•Non‐industrial forest owners own 49% of the nation’s forest land (Butler 2008)
•261,000,000 million acres of forest owned by 10 million family forest owners (FS NRS‐INF‐
06‐08 May 2008)
•4.1 million landowners own 10 or more woodland acres
•NOT reaching about 80% of woodland landowners
Wisconsin: 16 million acres statewide
1
Acknowledge co‐authors
40% of the land is in forests
96% is privately owned
2
•Non‐industrial forest owners own 49% of the nation’s forest land (Butler 2008)
•261,000,000 million acres of forest owned by 10 million family forest owners (FS NRS‐INF‐
06‐08 May 2008)
Wisconsin: 16 million acres statewide
The incidence of those with green certification, conservation easements, cost‐share programs, and even written management/stewardship plans is quite low.
Easement: an additional 1% are planning to get one
Green certification awareness: 17%
For landowners interested in active management, landowner assistance activities (i.e., management plans, advice, or cost‐share) appear to be helping them manage their forests better and more intensively.
(Family Forest Research Center, 2013)
Constituent‐centered marketing is our only hope for Increased awareness, participation and action and increased return on investment (ROI)
3
40% of the land is in forests
96% is privately owned
Increase landowner action
Sustain and improve diversity, productivity, and function of woodlands across the landscape Increase return on investment (ROI)
Continuous improvement
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Working with hundreds, but still untapped potential Challenges to reaching landowners:
Landowner demographics are changing more and new landowners
Meet them where they are at AND sustain relationships over time
For Partners:
Capacity
Methods
Tools 11
12
13
14
15
16
40% of the land is in forests
96% is privately owned
Increase landowner action
Sustain and improve diversity, productivity, and function of woodlands across the landscape Increase return on investment (ROI)
Continuous improvement
17
18
19
20
Study design: top row handbook promotion, bottom row forester walk‐through; left column wildlife message, right column financial message, center column combined message of wildlife/financial
Which one did better? We think about the value we place on promotions.
Great customer value propositions are fast, cheap and good. Shouldn’t be surprised that handbook captured more people. It is faster and “more free” option. 21
22
23
13.5% response rate – more than double the Initial offer as a forester What can we learn from this?
24
25
Our initial marketing is a start
There is a progression to action
Importantly, need to get over their concerns – aesthetics is #1 reason people bought woodlands – high threshold for timber harvests
Not everyone makes it to action
MWW has increased the customer pool
MWW has coordinated many sustaining strategies to move woodland owners toward action
26
Ongoing (monthly) marketing campaign
Keep MWW present – sustaining strategy
Promote partners – trusted information from experts
Timely and relevant info – deadlines, events
Relatively inexpensive
27
28
Over the first year of the network these methods were used to help build relationships and strengthen those that existed to result in a more engaged network as shown by the diagram in the lower right. We are in the process of collecting this data to show changes from year 1 to year 2. In closing, these are just a few of the ways we are using evaluation to foster a culture within the network that supports continual improvement, integration of findings into practice, and a commitment to data driven decisions. This is only the start of our learning journey and we are excited about continuing to explore how to reach landowners and develop some principles of practice that others can use in their owner work. We feel these images are a reflection of the effort, progress, and changes we have made moving us closer towards our goal being more efficient and effective in serving private landowners in the Driftless Area. 29
A year ago these six concerns emerged from the interviews with the partners. In the last year we have done several things to address some these concerns including:
1. Setting up an e‐newsletter to go out opposite our steering committee meetings
2. Structured face‐to‐face steering committee meetings every other month
3. Created a round‐robin sharing session for partners at each meeting to announce events, upcoming opportunities, and so on. 4. Identifying point people for specific projects
5. Inviting new faces to the Steering Committee Meetings
30
I am happy to report in this current round of interviews none of these three concerns surfaced, but a new concern was raised about sustaining core capacity including database, project coordinator, project forester. Where we incorporated this feedback into our planning we were successful at meeting the needs of the partners. While steps we implemented to start addressing these concerns may seem obvious and small, they have been credited for substantial impacts. For example, Greg Rebman NRCS Forester, credits this round robin format for contributing to the success of an EQIP sign‐up this past fall. There was 10 business days from announcement to having owners sign‐up, which we all know is an unusually short period of time for this process. In a matter of minutes during a steering committee meeting Greg was able to announce the funding opportunity, describe the criteria, and the group discussed how to get it out to owners involved with MWW & DFN, but partners also said they would share it with their individual networks. DNR forester strategized how to adjust work loads to help owner explore this opportunity. Not only was the sign‐up successful at getting all the funding allocated but it was oversubscribed. Additionally, Greg said this format saved him hours of time in the office trying to coordinate a similar effort. 31
32
This was the Driftless Forest Network at the beginning. This diagram demonstrates the connections that existed between partners prior to the network forming. Serving private landowners and reaching the unengaged owners is a problem more complex than we can tackle as any single organization or entity so these connections matter and that is why we have been evaluating the partnership so we can understand 1. what does collaboration look like? AND 2. how can a network of partner, public and private, work together to deliver the most effective services most efficiently to landowners. We want to know where do gaps exist?
Interviews with partners, help us interpret this data revealing:
What are the barriers to greater partnership?
How can we foster these relationships and leverage resources?
33
34
35
36
Typical characteristics of landowners (align with previous surveys in the region and
state)
Another 22% have a second home/cabin
37
Typical characteristics of landowners (align with previous surveys in the region and
state)
Another 22% have a second home/cabin
No significant difference in acreage (p = .073)
No significant difference in part of a farm
No significant difference in distance they live or having a second home
No significant difference in how often they spend time in their woodlands
Significant difference in age (?) (p = .001) – Control group are younger
38
Typical characteristics of landowners (align with previous surveys in the region and
state)
39
Through the survey we assessed the perceptions of MWW participants concerning whether they agree or disagree that MWW is a credible source of information and if they will contact MWW with questions about their woodlands in the future. Preliminary findings: • Overall (across both services), 81% agree to strongly agree that My Wisconsin Woods is a credible source of information and 63% will contact MWW with questions about their woodlands in the future. • Comparing those who received a forester visit to those who only received a handbook, we found that there was NOT a significant difference in the percentage in agreement (agree to strongly agree) between the forester and handbook recipients for these two responses, suggesting that the low investment offer (handbook) offers credibility and committed contacts in this landscape. 40
Through the survey we assessed the perceptions of MWW participants concerning whether they agree or disagree that MWW provides excellent customer service and services that they value. Preliminary findings: • Comparing those who received a forester visit to those who only received a handbook, we found that there was a significant difference (at the p<.01 level) in the percentage in agreement (agree to strongly agree) between the forester and handbook recipients, highlighting the difference in the perceived value of the offers and value for in‐person service. 41
Comparing reported likelihood to carry out stewardship practices, including the forester (n=~91), handbook (n~370), and control group (n~243). When asked, “How likely in the next 5 years are the following activities to occur on any of your wooded land in WI?” (not at all to extremely likely)
•
In person, forester, visit and likelihood to take action: A significantly greater % of those receiving a forester visit reported being very or extremely likely to carry out stewardship practices (all four represented in the slide) in the next 5 years compared to the control group.
•
Comparing handbook and control group. A significantly greater % of those receiving a handbook reported being very or extremely likely to carry out invasives removal and thinning trees in the next 5 years compared to the control group.
42
Comparing reported likelihood to carry out stewardship practices, including the forester (n=~91), handbook (n~370), and control group (n~243). When asked, “How likely in the next 5 years are the following activities to occur on any of your wooded land in WI?” (not at all to extremely likely)
•
In person, forester, visit and likelihood to participate in services/programs: A significantly greater % of those receiving a forester visit reported being very or extremely likely to participate in various programs/services (all four presented in the figure) in the next 5 years compared to the control group.
•
Comparing handbook and control group. A significantly greater % of those receiving a handbook reported being very or extremely likely to carry out a walk‐through, participate in a workshop/training, and sign up for cost‐share in the next 5 years compared to the control group.
43
In the survey, we asked to what degree (not at all, a little, some, quite a bit, a lot), did their experience with MWW motivate them to search for more information or complete new activities in their woodlands that they had not already considered. • Overall across both offers, we found that 88% were motivated (a little to a lot) to search for more information and 72% were motivated to complete new activities in their woods. • Difference between offers: For those who received a forester visit, we found that 90% were motivated to complete new activities in their woods, while 64% of those receiving a handbook were motivated to complete new activities (significantly different). 44
45
46
End of ‘real’ slides; only backup material
follows…
47