t 9.7:). 1 5:.1‘1‘ ‘9. I. .lln'st I It. «a {II‘VEE‘ .IA. VII-o‘l'. o l‘tl‘kril A.nvOD:.t\£ r. . .l‘ul. I: on. tacos .XoVac..u\. .bl aluv." A II: . «IO?! 1‘... v ‘u‘ I! :llt‘lv t: 0!: I"! 7!}: ill. I!’ i109! . ..L 0 on. 13.1. 1. tVOLI-Iif’tit4 23.5....2‘2 7...: .l-sl. a1 .3. (2.11;..1. . g 4.... . 73: J . ...t1 ov. , . V 4. . 5.1.531: 5:I~!.1\ . .vqt=.lu) t9 '1‘..an tilt. W... ”V? . nu. MICHIGAN STATEU NUIVE II I IIIIII IIIIIII IIIII II IIIIIIIIII 00914 0058 ll This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Beliefs, attitudes, demOgraphics and knowledge: the social dimensions of harvesting decisions made by private forest-land owners in Virginia presented by Sandra Sawtelle Hodge ‘ ' I has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Fores'try III/WWW Major professorU Date W def/9‘23 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE LiitRAfiY Michigan Stat; Universlty I L\I ‘ DATE DUE I 0‘ L - JgIImgzfl’] Iii/1‘ I; ._ 2,§]§§9“ '. 5.13mi”? ‘1', MSU Is An AIflnnative Action/Equal Opportunlty Institution Clucm ulna-9.1 BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, DEMOGRAPHICS AND KNOWLEDGE: THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF HARVESTING DECISIONS MADE BY PRIVATE FOREST-LAND OWNERS IN VIRGINIA BY Sandra Sawtelle Hodge A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry 1993 ABSTRACT BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, DEMOGRAPHICS AND KNOWLEDGE: THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF HARVESTING DECISIONS MADE BY PRIVATE FOREST-LAND OWNERS IN VIRGINIA BY Sandra Sawtelle Hodge Sixty-one percent of the total land area of the state of Virginia is forested. Over seventy-seven percent of this forested land is owned by approximately 300,000 non-industrial private forest (NIP?) landowners. The decisions they make regarding the management of their forested land can have a profound impact on the general environment, including the availability of forest resources and timber supplies, aesthetic enjoyment, wildlife habitat, recreation and the quality of life for current and future generations of Virginians. This research explores how beliefs and attitudes about natural resources and the environment, held by NIP? landowners in Virginia, affect their decision to harvest. The influence of other causal variables, socio-demographic variables and levels of knowledge about forestry and forest management, were also examined. Hierarchical attitude theory was used to study how beliefs flow from general to specific and affect decisions. Based on this theory, a model was constructed which investigated causal relationships among the different levels of beliefs and attitudes and the influence of other causal variables on the decision to harvest. Path analysis, a form of multivariate analysis, was used to explore these relationships. A total of 1306 randomly-selected NIP! landowners in Virginia were sampled using a mail questionnaire. Beliefs and attitudes were found to be hierarchically arranged, and influenced by socio-demographics and information about natural resources and forestry. Having information about forestry and forest management was a key variable in dispelling uninformed beliefs about forestry issues and in effecting who decided to harvest. Future research efforts on NIPP landowners should focus on the integration of social science and forestry to determine the impacts of social dimensions on decisions regarding forest resource management. The design of forestry outreach education should also include those NIPF landowners whose primary management objectives are aesthetic, such as scenic beauty and preserving nature. The policy implications, at the .state and local levels, of developing and implementing such programs are discussed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is difficult to acknowledge fully, in this brief statement, those who worked with me and supported me on this project. You all have made contributions to my life which were far greater than just the project you see here. I am deeply indebted to you for the gifts of your knowledge, your time and your encouragement. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Craig Harris in the Department of Sociology, who directed my dissertation. His willingness to work long- distance, by fax (from Uganda!) and electronic mail, helped to make the project a reality. I appreciate his confidence in my ability to undertake this project and his patient coaching during times when things just didn't click! Dr. Jack Hunter, in the Department of Psychology, played a significant role by providing valuable assistance with many aspects of the path model and path analysis. Through our many hours on the telephone, I have acquired new and interesting insights into thinking about how others think. Dr. Michael Gold, my committee chair in the Department of Forestry, was helpful in working through several difficult aspects of the project and provided a supportive and encouraging environment. Dr. Larry Leefers, a fourth committee member, from the Department of Forestry, has been helpful in seeing that I don't get lost in theory at the expense of reality. Special acknowledgement also goes to Mr. James Garner, State Forester for Virginia, both for his vision of what the project could offer and the financial support he provided, through the Virginia Department of Forestry, to undertake the survey. I appreciate the trust he had in me to carry this out. I also want to express my gratitude to two other members of the Virginia Department of Forestry, Lou Southard, iv Chief of Information and Education and James Starr, Chief of Forest Management, both of whom answered endless questions about Virginia forests and private forest landowners. The commitment that the three of them have to making a difference in how the forest resources in Virginia are managed, is inspiring. Another very special person also has my deepest appreciation. Without the assistance of Jill Puller, a doctoral student herself at UVa., I would still be reading the first chapter in the SPSS manual. She has been a wonderful SPSS teacher, but even more, a great friend. The award for having the greatest perseverance goes to my husband, Bob. Through all the rantings and ravings and wondering where it was all going, he was supportive and encouraging. He is delighted that I will no longer be spending hour after hour at the computer, not only because we will now have more time together, but because he won't have to schedule a time to balance the checkbook! You are very special, Bob. And last, but certainly not least, I would like to acknowledge my mother, Hary Sawtelle, and my three sisters, Kathy, Suzanne and Linda, for their love, listening and cheering me on. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Virginia's private forest landowners . . . . . . The problem--beliefs, attitudes and forest management . . . . . . . . . . Problem to be addessed and importance of the research . . . . . . . . Description of the dissertation . . . . . . . . . //II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beliefs and attitudes: Prom general to specific Hierarchical attitudet theory . . Logical necessity and logical implication . Other non-belief causal variables . . . . . Hypotheses to be tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . /III . LITERATURE REVIEW NIPP landowners, socio-demographics and decision-making Beliefs, attitudes and NIPF landowner decision-making . Other causal variables and NIPF landowner decision-making General environmental beliefs . . . . Padmanabhan's scale . . . . The NEP scale . . . Hypothesized hierarchial model . IV 0 ”mops O O O O O O O O 0 Sample selection . . . . Questionnaire design Pretest . . . . . . . . . gs . Response rate . . . . . . Method of analysis--path. analysis . . Questionnaire content and zero-order results Socio-demographic characteristics . . Access to environmental]conservation informa Beliefs and attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . Beliefs and attitudes--general level Cover letter and follow up mailin O "O O O O O O O O 0 ion Beliefs and attitudes--intermediate level Beliefs and attitudes--specific level Other causal variables . . . . . . . . Outcome variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . Constructing the final model . . . . . . . . . . Socio-demographic variables . . . . Access to environmental/conservation information Belief and attitude variables . . . . . . . mtcm v‘riabl. O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vi VI. TABLE or CONTENTS (con't) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The causal model . . . The path analysis . . . The path model . . . The belief hierarchies Socio-demographics, information and beliefs Outcome variable . . . Logical necessity and logical implication CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . The importance of social dimensions in forestry research . . . . . . . Implications of the research for forestry Forest policy . . . . . . . . . . Forestry education outreach Forestry curricula . . . . Further research . . . . . . . Forestry and human ecology Attitude theory . . . . . . APPENDICES A. Cover letters and questionnaire Cover letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factor analysis for NEP items Factor analysis for NEP items . . . . . . Initial 73 variables used to construct the model Initial 73 variables used to construct the model Correlation matrix from SPSS used to construct the model Notes for the matrix . . . . . . . . 73 variable correlation matrix . . . . . BIBLImmHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vii 115 116 116 117 117 119 120 122 137 138 141 142 153 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Age, education and income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2 Retirement status, current occupation and occupation before retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3 Where respondents grew up and live now . . . . . . . . . 48 4 Live in county with forest land-use . . . . . . . . . . . 48 S Forested land owned by acreage and class size . . . . . . 49 6 Parcel ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 7 Geographical regions in Virginia in which forested land is owned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 8 Organizations joined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 9 Publications read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 10 Shortage is real . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 ll NEP scale factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SS 12 Shortage is serious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 13 Consumers must conserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 14 Individuals can help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 15 Concern over conserving Virginia's forest resources . . 58 16 Society's rights over individual rights re: natural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 17 NIPF's can't do what they want . . . . . . . . . . . . . S9 18 Conservation versus profits on NIPF land . . . . . . . .. 60 19 Moral obligation to protect forest land for future . . . 60 20 Reasons for ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 21 Knowledge statements about pine . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 22 Forestry knowledge, by level of complexity 67 23 Definitions of harvesting practices . . . . . . . . . . 68 viii Table Page 24 Effects of the four harvesting practices on specific species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 25 Statements relating to harvesting practices on wildlife and scenic beauty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 26 Mean knowledge scores by level of complexity . . . . . . 72 27 Participation in forest land-use programs . . . . . . . . 73 28 Sought professional forestry assistance . . . . . . . . . 73 29 Reasons for not seeking professional forestry assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 30 Reasons for not harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 31 Percent of respondents who have harvested . . . . . . . . 76 32 Correlations for 40 items/scales based on hypothesized model. . . . . . . . L . . . . . . 77 33 24 variables for the causal model . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 34 Correlations between the three new constructs . . . . . . 85 35 Correlations between the 24 variables in the causal model 89 36 Original correlations for the path model . . . . . . . . 102 37 Path coefficients for the path model . . . . . . . . . . 103 38 Predicted correlations for the path model . . . . . . . . 104 39 Errors (Actual - predicted) for the path model . . . . . 105 ix Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure LIST OF FIGURES Effects of non-belief variables on belief and attitude hierarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed hierarchical model: Levels of beliefs and attitudes, and other causal variables which affect Virginia NIPF landowner decisions regarding harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map of Virginia showing the six counties selected for the survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Causal model with predicted paths for Va. NIPF landowner decisions regarding harvesting . . . . . Path model with path coefficients for Va. NIPF landowner decisions regarding harvesting . . . . . 2O 34 41 91 101 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Warsaw Virginia has 25.4 million acres of land, of which 15.4 million acres, or 61% of the total land area of the state, are forested. Over 77‘ of this forested land is owned by non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners. It is estimated that there are about 300,000 NIPF landowners in Virginia (pers. comm. Virginia Department of Forestry). Among NIPF landowners are farmers who own private forest land incidental to their farmland; professionals for whom private forest land is unrelated to their occupation; recreationists who have sought private forest land for personal enjoyment; and members of younger generations who inherited private forest land without any specific intention for its use. NIPF lands have also been purchased by those with an interest in preserving the natural beauty of their lands. Forested lands owned by forest product industries, (e.g., firms that manufacture wood products such as lumber, plywood or paper), are not considered NIPF lands. Each day NIPF landowners in Virginia are making land—use management decisions, decisions which relate to both financial and non- financial benefits. In terms of financial benefits, privately-owned forest lands in Virginia provide about seventy-five percent of the timber for forest industries in the state. In turn, these forest industries are the primary manufacturing industry in the state and employ over 120,000 people (Virginia Department of Forestry, 1988). Non-financial benefits are also important to NIPF landowners and many of their land-management decisions reflect their concerns with aesthetic enjoyment, secluded living, wildlife habitat, and recreation and hunting opportunities (Wright, 1988). From 1975 to 1985, over 600,000 acres of forested land in Virginia, an average of 60,000 acres a year, were converted to other land uses, principally, high-density residences, commercial, industrial 2 and agricultural development (USDA, 1986). This shrinking of the forest resource base makes the role of current Virginia NIPF landowners even more important in the management of the Commonwealth's remaining forest resources because they hold such a significant amount of forested land. The types of decisions Virginia NIPF landowners make can have profound effects on the general environment, including the availability of forest resources and timber supplies, aesthetic enjoyment, wildlife habitat, recreation and the quality of life for current and future generations of Virginians. The comment is often heard that forests have been around for millennia and have continued to grow and supply resources without human management. This has been true in the past. However, with increasing population growth and conversion of forested land to various forms of land use (mentioned above), there is less of a resource to utilize. This now necessitates a more conscientious approach to the management of remaining forest resources, regardless of whether they are managed for financial or non-financial benefits. Due to the shrinking of this resource base, managing forested land for wildlife, because of loss of habitat, can be as important as managing it for production of forest products. The problee--beliefs, attitudes and forest management Within forestry, much of the research focus on private forest landowners in the United States has been, and still is, on their ability to supply timber and other marketed forest outputs. This supply is dependent on the intensity of management that is practiced. According to Alig and Wear (1992335), the production levels from private forest lands have not reached their potential and could benefit from more intensive management so that these lands could provide more timber. They predict that the issue of more intensive management will become increasingly important as more changes in the forest-land base take place over the next 50 years (Ibid.:35). But the issue of whether 3 private forest landowners can manage their forested land more intensely to produce commercial timber, may be a moot point. If private forest landowners do not want to manage their forest land for commercial timber production because they value it for other reasons, then the potential for commercial timber production will remain just that--potential. Their reasons for ownership may not include commercial timber production, regardless of the biological potential of the land and the technical information available for realizing this potential. Many NIPF landowner objectives are not related to timber production but to non—financial objectives. These non-financial objectives may include viewing wildlife, secluded living, aesthetic enjoyment, recreation and hunting.y When compared to a market objective of managing the land for timber production, which might motivate NIPF landowners to seek information and assistance about forest management, these non-market objectives may not do so. While ownership of forested land may satisfy the non-market objectives of the NIPF landowner, it may also result in a lack of knowledge about managing the resource, due to perceptions that only forest land which are being harvested need management. Thus, it is important to understand the factors which may constrain Virginia NIPF landowners from harvesting, even though it may be a viable forest management practice, e.g., for culling dead or infected trees, regenerating certain species, and creating specific types of wildlife habitat. Social dimensions play prominent roles in influencing why certain decisions are made regarding natural resource use. It is now recognized that resource problems are complex phenomena and in addition to focusing on the physical and biological aspects of natural resources, more attention must be given to the social dimensions surrounding decisions related to resource use. Beliefs, values and attitudes, while not representing the whole spectrum of social dimensions, are a critical component in how societies perceive natural resources. Natural 4 resources have no meaning until society gives them one. Nature, in itself, has no values. No species are assigned more value than others and as Boulding (1978319) has indicated '(nature) cares no more about the whooping crane or the blue whale than she did about the dinosaur". Thus, the meanings people attach to environmental materials determines their designation--whether they end up as natural