Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Motivating forest landowners in the North Central United States

Melvin J. Baughman, Karen Updegraff & Juan Carlos Cervantes

University of Minnesota, College of Natural Resources, 2003 Upper Buford Circle,
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108. USA.
E-mail:
mbaughma@cnr.umn.edu

Introduction

A wide variety of incentives are offered to nonindustrial private forest landowners in the United States to influence their forest land management. Such incentives include income tax deductions, property tax reductions, cost-sharing, free or low cost technical assistance, conservation easements, and educational programs. In the north central United States these incentives are used in lieu of government regulations to influence forest management for timber, wildlife, soil and water conservation, and other forest products and values. To determine the relative value of these different incentives and to improve effectiveness of Extension forestry programs, several landowner surveys have been conducted recently in the north central United States. This paper summarizes survey results with an emphasis on their implications for Extension forestry programs.

Recent survey

A forest stewardship plan provides a comprehensive analysis of a landowner’s forest resources as well as management options for each stand or other management unit according to the owner’s objectives. Plans are provided free or at low cost by foresters working for public agencies or private companies, depending on the state. Obtaining a management plan is considered by many foresters to be the first step toward implementing more specific management practices and this plan is required before landowners are eligible for some government financial incentives such as cost-sharing and property tax reductions. A random sample of 3,000 landowners that obtained forest stewardship plans over the past 10 years in six north central states were surveyed by mail (Baughman and Updegraff 2001). This survey will be compared and contrasted with a survey of a randomized sample of all private forest landowners in the United States (Birch 1996), and with two large-scale surveys of a randomized sample (approximately 1,000 landowners in each survey) of all Minnesota forest landowners (Rathke 1993, Cervantes 2001). In the Birch (1996) survey, 5% of the owners had management plans, whereas in the Minnesota surveys 14% (Cervantes 2001) to 15% (Rathke 1993) had management plans. These comparisons will provide a clearer understanding of factors that motivate landowners with and without forest stewardship plans.

Survey results

Landowners with forest stewardship plans in the north central states had a mean age of 55 (Baughman and Updegraff 2001). This is very close to the 54-year mean age of all Minnesota forest landowners (Cervantes 2001), indicating that landowners with and without forest stewardship plans are similar in age.

Landowners in the north central states with forest stewardship plans had owned their land an average of 18 years, suggesting that many had acquired forest land when they were in their late 30s (Baughman and Updegaff 2001). This tenure was similar to the 19-year average in Minnesota, again indicating similar tenures for landowners with and without forest stewardship plans (Cervantes 2001 and Rathke 1993). Educational programs that target these younger landowners when they first acquire forest land may have more influence on long term land management.

Owners in the north central states with forest stewardship plans were well-educated; 98% had graduated from high school while 49% had a college degree (Baughman and Updegraff 2001). A wide variety of educational materials and methods can be used with these educated landowners.

There was not much racial or gender diversity; 99% were white and 89% were male.

Educators should take into consideration that 7% were disabled, although we did not obtain information on their specific disabilities. This has implications for such factors as print size on publications, Web page design for easy searching with a keyboard, and access to meeting sites.

The average land ownership size was 246 acres, but this included 123 acres of natural forest, 27 acres of tree plantation, 102 acres of active crop land, 34 acres of idle crop, 23 acres of water and wetland, and 17 acres of developed and other uses. Forestry education programs should cover a range of land uses to influence management on more acres. The 150 acres of natural forest and plantations owned by these forest stewardship plan holders is substantially larger than the 50 acres owned by average individual landowners with more than 10 acres of forest across the whole northern region of the U.S. (Birch 1996) and larger than the 64-acre average ownership in Minnesota (Cervantes 2001). This comparison suggests that landowners with forest stewardship plans are likely to own more forest acres than those without such plans.

In the north central states, 48% of the owners lived on their forest land while 52% were nonresidents living a median distance of 30 miles from their forest land (Baughman and Updegraff 2001). In the Minnesota study, landowners lived a mean distance of 78 miles from their forest land and only 37% lived within 50 miles (Cervantes 2001). This comparison indicates that landowners with forest stewardship plans are more likely to live closer to their forest land than landowners without such plans. Educational programs for both residents and nonresidents are needed to affect a large percentage of owners and acres.

Educational programs will appeal to more landowners when such programs address landowner objectives. The most common reasons for forest stewardship plan holders to own forest land were for recreation and scenic enjoyment and part of home/cabin site (Table 1a). An open-ended question that asked about their most important reason for owning forest land gave the highest ratings to aesthetics/general recreation; hunting, fishing and other consumptive recreation; environmental/stewardship concerns, e.g., conservation, stewardship or restoration of forest, soil, water; and family land/heritage preservation. Growing wood for sale and personal use rated very low (Baughman and Updegraff 2001). This ranking of reasons for ownership is similar to results from Birch (1996) (Table 1b) and Cervantes (2001) (Table 1c).

