NIPF Use of Landowner Assistance and Education Programs in Washington State

Abstract

A 1988 mail survey to evaluate use and effectiveness of Washington NIPF assistance/education programs resulted in a 69% response or 910 useable questionnaires. In total, 47% of the respondents had received assistance/education from Washington State DNR (17.4%), SCS (15.4%), ASCS Cost-Share (15.5%), Washington State University Cooperative Extension (29.3%) and private forestry consultants (12%). Usefulness of assistance/education received was rated good/excellent by 79.3% to 90.5% of the respondents. Owners also commonly received assistance/education from more than one source, reflecting the fact that NIPF forestry programs tend to work as a system, with each part serving a different function. Respondents receiving assistance or information had larger forested holdings, a somewhat higher level of education and tended to live on or near their forested holdings. A much larger percentage of respondents having received assistance/education indicated they had completed one or more management practices in the past 10 years. West. J. Appl. For. 6(4):90-94.

Ecosystem management and nonindustrial private forest landowners in Washington State, USA

“…A large proportion of landowners identified several non-monetary values of land ownership, including privacy of a rural setting, the satisfaction of owning land, the opportunity to contribute to fish and wildlife conservation, as well as income opportunities from commercial timber sales. These results are consistent with similar studies completed for other regions in the United States (Blatner et al 1991, Brunson et al 1996, Rickenbach et al 1998). This suggests that NIPF landowners view their forests as a multi-use resource, such that they can achieve environmental, economic, and social benefits from their lands.…”

“…Both of the previously mentioned studies indicate that, for a majority of respondents, privacy is an important reason for owning forestland. A 1988 survey of NIPF landowner use of assistance and education programs in Washington State yielded similar results (Blatner et al 1991). This seemingly nation-wide commonality among NIPF landowners may prove a hindrance to ecosystem-based management, if the desire for privacy deters landowner willingness to cooperate across ownership boundaries (Rickenbach et al 1998).…”

Use and effectiveness of Washington state’s extension forest stewardship program

“…These results are consistent with findings from similar studies undertaken in other regions of the USA (e.g. Blatner et al 1991, Brunson et al 1996, Rickenbach et al 1998. Recreational opportunities were not particularly important for most respondents, nor was additional income gained through hunting leases or eventual commercial development or resale.…”

“…Privately owned lands provide critically important environmental and recreational values to their owners and to the people of the state. In addition, rapidly growing rural development increased pressure on these landowners for commercial and development rights of their properties (Blatner et al 1991, Thorud 2000. Washington State is covered by over 8.5 M ha of forest (MacLean et al 1992, McKay et al 1995, yet the population is growing rapidly.…”

“…Seventy-two percent of extension program users had harvested timber for commercial sale, compared with only 52% of non-users. Past studies have indicated that landowners of larger forests tend to be more interested in timber management (Blatner et al 1991). Furthermore, some agencies restrict their harvesting cost-share programs to forest holdings of 8 ha or more, thus reducing the ability of smaller landowners to benefit from assistance.…”