Family Forest Owners' Perceptions on Chemical Methods for Invasive Species Control

Abstract

Focus group methodology in a field demonstration setting was used to obtain qualitative data on the perceptions of family forest owners relating to treatment efficiency and feasibility of herbicide control methods. Interviews took place on sites where various strategic herbicide treatments were implemented for Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) control using the active ingredients glyphosate and metsulfuron. Forest owners expressed unease about the possibility for post-treatment privet reestablishment due to reseeding or other factors and opinions surfaced calling for selective chemicals or application methods that would spare non-target species. Furthermore, treatment cost effectiveness with regard to timber value, the possible need for expensive multiple treatments, cost-share incentives, and treatment guarantees from herbicide applicators were participant concerns. Environmental concerns surfaced about possible effects of both herbicide use and the invasion of privet on natural systems and an unexpected result was a strong feeling among the forest owners that focus groups are a powerful demonstration tool.

Resident and user support for urban natural areas restoration practices

“…Findings from this work generally show high support, though levels of support can vary significantly from study to study (Toman et al, 2014). People's perceptions of herbicide and other chemical applications for weed and pest control have been studied with respect to forestry (e.g., Norgaard, 2007;Howle et al, 2010), farm and rangeland (e.g., Doohan et al, 2010;Evans and Rollins, 2012) and residential lawn (Larson et al, 2010;Blaine et al, 2012) management. While the landowner-based studies we reviewed (mostly North American focused) showed that a majority of respondents used chemicals to control weeds, those studies that looked at broader public groups and public land applications found respondents generally had negative perceptions of their use.…”

Family Forest Owners’ Motivation to Control Understory Vegetation: Implications for Consulting Forestry

“…FVM is not as mandatory; the results are not as predictable and the increased yields not guaranteed. There are many factors that influence the decision to use FVM or not; it boils down to benefit/cost analysis by the forest owner who will make an ultimate decision on cost-effectiveness (Howle, Straka, & Nespeca, 2010).…”

Taxonomic Review of Classical and Current Literature on the Perennial American Family Forest Problem

“…Even factors like ownership change impacted potential timber supply on NIPF forests [209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218]. The fundamental question was what actually motivated NIPF owners to produce timber [219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230]. While the NIPF problem was generally accepted, occasionally, the linkage between NIPF forest holdings and potential timber supply problems was questioned [5,13,186,214,[231][232][233][234][235].…”