How Do Forest Landowners Desire to Learn About Forest Certification?

Introduction

Forest certification is a relatively new development. Unlike certification in other industrial sectors, forest certification deals not with the final product, but with the practice of forestry, its growth, harvesting, and ecological impact after the trees have been removed from the site (Klingberg, 2003). Forest certification is gradually gaining widespread attention by a variety of stakeholders, including environmentalists, policy makers, professional foresters, social activists, loggers, and the public (Viana, Jamison, Donovan, Elliot, & Gholz, 1996; Mater, 1999).

The situation for forest certification in the United States is somewhat unique when compared to the global picture, in that such a large percentage of the total forest area in the U.S. is under nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) ownership. In 2003, more than 10.3 million NIPF landowners in the U. S. controlled 42% of the nation's forest land. The largest portion of the nation's total forest land is located east of the Mississippi River, where 88% of all NIPF owners are located (Butler & Leatherberry, 2004).

Even more significant is the strong regional identity of the 13 southeastern states. NIPF landowners in this region number 5 million and control 89% of the forest area (Wear & Greis, 2002). Further, nearly 60% of the nation's timber production is produced by these 13 states, with a striking 18% of the world's industrial timber products originating from the region (Prestemon & Abt, 2002). Wood production in the southeast is expected to increase by over 50% between 1995 and 2040, or an average of 1.6% per year (Prestemon & Abt, 2002; Wear & Greis, 2002).

The timber resources of the southeastern region of the U. S. are essential to both regional and global economies. This region will retain the distinction as the single largest producer of timber products in the world (Prestemon & Abt, 2002). Uniquely, these lands are principally owned, controlled, managed, purchased, and sold by NIPF landowners.

Some stakeholders are beginning to debate the necessity of implementing forest certification on NIPFs. This ownership group is particularly important in Tennessee, where it comprises 79% of the state's 14.4 million acres (5.8 million hectares). Moreover, these forests contribute more than 84% of the state's annual hardwood removal volume (Schweitzer, 2000). NIPFs are also vital for the protection of the state's soil, water, and wildlife resources, and for the production of non-timber goods and services.

Having a good knowledge of certification is a precondition for NIPF landowner participation in it. Without sufficient knowledge of certification, landowner involvement is not likely, no matter how good the certification system. Dissemination of the information via various education methods is essential (Lindström, Hansen, & Juslin, 1999).

If NIPF landowners are to be included in certification, a better understanding is needed of how this ownership category desires to be educated. Considerable variation exists in NIPF landowner's preferences on educational methods. Pennsylvania forest landowners prefer active educational delivery methods over passive, including workshops and demonstrations rather than Web sites, videos, and correspondence courses (Downing & Finley, 2005). If delineated by demographic sectors, would the results differ?

In contrast, South Carolina's private longleaf pine landowners ranked the more passive newsletters and publications over field tours and workshops when stating their preference for educational delivery methods about longleaf pine (Radhakrishna, Nelson, Franklin, & Kessler, 2003). Only 18.7% of Michigan farmers prefer computer or internet courses such as software packages, e-mail, and the World Wide Web to learn more about watershed conservation, and those most interested in this method are younger, are more educated, and have high gross annual income (Howell & Habron, 2004).

For educators to best target efforts to inform landowners about forest certification, the methods landowners prefer to be educated, as well as who among them will consider certification, must be understood. Therefore the goals of the study reported here were to:

1. Establish baseline sociodemographic data for the NIPF landowners in the study area;


2. Determine forest landowners' preferences for certification education methods (as an entire population);


3. Determine the desired methods of education among only those landowners most willing to consider certifying their forest land; and


4. Narrow the educational focus to those landowners with characteristics that can be captured.

Study Area

The project represents a regional study in western Tennessee and includes 9 counties within the 18-county Forest Inventory and Analysis West Tennessee Region. The nine counties were selected because they represent 70% of the total forest area in the region (Schweitzer, 2000). Three counties were randomly selected from the list of nine for survey purposes. The three counties include 564,300 acres of forest land for an average percent forest cover of 47.8 per county.

