Search this site:

5.4 Owner Attitudes, Values and Knowledge

Jones and others (1995) reported that a popular "NIPF myth" believed in by many foresters is that NIPF owners have a farming background and are anti-environmentalist, timber-oriented, and intensely in favor of private property rights. Perhaps one reason for this myth is that southern field foresters' clients very typically include NIPF owners who have received professional forestry advice and sold timber in the past (Bliss and others 1997

Rural landowners and non landowners seem to share similar beliefs and attitudes about forest values and the environment. In Chapter SOCIO-2, Tarrant and others found, with one important exception, no significant differences between these two groups. The exception was that forest land owners were likely to rate wood products as a more important management objective for private forests. The ecological region that people lived in was also found to have had little bearing on beliefs and attitudes.

Some southern forest owners seem to dislike government regulation of private forest use and management, while others think regulation for the public good may become necessary in the future. Related research information, however, is limited. A majority of Arkansas NIPF owners were reported to believe they had the right to use their land in any fashion without regulations, but also believed in environmental protection and land stewardship (Williams and others 1996). Over half of new forest landowners in Georgia, surveyed by Newman and others (1996), indicated land management regulations might be necessary in the future. Another 40 percent felt that private landowners have an obligation to maintain areas for the protection of endangered species. In a study of Mississippi NIPF owners who had harvested timber sometime between 1994 and 1998, Gunter and others (2001) found that the vast majority thought that reforestation should not be regulated by the State Government, but should remain a landowner decision.

A 1992 survey of residents of the seven-State (AL,GA,KY,MS,NC,TN,VA3 revealed that the great majority of survey participants favored a balance between private property rights and environmental regulations, as long as protection of the environment was ensured. Forest owners and nonowners shared similar opinions about this issue (Bliss and others 1994). Differences of opinion among several subgroups were later examined by Bliss and others (1997). Strong majorities of urban and rural residents and forest owners and nonowners agreed that private property rights were important, but secondary to environmental protection. Few people of any category agreed that private owners have the right to do as they please with their forests, regardless of environmental consequences. Most private forest owners (63 percent) approved limiting owner rights if necessary to protect the environment. A majority of private owners also agreed that it would be appropriate for the government to regulate tree cutting on private land in order to protect streams, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and scenic beauty.

The attitudes of NIPF owners in the Tennessee Valley who had sold timber in the past differed markedly from other owners who had not. Only 4 out of 10 owners who had sold timber supported limiting private owner rights to protect the environment. Yet only a third of the total believed private owners have the right to do as they please with their forests. These seemingly conflicting findings may suggest that some landowners believe that environmental protection is a personal, rather than governmental, responsibility. From another perspective, some landowners may feel they should be allowed to tend to their own private business on their land, and let others tend to theirs. In a study of South Carolina NIPF owners, for example, Jacobson and others (1996) found that over half did not agree that the impact of personal land use decisions on neighboring landowners was an appropriate private owner concern. Only 3 out of 10 favored joint planning for land use with neighbors. A study of NIPF owners in nine Southeastern States (AL,FL,GA,KY,MS,NC,SC,TN, VA) revealed a slight majority agreeing that society should regulate landowners' activities, but only if they caused harm to adjacent properties (Brunson and others (1997).

What NIPF owners think is appropriate for private land management may differ from what is thought appropriate for public land. Tennessee Valley landowners were found to share public concerns about clearcutting and prescribed burning on private land, being evenly divided on the acceptability of such practices. Relatively few, however, approved clearcutting and herbicide use on public land (Bliss and others 1994). In a later report, Bliss and others (1997) reported no significant differences between urban and rural residents, or between forest owners and nonowners, in the approval of such practices. Again, it seems that private landowners reflect the general characteristics of the public at large, at least in terms of attitudes toward forest land use and management.

Limited research findings suggest that many landowners may be unaware of the social, political, and environmental policies and issues that influence natural resource conditions and management opportunities in forests. Newman and others (1996), for example, found that most new forest owners in Georgia were unaware of forest management opportunities and laws affecting land management. Most were also unaware of, or uncertain about, the potential use of State Agricultural Preference or Conservation Use classifications to reduce their annual property taxes. In a study of Arkansas NIPF owners, a majority were found unaware of the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act (Williams and others 1996). Jacobson and others (1996) concluded that South Carolina NIPF owners' knowledge of "ecosystem management" varied widely. Only one-quarter were familiar with the concept. About one-third had no apparent knowledge.

Tract size may influence landowner attitudes toward timber production. As reported in Chapter HLTH-1, various researchers have concluded that the practicality of timber management decreases as tract size decreases. Landowners with the fewest acres are thought to also have the fewest management options to pursue (Chapter TIMBR-3). In a study of Virginia NIPF owners, Hodge (1996) found a significant relationship between ownership of less than 250 acres and the likelihood that an owner would believe: (1) harvesting has adverse effects on the forest's natural growth process and hunting; (2) cutting firewood is not harvesting trees; and (3) more land was needed, with more trees of higher quality, in order to harvest timber. Williams and others (1996) found that Arkansas NIPF owners were more likely to practice some type of active forest management when their tracts were larger than 100 acres. This finding is supported by Gunter and others (2001), who found that about two-thirds of Mississippi NIPF owners who reforested their land after a timber harvest owned holdings of at least 100 acres.

Reforestation after timber harvest helps ensure the growth of new stands of desired tree species. Megalos (2000) found that an individual's choice to reforest land was positively associated with variables such as costs, knowledge of cost-share assistance, knowledge of tax incentives, income, and timber prices. Newman and others (1996) reported timber prices to be the most important primary factor justifying reforestation investments by new Georgia owners. Cost-sharing and other government payments were strong secondary factors. In a study of Mississippi NIPF owners who had harvested timber between 1994 and 1998, Gunter and others (2001) found that the two leading reasons for reforestation were: (1) the desire to keep land in timber production, and (2) the desire to be good stewards. The two most important owner reasons for not reforesting harvested lands were: (1) the belief that a site would reforest itself naturally, and (2) high reforestation costs.

Private owner attitudes are generally unfavorable toward allowing the public access to their land for recreation. The most important problems and concerns of southern landowners in this respect have included littering and garbage dumping, illegal hunting and fishing, and damage to property fences and gates. About 41 percent have posted their land to control public use and prevent damage (Chapter SOCIO-6). Williams and others (1996) found that major concerns of Arkansas NIPF owners included timber theft, trash dumping, and trespassing.

The percentage of individuals who allow public access to their land has been declining over the past 15 years. This change has been due partly to increases in people seeking recreation, land development pressures, and forest fragmentation (Chapter SOCIO-6). Kluender and Walkingstick (2000) found that only 4 percent of Arkansas NIPF owners included "providing recreation for others" as an important management objective. A study of southern landowners found that most permitted recreation access only to family and friends Chapter SOCIO-6).