A network approach to private forest owner assistance: Theory, models, and policy recommendations
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•887 views
This document discusses using social network analysis to improve outreach to private forest owners. It outlines how social networks influence behavior, and how different network structures and attributes impact information sharing and community capacity. The document presents case studies of landowner networks and cooperatives. It finds that trust, safe spaces for learning, and exposure to diverse perspectives improve knowledge sharing. The document recommends further research on social networks and land management, and supporting peer learning and local organizations to supplement professional outreach.
![Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie A network approach to private forest owner assistance: Theory, models, and policy recommendations
Ähnlich wie A network approach to private forest owner assistance: Theory, models, and policy recommendations (20)
Mehr von Eli Sagor
Mehr von Eli Sagor (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
A network approach to private forest owner assistance: Theory, models, and policy recommendations
- 1. A network approach to private forest owner assistance: Theory, models, and policy recommendations Eli Sagor University of Minnesota Extension, St. Paul Mark Rickenbach University of Wisconsin, Madison Amanda Kueper University of Minnesota Extension, St. Paul
- 21. Case examples: the real world
- 23. Wisconsin landowner cooperative Rickenbach 2009, Fig. 4
- 24. Wisconsin landowner cooperative Rickenbach 2009, Fig. 3
- 27. 5 peer learning network models Kueper, Sagor, and Becker: preliminary data
- 28. Oregon: Master Volunteer prog.
- 29. SW Wisconsin: landowner co-operative
- 40. http://WoodlandOwnerNetworks.ning.com or http://bit.ly/10G9ky Eli Sagor, [email_address]
Hinweis der Redaktion
- For the past four decades at least, there’s been increasing recognition of the importance of people-centered approaches to the problem of optimizing the flow of benefits from private forests. The policy goals are to keep private forest lands forested and to maximize the flow of benefits from those lands.
- Social networks enable behaviors that require specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment. Without access to the right people, these things don’t get done, or get done in less than optimal ways.
- Social networks constrain behaviors to a large degree. This argument is advanced in Granovetter’s 1985 paper “Economic action and social structures: The problem of embeddedness.” Landowners consistently report freedom from outside constraints on land management behavior as a top priority. But particularly for new landowners, social norms and other influences may constrain options. In addition, as noted in the previous slide, access to trusted help may be an important constraint.
- Wisconsin – Case 2
- This section based on Rickenbach 2009, Forest Policy & Economics, in press. KWC: 180 members at time of study SW Wisconsin Co-op provides a variety of services to members, mainly forest planning & management and information / education Mail survey to evaluate co-operative performance and map social networks within the membership a. While ties among members are quite limited (and thus limiting strong links among members), ties among network members and the larger community suggest that the cooperative has connections that Extension, public agency foresters, and others lack. b. Members see other members as highly trustworthy yet rarely list other members in personal networks. Member attendance at events is high, as are opps to discuss issues with other attendees. Measurement problem? c. Most KWC members had not obtained forestry assistance from other sources.
- Many ties between KWC staff and members. Few internal ties. Members report a very high level of trust with other members, and several well-attended events every year promote member-to-member interaction and exchange, but surprisingly few ties with other members are reported.
- Members have many ties outside KWC, with both professionals and non-member landowners. KWC connects members to “trusted” sources of professional assistance outside the co-op. Information moving from KWC staff to members moves well beyond members to other landowners.
- Master volunteer, landowner cooperative, US Landcare, two Australian Landcare orgs. Preliminary data: Analysis complete on one case of five.
- Oregon – Case 1
- Wisconsin – Case 2
- Virginia – Case 3
- Case 4 – Dalrymple Landcare – Charters Towers area, QLD Australia
- Preliminary findings: i. Atmosphere / community aspect: opportunity to engage with similar people. Homophily. Comfortable, safe space for dialogue. Professionals with connections to the group considered trusted. ii. Importance of both professional and experienced landowner perspectives and ways of knowing in a safe discussion space can be highly conducive to learning. Without participating, would not have had access to the experience-based knowledge from other landowners. (KWC study suggests might not have prior access to professionals either—most members not served by cost-share or tax subsidies.) iii. Social learning through observation and discussion: Visits to other landowners’ properties as well as informal discussions of what worked, what didn’t, and why. iv. Participation positively impacted landowner knowledge and confidence through both knowledge gain and resource network: If don’t know the answer, know where to find it.
- a. Early research suggests that approaches emphasizing peer learning opportunities may present an opportunity to reach landowners unengaged by other policy tools. Networks can build trust through relationships, which positively impact resilience of social-ecological systems. b. Need for better understanding of the influence of personal networks on LO behavior, efficient roles for professionals, and how networks complement and add value to other policy tools to promote sustainable private forest management. (FIA investment in counting trees vs. people). c. Future research: Measuring networks, DBK’s idea of decision archi Consider joining WON network online!