Advertisement

Key Issues Affecting Oregon Family Forest Owners: A Scoping Review of the Literature and Survey Analysis of Educational Service Providers

  • Janean H. CreightonEmail author
  • Carrie Berger
  • James E. Johnson
Original Research

Abstract

Given the significance of family owned forests and woodlands to the economic and environmental condition of Oregon, the provision of appropriate educational programs and services is of utmost importance. The priority forest management issues affecting family owned forests, identified for the state of Oregon by the Oregon Department of Forestry (the primary state forestry agency), help to inform educational programs. In addition, these issues often inform the content for landowner support through cost-share and technical assistance programs, which may or may not address landowner needs. We prioritized the following five priorities for family forests in Oregon: climate change, wildfire, ecosystem services, legacy (generational succession of land), and forest health (insects and diseases). We undertook a scoping review of the recent literature (2000–2018) to determine the degree to which researchers were focusing on these issues in the state as well as a web-based survey of family forest and woodland owner educational service providers to determine if outreach programs were targeting these priorities. From a total of 52 papers identified, 19 met the search criteria for inclusion. Two papers focused on climate change, one on forest health, ten on ecosystem services, eight on wildfire, and none on legacy. Scoping review results indicate that the priority issues explored in this study are addressed in literature focusing on family forestland owners in Oregon, albeit some issues more in depth than others, with forest legacy not being addressed at all. Our survey results indicate that the five priority issues seem to align among the state, educators, and landowners, and that educational opportunities are being provided for all issues to some extent. However, there is a need for a more focused allocation of resources to address some of the knowledge gaps and discrepancies identified here.