resources, taboos or even remain unseen (Burch, 1984). Through beliefs, values and attitudes humans construct images of nature and it is "in terms of these images of nature, rather than the actual structure of nature, that they act" (Rappaport, 1979). In fact, Schmitt and Grupp (1976) criticize those studying environmental issues for not taking into consideration the symbolism people attach to natural resources. Even the locations, the places in the environment, where people choose to be may be symbols for certain cultural values they have (Firey, 1945). Beliefs are defined as '...the association of characteristics, qualities and attributes with an object” (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980362) which an individual accepts as true or factual (Bruvold, 1973), sometimes regardless of evidence to the contrary. They do not imply an evaluation, goodness or badness, of an object or concept but rather what one thinks exists or does not exist (Fishbein, 1967). Rokeach (19683124) considers values to be beliefs also, where a value is an 'abstract ideal...positive or negative not tied to any specific attitude object or situation, representing a person's beliefs about ideal modes of conduct and ideal terminal goals“. Beliefs and values can be conscious or unconscious, perhaps defying an explanation as to why they are held. Often, the concepts of beliefs and attitudes are used interchangeably without distinguishing a belief from an attitude. There is a link between beliefs and attitudes in that attitudes are "an grggnigggign_gf_bgliefig around an object or situation predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner”; they have a dimension of judgment (Rokeach, 196831123 McGuire, 19853239). Thus, decisions are, 5 in themselves, reflections of attitudes. They are evaluative in nature and express the way people feel about something. According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and Rokeach (1968), the decisions a person makes about certain subjects are primarily based on the beliefs and attitudes he/she holds about the subject being considered. The collection of beliefs and attitudes around certain aspects of a person's social reality is called a "social paradigm” (Olsen et al., 1992) and it is used to make decisions about perceived reality. Because Virginia NIPF landowners have the freedom to manage their forested land as they choose, there is a great need to understand their social paradigms as they relate to forest resources. What are the beliefs and attitudes that they hold regarding forest resources? How do these beliefs and attitudes influence their land-use decisions, especially their decision to harvest? Human decision-making behavior is complex. This, in turn, makes the study of beliefs and attitudes as they relate to behavior equally complicated. By the time adulthood is reached, a person may hold countless beliefs, forming that person's belief system--"a set of interrelated beliefs, dealing with a broad social condition or type of activity" (Olsen et al., 1992315). This whole belief system may have some psychological organization but not necessarily a logical one. Further complicating the complexity of studying beliefs and attitudes as they relate to human decision-making is that there may be inconsistencies in what humans say they believe and what they actually do. It has been suggested by several attitude researchers, including Rokeach (19683128) and Heberlein (19813241), that other levels of beliefs and attitudes may exist between the beliefs, attitudes and behavior which were measured, and that the other levels also need to be measured. The question of how beliefs and attitudes held by NIPF landowners in regard to their forest resources affects their relationship with 6 forest resources, takes on more urgency as population shifts take place in the United States. There is a general movement out of urban areas to more remote rural locations (Bradley, 198435). Part of this trend adds to the number of private forest landowners who currently live in rural areas of the United States. Whatever the objective of their ownership, NIPF landowners have the potential to make a significant contribution to renewable resource management. It is estimated that NIPF landowners hold approximately 362 million acres, or 75‘ of all 0.8. timberland (Alig and Wear, 1992). Timberland refers to any forest land “that can produce 20 cubic feet of industrial wood per acre per year and is not withdrawn from timber production or reserved for other uses such as wilderness" (Waddell et al., 1989). b dd s ed nd m rtance of the es arc The problem which will be addressed by this research is the extent to which beliefs and attitudes held by Virginia NIPF landowners, regarding natural resources in general and forest resources in particular, affect their decisions to harvest. Different levels of beliefs and attitudes will be measured using hierarchical attitude theory. How certain cognitive and sociological variables, acting as direct causal or mediating variables (which influence the kind and degree of relationships between two other variables), may influence Virginia NIPF landowner beliefs and attitudes will also be examined. Currently, little is known about NIPF landowners in the State of Virginia. The Virginia Department of Forestry would like to know more about who they are, what they want and how to reach them to implement stewardship programs. These programs are designed to assist Virginia NIPF landowners in making informed decisions about managing their forested land, be it for market or non-market commodities. Socio- demographic information provided by this research will be used to develop a baseline data set about NIPF landowners in the state. This research is also important in terms of gaining further understanding 7 about how the attitudes and beliefs of NIPF landowners in Virginia influence decisions they make about managing their forested land. Maloney and Ward (1973) see the current concern over the long-term viability of natural resources arising from the effects of maladaptive human behavior toward the environment. They emphasize the need to understand human behavior by examining the beliefs and attitudes of the people involved. Without information on the general and specific beliefs and attitudes of Virginia NIPF landowners regarding forested land, it will be difficult to determine which level of beliefs and attitudes lead to decisions to harvest and which do not. A review of the NIPF literature will show that a great deal of information has been collected about NIPF landowners. However, none of the studies have focused on the relationship between the beliefs and attitudes these landowners hold regarding natural resources, and how the beliefs and attitudes might affect the choices NIPF landowners make about managing their forested land. Gaining more insight into the beliefs and attitudes held by NIPF landowners in the Commonwealth regarding forestry and forest management, and thus, what may contribute to, or constrain, forest management decisions by the Virginia NIPF landowner, will assist the Virginia Department of Forestry in planning and providing forestry education to this group. lffective forest management programs are critical to the future of the forest resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In order to develop effective forestry education programs for Virginia NIPF landowners, it is also necessary to discover the knowledge these landowners already have about forests and forest management. Part of this research is devoted to questions which test the levels of knowledge about forestry and forest management, from simple to complex, held by NIPF landowners in Virginia. What are their levels of knowledge? Is it as basic as knowing that pine species stay green year- round? Or, is it complex enough that they would know which harvesting practice is most effective for regeneration of oak? By having information on the levels of forestry and forest management knowledge held by Virginia NIPF landowners, forest education programs can be designed at the most appropriate knowledge level. Although they may express concern about the future viability and health of their forested resources, Virginia NIPF landowners may not have the necessary levels of knowledge about forestry and forest management to make decisions which will achieve this viability. W This dissertation explores how the beliefs and attitudes about natural resources and the environment, held by NIPF landowners in Virginia, affect their decision to harvest. Their levels of knowledge about forestry and forest management will also be examined. Using different belief and attitude scales related to natural resources and the environment, a model will be constructed which will examine causal relationships among different levels of beliefs and attitudes and how these relationships affect the decision to harvest. In addition, the model will include other causal variables, such as cognitive and socio- demographic variables, which might also influence harvesting decisions. Path analysis, a form of multivariate analysis, is a method applied to a causal model formulated on the basis of knowledge and theoretical considerations (Pedhazur, 1982), and will be used to explore these relationships. Path analysis is presented in a graphic format by using a path model. (For a more detailed explanation, see page 44 in Chapter 4). In Chapter 2, the theoretical framework for the dissertation is discussed. In Chapter 3, a review of the literature is presented. This includes the belief and attitude literature, NIPF landowner literature, and literature about the environmental scales which will be used in this research. The research methods, including questionnaire design, A___.—r-— 9 construction of the variable and measurement model and development of the causal model will be presented in Chapter 4. Research results are presented and discussed in Chapter 5 and the conclusions and implications of the study, as well as suggestions for further research, are addressed in the last chapter. CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ° e i According to Rokeach (19683128), behavior is a function of attitudes involving two dimensions--an attitude toward the eitggtigg which exists and the other dimension, an attitude toward the ijegt gngg;_ggn§ig§;§§ign. That is, attitudes about an object are tied to that object in a particular situation. Take the issue of clear cutting, a timber harvesting practice where all the trees in an area, regardless of age or size, are removed. The object under consideration is the practice of clear cutting. The other part of the equation is the situation in which clear cutting occurs. People may be opposed to clear cutting on mountain slopes in the western United States but faced with an area of dead oaks in the Appalachians, devastated by a gypsy moth infestation, the opposition to clear cutting the dead stand may not be as much of an issue. Thus, the object being considered remains clear cutting but, because the situation has changed, the attitudes towards the object are different. Rokeach (Ibid.3 126) suggests that in measuring attitudes when the focus is primarily on the object, without consideration of the situation, inconsistencies might be observed. The question of atEiEEde-behgxior inconsistency is not new. Over forty years ago, Chien (19483178) stated "people may act contrary to their attitudes". Snyder (1982) found this viewpoint supported by other empirical research which found weak links between attitudes expressed by individuals and their behavior in germane situations (Fishbein and Ajzen, 19753 Deutscher, 1973; Wicker, 1969). He suggests that this inconsistency raises the question of whether meaningful attitude- behavior relationships exist at all. Rokeach (19683128) disagrees. He argues that inconsistency does not signify the lack of an attitude- behavior relationship but rather, that people must be acting in accord with "a second (or third or fourth) attitude that overrode the first in 10 11 importance“, suggesting that attitudes may have a hierarchial structure. It may be that people do exhibit behaviors inconsistent with their expressed beliefs. But this may not be due to a lack of an attitude- behavior relationship. What may be true is that the level of attitude under examination is not specific enough to relate to the behavior exhibited, suggesting researchers may not have obtained all the information relevant to measure accurately the attitude-behavior relationship. This is also discussed by Heberlein (19813241) who found that one needs to “draw out linkages“ between different levels of attitudes (general to specific) and behavior. Poole and Hunter (1980) reviewed the literature regarding the theory that attitudes have a hierarchial structure and are arranged logically. They cite works in two areas of research to support this-- social psychologists who have proposed that attitudes are hierarchically arranged and researchers investigating human information processing, who also suggest this may be the case. In addition to proposing that attitudes are hierarchically and logically arranged, Hunter and Poole (19803250) suggest that these logical arrangements flow one way, from more general to specific attitudes. More general attitudes influence less general ones but not vice versa (Ibid3250). Thus, to effect attitude change at the more specific level, messages would need to be targeted at the levels of attitude which preceded the more specific one being targeted for change. Based on this assumption, they have improved upon a hierarchical model first presented by Hunter et al. (1976) to measure causal relationships between levels of attitude which lead to specific behaviors. Heberlein (19813261), in a review of different environmental attitude measures, provides support for the work of Hunter and Poole, speculating that "low correlations found in studies of attitudes and behaviors are due to the differences in specificity of the attitude and behavior measure“, indicating that the attitude measures are usually very general with multiple items, yet aimed at a very 12 specific behavior. Richmond and Baumgart (1981) found environmental attitudes among fifth-year secondary school students to be hierarchically-related. Bart (1972) explored how a hierarchy of attitudes toward the environment could be used to find which attitudes would need to be changed in order for a specific environmental attitude to be produced. He found that the attitudes in his study, which related to who in society should bear the costs of pollution, were hierarchically- arranged. Based on his findings, he proposed that environmental curricula could use the hierarchy concept to plan a sequence of learning experiences to change damaging attitudes about the environment. He also found that attitudes relating to personal behaviors formed a linear hierarchy independent of other more public attitudes and that ecological attitudes with the fewest positive responses were related to restrictions on personal freedoms or personal purchasing patterns. Crespi (1971) found that attitudes which were specific and relevant to the object under consideration, rather than general attitudes, were better predictors of behavior. In a study on the use of lead-free gasoline, Heberlein and Black (1976) found that attitude measures that are more specific to a given behavior are better predictors of that behavior than more general attitudes. A study by Liska (1974) revealed that both specific and general patterns of behavior were only affected by attitudes of the equivalent level of generality. In research done by Weigel and Newman (1976), attitude scores which represented broad concerns about the environment made only modest predictions of behavior. However, when highly specific, behaviorally-focused attitude measures were used, the predictions were stronger. W Hierarchical attitude theory provides the theoretical framework for this dissertation on Virginia NIPF forest landowners. Hierarchical 13 attitude theory was used by Padmanabhan (1981) and is based on work by Hunter (Hunter et al., 1976; Poole and Hunter, 1980). Their work examines the logical, hierarchical relationship among attitudes and beliefs, specifically predicting the relationships between general and specific attitudes and beliefs as well as the relationship between attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. According to the model, the relationships between a general attitude or belief and a specific behavior are mediated by attitudes or beliefs of a more specific nature. General attitudes or beliefs are not highly correlated with any particular behavior but are superordinate to many attitudes or beliefs which g9 correlate with specific behaviors (Padmanabhan, 198134). Research by Fishbein and Ajzen (1974) and Tittle and Hill (1967) has supported this. Padmanabhan (1981310-15) has reviewed the literature concerning attitude-behavior relationships in conjunction with his research testing the hierarchical model by Hunter et a1. (1976) and Poole and Hunter (1980). He notes that General attitudes are not irrelevant. General attitudes become indirectly relevant to a large number of specific behaviors, though not maximally related to any one of them. Consequently, while a general attitude may not strongly affect one specific behavior, its effect on a large number of behaviors can be very large in total. In a survey exploring the relationship between abstract environmental attitudes (that we are suffering from an energy crisis) and a specific behavior (returning beer bottles), Padmanabhan (1981) designed environmental attitude scales and then tested the concept of a hierarchical model. He found that l) causal relations between a few environmental attitudes have a hierarchical structure, 2) the effects of a few central attitudes flow to a large number of more specific attitudes, and 3) behavior is more closely related to specific attitudes than to the general ones. In Padmanabhan's study, an intermediate level of beliefs mediated between general beliefs about resource shortages and specific beliefs that individuals could do something, which resulted in 14 a particular outcome. He found that the influence of higher order general environmental beliefs on behavior is indirect and mediated by more specific environmental beliefs. Thus, the causal chain goes from. general attitudes to a specific behavior: General attitude Intermediate attitude Specific attitude Behavior The influence of more general environmental attitudes on behavior is mediated by more specific environmental attitudes and within the hierarchy from general to specific, these beliefs are logically related to one another, either by logical implication or logical necessity. Logical necessity and logical implication Padmanabhan and Hunter (n.d.) found that in some cases, certain logical relationships exist between beliefs. In one, "logical necessity", acceptance of a preceding belief is necessary before the acceptance of the one following. In another, "logical implication", the relationships between the beliefs are logically implied, but it is not necessary to believe the first in order to believe the second. Logical necessity and logical implication offer explanations for certain causal relationships among variables and can contribute to a more complete understanding about why some people may exhibit a particular behavioral outcome and why others do not. It is important to understand the difference between the two because there are different rates of adoption among attitudes in the two types of relationships (Padmanabhan and Hunter, n.d.), and they can influence how one might design an educational program to change uninformed beliefs. 