Table 1a: Reasons for owning forest land among forest stewardship plan holders in north central states. (Baughman and Updegraff 2001)

Mean Rating

 

(1-7)

Reasons

6.2

Recreation, scenic enjoyment

5.5

Other

4.7

Part of home/cabin site

4.4

Land investment

3.8

Part of farm

3.7

Income from timber or other forest products

3.4

Growing wood or other forest products for farm or personal use

Table 1b: Primary reasons for owning forest land in the northern region. (Birch 1996)

%

Reasons

27

Part of residence

16

Esthetic enjoyment

15

Part of farm

13

Recreation

10

Farm and domestic use

6

Land investment

4

Estate

4

Other

4

No answer

1

Timber production

Table 1c: Reasons for owning forest land in Minnesota. (Cervantes 2001)

Mean Rating

 

(1-5)

Reasons

4.30

Wildlife habitat

4.13

Recreation

3.64

Hunting/fishing

3.46

Green space around home

2.55

Part of farm

2.43

Wood products for personal use

2.21

Land investment

1.83

Timber income

1.35

Mineral value

1.17

Christmas tree income

Although harvesting timber was not a principal objective for most landowners in the north central survey of landowners with Forest Stewardship plans, our respondents had harvested a mean of 80 acres of timber before receiving a forest stewardship plan and 68 acres after receiving a plan. Birch (1996) found that among all forest landowners in the U.S., 46% had already cut timber; only 34% never intended to harvest and they owned just 12% of the private acreage. In Minnesota, Cervantes (2001) learned that 50% of all owners had harvested wood. These surveys all point out the need for educational programs to address timber harvest strategies since so many landowners will eventually harvest timber regardless of their principal objectives.

Our federal and state governments financially support development of forest stewardship plans with the expectation that landowners will accomplish more and better forest management after they get a plan. The survey by Baughman and Updegraff (2001) supports this statement. Landowners accomplished more acres in each of 10 management activities after receiving their plans than before. If the acres on which landowners still plan to implement more management are added to those acres already under management, then the acres to be accomplished are greater for 12 management activities after receiving a forest stewardship plan. Fencing livestock out of forest land was the only management activity for which more acres were accomplished before getting a forest stewardship plan than after getting such a plan. Rathke’s (1993) survey of Minnesota forest landowners also found that the presence of a management plan had a significantly positive effect on an owner’s timber management investment. The presence of a management plan was a more significant predictor of most forest management activities than the property tax classification. The odds of getting a management plan increased significantly for landowners that received cost-share funds and those that received educational assistance.

There is a multiplier affect among landowners that get a forest stewardship plan. Among those with a forest stewardship plan, 53% had already recommended to a friend or neighbor that they get a plan and another 18% thought that neighbors and friends would benefit from such a plan (Baughman and Updegraff 2001). The Minnesota landowner survey by Cervantes (2001) found that among 10 sources of forestry information, those used most often, in descending order of frequency were: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, another landowner or neighbor, logger or timber buyer, and publications/books/videos. Educational programs should focus on logger and landowner education because of their multiplier effect.

Another indication of the value landowners placed on their forest stewardship plans came from the question, “If there were no free or low cost planning assistance available, how much would you expect to pay a natural resource professional to prepare a forest stewardship plan?” The median amount was $200 and the expected payment per acre was $8.40.

There is room for improvement in these forest stewardship plans, however. Among seven features of the plan and planning process, landowners gave their lowest ratings to descriptions of management options and maps. Educators should teach forest planners how to better articulate management options and produce better maps.

To accomplish more of the recommendations in their plans, landowners rated cost-sharing and technical advice as the types of help they needed most. Educators don’t provide those types of assistance, but we do provide the other types of assistance the landowners recommended: more information and training to do specific practices, help locating supplies, and help locating contractors.

From a list of incentives, landowners rated property tax reductions, income tax credits, free management assistance, and educational materials as the most valuable (Table 2). Lower on the rating scale were cost-sharing, higher product prices, conservation easements, annual rental payments, and loans. Landowners with higher than average acreage placed high value on educational materials and events and financial incentives (income tax deductions, property tax reductions, cost-sharing, and higher product prices). Landowners with lower than average acreage placed higher value on free/low cost management assistance, low interest loans, and conservation easements.

Table 2: Value of incentives among forest stewardship plan holders in north central states. (Baughman and Updegraff 2001)

Mean Rating

 

(1-10)1

Incentives

9.10a

Property tax reductions for managed forest lands

8.72b

Income tax deductions or credits for management expenses

8.61b

Free/low cost on-the-ground management assistance or advice from a natural resource professional

8.16c

Free/low cost educational materials or events on forest management

7.93d

Cost-sharing for forest management

7.27e

Higher forest product prices

7.10e

Conservation easements to permanently protect land from housing/business development

6.40f

Annual rent to provide income while trees mature

6.08g

Low interest loans to help pay for forest management expenses until forestry income is received

1 = Ratings with different superscripts are significantly different.