Methodology

Mail surveys were used for data collection to allow coverage of a large geographical area in a cost-effective manner. The database of landowners was obtained from the Tennessee State Division of Property Assessment. Only landowners controlling 40 acres or more of forest land were targeted for the study. A draft version of the questionnaire was developed and pre-tested. Refinements were made based on feedback received.

In August 2004, 1,153 landowners were sent a postcard notifying them of the project and the intent of the research. The questionnaire was mailed 2 weeks later. 1Landowners were assured that the information would be kept strictly confidential. A reminder postcard was mailed, followed by a second questionnaire to the non-respondents, then another reminder postcard. The Dillman Tailored Design method was followed as closely as possible (Dillman, 2000). The respondents were given the opportunity to receive a summary of the results for participating in the study. One hundred and three of the questionnaires were determined ineligible and were removed from the list, bringing the eligible target population to 1,050. The final number of usable returned questionnaires was 532, with a total response rate of 50.7%.

After reading a definition of forest certification, participants were asked a binary (yes/no) question of their willingness to consider certification. This became the prominent dependent variable from which the educational variables were examined. Chi-square tests were used to examine relationships between variables when the data were ordinal scale, and Spearman's correlation when data were interval. Results were reported as statistically significant when P ≤ .05.

Results

Sociodemographics

The average forest ownership size was 217 acres (Table 1), and the median was 122 acres. Most landowners purchased their land, have owned it 21 years, and intended to retain it for more than 15 years. In general, most landowners indicated that they own their land so that it can be passed on to their children or heirs, to enjoy the scenery, to supply food and habitat for wildlife, and as a long-term investment (Table 2). Seven out of 10 landowners have harvested trees from their land, and of those, one-third used a professional forester.

The owners, on the average, were 61 years of age, with 70% being 50 years or older. Most had at least some post high school education, with one-third being college graduates. Over 40% of the owners were retired, with an additional 43% either professional or owning a business/farm. Less than one in 10 were employed as a craftsman or blue collar worker. Younger landowners had higher education and desired to stay up-to-date with new forestry practices and programs.

Landowners were asked to read the following definition of forest certification and answer the questions that followed:

Forest certification means that forests are managed in a sustainable manner and that trees are harvested with environmentally sound practices. These management practices are certified by objective third parties. Landowner participation is voluntary.

Most landowners were not familiar with forest certification, but when presented with this definition, 81% indicated that they were willing to consider it.

Preferred Methods of Landowner Education

Using a scale (1= not useful and 5 = very useful), participants indicated the usefulness of 10 different methods of learning about forest certification. This question was directed to all participants, even those not willing to consider certification. Based on mean score, the top two preferences were talking with a professional forester and publications/books/pamphlets. The two least preferred were video conference and evening workshop (Table 3).

The results broadened when the 10 different methods of learning about certification were analyzed against only those landowners who would consider certification (Table 4). Landowners willing to consider certification indicated that all methods of education would be useful (P<0.0001).

Narrowing the Educational Focus

Five sociodemographic variables were identified as being significantly related to landowner's willingness to consider certification. These included landowners who: (1) were well educated (Χ²=25.95, P<.0001), 2) were new at land ownership (Χ²= 74.74, P=0.0478), 3) were professionals (Χ²=22.14; P=0.0047), 4) have received forestry advice or information (Χ²=14.34, P=0.0002), 5) desired to stay up to date with new forestry practices and programs (Χ²=36.61, P<.0001).

Of these five variables, two can be more easily captured, then targeted, for educational programs. They include new owners (lists available from tax assessor office), and those who have received forestry advice and information (lists available from state, consulting, and industrial foresters). An analysis of the 10 preferred educational methods with these two sociodemographic variables indicated that landowners who had received advice or information about their forest would accept all methods of education. New owners, however, were more selective in their educational preference. They chose the active methods of talking with a forester or professional, talking with other woodland owners, and visiting an on-site forestry field day, and the passive methods of viewing a video at home, and visiting a Web site (Table 5).

