Advertisement

Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 87–100 | Cite as

Challenging the Traditional Forestry Extension Model: Insights from the Woods Forum Program in Massachusetts

  • Zhao MaEmail author
  • David B. Kittredge
  • Paul Catanzaro
Article

Abstract

Traditional forestry education and outreach activities tend to focus on transfer-of-knowledge, often through workshops initiated and led by professionals to “teach” landowners about forest management and conservation. Less than 10 percent of family forest owners in the US have a management plan, participated in cost-share programs, certified their forest land, or hold a conservation easement, suggesting flaws in this traditional model. Some researchers and practitioners have suggested the need for a paradigm shift away from transfer-of-knowledge to more facilitative, participatory approaches, among which peer learning has gained growing attention and is supported by a number of behavioral theories. By analyzing data from participant feedback of a peer learning pilot program in Massachusetts and a follow-up mail survey, this paper examines the perceived usefulness of peer-to-peer interactions and the effect of peer learning over time. The results suggest peer learning did not only appeal to landowners with forestry background, but also succeeded in attracting inexperienced landowners. Participants rated their peer-to-peer experience positively. The retention of information obtained through the program was reflected by participants’ ability to correctly identify foresters, land trust organizations, and reasonable sources of forestry or land management advice. Participants also shared a strong willingness to spread information obtained through peer learning. This study contributes to the identification of potential barriers to and opportunities for peer learning, informs forestry extension efforts in the US and beyond, and highlights the importance of integrating peer learning into the broader forestry education, technical assistance, and financial incentive programs to increase participation and promote sustainable forest management and conservation.

Keywords

Forest owner Family forest Non-industrial private forest Peer-to-peer interaction Peer learning Forestry extension Outreach 

References

  1. Allred SB, Goff G (2009) The power of peer learning programs in natural resources. Rural New York Minute 32. Cornell University, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler BJ (2008) Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. USDA Forest Service. Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PAGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler BJ, Tyrrell M, Feinberg G, VanManen S, Wiseman L, Wallinger S (2007) Understanding and reaching family forest owners: lessons from social marketing research. J For 105(7):348–357Google Scholar
  5. Butler BJ, Miles PD, Hansen MH (2009) NWOS Table Maker Ver 1.01. USDA Forest service, forest inventory and analysis program, National woodland owner survey, Amherst, MA. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/NWOS/tablemaker.jsp
  6. Coleman JS, Katz E, Menzel H (1966) Medical innovation: a diffusion study. Bobbs-Merrill Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cripps C (1997) Workers with attitude. Druglink 12(3):15–17Google Scholar
  8. Dillman DA (2009) Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Erickson DL, Ryan RL, Young RD (2002) Woodlots in the rural landscape: landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case study. Landsc Urban Plan 58(2/4):101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finley AO, Kittredge DB (2006) Thoreau, Muir, and Jane Doe: different types of private forest owners need different kinds of forest management. North J Appl For 23(1):27–34Google Scholar
  11. Fishbein M (2008) A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Med Decis Making 28:834–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Gootee RS, Blatner KA, Baumgartner DM, Carroll MS, Weber EP (2010) Choosing what to believe about forests: differences between professional and non-professional evaluative criteria. Small-scale For 9:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hujala T, Tikkanen J, Hanninen H, Virkkula O (2009) Family forest owners’ perception of decision support. Scand J For Res 24:448–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson RL, Alig RJ, Moore E, Moulton RJ (1997) NIPF landowners’ view of regulations. J For 95(1):23–28Google Scholar
  16. Johnson JE, Creighton JH, Norland ER (2006) Building a foundation for success in natural resources extension education: an international perspective. J Int Agric Ext Educ 13(3):33–45Google Scholar
  17. Jones SB, Luloff AE, Finley JC (1995) Another look at NIPFs: facing our “myths”. J For 93(9):41–44Google Scholar
  18. Kendra A, Hull RB (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. For Sci 51(2):142–154Google Scholar
  19. Kilgore MA, Greene JL, Jacobson MG, Straka TJ, Daniels SE (2007) The influence of financial incentive programs in promoting sustainable forestry on the nation’s family forests. J For 105(4):184–191Google Scholar
  20. Kittredge DB (2004) Extension/outreach implications for America’s family forest owners. J For 102(7):15–18Google Scholar
  21. Kittredge DB, D’Amato A, Catanzaro P, Fish J, Butler B (2008) Estimating ownerships and parcels of non-industrial private forest in Massachusetts. North J Appl For 25(2):93–98Google Scholar
  22. Knowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA (2005) The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development, 6th edn. Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Burlington, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Langer J (2008) Family forest owners: insights into land-related stewardship, values, and intentions. Report on focus group findings prepared for the sustaining family forests initiative. GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Leahy JE, Kilgore MA, Hibbard CM, Donnay JS (2008) Family forest landowners’ interest in and perceptions of forest certification: focus group findings from Minnesota. North J Appl For 25(2):73–81Google Scholar
  25. Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (2009) Massachusetts foresters—license confirmation list. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry/docs/Massachusetts%20Foresters%20License%20Confirmation%20List.pdf
  26. Milburn K (1995) A critical review of peer education with young people with special reference to sexual health. Health Educ Res 10:407–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nybakk E, Crespell P, Hansen E, Lunnan A (2009) Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: an investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. For Ecol Manage 257:608–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paretti MC (2003) Managing nature/empowering decision-makers: a case study of forest management plans. Tech Commun Quart 12(4):439–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Real K, Rimal RN (2007) Friends talk to friends about drinking: exploring the role of peer communication in the theory of normative social behavior. Health Commun 22(2):169–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rickenbach M, Knoot T, Breschak J (2009) Network perspective on peer-to-peer learning: edited comments from the Woodland owner networks symposium. Woodland Owner networks symposium. 28–30 April 2009, Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, Chaska, MNGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Schraml U (2003) Expectations towards forestry: the influence of personal networks with forest owners. Urban For. Urban Green 1(3):161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shiner M (1999) Defining peer education. J Adolesc 22:555–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snyder LB, Broderick SH (1992) Communicating with woodland owners: lessons from Connecticut. J For 90(3):33–37Google Scholar
  35. Steyaert P, Barzman M, Billaud JP, Brives H, Hubert B, Ollivier G, Roche B (2007) The role of knowledge and research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in natural resources management in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands. Environ Sci & Policy 10(6):537–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Topping KJ (2005) Trends in peer learning. Educ Psychol 25(6):631–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turner G, Shepherd J (1999) A method in search of a theory: peer education and health promotion. Health Educ Res 14(2):235–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ward J, Hunter G, Power R (1997) Peer education as a means of drug prevention and education among young people: an evaluation. Health Educ J 56(3):251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Watts DJ, Dodds PS (2007) Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. J Consum Res 34:441–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woodland Owner Networks (2009) 2009 symposium. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://woodlandownernetworks.ning.com/page/2009-symposium
  41. Wyckhuys KAG, O’Neil RJ (2007) Role of opinion leadership, social connectedness and information sources in the diffusion of IPM in Honduran subsistence maize agriculture. Int J Pest Manag 53(1):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Young RA, Reichenbach MR (1987) Factors influencing the timber harvest intentions of non-industrial private forest owners. For Sci 33(2):381–393Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environment and SocietyUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental ConservationUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst2AmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations