answer the following questions for each market segment based on what you know about these interface landowners from the fact sheet and agency politics. Assume your agency will NOT receive new resources, so adding a a new program requires cutting something else.
Exercise 2.3:Advertising Interface
Services
Case Study 7:Interface Issues in the
Georgia Mountains
Photos• Slide 9, 12, 23: Larry Korhnak • Slide 15: USDA Forest Service - Rocky Mountain Region
Archives, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org
Tables
• Slide 5, 6, 7: Butler, B. and E. Leatherberry. 2004. USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owners Survey. Newtown Square PA: USDA, Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey.
• Slide 9: Butler, B. and E. Leatherberry. 2004. “America’s Family Forest Owners.” Journal of Forestry 102(7): 4-9. and Hull, R. B.; D. P. Robertson; and G. J. Buhyoff. 2004. “Boutique Forestry: New Forest Practices in Urbanizing Landscapes.” Journal of Forestry 102 (1): 14-19.
Credits
CreditsTables
• Slide 10: Klunder, R. A. and T. L. Walkingstick. 2000. “Rethinking How Nonindustrial Landowners View Their Lands.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 24(3): 150-158.
• Slide 12, 13, 16, 17, 18: Kendra, A. and R. B. Hull. 2005. “Motivations and Behaviors of New Forest Owners in Virginia.” Forest Science 51(2): 142-154.
• Slide 21, 22: Hull, R. B.; D. P. Robertson; and G. J. Buhyoff. 2004. “Boutique Forestry: New Forest Practices in Urbanizing Landscapes.” Journal of Forestry 102 (1): 14-19.