Cervantes (2001) found a similar ranking of incentives for a cross-section of all Minnesota forest landowners indicating that those with stewardship plans rate incentives in about the same order as those without stewardship plans. The top three incentives were property tax reductions for managed forest lands, free or low cost management assistance or advice from a forester or natural resource professional, and free or low cost educational materials or events on forest management (Table 3).

Table 3: Value of incentives in Minnesota. (Cervantes 2001)

Mean Rating

 

(1-5)

Incentives

3.66

Property tax reductions for managed forestlands

3.29

Free or low cost management assistance or advice from a forester or natural resource professional

3.19

Free or low cost educational materials or events on forest management

3.17

Income tax deductions or credits for management expenses

2.80

Lower capital gains tax rate for forestry incomes

2.64

Partial property tax reductions for managed forestlands

2.64

Higher prices for forest products

2.58

Cost-sharing assistance to help pay for forest management expenses

2.15

Low interest loans to help pay for forest management expenses until timber is harvested or other forestry income received

2.10

Annual rental payments to provide income while trees mature

When asked to rate the value of forestry information sources, landowners with forest stewardship plans rated publications, field tours, and video tapes most highly (Table 4) (Baughman and Updegraff 2001). Next were conferences, newspaper/magazine, and television. Last on the list were correspondence course, Internet/Web, CD ROM, and radio. Landowners with larger than average acreage placed a higher value on publications, books, and newsletters than other sources. Older landowners preferred conferences, seminars, workshops and radio while younger landowners preferred information from the Internet/Web. Highly educated landowners with post graduate education preferred to learn from conference/seminar/workshop, Internet/Web, and CD ROM while those with some college or lower education preferred to learn from television or correspondence courses.

Table 4: Value of information sources to forest stewardship plan holders in north central states. (Baughman and Updegraff 2001)

Mean Rating

 

(1-10)1

Information Sources

7.17a

Field tour

7.01a

Publication/book/newsletter

6.84ab

Video tape for home viewing

6.80b

Conference/seminar/workshop

6.45c

Newspaper/magazine article

6.10d

Television program

5.84e

Correspondence course

5.81e

Internet/web information

5.57f

CD ROM disk

4.62g

Radio program

1 = Ratings with different superscripts are significantly different.

A cross-section of Minnesota landowners arrived at a somewhat similar list except that field tours were rated noticeably lower than in the survey of north central forest stewardship plan holders (Table 5) (Cervantes 2001). This comparison indicates that field tours appeal more to landowners with management plans than to those without such plans. Educational programs that emphasize field tours may miss landowners that are not active managers.

Table 5: Value of information sources to Minnesota landowners.

Mean Rating

 

(1-5)

Information Sources

2.86

Newsletter

2.80

Newspaper or magazine article

2.78

Publication or book

2.78

Video tape for home viewing

2.70

Written management plan

2.68

Field tour

2.27

Correspondence course through the mail

2.13

Weekend workshop

2.10

Cable TV program

1.92

Radio program

1.91

Weekday workshop

1.71

Internet or on-line computer service

To reach private landowners, it is helpful to know that 46% belong to conservation organizations. More specifically participation is 32% in hunting/game/gun clubs, 31% in forestry-related organizations, 29% in farm organizations, 11% in wildlife conservation organizations, and 29% in other environmental organizations. Educators could deliver some of their educational programs to members of these organizations to reach a relatively high percentage of forest landowners.

Conclusion

The primary conclusions from these surveys for extension educators in north central states are as follows:

  • The average landowner is a highly educated, white male, 55 years old, that has owned forest land for 18 years. Focus on landowners from 37 to 55 years old to influence management.
  • Landowners are likely to own natural timber, plantations, agricultural land, water and wetlands, and more developed land. Package educational programs to address management of these different land uses.
  • Design programs for resident and absentee owners to reach a high percentage of owners.
  • Keep in mind that the primary land ownership objective for most landowners is recreation. Timber management is not a high priority, but most landowners will harvest timber at some point and, therefore, need education about marketing and the affects of a timber harvest on their resources.
  • Encourage landowners to develop forest management plans because plans do lead to a wide range of management practices.
  • Focus educational programs on loggers and landowners because of their multiplier effect. Landowners need to know how to carry out specific management practices, where to get supplies and contractors and what other incentives are available, especially property tax reductions, income tax deductions, and low cost technical assistance.
  • Teach forestry professionals how to better identify and describe management options for stands or other management units and how to produce better maps.
  • Give priority to developing publications, books, newsletters, video tapes, and field tours. The Web still does not appeal to a large percentage of landowners, but it does appeal to younger, more educated people.
  • Offer education to conservation organizations since many landowners belong to these organizations.

References

1. Baughman, M.J. & K. Updegraff. (2001). Landowner survey of forest stewardship plan implementation: Final report. St.Paul, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 65 p.

2. Birch, T.W. (1996). Private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994 (Resource Bulletin NE-134). Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service. 183 p.

3. Cervantes, J.C. (2001). Nonindustrial private forest management in Minnesota. Draft Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota.

4. Rathke, D.M. (1993). An evaluation of Minnesota’s timberland property tax laws. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota. 304 p.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page