Search this site:

6 Discussion and Conclusions

About 89 percent of the South's timberlands are privately owned. A majority are owned by individuals and family units. These owners form a core ownership group commonly referred to NIPF owners. Collectively, individual NIPF owners represent about 95 percent of all private timberland owners and control about 63 percent of the South's total private timberland acreage. Most own just one tract of timberland and live either on, or within a mile, of that tract.

The number of private timberland owners in the South is growing and the average tract size is shrinking. This parcelization of timberland will influence how private forests can and will be managed for various purposes. Most private timberland owners have tracts smaller than 10 acres. These owners, however, account for only 4 percent of the total acreage. Private owners holding tracts over 500 acres, representing less than 1 percent of all private owners, control almost 47 percent of the South's private timberlands.

The size of a tract, as well as the sizes and characteristics of adjacent tracts, can limit an owner's options for certain uses and management benefits. Small tracts of forest land, for example, may not produce the volumes of wood fiber needed to interest timber buyers. They may also not provide the acreage required for habitat and range by some wildlife game species, or needed for certain outdoor recreation activities. But small tracts obviously have values and produce benefits that land purchasers desire.

Available research information does not allow the description of an "average" private southern forest land owner. Factors that influence the ways in which owners manage their land include income, personal values, tract size, residence, long-term plans, knowledge of alternative management options and benefits, taxation policies, and government assistance programs. Other likely factors may include historic land use, soil productivity, local markets for resource goods and values, and current land and resource health.

Perhaps because of popular concerns about timber management activity and future supplies of wood fiber, much research during the past decade has focused on timber growing by NIPF owners. In attempts to define owner characteristics and predict management behavior, different researchers have also collected somewhat varying types of owner-related data. This variation makes it difficult to derive information useful for the South as a whole. The often conflicting results of both individual State and southwide studies simply suggests that, as for the public in general, landowners with similar backgrounds facing similar choices often have different objectives and make different management decisions.

Although published information available specifically for private timber industry owners is scarce, it is assumed that their management strategies are designed primarily for long-term profit from timber production. This does not suggest that such owners do not also manage forests for secondary, nontimber benefits. As a matter of both good business sense and environmental concerns, many private industry owners in the South are strong proponents of practices that ensure sustainability of multiple resource values.

Research findings lead to some very broad conclusions about southern NIPF owners. Over half of them are white-collar workers and retirees, with varying income and education characteristics , and probably 50-60 years old. Most own forest land because they want to reside in a rural area, see their land investment grow in value, use the land for farm or domestic reasons, enjoy the natural resources, and/or have an estate to pass along to heirs. Most probably manage their land themselves. Many seem to be somewhat interested in making money from land investments, but they are also interested in wildlife, water, aesthetics, and other natural values and benefits. Many, especially those who are relatively new owners or small tract owners, have limited knowledge about forest management practices, current environmental laws, and the concept of management for renewable, sustainable resource benefits. Nearly half, holding over three-quarters of the total timberland acreage in the South, have harvested timber in the past, while many intend to do so in the future. It is unclear what other kinds of management activities they will undertake. There are indications that some may plant and periodically thin trees, implement wildlife habitat improvement measures, or actively attempt to conserve natural resources in some manner.

The reasons why certain forest owners are motivated to implement certain practices and others are not probably reflect basic resource characteristics, personal values and attitudes, and available income. A change in any of these factors -- whether due to personal fortune or misfortune, the results of past management practices, new information, expert technical assistance, tax relief, or government cost-sharing -- would likely influence a change in an owner's objectives.

Rural landowners and nonlandowners seem to have similar beliefs and attitudes about forest values. Private forest owners, as well as nonowners, from both rural and urban backgrounds, share strong concerns about the need for environmental protection. Many feel they have a personal obligation to protect the quality of resources under their care, without interference from the government or neighboring landowners.

Most southern landowners are not interested in allowing the public to use their property for outdoor recreation. Many have concerns about trespass, garbage dumping, and timber theft. Very few, especially those with small to mid-sized tracts, have a written management plan to guide them in achieving their objectives. They also generally do not take advantage of free government forestry assistance and financial incentives programs. In fact, an average of less than 2 percent of all southern forest owners receive technical assistance each year from State forestry agencies. It is not known how many seek and receive assistance from other public and private agencies and individual consultants, which they are important sources of assistance. It seems that many owners may not be aware of available assistance, think that management activities are too costly or complicated, or view forestry program assistance as being focused mostly on timber production and harvest-related objectives.

Research findings commonly describe wide variations in certain NIPF owner characteristics, intentions, and behaviors between substate regions and even within such regions. This variation suggests the difficulty in describing, as well as understanding or predicting, different management objectives and behaviors for NIPF owner groups in the South. Many NIPF owners who have timber production and income as primary ownership objectives probably have wildlife-oriented recreation use as a secondary objective. Although they represent a relatively small percentage of all landowners, these timber-oriented owners make management decisions for over one-third of all private timberland in the South. Many of them own at least 100 acres of land, which is thought by some to be the minimum size needed for profitable timber production. They are the most likely to be aware of government forestry programs, participate in government cost-share incentives activities, seek professional assistance, have management plans, and be somewhat knowledgeable about forestry operations.

Considerable research information is available about the motivations and behavior of participants in government cost-share incentives programs and the FSP. Disagreements exist about the relative merits of these programs. It is certain, however, that cost-sharing incentives are popular with owners who must invest monies to realize long-term financial returns. Management activity costs, knowledge of available assistance, State and Federal tax policies, personal income, available capital, and resource commodity sale values are other important motivational factors. When non-monetary returns are more important, it seems that the primary force influencing forest resource management may be a desire to protect and maintain natural resources to ensure continued benefits not only for personal reasons, but also for intrinsic environmental health-related purposes.

Little is known about the management objectives and motivations of NIPF corporations, partnerships, clubs, and other entities, which own a significant 11 percent of all private timberland in the South. Timber and investment management organizations (TIMO's), which control about 4 million acres of timberland throughout the South, are assumed to be oriented toward management activities that generate investment profits.

The decisions of all private forest owners in the South, with all their diverse interests and objectives, collectively affect the health and use of vast natural resources of significant public interest. Government and private programs that focus on the objectives of a single owner group will miss opportunities to encourage and support the production of diverse benefits valued by a public having diverse interests and needs. More landowners might be receptive to such encouragement if they understood "forestry" and "forest management" to be a means of securing a variety of forest resource benefits, rather than just those associated with the production of valuable commercial timber supplies. On the other hand, the numbers of landowners that government and private forestry professionals are able to assist on a one-to-one basis will no doubt continue to represent a relatively small percentage of a huge owner population. Understanding the specific needs and interests of different targeted owner subgroups will remain critical to developing programs that successfully deliver useful assistance. In this respect, primary reasons for ownership and ownership objectives will remain the most important types of research information needed. State-level research, especially for owner subgroups within individual States and substate regions, will likely provide much more accurate program planning information than that generated by regional studies.