15 In cases of logical necessity, in order for an individual to progress to a more specific belief or attitude from a general one, that individual has to accept each attitude in the casual chain. In logical necessity, belief A is necessary for belief B; this means that belief B can only be held if A is held. Thus, if belief A is not held, then B will be not be held. For example, the proposition ”there is a need to conserve forest resources" might have the proposition “there is a shortage of forest resources" as a logical necessity. If a shortage of forest resources were not perceived, then there would be no need to conserve them. Thus, "there is a shortage of forest resources" is logically necessary for "there is a need to conserve forest resources“. However, while it is logically necessary for A to be true in order for B to be true, it does not mean that B 13 true--it may or may not be. Someone may believe ”there is a shortage of forest resources“ but not believe there is a need to conserve, as they may think that technology will be developed to mitigate the shortage. The rate of acceptance may be slower for beliefs which are related by logical necessity because until belief A is accepted ("there is a shortage of forest resources"), belief B (”there is a need for conservation of forest resources") will not be accepted. Bven further, there is no guarantee that if A is accepted B will be accepted. It is also helpful to know if the relationship between beliefs is one of logical necessity as it can assist in developing an educational strategy, in this case an environmental one, to convince people to accept the beliefs. A relationship of logical necessity indicates that it may take more of an effort to design an environmental education program as it may involve several levels in the hierarchy--belief A and belief 8. People who don't believe A will have to be convinced and, since there is no guarantee of acceptance of belief B even if A is accepted, it may also be necessary to convince people of belief B. 16 Logical implication is different. In cases of logical implication, the different beliefs logically imply one another. If A implies B, and A is believed to be true, then one can immediately conclude that B is true because it is implied by A. Contrary to logical necessity (where if A is not true, B will not be true), with logical implication if A is not held, it does not mean B will not be held--it may or may not be. Thus, it is not necessary that A be held to accept B. For example, someone may believe that ”harvesting adversely affects wildlife habitat" (A) and therefore, "we need to provide more wildlife habitat“ (B). For those who believe A is true, it then implies B. However, some may believe A to be false, but they may not believe B to be false. They may be a member of a local hunting organization that has knowledge about the positive effects of harvesting on wildlife habitat and may merely feel more wildlife habitat is needed so they can hunt. In terms of the rate of acceptance, beliefs related by logical implication have faster rates of acceptance. For example, if one believes A to be true, then, because B is implied by A, B will immediately be adopted. Unlike logical necessity, one does not need to be convinced of belief B if they believe A to be true. Even if A is believed to be false, it will not be necessary to convince people of A before they would be willing to believe B. First, they may already believe it. Or, if even if they didn't, it still may mean less of an effort to plan environmental education programs as one only needs to be convinced of one belief--belief B. Suppose that people do not believe that "harvesting adversely affects wildlife habitat”, and you want to convince people that more ”wildlife habitat is needed”, one could suggest a variety of issues which would provide logical implication. Loss of habitat to residential development and agriculture, or even the wish to view more wildlife, all might logically imply a need for more wildlife habitat. Thus, rather than focusing on 17 one specific belief, several could be presented that may be acceptable to convince people of the need for wildlife habitat. Logical necessity and logical implication are relationships among beliefs and attitudes in a hierarchical chain but do not apply to the last link between beliefs and attitudes and behaviors. Other non-belief causal variables Causal variables, such as socio-demographic or information variables, can influence whether beliefs and attitudes are accepted from one level to the next. Non-belief variables may play four different roles: I) as a causal-prior, where the non-belief variable is causally antecedent to the first belief; 2) as a moderating variable, which strengthens or weakens the relationship; 3) as a causal-alternative, where these non-belief variables may influence the second link in the hierarchy, or, 4) as an intervening variable, where the non-belief variable intervenes between two variables. Because these variables will be used in a path analysis, they can play different roles and affect relationships of both logical necessity and logical implication. Because path analysis is concerned with correlations between variables, and there are no perfect correlations, it means that within each belief there are both those who have accepted and rejected the belief. Accepting beliefs in each level of the hierarchy is necessary before one can move down the hierarchy. The potential relationships are illustrated in Figure 1. Causal-prior variables could influence whether the first variable in chain is accepted or rejected. Causal-alternative variables could affect whether belief B is accepted. In terms of the logical implication relationship, because belief A is accepted, belief B will immediately be adopted, the influence of a causal alternative variable is on those who believe A to be false and may also have rejected B. In a logical necessity relationship, the influence will also be on the acceptance of B. The role of the mediating variable may always be one which strengthens or 18 weakens a relationship. It is the assumption of this model that intervening variables are only possible with relationships of logical implication. This is because with logical necessity, A is necessary for B, which means that no other variables intervene. In logical implication, this is not so. Intervening variables are possible as A implies B but is not necessary for 8. Thus, there may actually be a causal chain, A --> B --> C, where B is intervening, but may not have been observed because it was not measured. Causal prior I A A 1 l Causal-alternative B B (1) W (2) W A A kF-Hediating variable Intervéning variable 3 B (3) WM (4) Its 1 v a Figure 1: Effects of non-belief variables on belief and attitude hierarchies Padmanabhan (1981311) describes the hierarchical model as operating on the following premises: 1) that people respond to objects or concepts in three ways--with beliefs (about the states of the world), attitudes (emotion or affect) and behavior; and, 2) where objects or concepts are logically arranged, then beliefs, attitudes and behaviors Iwill be related. Concepts can be frequently organized into logical 19 classes or subclasses that have a superordinate-subordinate relationship with one another and are arranged at different levels from the most abstract and general to the most concrete and specific. e o te The proposition being tested in this research is that Virginia NIP! landowners hold certain beliefs and attitudes about the environment and natural resources, and that this environmental view affects their forest land management decisions. A hierarchical model of beliefs and attitudes at the general level about conserving natural resources and at a more specific level about forest resources, will be used to test the following hypotheses. The first hypothesis to be tested follows one tested by Padmanabhan (1981). It is: 1) beliefs, attitudes and behavior exist as a hierarchical network. Specifically, a, causal relations between environmental beliefs and attitudes are structured in a set of hierarchical relationships; b. 'the causal structure of environmental beliefs and attitudes is arranged from the most abstract and general to the most concrete and specific; cu the relationships between beliefs and attitudes at different levels of the hierarchy will be related by logical necessity; and d. the influence of higher order beliefs and attitudes on behavior are indirect and mediated by more specific ones. This hypothesis tests that environmental beliefs, which lead to a particular behavioral outcome, exist in a hierarchical structure from general to more specific and that levels of beliefs and attitudes are related by logical necessity. Further, it will test that higher levels 20 of beliefs and attitudes have an indirect relationship with behavioral outcome and will be mediated by more specific beliefs and attitudes toward the behavioral outcome. The second hypothesis will add to the previous work done with the hierarchical model. It is: 2) additional variables, non-belief variables acting as causal- priors, causal alternatives and moderators, influence the logical necessity relationships in the belief hierarchy and provide more explanation about why certain beliefs at the different levels may be accepted. This examines the proposition that as more variables are added to the model, their effect can help explain why individuals may move from one level of beliefs or attitudes to the next and why some do not. CBBPTER THREE LITERATURE REVIEW The hypotheses put forth in Chapter 2 will test the relationships between socio-demographic factors, beliefs and attitudes, and other non- belief causal variables and decision-making behavior. The literature review covers these issues, both in general and in relation to NIPF landowners. Human interactions with forests or forestry-related issues have been studied from various perspectives, one being socio-demographics. In general, these surveys reported that NIPF landowners who held occupations as farmers/ranchers, professional and skilled persons, and retired persons were more likely to own forested land than those NIPF landowners who held other occupations. Among NIPF landowners, they are more likely to be white than other races, male rather than female, over 45 years of age than under, and are more likely to have completed at least 12 years of formal education. Most NIPF landowners were individual forest-land owners, as opposed to other NIPF ownership types such as private corporations or associations. Among NIPF landowners, their income and length of ownership varied. For NIPF landowners, purchase was the most common method of land transfer although acquiring land through inheritance was also cited. The majority of NIPF landowner respondents lived on or near their forested land (Kingsley and Finley, 1975; Kingsley, 1976; Birch, 1979; Kingsley and Birch, 1977 and 1980; Carpenter et al., 1982; Carpenter and Hansen, 1986; Greene and Blatner, 1986; Blatner and Greene, 1989; Rossen and Doolittle, 1987; and Hickman, 1984). Socio-demographic variables have been shown to have an effect on ‘who joins environmental organizations. In a study of four groups of forest recreationists in Michigan, Nelson (1987) found that certain 21 22 socio-demographic (education, income, gender, residence location and ownership of forested land) differences existed among the four groups. The groups who were highest in education and income were the most likely to be members of preservation or conservation groups. These results were supported by another study, which explored a socio-demographic profile of Sierra Club members. It found that members of the Sierra Club tended to have more professional occupations and higher income levels than non-members (King, 1989). In an effort to identify communication media which might influence forest land-use decisions NIPF landowners in Maryland (Kingsley and Birch, 1980) and Kentucky (Birch and Powell, 1978) were asked to indicate which publications they read or organizations they joined which were related to natural resource issues. In both studies, the majority of NIPF landowners surveyed were not members of any conservation, farmer or sportsman's associations. When they were active, the National Wildlife Federation was the most predominant organization in Maryland and different sportsman's clubs predominated in Kentucky. In Maryland, nggign§1_flilglifig and B;gggg_3igk, both publications of the National Wildlife Federation, were the most widely read. zig1g_§ng_§tgg§m and Spg;§g_5£iglg were next. In Kentucky, figgtggky_£§£mgg was most widely- rud followed by W- In a Michigan study, Nelson (1987) found that a small to moderate amount of variance in attitudes about timber management was explained by differences in social memberships--forest recreationists (hunter or anglers) or those politically active in the forest management process in Michigan, who had either requested information or commented on Michigan's forest management policies. In terms of land use decisions, Kingsley and Birch (1980) explored whether Maryland NIPF landowners read environmental publications or join similar organizations and concluded that owners who are interested enough to join a conservation organization or subscribe to a publication 23 were primarily interested in wildlife resources and few had an interest in managing their forested resources for timber production. Many studies have focused on the socio-demographic characteristics of NIPF landowners who would be most likely to make certain land—use decisions regarding their forested land. Studies have explored whether NIPF landowners have harvested, the practices used and whether professional forestry assistance was sought (Kingsley and Finley, 1975; Kingsley, 1976; Birch, 1979; Kingsley and Birch, 1977 and 1980: Carpenter et al., 1982; and Carpenter and Hansen, 1986). It was found that for those respondents who said they had harvested, harvesting practices seemed to depend on the size of the landholding. Owners of smaller forested land holdings (less than 50 acres), used the selection method and diameter cut most often when harvesting. Clear cutting was the least cited but was used on the majority of large tracts, usually more than 100 acres. In terms of who selected the trees to be harvested, NIPF landowners with forested holdings in the small to medium-sized category (10 to 100 acres) most often reported that they were the ones who selected the trees, without forestry assistance. Overall, only 10-18! of NIPF landowners who harvested requested forestry assistance, which was provided by the state agency responsible for forestry activities. In general, those requesting forestry assistance tended to be younger than the average NIPF landowner, better educated, have a higher income level and larger land holdings than those who did not request forestry assistance. When asked about using private consulting foresters or industry foresters, only a few NIPF landowners did so. This group usually had significant amounts of forested land, in some cases enough to employ their own forester. Binkley (1981), Holmes (1986), and Hyberg and Holthausen (1989) found that levels of income and education of NIPF landowners are related to decisions not to harvest. In the Northeast and Southeast, NIPF landowners with higher incomes and education levels are less likely to 24 harvest timber than those NIPF landowners with lower incomes. In Michigan, Carpenter and Hansen (1986) also studied intentions to harvest. Those who had occupations as professionals, executives or skilled labor indicated an intent to harvest. Farmers were least likely. This, however, is contradicted by results from Greene and Blatner (1986). They found that with NIPF landowners in the Ozarks being a farmer, more years of formal education, and larger woodland sizes were positively associated with timber management. Retired NIPF landowners were found least likely to manage their timber, although they do harvest. In Minnesota, occupation did not seem to have as important an influence as the size of landholding (Carpenter et al., 1982). While many studies have examined the reasons why decisions regarding certain forest management practices were made, none have explored the possibility of a hierarchical set of relationships among beliefs and forest land-use decisions. mwmmmmgummmm. Beliefs about forest-land management are particularly important when addressing the question of sustainability and the need for stewardship. If those who do not harvest have attitudes and beliefs about certain forest management practices related to harvesting which are uninformed, then part of a stewardship program strategy would be to identify areas where education about forestry or forest management practices would be needed to dispel any uninformed beliefs. Knowledge of the beliefs held by NIPF landowners is important to gain insight into factors which may constrain certain forest land-use decisions. In several studies, (Kingsley and Finley, 1975; Kingsley, 1976; Birch, 1979; Kingsley and Birch, 1977 and 1980; Carpenter et al., 1982; Carpenter and Hansen, 1986; Greene and Blatner, 1986; Rossen and Doolittle, 1987; Hickman, 1984; and Brock et al., 1985) NIPF landowners did not harvest because they believed that it would destroy the scenery 25 and/or hunting. They also expressed an opposition to harvesting and distrust of loggers. Beliefs held by New England NIPF landowners regarding wildlife management on their lands affected the decisions they made about harvesting. Few harvested or had an intention to harvest as it was believed to be threatening to wildlife management (Alexander and Kellert, 1986). Blatner and Greene (1989) found somewhat different results. The NIPF landowners who said they did not harvest believed their woodlands to be too small but they did not hold anti-timber management attitudes. In fact, many showed an interest in managing their forested land for non-market objectives such as recreation and wildlife management. Using qualitative methods, Brock et al. (1985) assessed the beliefs and attitudes of retired NIPF landholders in West Virginia regarding their forested property. One part of the study addressed the issue of sustainability, that is, there were few NIPF landowners who had concern about the future viability of the resource and were actively managing their forested land. For those who harvested, many did not know about professional forestry assistance or believed they had enough knowledge about forest management, although this was not tested. Most of the respondents said they did not harvest and they had negative attitudes about loggers and timber cutting, which were mostly centered around the condition of the land after logging. Much of the concern focused on the damage done to young stock, erosion resulting from roads and skid trails and damage from heavy equipment to farms roads and fields. The majority of the owners interviewed felt clear cutting was bad. Two longitudinal studies of attitudes towards harvesting had interesting results. In a study from three different time periods in Michigan, Carpenter (1985) found that even though forest land changed ownership during the 20 years between the three studies, the proportion of landowners favoring or opposing timber harvesting was reasonably 26 constant. Similar results were reported from a study in Delaware (Turner et al., 1977), where the proportion of NIPF landowners who said they would_never harvest remained constant, even though some parcels had been transferred to new owners. New owners may hold different attitudes toward forest management or, the same owners may change their attitudes as either circumstances or perceptions change. In addition to beliefs and attitudes, other causal variables may influence why certain forest land-use decisions are made, such as reasons for ownership, reasons for not harvesting and levels of knowledge about forestry and forest management. Why people own their forest land has been the basis of numerous studies, in an effort to link reasons for ownership with land-use decision-making. Kingsley and Finley (1975), Kingsley and Birch (1977 and 1980), Carpenter et a1. (1982), Greene and Blatner (1986), Rossen and Doolittle (1987), Hickman (1984) and Brock et al. (1985) investigated reasons for owning forested land, whether the landowner has harvested, and if they did, why they did so. In terms of reasons for ownership, aesthetics, recreation and the fact that it was part of a residence were primarily cited. Those who owned their forested land for a primarily economic reason, to realize profits from forest products, were more likely to harvest than those who owned their land for aesthetics-~non-economic commodities such as scenic beauty, recreation, etc. (Kingsley, 1976; Kingsley and Birch, 1977; and Birch and Kingsley, 1978). Haymond (1988) found similar results in her study on NIPF landowners identified as ”opinion leaders” in eight rural counties in South Carolina. The study focused on why these NIPF landowners valued their forest land. They indicated they valued their land primarily for lifestyle enhancement (viewing wildlife, privacy, recreation, etc.), although many did indicate an interest in economics and timber 27 production. Haymond also found that with this particular group there was a relationship between occupation and reasons for valuing their forest land--those who did not derive their main income source from products from their forested land valued it more for aesthetic reasons or lifestyle enhancement. However, those who did derive their principal income from their forested resources were more interested in economics and timber production. Greene and Blatner (1989) found similar results, that is, owners who managed or sold timber expressed financial objectives for their woodlands, rather than aesthetic objectives. Other reasons given for not harvesting had to do with the physical resource--the timber was too immature, the area too small, the timber of too poor quality or too small a volume (Binkley, 1981; Holmes 1986; Hyberg and Holthausen, 1989; Kurtz and Lewis, 1981). In a number of studies, economic issues associated with forest management and perceptions of the market for the timber influenced land use decisions. Binkley (1981), Holmes (1986), and Hyberg and Holthausen (1989) found that reasons least often given for not harvesting were more temporary in nature: market prices too low; selling land; land in unsettled estate; saving it for heirs; retirement or emergency income; or no market. Kurtz and Lewis (1981) used a psychological testing technique (Q-sort) to determine why NIPF landowners arrive at certain decisions. They developed a framework which explored owner motivations for making certain timber management decisions (Ibid: 285). The framework involved motivations, objectives, and constraints which led to forest management strategies. Owner types were then established using this technique. They found that certain constraints, e.g., the market for timber at the time or certain societal issues such as the lack of financial assistance for replanting, impeded forest management decisions. Alig et al. (1990) explored some of the economic reasons NIPF landowners choose to harvest and suggested that an NIPF landowner's decision to harvest is based on market factors, such as changes in 28 interest rates and changing policy environments. These factors influence forest-land management as they affect NIPF landowner decisions regarding planting rates, silvicultural treatments for stand management and when to harvest. Brock et a1. (1985) found a reluctance on the part of West Virginia NIPF landowners to invest a lot of money in forest management due to the long-term nature of realizing a return on their timber resources. In their study of NIPF landowners in the Ozarks, Greene and Blatner (1986) found that those who had contact with a forester were more likely to manage their timber that those who had no contact. Knowledge about the environment, and the effect of this knowledge on behavior, is important in trying to understand what leads to certain decisions. Dispoto (1977), in a study of students at Rutgers University, found that knowledge about the environment had a moderate effect on their behavior regarding environmental issues. The author concluded that ”what people know about the environment may be more important than what they feel about it' in terms of environmental behavior (Ibid:458). Arbuthnot and Lingg (1975) reported that culture may have an influence on whether environmental knowledge affects environmental behavior. In a study on differences in recycling behaviors between a group of Americans and a group from France, they found that there was a high degree of consistency between environmental action and both general and environmentally specific attitudes for the Americans but not the French. Environmental knowledge also predicted environmental action for the Americans but, again, not the French. They concluded that environmental knowledge acts a mediating variable between attitudes and behavior. A search of the literature did not indicate any studies that empirically examined the relationship between knowledge of forestry and forest management and forest land-use decisions. However, studies were found which focused on certain aspects of knowledge about forestry, 29 although they did not investigate the influence that the knowledge held by the respondents may have had on their specific forest management decisions. One study (Kingsley and Birch, 1980) explored conservation and forestry knowledge, although the questions were very general. The authors concluded that in order for forested land to be managed for the production of renewable forest resources, a good deal of forestry education would be needed as the knowledge level of the respondents was low. In the South, Kaiser (1985) found that many NIPF landowners held the belief that after pine forests are harvested, natural regeneration would suffice to produce the same quality stock of pine which existed prior to harvesting. This indicates a lack of knowledge on the part of these NIPF landowners as, in the majority of cases, site preparation, e.g., prescribed burning, the application of herbicides, and replanting pine seedlings, is necessary to ensure good stocking levels. Without this preparation, hardwoods will reestablish dominance on the site. Healy and Short (1981) mention that foresters find new landowners may be misinformed about the economics of harvesting and how it could benefit them and this lack of information tends to lead more to a 'preservationist' attitude than one of conservation. WW Padmanabhan's scales Padmanabhan (1981) developed belief and attitudes scales to test for environmental attitudes about recycling. He was interested in how beliefs and attitudes are hierarchically-related (see discussion on theoretical framework, Chapter 2), and the scales he designed reflected hierarchical levels of beliefs and attitudes, from a general, abstract level to a more specific level where the beliefs and attitudes specifically addressed recycling. For this research, several of the scales are universal enough that they provide measures which can adapted and applied to NIPF landowners in Virginia to capture their beliefs and 30 attitudes about the environment. Because he was interested in recycling, the beliefs he designed for the most specific level are not relevant. To measure concern about the environment at the most general abstract level, Padmanabhan tested for beliefs such as "the resource shortage is real", ”the resource shortage is serious“, "consumers must conserve” and ”individuals can help conserve”. The next level of beliefs and attitudes was more focused and addressed the society's responsibility towards resource use using scales which measured the level to which society should control resources and the rights of society versus the rights of individuals. One of the limitations of Padmanabhan's research is that he did not explore the effect of any non-belief causal variables, such as socio-demographics, on beliefs and attitudes in the hierarchy. The NIP scale The NEP (New Environmental Paradigm Scale) (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978) is similar to Padmanabhan's in that it measures general level beliefs and attitudes about the environment. The basic assumption underlying the NBP scale is that humans are equal members of the natural world and not exempt from the cause and effect of their interactions with the physical environment. Instead of resources being seen as limitless, the NBP contends that humans must live within the constraints imposed by finite resources. In contrast to Padmanabhan's scales, the effects of socio- demographic variables on the NB? scale have been explored. Studies using the NBP scale have focused on the relationship of knowledge and socio-demographics to general environmental attitudes. Abbott and Harris (1986) used the multi-dimensional NEP scale to test the relationship of socio-demographic characteristics with environmental attitudes of residents of northern New York state and unlike other studies, found that acceptance of the scale was not highly correlated 31 with socio-demographic characteristics. Arcury et al. (1986) and Arcury and Johnson (1987) explored the relationship of the NBP scale and socio- demographic characteristics with knowledge about environmentally- relevant issues. A positive environmental attitude, higher income and education levels and being male were associated with higher levels of knowledge. However, a self-reported measure of environmental knowledge was used and the authors stressed the need for a better measure--that is, one that tests actual knowledge by asking respondents questions for which there are right or wrong answers. In a 1990 study, Arcury again used the NB? scale to test whether environmental knowledge has an association with environmental attitudes, as well as the direction of the knowledge-attitude relationship. He found a direct relationship but it weakened when socio-demographic controls were applied. While he felt the relatively strong correlation of education to both knowledge and environmental attitude suggested that knowledge leads to attitude, causality was not resolved. In a third study (1990), Arcury and Christianson examined the influence of a drought in Kentucky on environmental attitudes using the NB? scale. Data was examined from surveys done in 1984 and 1988. They found a small increase in environmental attitudes over the four-year period, the most significant increase being in the county which had actually experienced water restrictions. -In addition, environmental attitudes were positively associated with education, income, living in more urban areas and being male. Caron (1989) studied the environmental attitudes of urban blacks and found that there was moderate support for the NBP scale. Additionally, it was found that the more years of education the respondent had, the more likely they were to hold positive environmental attitudes associated with the NB? scale. The relationship between attitudes, knowledge and socio- demographic characteristics relevant to environmental issues has been the focus of other researchers. Ramsey and Rickson (1976/77), in a 32 study which investigated the relationship between attitudes and knowledge relevant to environmental issues, suggest that knowledge and attitudes have a circularity, that is where one does not solely precede the other but rather some knowledge may lead to certain attitudes and more gains in knowledge are made with a new attitude. They report that knowledge appears to lead to moderate attitudes about the environment, as opposed to leading to more strongly-held or more weakly-held attitudes. Socio-demographic factors such as higher levels of education, and more information from mass media were also found to lead to more moderate attitudes about the environment. However, earlier research by Bultena et al. (1975) involving citizens living near a proposed reservoir project contradicts this. He found that higher levels of education led to more intense attitudes, pro and con. Sigelmann and Yaranella (1986), testing a multivariate model of knowledge about the economy and the environment, found that the primary factors related to knowledge about the environment were gender, race and education, with age and income displaying no independent relationship. We]. The issues discussed in the theoretical framework and the literature search--the hierarchical arrangement of environmental beliefs and attitudes, the effects of socio-demographics and other causal variables on these beliefs and attitudes and the effects of the beliefs and attitudes on forest land-use decision-making, have been brought together in a hypothesized model. The hypothesized model will provide a framework for constructing the measurement model for the path analysis. It is hypothesized that NIPF landowners in Virginia will make decisions about managing their forested land based on their beliefs, attitudes and levels of knowledge they have about forestry and forest management. These decisions will also be influenced by other non- belief variables, external to the hierarchical belief chains. 33 The behavior being investigated is whether private forest landowners make the decision to harvest timber (Figure 2). It is further hypothesized that in the model, the beliefs and attitudes which lead to the outcome variable (decision to harvest) will be hierarchically-arranged from general to intermediate to most specific and that these hierarchies will be related by logical necessity. The different levels of beliefs and attitudes found in the hierarchical model are indicated by the labels on the left of the model--general, intermediate and specific. The variables below the specific level indicate other causal variables which could potentially influence the decision to harvest. The general level is designed to measure more general, abstract beliefs about the environment. It is composed of scales from Padmanabhan's research and the NEP scale. Beliefs about the whether the resource shortage is real, whether humans need to live within the confines of finite resources (NBP), whether the resource shortage is serious, whether consumers can conserve and whether individuals can help are all very general. At the intermediate level, the beliefs are designed to be somewhat more specific in regard to resources and resource use. Beliefs about conserving Virginia's forested resources and whether society, including the State of Virginia, should be control resource use are explored. At the most specific level, the scales are related to questions about the rights of Virginia NIPF landowners to do what they want with their land as well as their obligation towards conservation and managing their forest land for future generations. The construction of the hypothesized model begins with the influence of socio-demographic variables on other variables. Based on the literature, it is hypothesized that the socio-demographic (1)' ‘The number in parentheses corresponds to the variable number in the hypothesized model in Figure 2. 34 Socio-demographics (1) Organizations joined / Publications read (2) Resource shortage is real (3) Shortage is serious (5) \ Consumers must conserve (6) Individuals can help (7) \ / caswswe I \ I Concern over conserving Virginia's forests (8) I . l I R Society's rights over M individual rights re: I natural resources (9) _n_ l NIPF's do not have the right to do 8 what they want with forest land (10) P B C Conservation versus profits I on private forest land (11) F I G Moral obligation to protect fores land for future generations (12) 0 Reasons for T Knowledge of forestry ownership (13) B and forest management (14) B ‘ Participate in R Seek professional forestry forest land-use assistance (16) programs (15) C A Reasons for not seeking ————————J 0 professional e——Reasons for not 8 forestry assistance (17) harvesting (18) A L l Decision to harvest (19) Figure 2: Proposed hierarchical model: Levels of beliefs and attitudes, and other causal variables which afffect Virginia NIPF landowner's decision to harvest 35 variables, e.g., age, education, income, occupation and location of current residence (rural versus urban) will have a direct effect on whether environmental[conservation organizations are joined and/or similar publications which are read (2). This includes younger NIPF landowners; NIPF landowners with more education; NIPF landowners with higher incomes: and, NIPF landowners who hold more professional occupations, who would be more likely to join environmental/conservation organizations. These same socio-demographic variables are hypothesized to have an influence on whether it is believed the resource shortage is real (3) and that resources are finite and humans must live within the constraints imposed by finite resources (NEP scale) (4). Based on the NIPF landowner literature, it is also hypothesized that socio- demographic variables will have a direct effect on reasons for ownership of forested land and reasons for not harvesting. NIPF landowners with higher education and income levels will be more likely to own their forested land for non-economic reasons and to be less likely to harvest. The researcher does not hypothesize a direct relationship between socio- demographics and other causal variables but makes the assumption that the potential effects will be indirect with beliefs and attitudes acting as intervening variables. Whether one joins environmental/conservation organizations and/or reads similar type publications (2) is also hypothesized to have a direct influence on whether or not it is believed that the resource shortage is real (3). Those who do join these organizations or read similar publications will be more likely to accept that the resource shortage is real. Based on hierarchical attitude theory, the Virginia NIPF landowners will move down the hierarchy to the intermediate level of attitudes if they accept the attitudes at the general level of the model. In order to move down the hierarchy from the general level to the intermediate level, beliefs at the general level must first be 36 accepted, based on the premise of logical necessity. For Virginia NIPF landowners to believe that resources are finite and humans must live within the constraints imposed by finite resources (NBP scale) (4), they must first accept that there is a reason to be concerned, e.g. that there is a resource shortage (3). If there is no concern about a resource shortage, then there will not be a concern about how finite resources are. Once Virginia NIPF landowners accept that there is a shortage (3), then they can move to the next belief--that resources are finite and humans must live within the constraints this imposes (4). Believing resources are finite (NBP) (4) will allow the NIPF landowner to consider the seriousness of the resource shortage. If they don't consider resources finite, then any concern about resource shortages will not be perceived as serious. Assuming that Virginia NIPF landowners do believe in a resource shortage (3) and do believe it is serious (5), then they will decide how they believe it might be alleviated. Some will believe the shortage is serious (5) and believe that consumers as a group, can help to alleviate it (6). Others, will believe that the shortage is serious (5) but see their role as individuals as being more important and not dependent on group action (7). If they don't feel the resource shortage is serious, then they will not feel the need to conserve or help alleviate the shortage. Once beliefs are accepted that consumers or individuals can alleviate the resource shortage, they can move to the intermediate level and consider conservation of Virginia's forest resources (8). If they do not believe that consumers as a group or individuals themselves can make a difference, then they will not be able to consider conservation of Virginia's forested resources. At the intermediate level in the hierarchy, there will be concern over the conservation of Virginia's forest resources and the role of society, that is, the citizens of Virginia, in controlling natural resource use. Those who accept that society must control resources and 37 that society's rights should prevail over individual rights (9), must first be concerned that there is a reason for controlling resources. They must feel that Virginia's forests need conserving and that society must assume this responsibility (8). Thus, if society controls resources, conservation can be more of a priority. Once it is accepted that society has to play more of a role in controlling resource use, Virginia NIPF landowners will be able to move to the most specific level of the belief hierarchy which deals with beliefs related to their own private forest lands. Those who accept that society has rights over individual rights when it comes to Virginia's resources, will accept that Virginia NIPF landowners g9_ngt have the right to do whatever they want with their forested land (10) regardless of the consequences. Once one accepts that they do not have the right to do what they want with their land regardless of the consequences (10), they will then be able to consider beliefs related to issues about conservation. When one is concerned about the consequences of their actions on their forested land, they will be more likely to believe that conservation issues must be weighed alongside decisions to make profits from their forested land (11). Those who do not accept that conservation must be considered with profit-making decisions on their forested land, will be less likely to believe that they have a moral obligation to protect their land for future generations (12). However, those who do believe that they have a moral obligation to protect their forest land for future generations (12) will have accepted the belief that conservation must be considered when making decisions regarding profit from their forested lands. Because one believes in a moral obligation to protect their forested land for future generations, it would seem that they would be likely to decide to harvest trees (20) from their property as this is a strategy for renewable forest resources management. 38 Even though the Virginia NIPF landowner believes in managing his/her resources so that the needs of future generations can be met certain variables may have an influence on whether the decision to harvest is actually made. These include the reasons why the Virginia NIPF landowner owns the forested land (13) (e.g., for non-financial or financial commodities), their knowledge of forestry and forest management (14), whether they participate in forest land-use programs (15), reasons for not seeking professional forestry assistance (16), whether they seek professional forestry assistance (17) and their reasons for not harvesting (18). The hypothetical model will now be used to construct a measurement model for a path analysis to explore the causal relationships among the variables. CHAPTER FOUR METHODS W In April of 1991 a mail survey was sent to 1306 randomly chosen persons, with both in-state and out-of—state addresses, who own forested land in Virginia. This method was chosen because it could reach the greatest number of NIPF landowners in the most cost-effective manner. These Virginia NIPF landowners were selected from six randomly chosen forested counties in Virginia (Figure 3) which the Virginia Department of Forestry felt contained adequate forest land to get a sufficient number of NIPF landowners. Counties with large urban centers (e.g., those in Northern Virginia near Washington, D.C. and in close proximity to Richmond) and had little forested land were excluded from the random selection. The population surveyed was Virginia NIPF landowners with 20 or more forested acres. Twenty forested acres was chosen as a cut-off because it is the minimal amount of forested land one can own and participate in forest land-use programs in the counties which have them. Forest land-use programs allow those landowners with 20 acres or more of forested land to qualify for a county tax exemption if they apply for the program and meet certain qualifications (e.g. having a forest management plan prepared by a professionally-trained forester). The determination of whether a county has a forest land-use programs is made by the county, not at the state-level. The reason forest land-use was considered was to investigate whether those Virginia NIPF landowners who lived in counties with a forest land-use program and participate in the program had higher levels of knowledge than those who either lived in a country with a forest land-use program but did not participate or, those who lived in a county with no forest land-use program. A multi-stage sampling method was used to select the Virginia NIPF landowners for the survey. The first stage was to select counties in 39 40 Virginia and the second stage was to select NIPF landowners within the county. For the first stage, representative county selection was based on two criteria: 1) that each geographic region in the state be represented--the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont and the Mountain area, and, 2) that of the two counties selected from each region, one county had forest land-use and one did not. This means that in one county in each region had a forest land-use program in which Virginia NIPF landowners could participate. The other county did not have the program. Having counties with and without forest land-use will allow a comparison between counties in the same geographic area to see if there may be an effect on knowledge levels given the forest land-use requirement to have a professional management plan. The six counties chosen are listed below (see Figure 3). Mountain--Warren County Piedmont--Madison County Coastal Plain--Gloucester County Mountain--Highland County Piedmont--Prince Edward County Coastal Plain--Greensville County These six counties provided the sampling frame from which a random sample of Virginia NIPF landowners was selected to be surveyed. In each county, between 195-250 NIFP landowner names were drawn using an interval sampling method. In this case, it was an interval between names, using a random starting place, which one counted in order to draw a sample for the county, based on the number of landowners in the county. Since the number of landowners in each county varied, the interval that one would use between names also varied. For example, in Warren county the interval between names was fifteen. Thus, every fifteenth name would receive a questionnaire, unless the name was a duplicate. In this case, the interval continued until a name was identified which was not a duplicate. The county tax records in each county clerk's office were used to draw the names in the random sample 41 Soee collage 13.9 Finished collage 21.2 Beyond college 24.5 Ines: a“ Less than $20,000 19.4 $20,000 to 839,999 25.4 SMLOMJuafiflhfifl ah? $70,000 and above 28.5 It was necessary to create an ordinal variable for occupation, which was categorical, in order to rank the occupations in terms of prestige and to create an index for the variable to be used in the path model. Current and former occupations were categorized in terms of the 1980 Census occupational classifications and then combined according to the Hodge-Siegel-Rossi Prestige scores (Siegel, 1971). Professional and 2The numbers in parentheses correspond to the variables in the hypothesized model in Figure 2. 47 technical positions were rated highest. Farmers and related occupations ranked in approximately the middle of the index. Service employees and laborers ranked at the lower end of the spectrum. Housespouses, while presented in the distribution of occupations (Table 2) for purposes of illustration, were not counted in the analysis and were treated as missing. A new variable was created for whether a respondent was retired. This includes both NIPF landowners who were formerly employed and people who were never employed outside the home. “Not" retired also includes respondents who were never employed outside the home. In all cases, if a respondent reported s/he was or was not retired, that report was used, except in places where a person also reported a current occupation. In that case, the status of current employment took precedence over the status of retirement. Those cases which were missing were treated as missing values and considered as either retired or "not” retired. Frequencies for retirement status and current and former occupations are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Retirement status, current occupation and occupation before retirement items Percentage responding m (n- 531) Yes 35.4 lo flLO Missing 6.6 Qgggpgsjgn Current (ns269) Before retiring (n-192) Executive, abinistrative and managerial 19.0 10.4 Professionals 24.2 29.7 Technicians and related support 3.7 .0 Sales occupations 8.2 6.8 Albinistrative support, including clerical 1.9 4.7 Protective service 1.5 1.0 Service occupations, except protective .7 3.6 Farming, forestry, and fishing occlmations 7.1 3.1 except farmers Farmers 15.6 10.9 Precision production, craft and repair 1.5 8.3 Machine operators, assemblers and inspectors 3.3 1.1 Transportation and material moving 1.1 3.6 handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, laborers 1.1 .0 Housewife 1.1 6.3 Retired military IIA 7.8 48 Respondents were asked where they grew up and where they now live. This socio-demographic variable will be used to determine if where the respondent grew up or now lives has an effect on other variables in the measurement model. Frequencies are given in Table 3. Table 3. Where respondents grew up and live now Lixg_ngs (n3522) §£:I_!n (n3519) Percentage Percentage in a large city (over 500,000) 10.0 8.1 A sodium city (50,000 to 500,000) 9.6 11.8 A small city (10,000 to 50,000) 10.7 9.2 A small town (2,500 to 100,000) 10.7 9.8 A small village (2,500 or less) 10.7 10.8 Open country--not on a farm 7.9 11.4 On a farm 34.1 38.9 It was originally hypothesized that in order to have a unbiased sample, NIPF landowners needed to be chosen from the three different geographical areas of the state. It was also determined that within each area, one county should have a forest land-use program and the other should not, so as to be able to investigate if there was an effect of participating in forest land programs and levels of forestry knowledge. A variable was created which allowed a comparison of counties with a forest land-use program, and those without, to other variables. Table 4 lists the frequencies. Table 4. Live in county with forest land-use Live in a county with a forest lend-use program (n8 531) Yes 50.1 No 49.9 The variable “total forested acres" included forested acres owned by the respondent in the six counties surveyed, in other areas of Virginia, and in other states. This resulted in 157,574 acres being reported, with a 297 acres being the mean and 109 acres for the median. Fifteen (15) percent of the 531 respondents from the six sample counties 49 reported that they also owned forest acreage in other counties of Virginia; for the 79 NIPF landowners reporting such acreage, the mean amount owned in other counties was 524 acres, while the median was 70 acres. Thirty-five (35) percent of the 531 respondents from the six sample counties reported that they also owned forested acreage in the United States, outside of Virginia; for the 188 NIPF landowners reporting such acreage, the mean amount owned in the United States was 92 acres while the median was 20 acres. A breakdown of acreage by class size for the survey area, as well as by the total forested acreage owned is presented in Table 5. Table 5. Forested land owned by area and class size W Tot-l Icm Mean Winn Six-county survey area 98,890 188.0 91.0 in Virginia, outside of survey area 41,436 524.5 70.5 in other states 17,248 92.0 20.0 total forested acreage 157,574 296.8 109.0 v (n I 526) 0 to 50 acres 31.7 51 to 100 acres 22.8 101 to 250 acres 25.1 251 to 500 acres 12.4 over 500 acres 8.0 W (n - 526) to 50 acres 25.0 51 to 100 acres 21.9 101 to 250 acres 25.7 251 to ,500 acres 15.5 over 500 acres 11.9 For the six counties surveyed, respondents reported the number of parcels they owned, for up to five parcels, with the mean being 1.5 parcels and the median, one parcel. The number of parcels owned per respondent, and the mean and median acreage size, of the parcels reported for the six county survey area are listed in Table 6. 50 Table 6. Parcel ownership ltees Percentage responding (parcels I 861) at least one parcel 525 at least two parcels 184 at least three parcels 83 at least four parcels 44 at least five parcels 25 WW than Muflan Parcel 1 139 70 Parcel 2 76 46 Parcel 3 80 45 Parcel 4 72 49 Parcel 5 83 30 As geographic region was assumed to present a possible bias, counties were selected from the three geographic regions in the state. In order to measure region, two variables were created which represented two of the regions selected for the survey in which respondents own forested land. The purpose of using the two variables in the correlation matrix was to be able to determine if, indeed, there was an effect on responses based on the county in which the respondent owned the land, as the geophysical characteristics of the areas vary. Because they are the two most extreme, the Mountain region and the Coastal plain were selected. (The Piedmont area can be considered a transition area between the two.) The frequencies for the geographic region variables are in Table 7. Table 7. Geographical regions in Virginia in which forested land is owned Geographical regions in Virginia in which forested land is owned. (n8 531) Mountain area 37.5 Piedmont area 30.9 Coastal plain 31.6 51 Access to environmental]conservation information W42). This item indicates whether NIPF landowners join environmental and/or conservation organizations. The frequency for the item is given in Table 8, as well as the frequencies for the types of organizations joined (respondents could check more than one). Table 8. Organizations joined (2) items Percentage responding (n) Joins organizations 451 Yes 31.9 Mo 68.1 lrgmflmnflmm 143 Virginia Forestry Association Mature Conservancy Mational wildlife Federation Different Sportasan's associations Audion fi-‘NNN‘N e a Virginia wildlife Federation Sierra Club wilderness Society lssak Melton League Trout Unlimited NOOGENOUIUIN-s “WOUOO-DON“ W This item indicates whether NIPF landowners read publications related to environmental/conservation type issues. The frequencies for the item are given in Table 9, along with the frequencies for the publications read (respondents could check more than one). 52 Table 9. Publications read (2) items Percentage responding (n) leads/subscribes to publications 446 Yes 55.4 Mo 0L6 V rg n a u dlife 53.0 Mational'wildlife 20.0 Field and Stream 26.7 andnr 2L2 Virginie Forests 19.0 Tree Fans Mews 17.4 Sports Afield 13.8 Audubon 12.9 American Forests 8.5 Mational Parks and Recreation 8.0 Forest Farmer 4.8 Journal of Forestry 2.8 Beliefs and attitudes (3 through 12) Scoring for the belief and attitude items which form the general, intermediate and specific level environmental scales in the hypothesized model was as follows: Strongly agree (SA) 8 1; Agree (A) a 2; Neutral (N) - 3; Disagree (D) - 4; and, Strongly Disagree (SD) - 5. In order to have the high score for all the belief and attitude items reflect an environmental stance as opposed to low scores reflecting a non- environmental stance, some items were reverse scored, i.e., Strongly Agree - 5, etc. The frequencies of the items in the following tables which are preceded by a superscript ”*" indicates items which have been reverse-scored. Missing values were considered invalid and not included in the analysis. Pair-wise deletions were used as opposed to list-wise. Pair—wise deletions are those cases that have valid values on both variables used in the calculations and are included in the calculation. Otherwise, the cases are deleted (SPSS,Inc.). The standard measure of reliability reported is Cronbach's alpha. A reliability refers to the likelihood that a given measurement procedure will yield the same description of a given phenomenon if that measurement is repeated (Babbie, 1986:114). Cronbach's alpha is one of the most commonly understood measures of reliability (Norusis, 1990:8- 53 190). Cronbach's alpha can be interpreted as the expected correlation (from 0 to 1.00) between the researcher's measure for a concept and all other possible measures of the same concept with the same number of items, even though the items, themselves, may differ. Like any correlation, a Cronbach's alpha of .90 or above is rare. However, Cronbach's alpha is easily influenced by the number of items in the scale. Scales with more items tend to be more reliable. Questions to measure beliefs and attitudes about natural resources in general, and forest resources in particular, included ones designed by different researchers. Some were designed by Padmanabhan (1981) and are indicated by a (P). Those in the NEP scale (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978), were used verbatim and are included in Table 11. Other questions, analogous to ones used by Padmanabhan on recycling, were modified by this researcher to reflect forestry issues and are indicated by an (A). And, finally, still other questions were designed entirely by the researcher to capture beliefs and attitudes about forest resource use in Virginia and on NIPF land in Virginia and are indicated by an (a) . Beliefs and attitudes-~general level W Items in this scale reflect a general belief that the natural resource shortage is real. Frequencies for the items from are given in Table 10, followed by the reliability for the statement. 54 Table 10. Shortage is real (3) item Percentage responding M D a? A (n) (P)He will have plenty of natural resources if we Just invent new ways for finding and developing them 4.5 21.7 26.2 35.3 12.3 465 (A)The "scarcity of natural resources“ is Just a threat invented by envirormentalists 3.2 9.7 17.2 49.6 20.3 464 (I)The concern about the environment is Just a passing fad 1.5 3.4 10.7 60.9 23.4 466 Reliability I .65 ' SA I Strongly agree; A I Agree; M I Meutral; D I Disagree; SD IStrongly Disagree. (P) I desimed by Patenwhan (1981) (A) I adapted from Pacbnanabhan (1981) (l) I designed by the researcher W All items in the NE? scale appear as originally designed (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978). There were indications from the literature that the NEP scale was not uni-dimensional (Geller and Lasley, 1985; Noe and Snow, 1990). This means that it measured more than one dimension or concept. Given this, a factor analysis was performed on the items in the scale. The results of a factor analysis confirmed that it was not uni-dimensional (Appendix 8) and that two concepts were being measured. They were the concept (Factor 1) that "humans must respect nature and live within Earth's carrying capacity” and the concept (Factor 2) ”humans do not rule over nature". The concept that "humans must respect nature and live within Earth's carrying capacity” is designed to measure how strongly it is believed that humans must live interdependently with nature. Whether or not it is believed that humans were created to rule over nature, that is, to use nature to suit their needs, is measured by the concept ”humans do not rule over nature". The frequencies and the reliabilities for the two concepts appear in Table 11. Table 11. NIP scale factors (4) 55 it- Percentage responding SA A M 0 SD (n) r lie are approaching the l mit of the nlwer people the Earth can support *20.1 30.0 20.3 22.9 6.7 497 The balance of nature is very delicate lid easily upset *26.9 49.5 15.1 6.2 2.3 469 than hlmens interfere with nature it predates disastrous results *23.0 52.8 11.3 10.4 2.6 470 To maintain a healthy econosy we will have to develop a "steady-state“ econoe/ when industrial growth is controlled *16.0 50.6 19.4 10.7 3.2 478 I'll-I must live in harmony with nature in order to survive *35.1 57.5 5.1 2.1 .2 473 The Earth is like a space ship with only limited room and resources *29.4 48.5 12.1 8.1 1.9 472 There are limits to growth beyond thich our irdastrialized society camot expand *20.9 50.9 20.3 6.6 1.3 468 Mankind is severely abusing the envirorment *35.7 46.4 10.8 6.8 .2 474 geliabilityI .83 i ten are reverse-scored -- l r na ur Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature 8.7 26.3 18.5 30.6 15.9 471 Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans 5.4 24.6 22.1 33.2 14.8 467 linens have a right to modify the natural envirorment to suit their needs 3.2 19.3 18.1 43.5 16.0 469 Dianne need not adapt to the natural envirormant because they can remake it to suit their needs 2.3 5.5 10.4 53.9 27.7 469 ReliabilityI .16 56 W This scale reflects the belief that the natural resource shortage is serious. Frequencies for the items are given in Table 12. Table 12. Shortage is serious (5) items Percentage responding A M 0 SA N) (n) T5) Me are entering a period of scarcity and shortage of most natural resources *17.9 48.0 18.5 13.9 1.7 475 (A) if we continue our high levels of resource use, future generations will not be able to have a high level of living like ours *19.0 53.9 14.3 10.4 2.3 469 (l) The potential for a resource shortage is more serious than people think *19.0 51.9 17.1 10.5 1.5 468 giliabilityI .75 items are reverse-scored (P) I designed by Padmanabhan (1981) (A) I adapted from Padaanebhan (1981) (I) I designed by the researcher WM Items in this scale reflect the belief that consumers must conserve natural resources. All items were designed by Padmanabhan (1981). The frequencies for the items are given in Table 13. Table 13. Consumers must conserve (6) items I Percentage responding SA A M D s) (n) Me must enjoy life with the natural resources we now have and let the future take care of itself 1.7 5.9 9.3 55.8 27.2 471 Me should turn to conserving natural resources only if it does not change our life style .4 3.6 11.3 66.0 18.6 467 Fear of natural resource shortages today should not discourage us from using natural resources and enjoying life today 2.4 36.6 16.5 36.6 7.9 467 Reliability- .78 57 new This scale reflects whether people think that individuals can help alleviate a resource shortage. All items in this scale were adapted by the researcher from Padmanabhan (1981). Table 14 gives the frequencies for the items. Table 14. Individuals can help (7) items Percentage responding SA A M 0 SD (n) individuals can do much to alleviite the natural resource shortage *21.6 67.7 8.3 2.1 .2 468 individuals should make every effort to conserve natural resources *33.7 61.8 3.6 .9 .0 466 if individaals tried to conserve natural resources, it would really make a difference *25.5 66.6 7.1 .6 .2 467 geliabilityI 4:70; items are reverse-scored Beliefs and attitudes--Intermediate level These scales are part of the intermediate level of beliefs and attitudes. WW Items in this scale concern over the conservation of Virginia‘s forest resources is measured. All items were designed by the researcher. The frequencies for the items are given in Table 15. 58 Table 15. Concern over conserving Virginia's forest resources (8) its. Percentage responding A M 0 i) SA in) it is more important to harvest from Virginia's forests that it is to worry about conserving forest areas for rare plants and animals. 5.4 11.9 17.3 37.2 28.2 479 The positive benefits of economic growth in forest industries in Virginia far outweigh any negative envirormental consequences. 5.1 13.5 21.6 35.3 24.6 468 Too much controversy occurs about harvesting in Virginia's forests. Mo matter how they are harvested, Virginia's forests will grow back and be able to supply good quality titer. 2.5 8.2 13.7 48.1 27.5 476 with new and better technology, Virginia's forests will always be able to meet the growing need for wood in Virginia. 6.7’ 31.7 24.2 27.5 9.9 476 in Virginia, the selection of a harvesting practice should not be based solely on cost. The impact that the practice will have on wildlife habitat, scenic beauty and future generations should be considered equally important. 33.6 50.3 9.5 4.2 2.3 473 The benefits of conservation laws in Virginia far outweigh any negative impacts they may have on human well-being. 10.0 35.9 33.5 16.9 3.6 468 ReliabilityI is This scale is composed of items which measure the beliefs of NIPF landowners as to whether society or individuals should control natural resources. Frequencies for the items are given in Table 16. 59 Table 16. Society's rights over individual rights re: natural resources (9) it- Percentage responding SA A M D SD (n) (A) The State of Vfiginia mast uTtimately control diet landomers do with their private forest land in the state 2.1 9.5 14.9 33.1 40.4 475 (P) were natural resources are privately ousted, society should have M0 control over that the outer does with them 7.4 17.8 24.8 42.7 7.2 471 (A) More ”hasis should be placed on an individml's economic rights than on society's natural resource rights 6.0 18.0 30.8 36.6 8.6 467 (P) Society not ultimately control that citizens do with the nation's natural resources 9.2 29.3 25.7 25.1 10.7 467 Reliabilitw .7? (P) I designed by Pachanabhan (1981) (A) I adapted from Padaanabhan (1981) beliefs and attitudes-~specific level These scales are located at the specific level of beliefs and attitudes and are all items designed by the researcher. ( --- .. ,. ,_ . ,. ., . d. h. ,; ‘-, , . ;. 7-,. I These items reflect the belief that NIPF landowners do not have the right to do what they want with their forested land. All statements were designed by the researcher. Frequencies for the items are found in Table 17. Table 17. NIPF's can't do what they want (10) its“ Percentage responding SA A M 0 SD ( n) A person the outs forested land in Virginia has the right to do what they want with it to make a profit regardless of any long term coneeqnnces to the land 8.1 13.3 13.7 37.1 28.0 483 Persons #10 out forested land in Virginia have the right to do that they want with it for their enjoyment, regardless of any long term conseqaences to the land 6.8 13.4 15.7 43.6 20.4 470 Reliability-I .8; 60 v or Items in this scale measure NIPF landowners beliefs regarding profits and conservation on their forested land. Frequencies for the items are found in Table 18. Table 18. Conservation versus profits on NIPF land (11) item Percentage responding SA A M 0 SD (n) Making money on my private forest land, now, is more inortant to me than managing it so that it will continue to promos many years into the future 6.6 7.5 3.9 32.2 39.8 482 On my forested operty, i feel i have the rid'nt to use atever harvesting practices i want 30.3 26.6 16.3 17.9 8.9 485 i believe in waging my forested land for future generations only if it does not lessen the profits 1 make 6.9 15.4 19.2 40.7 17.7 479 if i have an outbreak of pests or tree disease in my forest, 1 would not hesitate to use any means to control them 21.8 40.0 23.7 8.5 2.1 485 Del? abi l ityI .67 ,. . .. ., ., . . . . .7.. . . . ‘ - . 9:1:"1ti-1: Variable 12 is composed of items measuring whether NIPF landowners believe they have a moral obligation to protect forest land for future generations. All statements were designed by the researcher. Table 19 lists the frequencies for the items. Table 19. Moral obligation to protect forest land for future (12) items Percentage responding A M 0 SA (fl) i have a moral obligation to maintain my forested land so that future generations canuse it 43.7 36.5 8.3 3.2 1.9 497 i am willing to accept less profit from my forested land if the method of harvesting will be more environmentally-em 28.7 46.4 16.0 5.3 3.5 487 i own forested land so that i can protect it for future generations 25.8 40.0 23.7 8.5 2.1 485 ReliabilityI .69 61 Other causal variables While some of the "other causal variables" reflect beliefs and attitudes, they tend to relate more to specific aspects of forestry--why forested land is owned, reasons for not harvesting and reasons for not seeking forestry assistance. MW Respondents were provided twelve statements and asked to indicate how important each of these were to them as reasons for ownership. Scores were recoded so that a response of “very important" carried the most weight and "not important" the least. A factor analysis was performed on the 12 items to reduce the number of variables by determining the commonality of meanings among the items. Three factors emerged. For the first, ”conserve”, reasons for ownership were related to nature and the outdoors--for scenic beauty, preserving nature, viewing wildlife outdoor recreation but not to lease the land for hunting. The second, ”amenity", was related more to the usefulness of the property--as a homesite, to provide firewood, to act as a buffer from adjacent properties and for conservation easements. The third factor, 'econland', reflected economic issues of forest land ownership-- to use the land to produce commercial timber or as a real estate investment. Negative items in the factors were recoded only to determine Cronbach's alpha. Respondents who responded to at least one of the items per factor were included in the analysis. Those who did not respond to any of the items in a factor were considered missing and excluded from the analysis. An additional single item, where land was owned for hunting, will be used as a separate item. The factors and their reliabilities are reported in Table 20. 62 Table 20. Reasons for ownership (13) Factor Very Somewhat Mot important important important (nI503) CT 1--C Me ntain ng scan c beauty 52.3 25.6 22.1 Preserving nature 52.3 23.5 24.3 Mon-wildlife recreation (hiking, camping) 23.1 22.9 54.0 Viewing wildlife 39.2 28.0 32.8 Lease land for hunting 3.8 7.5 65.0 Afliibility I .71 T -- i First or sec omssite 25.8 23.5 50.7 Producing firewood for personal use 23.1 30.2 46.7 Suffer from adjacent property 23.5 20.1 56.4 Conservation easement 16.1 22.9 61.0 ReliabilityI .64 Real estate investment 47.7 31.2 21 1 Producing commercially saleable wood 38.2 29.0 32 8 ReliabilityI .48 UEEdEife for Eunting 31.9 26.0 42.7 Virginia NIPF landowners were given ninety-eight (98) statements regarding forestry and forest management practices in Virginia. References used to design the knowledge statements included Nicol (1982), Kingsley and Birch (1980), Nelson (1987) and the Virginia Department of Forestry. Similar to the approach adopted by Nelson (1987), scientific terminology was kept to a minimum. In place of jargon, similar words were substituted to retain the concept of the question and to facilitate its understanding. For example, instead of regeneration the word "regrowth” was used, "tolerate only a small amount of shade“ replaced intolerant, and "drier areas" was used to describe a xeric site. Five trees species found in Virginia were used as dimensions of the knowledge statements: tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), white pine (Pinus strobus) and oak (Quercus sp.). Oak in 63 general was used rather than specific species of oak. Again, this followed the technique adopted by Nelson (1987). Since the same species of oak are not found in all counties in Virginia, statements referring to oak were given at the general level and were not related to a particular species of oak. In terms of the other four species of trees, not all are found in each county included in the sample. For example, there is no sweet gum in the Mountain counties of Warren and Highland. White pine is not found in the Coastal Plain and loblolly is only found in the Coastal Plain and one of the Piedmont counties, Prince Edward. In order to maintain economy in printing the questionnaire, all species were used for the knowledge statements. However, for developing knowledge scores for each level, this was taken into consideration. Although statements were given about five different species, only those relevant for the county in which the respondent lived were scored. Thus, any responses by Virginia NIPF landowners for statements relating to species not found in their particular county were not counted in their scores. This means that in Warren and Highland counties, both in the Mountain area of Virginia, statements pertaining to loblolly and sweet gum were not counted. In Madison county, a county from the Piedmont area of Virginia, only statements pertaining to sweet gum were excluded. In Prince Edward county, a more southern county in the Piedmont area, all statements were relevant. For Gloucester and Greensville counties, counties found in the Coastal Plain, statements relating to white pine were not included. There were five areas of forestry and forest management designed to test three levels of knowledge, simple, intermediate and complex, held by the respondents (Tables 21-25). Knowledge statements were given in a grid-type format with the type of knowledge being tested, tree species or harvesting practices, at the top and the statements along the left. Under each species, respondents were asked to respond either "Yes”, ”No" or "UK (Don't know)“ to the statement at the left of the grid. For statements 64 about pins in general, respondents were given three choices for a response, “true", "false”, and “don't know”. The first area of knowledge is related to general statements about pine. The Virginia Department of Forestry feels that there is a prejudice against growing pine in the Upper Coastal Plain, the Piedmont and the Mountain areas of Virginia, stemming from lack of knowledge about pine regeneration (personal communication, Jim Starr, Chief of Forest Management, Virginia Department of Forestry). Kaiser (1985) found that in the South, many NIPF landowners held the belief that after pine forests are harvested, natural regeneration would suffice to produce the same quality stock of pine which existed prior to harvesting. To test this hypothesized lack of knowledge, part of the knowledge section was devoted to pine in general. These statements tested for simple and intermediate levels of knowledge. Frequencies for these statements can be found in Table 21; correct answers are indicated by an * The second area of knowledge is statements relating to five tree species found in Virginia. These statements test simple, intermediate and complex knowledge. The frequencies for responses to these statements can be found in Table 22; correct answers are indicated by an A. At the simple level, statements related to characteristics of the trees, such as "seeds are called acorns”, or "stays green all year“. The intermediate level statements determined how much the respondent might know about growth characteristics of trees, such as ”often sprouts new, young trees from the stump after cutting“ and "the favorite food of gypsy moths". At the complex level of knowledge more involved statements were given about the characteristics of the five species, such as ”prefers drier sites" or "young trees tolerate a small amount of shade". The third area of knowledge is definitions of harvesting practices. Respondents were asked to define, by multiple choice, 65 statements as they related to four specific harvesting practices--clear cutting, diameter cutting, selective cutting and seed tree. This tests intermediate levels of knowledge. The frequencies for responses to these statement can be found in Table 23; correct answers are indicated by an A. The fourth area of knowledge is statements which ask about the effects of the four harvesting practices, clear cutting, selective cutting, seed tree and diameter cutting, on forests in general (intermediate level), and the effect of these practices on specific species (complex level). Again, respondents could answer ”Yes", "No", or "DR" to indicate whether they thought the statements were relevant to the particular harvesting practice. At the intermediate level, statements such as "often allows a lot of sunlight to reach the forest floor” or "often results in trees in an area being different ages and sizes", were given. At the complex level, statements such as ”promotes the best yellow poplar reproduction“ and "promotes the best white pine reforestation" were given to test NIPF landowner knowledge of the effect of harvesting practices on regeneration. Frequencies for these responses can be found in Table 24. Correct answers are indicated by an A The fifth area of knowledge is statements related to the effects of the four harvesting practices on wildlife and scenic beauty. This tested the complex level of knowledge with statements such as, "often improves an area for game wildlife" and ”can improve the scenery in one year”. Table 25 lists the frequencies for the responses; correct answers are indicated by an ‘. 66 Table 21. Knowledge statements about pine. Statuent Percentage responding True False Don' t In» an iflBHLLflEL To ensure a (polity stand of pine, it is necessary to do some site preparation, such as burning and applying herbicides, prior to replanting the pine 53.3‘ 14.3 31.9 476 Thiming loblolly pine stands result in better (pelity, more well-developed trees 76.6A 1.5 21.9 474 Thimed loblolly pine can be sold as pulpwood 72.5‘ 1.7 25.8 476 MM Most of the time after a pine stand is cut, it will naturally grow back to the same quality stand that existed before cutting 10.4 59.1“ 30.5 472 All types of youig pines will grow from sturps of pine wiich have been cut 1.3 81.1‘ 17.6 477 After pines are harvested, hardwoods can begin growing in the light and space that result 66.1‘ 7.4 26.5 472 " indicates the correct response 67 Hoops -. monoonn< noctpeonm. ow Ho4m Pmcmr 0: awo- o. on .000" ¢.n .000» 0.0:" "anon 00~ onao can .00" .0 o oca-a.. "noon o33 0.000 0..000 0 .00 0. 0:0..00. no 00000 . .00 .0000. 0.000 . 00..» ..0 .0.0 0~. 00.0 ~0.0» 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0» ~0.0 00. 00.0» 0.~ ~0.0 000 00.00 0..000 00.0 :00: 0:0..00. no 00000 .00 .0000. ..000 ~.~ 0~.0» .0.0 0~0 00.~» .0.~ ~0.0 000 00.0» 0.. ~..0 000 .0.. 00.0» 00.~ 0.0 00.00 0000.00 .0 0.. .0000 .0 00 0000 00.00 0 0.0..00 000 000 0.00 0..0» .0.0 .0.0 000 00.0 00.0» ~0.0 00~ ~0.0 0..00 ~0.0 000 00..» 00.0 00.0 000 00000 0000.00 .0 .0000 .0 00 0000 00.00 0.0.0000» 0000 000 0.000 0.~ 00.0» .0.0 000 00.0» .0.. ~0.0 000 00.0» 0.0 .0.0 000 0... 00..» 00.0 00. Snug 00000.00 .00 0000 «mrroc 0000>0 a00000:0~.00 .0.0» .0.0 00.0 000 .0.0 .0.~» 00.0 00~ ~0.0 .0.0» 0~.0 000 .0.0» .~.0 00.0 00. 00030000 000 .000» 080005 0.20 a0.0w00.0».00 00.0» 0.0 00.0 000 0.. 00.0» 00.0 0~0 ~0.0 00.0» 00.0 000 0~.0» .0.0 00.0 000 00000000 .00 000» :=.0m 0.2m a0.0a00.0..00 00.0» 0.. 00.0 000 0.0 00.0» 00.0 0N0 .0.0 ~0.0» 00.~ 000 0..0» .0.0 00.~ 000 3833 0.. 03an 233.0: .0..» 0»... “Po 0: 00.~ z... 0.0 u: 00.~ oh» 3.... 0% .0... ~0.0, 00.0 000 » .00.00n00 .00 000000. 00000000 70 80000 00. 0000080000 00000000 00 000<000000 600000000 00 thwawvmo 000 000000 000000. 0.0.0000: 2g 0.0.8.00 00.200 400 ..0 ex .0. 000000.000 000002....00 00.00.73 0:...00 <00 ..0 on .00 0000 .000 <00 :0 ox .0. 00.00 .000930 00 0000 000 0000 5.0.30 .0000. .0003. 0:0... 0000... 0.0.0 2.00 0500.30 00 0000 .00 000.030 5.0.20 000.. 00 00000.30 000 .3093 .00 000002 .0 000 «000 000 .3093 .00 000003 0.20 .0 00 0000 3000 0 0000 .000 000 000000. 00000000 .0 0000.0.0 » 30.2.00 .00 000000. 00000000 0.000 0:...00 <00 ..0 ex .0. 00.~» 00.0 .0.0 000 ~0.0» 0~.0» 00.0 000 ..0 .0.0. .0.. 00. a...» ~0.0 ~0.0 00. .0.0 00.0. .0.0 0N...» .0.0 ..0.» 00.0 ~0.0» 00.0 0..0» .0.0 0... §§§E 00.0» 0.0» ~0.0 .0... .0.0. a... 0~.0 .0.0. ~..o on... 0.0 ~0.0 000 0.0 00.00 ~0.0 00.0 00.0. ~0.0. 00.. .0.0 a...» u... 0~.o. .0.. 0... 00V 000 03 00. 71 To measure the scale “knowledge about forestry and forest management” in the hypothesized model, it was necessary to create a score for the responses given about knowledge of forestry and forest management. .As indicated earlier, statements were offered in the questionnaire about five different species of trees, to which the respondent was asked to indicate ”yes", "no", or "don't know". To account for statements being answered by a respondent from a county which does not have all five species of trees, any answers relating to ineligible species were excluded from the overall knowledge score computation for the respondent in that county. This proved a reliable measure (Cronbach's alpha - .94). In all counties, unless the response was determined to be ineligible for the county due to the tree species, responses which were left blank or marked as ”don't know" could not receive any credit for correct responses but were included in the denominator as possible points. Blanks were assumed to be indications that the respondent did not know the correct answer. However, respondents who skipped all the questions were not included in the analysis. Three different levels of knowledge were identified--simple, intermediate and complex. Then, an overall knowledge score was computed by dividing the number of correct answers by number of total possible points, where responses to simple statements could earn 1 point, responses to intermediate statements could earn 2 points and responses to complex statements could earn 3 points. The knowledge score will be used as an interval variable in the model. However, Table 26 provides an idea of the mean scores for the different levels of knowledge, simple, intermediate and complex, held by the respondents. The mean score for overall knowledge is also listed. 72 Table 26. Mean knowledge scores by level of complexity. Knowledge levels Mean score Sfiufle 13 Moderate .62 alpha .36 Overall .58 WWW Questions relating to different aspects of forest management were drawn partially from the literature (Kingsley and Finley, 1975; Birch and Powell, 1978; Birch, 1979; and Carpenter et al., 1982). Others were designed in consultation with members of the professional forestry staff at the Virginia Department of Forestry. One question had to do with respondent's participation in forest land-use programs. Since the same questionnaire was used for all counties, forest land-use was defined so that only those whose counties had the program would respond. Respondents were also asked if they seek professional forestry assistance; if not, their reasons for not seeking professional forestry assistance; and their reasons for not harvesting. The questions were designed to gather information about issues facing NIPF landowners and how these issues may affect their decisions to harvest. Frequencies for the various aspects of forest management are presented in Tables 27 through 31. d- r This item indicates whether respondents who live in counties with forest land-use programs participate in these programs. Only three of the six counties surveyed had forest land-use programs. This program enables NIPF landowners who have a minimum of 20 forested acres, and a forest management plan prepared by a professional forester, to apply for a land tax credit in counties who have the program. Table 27 list the 73 frequencies for those in the forest land-use counties who do and do not participate in these programs. Table 27. Participation in forest land-use programs (15) ltee Percentage responding N» No (m-afi) Participate in forest land-use 57.8 42.2 WW Seeks professional forestry assistance is a dichotomous variable which asks if the respondent sought assistance from persons with professional forestry training. Frequencies for the variables are reported in Table 28. Table 28. Sought professional forestry assistance (16) Item Percentage responding Yes No (n: 490) Have sought professional forestry assistance 54.1 55.9 08880 O 8 In the questionnaire, respondents could choose from nine reasons as to why they did not seek professional forestry assistance. Given that nine items would complicate the measurement model, a factor analysis was done on the items to see if there were communalities among items so that the number of variables in the model could be reduced. Three factors were identified--l) "not aware of forestry assistance"; 2) “no interest in seeking forestry assistance"; and, 3) ”I had no time to seek assistance or already received assistance". The third factor was dropped due to poor response rate (less than 10%). Frequencies for the factors are listed in Table 29. 74 Table 29. Reasons for not seeking professional forestry assistance (we Factors with items Percentage responding (n) -- w it I never t t about gett ng orestry advice or assistance 26.2 139 i didn't know forestry advice or assistance was available 11.1 59 1 didn't think 1 could afford the service 6.5 26 l dich't know how to contact anyone for forestry advice or assistance 7.3 39 llaliability- .33 MW 1 am not interested in any forestry advice 7.9 42 i have enough knowledge about forestry management 5.1 27 Reliability- .33 WW1 Respondents were given 21 statements representing feelings about harvesting, which included reasons for not harvesting. A factor analysis was performed on the 21 items to determine if there were communalities among the items so that the number of variables in the model could be reduced. Five factors emerged: harvesting has adverse effects on nature; my timber resources are too inadequate to harvest; I distrust loggers and foresters; I will harvest when I need the money; and, I am opposed to timber harvesting. Each of the factors will be used as individual scales in the measurement model and take the place of ”reasons for not harvesting” in the hypothesized model. An additional single item--I don't know whom to contact about harvesting” will be used as a separate item. The frequencies are listed in Table 30. '75 Table 30. Reasons for not harvesting (18) Factors with items Percentage responding Yes Io (n) L .- [A§1¥3 1 flgggggtigg up; ggzggse gtfgggg pg ggturg 1 th nk harvesting would adversely affect hunting on my land 35.8 66.2 626 1 think scenic beauty is adversely affected by harvesting 69.0 31.0 651 1 think harvesting destroys wildlife habitat 66.5 53.5 669 1 think harvesting timber interferes with the forest's natural growth process 22.5 77.5 660 «Ti-mm- .fi WW 1 don't think 1 have enough land to harvest trees 22.7 77.3 631 1 don't think there is a market for the timber 18.6 81.6 626 1 think my timber is of too poor quality to harvest 16.2 85.8 631 1 think the titer on my land is too low a volune per acre to harvest 25.5 76.5 628 1 think the land is too steep to harvest 9.0 91.0 663 The land had been harvested when I acquired it 65.3 56.7 637 Reliability- .56 W 1 distrust loggers 65.6 56.6 639 1 distrust foresters 11.2 88.8 628 Reliability- .63 WW 1 am sav ng t e trees to arvest or ncome n my retirement 27.0 73.0 636 1 am holding the trees in case of an emergency and 1 need the money 30.7 69.3 637 Reliability. .68 E55193 §--] :3 gpggggg fig sighs: hgcygggigg 1 as opposed to t aber arvesting 11.8 89.9 635 1 only cut firewood for personal use and don't consider that harvesting 66.9 56.9 652 Reliability- .63 MW 1 don't know whom to contact about harvesting 30.0 70.0 630 76 Outcome variable W The outcome variable for the hypothesized model (Figure 2) is whether NIP? landowners have harvested. The frequencies for this item are listed in Table 31. Table 31. Percent of respondents who have harvested 1t- Percent responding ([1369? Yes No have harvested 55.6 66.2 ruct the n ode The final model was the result of several iterations: l) the construction of scales from the original 73 items identified for the hypothesized model; 2) the combining of scales into constructs; and, 3) the combining of constructs into ”super constructs”. The combining of items into scales, scales into constructs and constructs into "super- constructs“ was based on similarity. By similarity it is meant that items or constructs are comparable and are paralleli. After the initial 73 variables were identified, they were placed into the scales proposed in the hierarchical model, resulting in 40 constructs. These 60 constructs were correlated on PACKAGE and a matrix of their correlations was produced (Table 32). Using the correlation matrix, constructs were developed by combining similar scales. Then, the final iteration involved combining any similar constructs into “super-constructs”. The resulting path model has variables from the different levels of the iterations--items, scales, constructs and super- constructs e 3Parallelism is the extent to which items have identical patterns of correlation with other variables. Thus, when items are combined according to ‘their content and their patterns or correlations, little information is lost by merging. 77 Above 0». OOHanenHoam 00.... 0o ..ntm\unsHmm Uses.» 0: :Nvonrmmwnmn some... .0. .ON .8 .00 .00 .00 .oN .00 .3 ..o ... ..N ..w see .0. .8 .NN -w. 0. -w ... -.N w .0 o -0 -N -.0 09833: .ON .NN .8 0e ..N 00 Ne wN .N N .0 N .N we .388 .8 -w. 0e .8 -N0 we w0 ww .N 0 .0 .w .N we 32.60 .00 0. -.N -N0 .8 .. -0 -0 .w -0 0 .0 -0 -.o one—.0820: .00 -w 00 we -. .8 NN .e .0 .0 0 -0 o N. :5 :or .00 -.. Ne w0 -0 NN .8 0w 0 0 -. 0 o .0 0.6.. 5 .3 -.N wN ww .0 .e 0w .8 .. 0 .e 0 -. N0 :5 .3 e 353 ...": 3.6: 3.8—-50 Edens! .00 w .N .N -w .0 0 .. .8 -N 0 -N -N 0 :3 .3 Issue... 133... .8 -0 N 0 -0 .0 o 0 .N .8 -0w .w N w 2.3 .3 none»... .603: ..o o .0 -0 0 0 -. .e 0 .0w .8 . 0 .w none. 323an ensue ... -0 N .w -0 .0 0 0 .N -w . .8 .. .0 ..er 02.323.833.132: 98:323.. ..N -N .N .N -0 a o -. -N N 0 .. .8 00 ..0... annw 11, 10 --> 12). Those who believe that humans are exceeding Barth's carrying capacity, and there is potential for a shortage (10) appear to be divided on what can be done. One group tends to think about it in more general terms (that resources are finite and conservation is necessary) (11). The other appears to take more responsibility by addressing how they, as individuals, can impact the resource shortage (12). Assuming they have accepted that the carrying capacity of the Earth is being exceeded (10), the group that now thinks in broad terms about what can be done, will be more likely to believe that resources are finite and conservation is necessary (10 --> 11). Level of education and income (2) function as a causal alternative variable and can influence whether the intermediate belief (11) is accepted. Those with a high level of education and income will be more likely to believe that resources are finite and conservation is necessary (2 --> 11). If NIPF landowners accept that resources are finite and conservation is necessary (11), they will then be able to move to the most specific level in the hierarchy which expresses their attitude about harvesting when money is needed (22). Those who accept that resources are finite and conservation is necessary will be less likely to harvest when they need the money (11 --> 22). This is a relationship of logical implication, as it is not necessary to believe in resource conservation to decide to harvest when money is needed. Level of education and income (2) acts as a causal alternative variable and can also influence whether NIPF landowners will harvest when they need money (22). Those with a higher level of education and income will be less likely to harvest when money is needed (2 --> 11). For those with a lower level of education and income, their forested 94 resources may be “money in the bank“ and they see it as a source of funds should they need it. Whether NIPF landowners believe that resources are finite and conservation is necessary (11) also influences whether they have an interest in seeking forestry assistance (11 -—> 17). Those who do believe in resources being finite are less likely to have an interest in seeking forestry assistance. This is a relationship of logical implication as it is not necessary to believe in resources being finite in order to have a lack of interest in seeking forestry assistance. Occupation (3) and living in a mountain region (7) both act as causal alternative variables and influence whether NIPF landowners have an interest in seeking forestry assistance (17). NIPF landowners with more professional positions are more likely to have an interest in seeking forestry assistance (3 --> 17). Those who live in mountain areas are less likely to seek assistance (7 --> 17). Having an interest in seeking forestry assistance (17) is part of the hierarchical chain which influences whether NIPF landowners are opposed to harvesting (23). Those who do not have an interest are more likely to be opposed to harvesting (17 --> 23). This is a relationship of logical implication. Returning back to the most general belief, the second group who accepts that Barth's carrying capacity is being exceeded (10), and thinks about what can be done in more specific terms, will be more likely to believe that they, as individuals, can alleviate the resource shortage (10 --> 12). This is a relationship of logical necessity as one would not consider what they could do in terms of conservation if they did not believe there was potential for a resource shortage. If individuals do accept that there is potential for resource shortage, they will be more likely to believe they can help alleviate it (10 --> 12). One way they might believe they can alleviate the resource shortage is by having an opposition to harvesting (23). NIPF landowners 95 who believe individuals can alleviate the resource shortage are more likely to be apposed to harvesting (12 --> 23). This is a relationship of logical implication as it is not necessary to accept that individuals can alleviate the shortage before being opposed to harvesting. Whether NIPF landowners own their land for aesthetic reasons (14) is also influenced by their belief that they can conserve and alleviate the shortage (12). Those who believe they can alleviate the shortage are more likely to own their land for aesthetic reasons (12 -—> 14). This is a relationship of logical implication as one can own land for aesthetic reasons without believing that they can conserve. Age (1) acts as a causal alternative variable and influences whether respondents own their land for aesthetic reasons (14). Older persons are less likely to own their land for aesthetic reasons (1 --> 14). The second belief hierarchy relates more to the cause of, and a reaction to, exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity than to what might be done. It also begins with the general level belief that by "exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity, the potential for shortage is serious“ (10). In terms of belief hierarchies, those who believe that humans are exceeding Barth's carrying capacity (10) are more likely to believe that harvesting adversely affects nature (10 --> 19). Whether harvesting adversely affects nature (19) also influences whether NIPF landowners are opposed to harvesting (23). There are two paths from whether harvesting adversely affects nature to opposition to harvesting. With one group, there is direct relationship between the belief that harvesting adversely affects nature and an opposition to harvesting (19 --> 23). Those who believe harvesting adversely affects nature are more likely to be opposed to harvesting. With the second group, a distrust of loggers and foresters (21) acts as an intervening variable between their belief about the adverse effects of harvesting on nature (19) and their opposition to harvesting (23). Those who believe that harvesting adversely affects nature are more likely to distrust loggers 96 and foresters (19 --> 21). Those who distrust loggers and foresters are more likely to be opposed to harvesting (21 --> 23). All these relationships among beliefs and attitudes are logical implication (10 --> 19; 19 --> 23; 19 --> 21 and 21 --> 23). An opposition to harvesting (23) influences why NIPF landowners own their forested land. Those who are opposed to harvesting are more likely to own their land for aesthetic reasons (23 --> 14), while those who are not opposed to harvesting are more likely to own their land for economic reasons (23 --> 15). These are both relationships of logical implication. Another component of the model relates more to the influence of socio-demographic variables on other variables and to the influence of information variables on attitudes and beliefs. It begins with the influence of age and where one grew up on level of education and income. Older persons are less likely to have a higher level of education and income (1 --> 2). Where one grew up (5) also affects level of education and income (2). The more urban the area where one grew up, the higher the level of education and income one has (5 --> 2). Occupation (3) is influenced by level of education and income (2). The higher the level of education and income one has, the more likely they are to hold a professional position (2 --> 3). Where one lives now (4) is influenced by where they grew up (5) and their level of education and income (2). Those who grew up in urban areas are more likely to now live in urban areas (5 --> 4). Those with a higher level of education and income are more likely to live in urban areas (2 --> 4). Whether one owns their land for hunting (16) is influenced by socio-demographics (occupation (3) and level of education and income (2)); whether they live in a county with a forest land-use program (6); and information, whether they read publications and/or join organizations related to natural resources (9). Those who have more 97 professional positions are less likely to own their land for hunting (3 --> 16). The higher the level of education and income, the less likely the NIPF landowner is to own his/her land for hunting (2 --> 16). Those who live in forest land-use counties are less likely to use their land for hunting (6 --> 16). NIPF landowners who read publications and/or join organizations related to natural resources are more likely to own their land for hunting (9 --> 16). Whether NIPF landowners read publications and/or join organizations related to natural resources (9) is influenced by their level of education and income (2). The higher the level of education and income, the more likely s/he is to read publications and/or join organizations related to natural resources (2 --> 9). Other information variables-~whether one reads publications and/or joins organizations related to natural resources (13); socio- demographics--where one lives now (4); and, belief and attitude variables--whether one believes Earth's carrying capacity is being exceeded (10) or whether one has an interest in seeking forestry assistance (17), influences whether they are more likely to have information about forestry (13). Those who read publications and/or join organizations related to natural resources are more likely to have information (9 --> 13). Those who live in more urban areas are less likely to have information about forestry (4--> 13). Those who believe that humans are exceeding Barth's carrying capacity are less likely to have information about forestry (10 --> 13). And, NIPF landowners with an interest in seeking forestry assistance are more likely to have information about forestry (17 -->13). Information variables influence beliefs and attitudes. Having information about forestry (13) directly influences whether HIPF landowners believe their timber resources are inadequate for harvesting (20). Those who have information about forestry are less likely to believe they have inadequate timber resources (13 -—> 20). However, 98 whether one knows who to contact about harvesting (18) functions as an intervening variable in the indirect relationship between the amount of information one has about forestry and forestry related services (13) and their belief in the adequacy of their timber resources (20). Those who have more information about forestry are more likely to know who to contact about harvesting (13 --> 18). Those who know whom to contact about harvesting are less likely to believe their timber resources are inadequate (18 --> 20). Whether one believes their timber resources to be inadequate (20) influences their opposition to harvesting (23). Those who believe their timber resources are adequate, are less likely to be opposed to harvesting (20 --> 23). The relationship between the belief that one's timber resources are inadequate and their attitude opposing harvesting is one of logical implication. An opposition to harvesting is influenced by several variables not yet mentioned. Whether one read publications and/or joins organizations related to natural resources (19) influences whether one is opposed to harvesting (23). Those who read these type of publications and/or join like organizations are more likely to be opposed to harvesting (9 --> 13). Those who live in a Coastal region are also more likely to be opposed to harvesting (8 --> 23). All three types of variables, belief and attitude (opposition to harvesting (23)), socio-demographic (level of education and income (2)), and information (whether one has information about forestry (13)), influence whether NIPF landowners have harvested (24). NIPF landowners who are opposed to harvesting are less likely to have harvested (23 --> 24). Landowners with a higher level of education and income are less likely to have harvested (2 --> 24). Those landowners who have more information about forestry are more likely to harvest (13 --> 24). 