Keywords

Family forestland Forest and woodland owners Oregon Educational priorities 

Notes

Supplementary material

11842_2019_9426_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. Angima S, Etuk L, King D (2014) Using needs assessment as a tool to strengthen funding proposals. J Ext 52(6). https://joe.org/joe/2014december/tt1.php
  2. Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Method Theory Pract 8(1):19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett D, Nielsen-Pincus M, Ellison A, Pomeroy A, Burright H, Gosnell H, Moseley C, Gwin L (2014) Barriers and opportunities for increasing landowner participation in conservation programs in the interior northwest. University of Oregon. Ecosystem Workforce Program Working Paper #49. http://ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_49.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2016
  4. Bergmann SA, Bliss JC (2004) Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: resource management at the public–private interface. Soc Nat Res 17:377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bliss JC (2003) Sustaining family forests in rural landscapes: rationale, challenges, and an illustration from Oregon, USA. Small-scale Forest Econ Manag Policy 2(1):1–8Google Scholar
  6. Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Anrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016) Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: findings from the USDA Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey. J For 114(6):638–647Google Scholar
  7. Carlson LD (2013) Using systematic evidence review to inform family forest owner educational program development. Master’s project. Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Catanzaro P, Markowski-Lindsay M, Milman A, Kittredge D (2014) Assisting family forest owners with conservation-based estate planning: a preliminary analysis. J Ext 52(2). https://joe.org/joe/2014april/a9.php
  9. Charnley S, Fischer AP, Jones ET (2008) Traditional and local ecological knowledge about forest biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest. USDA FS General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-751Google Scholar
  10. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien K, Straus KS, Tricco AC, Perrier L, Kastner M, Moher D (2014) Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 67(12):1291–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creighton JH, Blatner KA, Carroll MS (2015) For the love of the land: generational land transfer and the future of family forests in western Washington state, USA. Small-scale For 15(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijkers M (2015) What is a scoping review? Center on knowledge translation for disability and rehabilitation research. KT Update 4(1). http://ktdrr.org/products/update/v4n1/dijkers_ktupdate_v4n1_12-15.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2018
  13. Fischer AP (2011) Reducing hazardous fuels on nonindustrial private forests: factors influencing landowner decisions. J For 109(5):260–266Google Scholar
  14. Fischer AP (2012) Identifying policy target groups with qualitative and quantitative methods: the case of wildfire risk on nonindustrial private forest lands. Forest Policy Econ 25(2012):62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer AP, Bliss JC (2006) Mental and biophysical terrains of biodiversity: conserving oak on family forests. Soc Nat Res 19(7):625–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer AP, Bliss JC (2008) Behavioral assumptions of conservation policy: conserving oak habitat on family-forest land in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Conserv Biol 22(2):275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer AP, Bliss JC (2009) Framing conservation on private lands: conserving oak in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Soc Nat Res 22:884–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer AP, Charnley S (2012) Risk and cooperation: managing hazardous fuel in mixed ownership landscapes. Environ Manag 49:1192–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer AP, Kline JD, Ager AA, Charnley S, Olsen KA (2014) Objective and perceived wildfire risk and its influence on private forest landowners’ fuel reduction activities in Oregon’s (USA) ponderosa pine ecoregion. Int J Wildland Fire 23:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giampaoli P, Bliss JC (2011) Landowner perceptions of habitat protection policy and process in Oregon. West J Appl For 26(3):110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grotta AT, Creighton JH, Schnepf C, Kantor S (2013) Family forest owners and climate change: understanding, attitudes, and educational needs. J For 111(2):87–93Google Scholar
  22. Hartter J, Hamilton LC, Boag AE, Stevens FR, Ducet MJ, Christofferson ND, Oester PT, Palace MW (2018) Does it matter if people think climate change is human caused? Clim Serv 10:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones C, Lenart M (2014) Forestry professionals and extension educators vs. climate change: implications for cooperative extension programming. J Ext 52(3). https://joe.org/joe/2014june/a1.php
  24. Kline JD, Alig RJ, Johnson RL (2000) Fostering the production of nontimber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. For Sci 46(2):302–311Google Scholar
  25. Kline JD, Kerns BK, Day MA, Hammer RB (2013) Mapping multiple forest threats in the northwestern United States. J For 111(3):206–213Google Scholar
  26. Langpap C (2006) Conservation of endangered species: can incentives work for private ownerships? Ecol Econ 57(2006):558–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nielsen-Pincus M, Ribe RG, Johnson BR (2011) The sociology of landowner interest in restoring fire-adapted, biodiverse habitats in the wildland-urban interface of Oregon’s Willamette Valley ecoregion. In: Proceedings of second conference on the human dimensions of wildland fire GTR-NRS-P-84, pp 58–66Google Scholar
  28. Nielsen-Pincus M, Ribe RG, Johnson BR (2015) Spatially and socially segmenting private landowner motivations, properties, and management: a typology for the wildland urban interface. Landsc Urb Plan 137(2015):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oester PT, Emmingham WE (2005) Thinning strategies for Ponderosa Pine: tools and strategies for family forest owners. West J Appl For 20(4):216–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oregon Forest Resources Institute (2017) Oregon Forest Facts: 2017–2018 edition. https://www.oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/2017-05/OFRI_FactsFacts_1718_WEB_1.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2018
  31. Reichenbach M, Hagen Jokela B, Sagor E (2013) Family communication and multigenerational learning in an intergenerational land transfer class. J Ext 51(4). https://joe.org/joe/2013august/a9.php
  32. Rosenberg S, Moseley C (2016) Landowner perceptions of potential changes to riparian rules under the forest practices act in Oregon. University of Oregon. Ecosystem Workforce Program Working Paper #71, pp 1–24. http://ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_71_0.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2017
  33. Skelly J, Hill G, Singletary L (2014) Probing needs assessment data in depth to target programs more effectively. J Ext 52(2). https://joe.org/joe/2014april/rb1.php
  34. Withrow-Robinson B, Sisock M, Watkins S (2012) Curriculum helps families discuss and plan for the future of their woodland farm. J Ext 50(4). https://joe.org/joe/2012august/tt8.php
  35. Withrow-Robinson B, Broussard Allred S, Landgren C, Sisock M (2013) Planning across generations: Helping family landowners maintain their ties to the land. J Ext 51(5). https://joe.org/joe/2013october/a6.php

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations