Recognizing the importance of. Evaluating the Effectiveness. Stewardship Program West Virginia. Andrew Egan, David Gibson, and Robert Whipkey

Transcription

1 Arlyn W. Perkey ABSTRACT Andrew Egan, David Gibson, and Robert Whipkey A mail survey was conducted of West Virginia forestland owners who had a written forest stewardship plan on file for a minimum of five years. Along with sociodemographic information for each respondent, the survey requested information on the types of forest management activities prescribed by the plan and any forest management activities implemented since the plan was filed. Respondents were also asked to describe their levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various aspects of the forest stewardship planning process. Keywords: forest stewardship plan; nonindustrial private forestland Recognizing the importance of private forestlands to the sustainability of the nation s forest resources, Congress authorized the Forest Stewardship Program and its costshare complement, the recently discontinued Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP), under the forestry title of the 1990 Farm Bill. The Forest Stewardship Program is administered nationally by the USDA Forest Service. The objective of the program is to encourage longterm management of nonindustrial private forests (NIPF). The ultimate result of enrollment in the program is a written forest stewardship plan. As the national program translates into action at the state level, forest stewardship efforts have received increased attention. Since the program s focus is the role of NIPFs in meeting society s long-term demands for a broad array of forest values, most states, like West Virginia, addressed the challenge by attempting to enroll their proportionate share of the national acreage target (25 million acres by 1995) under stewardship management plans. However, because the goal of the program is to improve long-term forest management, actual stewardship plan implementation is perhaps a better measure of the success of the program. With this in mind, the objectives of our research were to (1) describe the characteristics of those West Virginia Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Program West Virginia in forest landowners who had a forest stewardship plan, and test whether the implementation of forest stewardship activities on their forestlands was associated with these characteristics; (2) assess the effectiveness of West Virginia s Forest Stewardship Program by evaluating the degree to which stewardship plans have been implemented; and (3) describe the level of landowner satisfaction with both the program and the results of plan implementation. Understanding these dimensions of West Virginia s Forest Stewardship Program 10 years after its authorization through federal legislation may help provide a guide for the improvement, implementation, and evaluation of future state- and federally sponsored forestry assistance programs. Background The effectiveness of legislation and subsequent forestry incentive and out- Above: This West Virginia landowner is injecting herbicide into an undesirable tree as part of his forest stewardship plan. Journal of Forestry 31

2 reach programs e.g., the Clark- McNary Act (1924), the Agricultural Conservation Program (1936), the Norris-Doxey Farm Forestry Cooperative Act (1937), the Cooperative Forest Management Act (1950), and the Forestry Incentives Act (1973) have been widely investigated. Federally sponsored forestry assistance programs appear to have achieved both mixed results and mixed reactions from the forestry community. Skok and Gregersen (1975) drew the following conclusions about forestry incentive programs: (1) little is known about their effectiveness; (2) some programs have brought good results, despite a high degree of pessimism; and (3) incentives for increasing timber production should be compared more broadly to investments in public and industrial forestry. Worrell and Irland (1975) outlined several obstacles preventing NIPF owners from practicing timber management, including lack of knowledge, lack of landowner interest, nontimber ownership goals, low profit potential, and the owner s lack of ability to practice forest management. Rowe (1978) suggested that owners of small forest tracts may recognize that timber management may not be compatible with other ownership objectives. For decades, other researchers have echoed the concern that incentive programs pay little attention to nontimber landowner objectives (e.g., Barraclough 1949; Marler and Graves 1974; Gray 1978; Olson 1979; Binkley 1981; Egan 1997). Porterfield and Moak (1977) suggested that outreach efforts should attempt to fit forestry to the goals of NIPF owners, rather than attempting to fit these landowners to forestry goals, including those associated with improving the nation s timber supply. Kurtz and Lewis (1981) concluded that forestry incentive and outreach programs should be designed to consider the interests and characteristics of landowners, while stressing that timber harvesting is compatible with forest ecosystem values. In apparent agreement, Young et al. (1985) concluded that when foresters assist landowners with nontimber objectives, they should emphasize information on the compatibility of timber management with other forestry objectives. Further recognizing the interrelationship between timber and other forest values, as well as the importance of NIPFs in helping to provide these values, Jones and Finley (1993) discussed the Forest Stewardship Program relative to several of its premises, including: timber is a strategic national economic resource; forests are an essential national cultural resource; NIPFs account for 58 percent of the forest acreage in the United States; and NIPFs are generally poorly managed for meeting society s long-term demand for products and amenities. Although recognizing that timber production often pays the way for the management of other Federally sponsored forestry assistance programs appear to have achieved both mixed results and mixed reactions from the forestry community. forest values, Egan (1997) articulated the importance of foresters clarifying both the differences and connections between timber management and forest management. He cited the Forest Stewardship Program as encouraging the consideration of a broader array of forest values than many earlier incentive programs that focused more narrowly on timber production. In addition, the program allows private landowners to define their own forest management objectives, rather than assuming that timber necessarily drives all of forest management. Recently, Shockley and Martin (2000) examined forest management plans including what they referred to as SIP plans for a sample of Wisconsin NIPF owners. The authors used Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources foresters familiar with the management plans and corresponding properties to verify the implementation of forestry activity. Their results showed that 21 percent of practices recommended under SIP plans either had been completed or were in progress at the time of the study; practices that were either mandated or recommended under state tax law programs were more likely to be implemented. Methods In 1997, all West Virginia forest landowners who had stewardship plans in place for a minimum of five years (n = 1,759) were surveyed by mail. The survey instrument was developed through consultations with foresters and a pilot mail survey of a random sample of 100 SIP participants. Multiple mailings (Dillman 1978) and phone surveys of nonrespondents were used to increase response rates and mitigate nonresponse bias. In addition, because of frequent discrepancies between landowner survey responses and their behaviors related to forest management (Egan and Jones 1993, 1995), a random sample of 104 survey respondents who had reported harvesting their forest as prescribed in their forest stewardship plan was contacted by phone in order to verify this activity. (All phone survey participants had granted permission to the research team to be contacted by phone by designating this on the survey form.) Timber harvesting was used as the check activity because we believed that, of all forest management activities, a harvesting event was most likely to be recalled accurately by landowners. In addition, information from the phone survey provided added insight into the timber harvesting behaviors of Forest Stewardship Program participants. Results Summary information. Of 1,759 surveys mailed, 1,129 were returned (response rate = 64.2 percent). The average mail survey respondent was a 57- year-old man with an annual income of more than $41,000 per year who owned approximately 160 acres for 32 March 2001

3 Table 1. Responses to the question, Who wrote your forest stewardship plan? (n = 1,033). Consulting forester 61.3% West Virginia Division of Forestry forester 34.2 Industry forester 2.2 Other 2.3 more than 19 years. Most forest stewardship plans were written by consulting foresters, followed by foresters from the West Virginia Division of Forestry and private industry (table 1). In some respects, these results are similar to those reported by Birch (1996) for the northern United States, who found that 3 percent of NIPF management plans (not all funded by the Forest Stewardship Program) were written by industrial foresters and 37 percent by state service foresters. However, Birch also reported that 18 percent of NIPF plans had been written by the landowner, only 13 percent by a consulting forester, and 28 percent by a representative of a federal agency (e.g., USDA Extension Service, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). These distinctions appear to indicate that the Forest Stewardship Program, at least in the way it has been administered in West Virginia, placed a larger proportion of landowners in direct contact with professional foresters, particularly those employed in the private sector, than had the general forest management planning phenomenon in the northern United States. Approximately 20 percent of West Virginia respondents had paid for their forest management plans. Of those who paid, 81 percent were satisfied with their plans and approximately 10 percent were dissatisfied. Conversely, of those who did not pay, 77 percent were satisfied and 12 percent were dissatisfied. As shown in table 2, the most commonly prescribed and implemented forest management practices were stand improvement and timber harvesting, followed by grapevine removal, wildlife habitat improvement, tree planting, and forest road construction. Analysis of the most commonly recommended practices. Further analysis was performed on data for the four most commonly prescribed and implemented activities. Results of both logistic regression and chi-square analysis revealed some similarities in the nature of the association between whether an activity was recommended and the activity s implementation. The average area recommended to be harvested on 471 plans was 67 acres (standard error = 3.92 acres; range = acres). The actual average harvested area in the past five years reported by 231 respondents was 60 acres (standard error = 4.90; range = 1 460). The mean difference between recommended harvested acreage and actual harvested acreage was 11.8 acres. In addition, logistic regression analysis revealed that, of four explanatory variables included in the model landowner s income, number of acres enrolled, number of years the property was owned, and whether the harvest was recommended in the plan (a dichotomous yes no variable) only the last variable was strongly associated (p < 0.001) with whether a survey participant actually harvested within five years of a plan being filed (r 2 = 0.242) (table 3). This finding is supported by chi-square analysis (p < 0.001), which suggested that harvesting behavior was dependent on whether harvesting was prescribed in respondents forest stewardship plans. Of the 471 respondents who had plans recommending harvesting, 212 (45 percent) reported harvesting. Only 5 percent of those respondents who did not have plans recommending future harvesting reported that they had harvested within the fiveyear period since plan filing. The logistic regression result is somewhat surprising, since previous studies of private forest owners indicated that harvesting behavior generally increases as forest ownership size increases (Schallau 1965; Thompson and Jones 1981). In this respect at least, it may be reasonable to assume that West Virginia SIP participants represent a different population than the general NIPF-owning public. Additional chi-square analysis revealed an association between whether Table 2. Forest management activities recommended through landowners forest stewardship plans and implemented within five years of filing the plan. Activity Plans recommended Plans implemented Stand improvement 42.2% 22.1% Harvesting Grapevine removal Wildlife habitat improvement Tree planting Forest road construction Table 3. Results of logistic regression analysis of the association between landowners income, number of acres enrolled in the forest stewardship plan, number of years the property was owned by thencurrent landowner, and whether the harvest was recommended in the plan. Timber Stand Grapevine Wildlife harvesting improvement removal habitat p-values Income Number of acres Years owned Recommended (yes no) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 r NOTE: The Wald test was used to test the null hypothesis (H 0 : b 1 = 0) that the explanatory variables are independent of whether a forest stewardship activity was implemented. Journal of Forestry 33

4 Table 4. Landowners satisfaction with various aspects of the forest stewardship planning process. Aspect Percent satisfied Percent dissatisfied Forest stewardship plan 77.9% 11.7% Forester who wrote the plan Forest Stewardship Program Implemented forest management practices NOTE: Rows do not total 100% because of a neutral category. timber harvesting was recommended and who wrote the plan (p = 0.034). Approximately 57 percent of the plans written by private industry foresters, 45 percent by consultants, and 37 percent by West Virginia Department of Forestry foresters recommended timber harvesting. The average area recommended for stand improvement, the other most commonly recommended practice, was 48.5 acres prescribed on 417 ownerships; an average of 37.2 acres on 230 ownerships actually experienced stand improvement within five years of plan filing. In addition, similar to results for timber harvesting activity, logistic regression analysis revealed that, of four explanatory variables included in the model income, number of acres enrolled, number of years the property was owned, and whether stand improvement was recommended in the plan (a dichotomous yes no variable) only the last variable was strongly associated (p < 0.001) with whether a survey participant actually implemented stand improvement within five years of a plan being filed (r 2 = 0.222). This was supported by chi-square analysis, which indicated that whether stand improvement was implemented was dependent on whether the activity was prescribed in the owners forest stewardship plans (p < 0.001). Indeed, of 475 plans that recommended some form of stand improvement, 213 (45 percent) resulted in implementation of this activity; when stand improvement was not recommended (n = 654), the activity occurred on only 36 (6 percent) of ownerships percentages very similar to the timber harvesting analysis above. As with the timber harvesting outcome variable, additional chi-square analysis suggested an association between whether stand improvement was recommended and who wrote the plan (p = 0.504). Approximately 39 percent of the plans written by private industry foresters, 46 percent by consultants, and 38 percent by West Virginia Department of Forestry foresters recommended stand improvement. Results of similar analyses applied to the implementation of grapevine removal showed trends similar to those for timber harvesting and stand improvement: whether the activity was recommended was the only one of the four variables studied in logistic regression analysis that was associated with the actual implementation of grapevine removal (p < 0.001; r 2 = 0.372); chisquare analysis indicated that implementation of grapevine removal was dependent on whether the plan recommended it (p < 0.001); and 60 percent of ownerships that were recommended for grapevine removal actually experienced implementation of the activity, whereas 4 percent of ownerships not recommended for grapevine removal actually experienced it. Although additional chi-square analysis did not reveal an association between whether grapevine removal was recommended and who wrote the plan (p = 0.226), approximately 17 percent of the plans written by private industry foresters, 28 percent by consultants, and 28 percent by West Virginia Department of Forestry foresters recommended grapevine removal. Finally, consistent with results of logistic regression analyses for timber harvesting, stand improvement, and grapevine removal, the only variable associated with the implementation of wildlife habitat improvement was whether the activity was recommended in the plan (p < 0.001; r 2 = 0.281). In addition, chi-square analysis revealed that whether wildlife habitat improvement was implemented was dependent on whether it was recommended in the plan (p < 0.001). Of the 293 plans in which the activity was recommended, 141 ownerships (48 percent) implemented some form of wildlife habitat improvement; the activity was implemented in only 32 of 836 cases (less than 4 percent) in which it was not recommended in the plan. Further analysis indicated no association between who wrote the plan and whether wildlife habitat improvement was recommended. Twenty three percent of the plans written by West Virginia Department of Forestry foresters, 28 percent by consulting foresters, and 17 percent by industrial foresters recommended the activity. Landowner satisfaction. Over 77 percent of respondents said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their forest stewardship plan (table 4). Most respondents were also satisfied with the forester who wrote the plan, the Forest Stewardship Program, and the ways in which forest management practices were subsequently implemented. The most often cited reasons for dissatisfaction with the program included property tax increases resulting from filing a forest management plan, state foresters were spread too thin to be able to visit all landowners seeking forest stewardship advice, and landowners lack of money to implement activity prescribed in their plans. Phone interview results. Of the 104 landowners who were subsequently interviewed by phone during the check survey, only 92 (approximately 88 percent) had actually harvested since their forest stewardship plan had been filed, even though they had responded affirmatively to a mail survey question asking whether they had harvested their land within the first five years of the filing of their plan. This discrepancy is consistent with results reported by Egan and Jones (1995), who found that of 80 Pennsylvania NIPF owners who originally indicated that they had harvested during their forestland ownership, approximately 86 percent said during a phone resurvey eight months later that they had harvested. Of those West Virginia landowners 34 March 2001

5 who said during the check phone interviews that they had not harvested, 8 (approximately 8 percent) indicated that they had harvested before their management plan had been filed; 2 (approximately 2 percent) said that they had been involved in a noncommercial harvest of forest products; and 2 (approximately 2 percent) had not harvested at any time. Of those interviewees who had harvested since their plan had been filed, 51 percent had harvested primarily because their timber was mature or overmature, while 15 percent cited income, and 10 percent said that they had harvested because it was recommended in their forest stewardship plan (table 5). Other reasons for harvesting included general forest management, timber was diseased or damaged, wildlife habitat improvement, road construction, and because a neighbor was logging. These timber harvesting objectives differ from those reported in other studies of West Virginia landowners harvesting behaviors, perhaps again suggesting that SIP participants differ from the general private forestland owning public. Egan (1999), for example, reported that West Virginia NIPF owners harvested primarily for income (42 percent) or because their timber was mature (33 percent of respondents). Moreover, Egan s results agreed with another study of West Virginia forestland owners, in which 42 percent of those interviewed also cited income and 33 percent cited mature timber as their primary reasons for harvesting (Raschka 1998). It would appear, then, that West Virginia forest stewardship plan participants are not motivated to harvest primarily for income as often as the state s general forest-owning public. They do appear, however, to be more driven by the level of maturity of their timber resource. It is not known whether the study participants stated their rationales for harvesting based on their personal motivations or whether their reasons for harvesting were influenced by either the content of their plans or discussions they may have had with the foresters who wrote their plans. Interviewees indicated that approximately 90 percent of their timber sales involved a logging contract; 85 percent of these contracts mentioned BMPs. In addition, three-quarters of the timber sold in these sales was sold on the stump and two-thirds of all sale transactions were lump sum. Foresters were involved in 87 percent of the timber sales. In contrast, Egan and Rowe (1997) found that, among the general NIPF-owning public in West Virginia, 74 percent had written contracts for their timber sales, 48 percent of these mentioned BMPs, and only 16 percent involved a professional forester. Most of the phone interview participants were either satisfied (18 percent) or very satisfied (76 percent) with the timber harvest; approximately 5 percent were not satisfied. In addition, approximately 71 percent of harvests were marked for a selective harvest, 24 percent were diameter-limit harvests, and 4 percent were clearcuts. These results differ from those of Egan (1993), who found that 74 percent of a random sample of 31 Pennsylvania landowners who had harvested did so by designating trees by diameter limit, as well as Raschka (1998), whose study suggested that diameter limit harvesting was persistent in West Virginia s private forests. Conclusions Are forest stewardship plans effective in influencing the forest stewardship behaviors of program participants? Analyses revealed a strong association between whether a forestry activity was recommended in a forest stewardship plan and whether the activity was actually implemented. Timber harvesting, stand improvement, grapevine removal, and wildlife habitat improvement activities, for example, were often implemented in situations in which they were prescribed in plans, and were only rarely implemented on forest ownerships that were guided by plans that did not recommend these activities. However, available data do not elucidate to what degree the opportunity for action was present or not present on the ownerships studied (e.g., were grapevine problems present? Was there harvestable timber?). In addition, this study has found a high degree of satisfaction among forestland owners in West Virginia with both their forest stewardship Table 5. Landowners primary reason for harvesting timber. Reason Percent responding Timber was mature or overmature 51% Income 15 Recommended in the forest stewardship plan 10 Forest management purposes 8 Timber was diseased or damaged 6 Wildlife habitat improvement 5 Road construction 2 Neighbor was logging 2 plans and the process that provided for those plans. In keeping with the spirit of the Forest Stewardship Program, a broad array of forest stewardship activities were prescribed by the foresters who wrote the plans including stand improvement, timber harvesting, grapevine removal, and wildlife habitat improvement. Many of the forest management activities, which had been prescribed by the foresters who had written the plans, had been implemented in the five years since the plan had been filed. However, reasons for dissatisfaction with the program reflected a need for (1) more support for the West Virginia Division of Forestry, in order to facilitate more frequent contacts with landowners, and (2) increased funding for the implementation of noncommercial forest stewardship activities. Results of this study also suggest that participants in the Forest Stewardship Program are different from the general forestland-owning public. For example, compared to other studies of private forest owners in the region, the West Virginia forest stewardship plan participants in this study demonstrated less motivation to harvest for income. They were also less likely to engage in diameter-limit harvesting. In addition, the landowner income variable was not strongly associated with decisions to implement activities such as stand improvement, timber harvesting, grapevine removal, and wildlife habitat improvement. It is not known whether the program attracted participants who were less motivated by income, or Journal of Forestry 35

