Presentation 2.1: Understanding Interface Landowners

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.