Conclusion and Implication

Not all NIPF landowners will certify their forest land, but a facet (81%) indicated they would at least consider it. Educational focus should be with those landowners having the characteristics most favorable toward considering certification. Five sociodemographic variables were identified as significantly related to landowner's willingness to certify, including landowners who: 1) were well educated, 2) were new at land ownership, 3) were professionals, 4) have received forestry advice or information, and 5) desired to stay up to date with new forestry practices and programs.

Two of these variables can be isolated and should become the focus for NIPF education efforts about certification. The first variable includes new landowners. Landowner names in this group can be obtained through tax assessor records. The second variable includes landowners who have received forestry advice or information about forestry. The contact information for many of these landowners should be available through the records of state employed and consulting foresters.

A clear picture emerged of how these two groups desired to be educated about certification. These landowners preferred the passive methods of visiting a Web site and viewing a video tape at home, and the active methods of attending an on-site forestry field day, talking with a forester, and talking with other woodland owners.

For passive methods, forest certification can be explained via digital video. By visiting certified state forests and select NIPF lands, certification concepts can be video taped then streamlined into a Web site or reproduced for home videos or DVDs. Each educational method could explain certification principles plus include action steps on how landowners can become certified.

Active methods of certification education require that landowners not only hear the message but participate in observing it. Because landowners indicated a preference for learning about certification from professional foresters and other landowners, these two groups should be educated about certification via a train-the-trainer approach. The State Division of Forestry and consulting foresters were the two objective third parties most preferred as potential third party forest certifiers. Extension should develop educational programs for these foresters as well as for select, highly motivated landowners, to train and equip them on the purpose and process of certifying NIPF landowners. Such individuals regularly have direct contact with NIPF landowners and can explain and demonstrate forest certification concepts.

The other active method of education included on-site forestry field days. Partnerships between county forestry associations, the State Division of Forestry, Extension, and consulting foresters can develop forestry field days that give NIPF landowners hands-on view of certification. State forest sites should be used because they provide an excellent, standard-setting example.

Subsequent research to analyze successful enrollment into certification based on the five forms of active and passive educational methods is needed. This would allow for streamlined duplication on a regional and perhaps national scale.

References

Butler, B. J., & Leatherberry, E. C. (2004). American's family forest owners. Journal of Forestry, 102(7), 4-9.

Downing, A., & Finley, J. (2005). Private forest landowners: What they want in an educational program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(1) Article 1RIB4. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/rb4.shtml

Howell, J. L., & Habron, G. B. (2004). Agricultural landowners' lack of preference for Internet Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/a7.shtml

Klingberg, T. (2003). Certification of forestry: A small-scale forester perspective. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 2(3), 409-421.

Lindström, T., Hansen, E., & Juslin, H. (1999). Forest certification: The view from Europe's NIPFs. Journal of Forestry, 97 (3), 25-30.

Mater, C. (1999). Understanding forest certification: Answers to key questions. Pinchot Institute for Conservation. Washington, DC.

Prestemon, J. P., & Abt, R. C. (2002). The Southern timber market to 2040. Journal of Forestry, 100(7), 16-22.

Radhakrishna, R., Nelson, L., Franklin, R., & Kessler, G. (2003). Information sources and Extension delivery methods used by private longleaf pine landowners. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/rb3.shtml

Schweitzer, C. J. (2000). Forest statistics for west Tennessee, 1997. U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Resource Bulletin SRS-41. Southern Research Station. Asheville, NC.

Viana, V. M., Jamison, E., Donovan, R. Z., Elliot, C. & Gholz, H. (1996). Certification of forest products: Issues and perspectives. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Wear, D. N., & Greis, J. G. (2002). The southern forest resource assessment summary report. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Asheville, NC.