Variations in the Social Networks of Forest Owners: The Effect of Management Activity, Resource Professionals, and Ownership Size

Abstract

Social networks play an important role in the communication of information among forest owners and how owners process that information in making land management decisions. This article examines variations in the social network characteristics of family forest owners using survey data and interviews with 42 owners in south-central Indiana. We examine how network structure and content vary by harvesting activity, information sources, ownership attributes, sociodemographic characteristics, and location. Quantitative measures of network size and diversity, along with a qualitative understanding of network content and function are discussed and compared for active and passive forest managers. We find that active managers (people who had a recent timber harvest) had at least twice as many social ties related to forest management compared to passive managers, particularly after accounting for parcel ownership size, forest area, and total landholding size. Learning and service were the main functions of these networks, with learning being the most frequently cited reason for talking to others regardless of the management profile of forest owners. The study contributes to a growing interest in mixed methods approaches to network studies and research on social networks in private forestry. Abstract Social networks play an important role in the communication of information among forest owners and how owners process that information in making land management decisions. This article examines variations in the social network characteristics of family forest owners using survey data and interviews with 42 owners in south-central Indiana. We examine how network structure and content vary by harvesting activity, information sources, ownership attributes, sociodemographic characteristics, and location. Quantitative measures of network size and diversity, along with a qualitative understanding of network content and function are discussed and compared for active and passive forest managers. We find that active managers (people who had a recent timber harvest) had at least twice as many social ties related to forest management compared to passive managers, particularly after accounting for parcel ownership size, forest area, and total landholding size. Learning and service were the main functions of these networks, with learning being the most frequently cited reason for talking to others regardless of the management profile of forest owners. The study contributes to a growing interest in mixed-

Explaining gender differences in private forest risk management

“…Eagly and Chaiken 1993;Dietz et al 1998), gender differences in, for example, forest values and threat and coping appraisals may explain differences in management behaviour. Furthermore, social ties, perceived social norms, and support have been found to play important roles in management activities (Ruseva et al 2014;Sagor and Becker 2014), and women and men may belong to different social networks (Andersson and Lidestav 2016). Hence, less support together with normative pressure from their immediate social context may potentially explain women's lower levels of management activities.…”

Ghana's high forests : trends, scenarios and pathways for future developments

“…This result is contrary to the general view of several studies that show that tree planting activities of trusted peers are an important source of influence on farmer decision-making regarding on-farm tree planting (Ruseva et al 2014, Ruseva et al 2015, Sagor and Becker 2014. For example, Zubair and Garforth (2006) show that the decision to engage in on-farm tree planting is associated with farmers' perceptions of the opinions and suggestions of their peers and the motivation to comply with their approval and disapproval.…”

“…For example, Zubair and Garforth (2006) show that the decision to engage in on-farm tree planting is associated with farmers' perceptions of the opinions and suggestions of their peers and the motivation to comply with their approval and disapproval. Thus, Ruseva et al (2014) and Sagor and Becker (2014) show that information from trusted peers is often more important than advice from experts. However, we found the opposite.…”

Forest owners’ social networks – possibilities to enhance knowledge exchange

“…When considering the passivity of owners, it is important to distinguish "intentional" and "unintentional" passivity (Ruseva 2013). Intentionally passive owners make informed and conscious decisions not to act, for example not to harvest.…”

“…The research on private forest owners has mainly focused on "cases by variables" data. For example, information about forest owners' characteristics, as well as their objectives and values, has been studied (Karppinen 1998;Ní Dhubháin et al 2007;Butler and Ma 2011;Hänninen et al 2011) but so far, forest owners' relational data and social networks have remained rather unexplored, except for a few studies conducted in the US (Rickenbach 2009;Knoot & Rickenbach 2011;Ruseva 2013). In addition, until now the research on Finnish forest owners' extension has focused on the interaction and communication between forest owners and forest professionals (Hujala and Tikkanen 2008;Hokajärvi et al 2009), and there is no information about owners' network structures or mutual communication, even though the idea of studying forest owners' interaction and communication dates back several years (Hujala and Tikkanen 2008).…”