6 whether the program, and possibly the exposure of the participants to professional foresters, influenced participants forest stewardship motivations and behaviors. Moreover, participants in the Forest Stewardship Program were also more likely than the general NIPFowning public to employ both logging contracts and professional foresters when conducting timber sales. Previous research has shown a strong positive association between forester involvement in timber sales and compliance with West Virginia s BMPs (Egan 1999), suggesting a greater commitment to forest stewardship among participants in the Forest Stewardship Program. Finally, in assessing the effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Program 10 years after its initial authorization, this study has gone beyond the generally accepted standard of counting the number of acres enrolled in forest stewardship plans, to attempting to quantify actual plan implementation, landowner motivations for stewardship behavior, and participant satisfaction with aspects of the forest stewardship plan process. Taken together, elements of this approach may be better indicators of long-term forest stewardship the ultimate objective of the program and provide a model for future efforts aimed at assessing the effectiveness of forestry outreach programs. Literature Cited BARRACLOUGH, S.L Forest land ownership in New England with special reference to forest holdings of less than five thousand acres. PhD thesis, Harvard University. BINKLEY, C.S Timber supply from private nonindustrial forests. Bulletin No. 92. New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. BIRCH, T.W Private forestland owners of the northern United States, Research Bulletin NE-136. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service. DILLMAN, D.A Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons. EGAN, A Forest stewardship: The relationship between the articulations and actions of Pennsylvania s NIPF owners. PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State University From timber to forests and people: A view of nonindustrial private forest research. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 14(4): Reducing forest road erosion: Do foresters and logging contracts matter? Journal of Forestry 97(8): EGAN, A., and S. JONES Do landowner practices reflect beliefs? Journal of Forestry 91(10): EGAN, A., and S. JONES The reliability of landowner survey responses to questions on forest ownership and harvesting. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 12(4): EGAN, A., and J. ROWE Compliance with West Virginia s silvicultural best management practices, Charleston: West Virginia Department of Forestry. GRAY, J.L The nonindustrial private ownership problem : A viewpoint. Journal of Forestry 76(8): JONES, S.B., and J.C. FINLEY Public forest stewardship ethic. Journal of Extension 31(3):8 10. KURTZ, W.B., and B.J. LEWIS Decision-making framework for nonindustrial private forest owners: An application in the Missouri Ozarks. Journal of Forestry 79(5): MARLER, R.L., and P.F. GRAVES A new rationale for small forest landowners. AFRI Research Report No. 17. Syracuse, NY: Applied Forestry Research Institute. OLSON, D.D Realities of nonindustrial private forest ownership in northern Michigan. Journal of Forestry 77(1): PORTERFIELD, R.L., and J.E. MOAK Timber management for nonindustrial forest owners. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 1(3):2 6. RASCHKA, J Timber harvesting in West Virginia: A statewide study of some effects and landowner attributes. Master s thesis, West Virginia University. ROWE, C Economics of tract size in timber growing. Journal of Forestry 76(9): SCHALLAU, C.H Fragmentation, absentee ownership, and turnover of forest land in northern lower Michigan. Research Paper LS-17. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. SHOCKLEY, T., and A.J. MARTIN Estimating management plan implementation in northeast Wisconsin. Journal of Forestry 17(4): SKOK, R.A., and H.M. GREGERSEN Motivating private forestry. Journal of Forestry 73(4): STONE, R.N A comparison of woodland owner intent with woodland practice in Michigan s Upper Peninsula. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota. THOMPSON, R.P., and J.G. JONES Classifying nonindustrial private forestland by tract size. Journal of Forestry 79(5): WORRELL, A.C., and L.C. IRLAND Alternative means of motivating investment in private forestry. Journal of Forestry 73(4): YOUNG, R.A., M.R. REICHENBACH, and F.H. PERKUHN PNIF management: A social-psychological study of owners in Illinois. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 2(3): Andrew Egan (andy_egan@umenfa. maine.edu) is associate professor, Department of Forest Management, University of Maine, 5755 Nutting Hall, Room 201, Orono, ME ; David Gibson is wildlife manager, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Marlinton; Robert Whipkey is assistant state forester, Forest Management and Stewardship, West Virginia Division of Forestry, Charleston. 36 March 2001