Planning and Professional Assistance as Factors Influencing Private Forest Landowner Best Management Practice Implementation

Virtually all states have developed best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate potential adverse effects associated with timber harvesting. This study examined how BMP implementation on Minnesota’s family forest lands varied according to whether the land had a forest management plan, the timber sale was administered by a forester, or a written timber harvesting contract was used. Analysis of field monitoring data from 174 commercial timber harvesting sites on family forest lands found that BMP implementation is only modestly influenced by a forest management plan, supervising forester, or timber harvesting contract. Supervision of a forester had the greatest influence, with six guidelines implemented differently. In contrast, differences were found for just two BMPs with a forest management plan and only one with a written timber harvesting contract. When timber sales were administered by a forester, forest management guidelines generally related to management of the land-water interface were implemented to a higher standard, with significant increases observed for avoidance of infrastructure in filter strips, use of water diversion and erosion control structures, avoiding unnecessary wetland and waterbody crossings, and slash management. Higher timber utilization efficiency (within leave tree guidelines) was also found when a professional forester supervised the timber sale. Study Implications: We examine how BMP implementation on family forest lands varies with three types of supervisory and planning assistance: a forest management plan for the property, sale administration by a professional forester, and a written timber harvesting contract. Field monitoring data from 174 commercial timber harvests on family forest lands indicate that BMP implementation is only modestly influenced by any single form of assistance. Supervision by a forester had the greatest influence, increasing use of four guidelines related to management of the land-water interface. Results may help to inform best practices for landowner assistance and planning.

Family Forest Owners’ Expectations and Perceptions of Service Quality in Timber Transactions in Sweden

In Sweden, 59% of the annual gross felling takes place in forests owned by family forest owners (FFOs). Forest companies conduct thousands of timber transactions with FFOs each year, and, most often, harvesting services are provided to them as part of the deal. Delivering services that meet the FFOs’ expectations of quality is important for any organization that wants FFOs to be loyal suppliers. The objectives of this study are to clarify FFOs’ service quality expectations in timber transactions, show how well forest companies meet these expectations, and identify factors that may influence FFOs’ quality assessments. Data were collected through a survey sent out to 973 FFOs, with a response rate of 43% (n = 418). The results show that, on average, FFOs perceived that the quality of the services delivered in relation to their latest timber transaction met their expectations on 2 out of 14 quality features: modern equipment (e.g., forest machines) and staff’s courtesy towards the FFO. The study concludes that skilled and service-minded employees are highly important for maintaining good relationships with FFOs and that forest companies may have a lot to gain by improving communication and taking the interests of the FFOs into greater consideration.

U.S. Family Forest Owners' Forest Management for Climate Adaptation: Perspectives From Extension and Outreach Specialists

In the United States (US), family forest owners, a group that includes individuals, families, trusts, and estates, are the largest single landowner category, owning approximately one-third of the nation's forests. These landowners' individualized decision-making on forest management has a profound impact on US forest cover and function at both local and regional scales. We sought to understand perceptions among family forest specialists of: climate impacts and adaptation options across different forested US regions; how family forest owners are taking climate adaptation into consideration in their forest management, if at all; and major barriers to more active management for adaptation among family forest owners. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 48 forest experts across the US who work with family forest owners, including extension specialists, state forestry agency employees, and consulting foresters who focus on family forest engagement. Our interviewees shared details on how both climate change impacts and forest management for climate adaptation vary across the US, and they perceived a lack of active forest management by family forest owners. They explained that western forest landowners confronting the imminent threat of catastrophic wildfires are more likely to see a need for active forest management. By contrast, in the east, where most forestland is privately owned, interviewees said that landowners see relatively fewer climate impacts on their forests and less need for forest management to respond to climate change. Perceived barriers to more active family forest management for climate adaptation include the lack of more robust markets for a wide range of forest products, a higher capacity forestry workforce, education and assistance in planning forest management, and addressing the issue of increased parcelization of family forest lands. We situate these perceptions in conversations on the role of boundary organizations in climate adaptation, how individual adaptation occurs, and how governing methods frame adaptation possibilities.

Expanding Family Forest Owner Options to Keep Their Land in Forest Use

Family forest owners (FFOs) own the majority of US forests and 47% of forests in the Northeast. Over 90% of northeastern FFOs want their land to stay wooded. Maintaining forest-based ecosystem services necessitates finding ways to help FFOs achieve goals for keeping their land undeveloped. Conservation easements (CEs) prohibit residential and commercial development, typically in perpetuity, but are currently underused. Understanding what drives CE interest may help maximize their potential as a conservation tool. We explored northeastern FFOs’ likelihood of CE adoption through contingent behavior responses to permanent and temporary CE scenarios. For each commitment length, we tested a range of financial compensation amounts and FFO characteristics. Increased financial compensation did not increase CE adoption likelihood for either commitment length, whereas attitudinal variables strongly influenced intention for both. Respondents did not appear to prefer temporary to permanent easements but were equally likely to consider adoption, suggesting that providing both tools may be in order. Providing FFOs with more options to keep their land in forest use, especially when there is currently high interest in this goal but low participation, has the potential to attract new and different segments of FFOs, thereby sustaining the essential ecosystem services derived from forests. Study Implications Family forest owner interest in land protection in the northeastern US is high; over 90% owning four or more ha have indicated they want their land to stay wooded. Few, however, have taken advantage of conservation easements (CEs) to protect their land. Highly effective at ensuring the continual provision of forest benefits, CEs prohibit land uses such as residential and commercial development. Although research acknowledges CE interest, little is known about what characteristics of the tool are desirable. Gaining greater understanding of these characteristics can help expand the options FFOs have to achieve their goal of keeping their land in forest use.

Forest Farming: Who Wants In?

Forest farming is an agroforestry practice defined as the intentional cultivation of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) underneath a forest canopy. Forest farming perspectives and preferences among family forest owners are generally understudied, particularly in Appalachia, where many marketable native NTFPs species are found. We surveyed Appalachian family forest owners in fourteen Southwest Virginia counties about their interest in forest farming and likelihood of leasing land for this purpose. We also asked about the owner’s residency and historical connection to the region as well as contemporary land uses, and identified the following types of uses: absentee and vacationers, newcomers, longtime farming residents, and longtime nonfarming residents. We mailed 1,040 surveys and 293 were returned (28.9%). Forty-five percent were interested or extremely interested in forest farming and 36% were likely or extremely likely to lease land. Rates of interest in forest farming and leasing were similar across owner types, suggesting broad appeal among family forest owners. Study Implications Forest farming of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) and leasing forestland for this practice is broadly appealing across diverse family forest owners in Appalachia. Opportunities to scale profitable forest farming are on the rise, potentially improving family forest management and spurring regional economic development. Study results indicate there is a critical mass of family forest owners interested in forest farming who could potentially supply cultivated NTFPs. Forest management professionals and stakeholders would benefit from considering how they can assist family forest owners who are interested in forest farming.