99 Ina—PAW Once the causal model was developed and causal relationships among variables determined, a path analysis was performed with PATHPAC (Hunter and Hunter, 1979) based on the assumptions made in constructing the causal model. Although several strong correlations were observed between variables in the correlation matrix (Table 35) use to construct the causal model, correlations do not specify the direction of causality within the path model. A path analysis is necessary to analyze the direction of causality and to distinguish between direct and indirect effects. PATHPAC uses the path coefficients to generate a predicted correlation matrix which is subtracted from the observed correlation matrix to provide a residual, or error, matrix to predict the goodness of fit for the proposed model. The path model (Figure 5) displays the results of the path analysis. The data seemed to fit the model well. If the null hypothesis says that the data fits the model, and the alternate hypothesis is that the data departs from the model, then a probability of >.05 leads to support of the null hypothesis. The probability for the model is - .429 (df c216), which is greater than .05. This supports the null hypothesis that the data fits the model. The overall chi square was used to derive a standard z—score using the following formula: chi square - df \] 2(df) (chi square minus the degrees of freedom, divided by the square root of 2 times the degrees of freedom I z). The p-value was then extracted from the normal probability distribution of z. The statistics required to assess goodness of fit for the model are presented in Tables 36-39. Table 36 contains the original correlations between the scales as corrected for attenuation. Table 37 100 contains the path coefficients. Table 38 contains the predicted correlations and Table 39 contains the errors in fit for the model. Any paths of < .10 were considered too weak and dropped from the model. The causal model fits the assumptions made for its construction. Beliefs and attitudes were found to be hierarchically-arranged and to flow from most general to most specific. Socio-demographic and information variables influenced beliefs and attitudes, as well as each other. Results also supported the premise that beliefs and attitudes which are specific and relevant to the behavior under consideration are better predictors than more general, abstract concepts. One area in which the assumptions for the hypothetical model deviated in the path model related to relationships of logical necessity between the beliefs and attitudes. The predicted relationships for logical necessity held only in ggmg cases. These findings are supported by the content of the variables, their correlations and the direction of causality indicated by the path model, and are discussed later in this section. As expected, if the correlation of the most general belief (humans are exceeding Barth's carrying capacity of the resources base, variable (10) is considered having a direct influence on the final outcome variable--the decision to harvest (variable 24), this belief does not prove to be a good predictor of the behaviors. Using the original correlations for the model (Table 36) one can observe that the correlation between variable 10, the most general belief, and variable 24, the outcome variable, is -.13. However, when beliefs are considered as a series of hierarchical concepts, from most general to more specific, the influence of the general abstract beliefs is observed as indirect, explaining the low correlations. As hypothesized, the correlations between the more specific beliefs and behaviors are the best predictors. (The correlation between variable 23 "opposition to harvesting” and variable 24 "have harvested" is -.34). These findings mxoeoawso menns.e nannawso nemeownw. monosnwsw eronnoo .po. P am no .u. ...\ macnsnpoo 0 #30090 one: cu .m. /.8 59 means some. usese onoesps neweneo no soncnsw noeocnnoe .o. owes we no u. paseIcee vvhee so: .e. no. .0. Ooncvanhos .u. once we ans. nachos .8. 20 honeneen Ms N. woeocnnee ens neahneu noseeneenwo: we seneeeDnN .ww. — .uo .uu zsn 11 - .65) Level of education and income function as a causal alternative variable and can influence whether the belief that resources are finite and conservation is I necessary is accepted. Those with a higher level of education and income will be more likely to believe that resources are finite and conservation is necessary (2 --> 11 s .39). Those who accept that resources are finite and conservation is necessary will be less likely to harvest when they need the money (11 --> 22) I --39. Level of education and income act as a causal alternative variable and can also influence whether NIPF landowners will harvest when they need money. Those with a higher level of education and income will be less likely to harvest when money is needed (2 --> 22 a -.33). For those with a lower level of education and income, their forested resources may be "money in the bank" and they see it as a source of funds should they need it. Occupation (3) and living in a mountain region (7) both act as causal alternative variables and influence whether NIPF landowners have an interest in seeking forestry assistance (17). NIPF landowners with less professional positions are more likely to lack interest in seeking forestry assistance (3 --> 17 I -.32). Those who live in mountain areas are more likely to lack interest in seeking assistance (7 --> 17 a .21). 107 Having an interest in seeking forestry assistance (17) is part of the hierarchical chain which influences whether NIPF landowners are opposed to harvesting (23). Those who have no interest in seeking assistance are more likely to be opposed to harvesting (17 --> 23 - .22). Returning back to the most general belief, another group who _accepts that Barth's carrying capacity is being exceeded, will be more likely to believe that they, as individuals, can alleviate the resource shortage (10 -—> 12 - .73). One way they might believe they can alleviate the resource shortage is by having an opposition to harvesting (23). NIPF landowners who believe individuals can alleviate the resource shortage are more likely to be opposed to harvesting (12 --> 23 - .24). Whether NIPF landowners own their land for aesthetic reasons (14) is also influenced by their belief that they can conserve and alleviate the shortage (12). Those who believe they can alleviate the shortage are more likely to own their land for aesthetic reasons (12 --> 14 - .48). Age (1) acts as a causal alternative variable and influences whether respondents own their land for aesthetic reasons (14). Older persons are less likely to own their land for aesthetic reasons (1 --> 14 - -.30). As discussed previously, the second belief hierarchy relates more to the cause of, and a reaction to, exceeding Earth's carrying capacity of the resource base than to what might be done. It also begins with the general level belief that by "exceeding Earth's carrying capacity, the potential for shortage is serious" (10). Those who believe that humans are exceeding Earth's carrying capacity are more likely to believe that harvesting adversely affects nature (10 --> 19 s .21). Whether harvesting adversely affects nature (19) also influences whether NIPF landowners are opposed to harvesting (23). There are two paths from whether harvesting adversely affects nature to opposition to 108 harvesting. With one group, there is direct relationship between the belief that harvesting adversely affects nature and an opposition to harvesting (19 --> 23). Those who believe harvesting adversely affects nature are more likely to be Opposed to harvesting (19 --> 23 - .50). With the second group, a distrust of loggers (and foresters) (21) acts as an intervening variable between their belief about the adverse effects of harvesting on nature (19) and their opposition to harvesting (23). Those who believe that harvesting adversely affects nature are more likely to distrust loggers and foresters (19 --> 21 a .42). Those who distrust loggers and foresters are more likely to be opposed to harvesting (21 --> 23 - .18). An opposition to harvesting (23) influences why NIPF landowners own their forested land. Those who are opposed to harvesting are more likely to own their land for aesthetic reasons (23 --> 14 - .32), while those who are not opposed to harvesting are more likely to own their land for economic reasons (23 --> 15 - -.68). Socio-deeographics, information and beliefs Another component of the model relates more to the influence of socio-demographic variables on other socio-demographic variables, and to the influence of information variables on attitudes and beliefs. It begins with the influence of age and where one grew up on level of education and income. Older persons are less likely to have a higher level of education and income (1 --> 2 - -.28). The more urban the area where one grew up, the higher the level of education and income one has (5 --> 2 - .37). Occupation (3) is influenced by level of education and income (2). The higher the level of education and income one has, the more likely they are to hold a professional position (2 --> 3 I .60). Where one lives now (4) is influenced by where they grew up (5) and their level of education and income (2). Those who grew up in urban areas are more likely to now live in urban areas (5 --> 4 I .31). Those 109 with a higher level of education and income are more likely to live in urban areas (2 --> 4 I .29). Whether one owns their land for hunting (16) is influenced by socio-demographicsI-occupation (3); level of education and income (2); whether they live in a county with a forest land-use program (6); and, informationI-whether they read publications and/or join organizations related to natural resources (9). Those who have more professional positions are less likely to own their land for hunting (3 --> 16 I -.22). The higher the education and income level, the less likely the NIPF landowner is to own his/her land for hunting (2 --> 16 I -.18). Those who live in forest land-use counties are less likely to use their land for hunting (6 --> 16 I -.26). NIPF landowners who read publications and/or join organizations related to natural resources are more likely to own their land for hunting (9 --> 16 I .29). Whether NIPF landowners read publications and/or join organisations related to natural resources is influenced by their level of education and income. The higher the education and income level, the more likely s/he is to read publications and/or join organizations related to natural resources (2 --> 9 I .40). Other information variablesI-whether one reads publications and/or joins organizations related to natural resources (13); socio- demographics--where one lives now (4); and, belief and attitude variables--whether one believes Earth's carrying capacity is being exceeded (10) or whether one has an interest in seeking forestry assistance (17), influences whether they are more likely to have information about forestry (13). Those who read publications and/or joins organizations related to natural resources are more likely to have information (9 --> 13 I .38). Those who live in more urban areas are less likely to have information about forestry (4 —-> 13I -.25). Those who believe that humans are exceeding Earth's carrying capacity are less 110 likely to have information about forestry (10 --> 13 I -.24). And, NIPF landowners who do not have an interest in seeking forestry assistance are less likely to have information about forestry (17 --> 13 I -.30). Information variables influence beliefs and attitudes. Having information about forestry (13) directly influences whether NIP! landowners believe harvesting adversely affects nature (19) and whether their timber resources are inadequate for harvesting (20). Those who have information about forestry are less likely to believe that harvesting adversely affects nature (13 --> 19 I -.30). They are less likely to believe they have inadequate timber resources (13 --> 20 I -.3l). However, whether one knows whom to contact about harvesting (18) functions as an intervening variable in the indirect relationship between the amount of information one has about forestry and forestry related services (13) and their belief in the adequacy of their timber resources (20). Those who do not have information about forestry are more likely not to know whom to contact about harvesting (13 --> 18 I -.29). Those who do not know whom to contact about harvesting are more likely to believe their timber resources are inadequate (18 --> 20 I .20). Whether one believes their timber resources to be inadequate (20) influences their opposition to harvesting (23). Those who believe their timber resources are adequate, are less likely to be opposed to harvesting (20 --> 23 I .23). Whether one read publications and/or joins organizations related to natural resources (19) influences whether one is opposed to harvesting (23). Those who read these type of publications and/or join like organizations are more likely to be opposed to harvesting (9 --> 23 I .27). Those who live in a Coastal region are less likely to be opposed to harvesting (8 --> 23 I -.22). 111 Outcome variable All three types of variables, belief and attitude (opposition to harvesting (23)), socio-demographic (level of education and income (2)), and information (whether one has information about forestry (13)), influence whether NIPF landowners have harvested (23). NIPF landowners who are opposed to harvesting are less likely to have harvested (23 --> 24 I -.23). Landowners with a higher level of education and income are less likely to have harvested (2 --> 24 I -.24). Those landowners who have more information about forestry are more likely to have harvested (13 --> 24 I .30). Logical necessity vs logical implication Originally, it was hypothesized that the relationships between the beliefs and attitudes in the model would be ones of logical necessity. This did not occur. The only relationships of logical necessity which were observed were between a belief that humans are exceeding Earth's carrying capacity of the resources base (10) and two other beliefs: that resources are finite and conservation is necessary (11) and that individual can conserve and alleviate the resource shortage (12). All other relationships between beliefs and attitudes in the hierarchy were ones of logical implication. Determining whether the links in the belief hierarchies are related because of logical necessity, logical implication, or other factors provides a method for observing what dimensions may be missing and need to be measured in order to have a more complete understanding of a particular hierarchy. Further, it provides information about which beliefs may the most difficult to change. Because relationships of logical necessity require acceptance of belief A before belief B can be considered, trying to influence the acceptance/rejection of belief B will also mean working with belief A. This can be illustrated with the relationships of logical necessity in the path model. First, before one can think about conservation, one must first accept that there is a 112 reason to conserve, i.e, humans are exceeding the carrying capacity of the Barth's resource base. Thus, if the goal is to get people to accept the need to conserve, it may be that educational efforts must first focus on why they need to conserve. In relationships of logical implication, this is not so. Regardless of whether belief A is accepted, belief B can be considered. Thus, because Belief A is not logically necessary for Belief B, efforts to change B may focus directly on B. In the path model, the belief "harvesting adversely affects nature" is influenced by whether people believe humans are exceeding the carrying capacity of the Earth's resource base. However, it is not necessary for one to believe the carrying capacity is being exceeded in order to believe harvesting adversely affects nature. Forestry education efforts, for example, could focus directly on "harvesting adversely affects nature“ without having to deal with whether people believe carrying capacity is being exceeded. CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS cial di 8' n i 0 Understanding the social dimensions of human relationships with the environment is critical for natural resource management. As this study of private forest landowners in Virginia illustrates, it is not only the physical and biological dimensions of forest resources which influence Virginia NIP? landowners to make certain forest land management decisions, in particular, the decision to harvest. When social dimensions, e.g., the role of beliefs and attitudes, knowledge levels of forestry and forest management and socio-demographic factors are considered, a more complete picture emerges of the decision process which contributes to harvesting decisions made by NIPF landowners in Virginia. Within the context of social dimensions, this research also illustrates that the study of beliefs and attitudes alone are inadequate to determine what might influence Virginia NIPF landowners to harvest. Other variables such as the level of education and income they have and whether or not they have information about forestry and forest management also have a direct influence on whether NIPF landowners in Virginia decide to harvest. Research focusing on the hierarchical nature of belief systems held by private forest landowners in Virginia, allows us to draw more of a distinction about what leads to their decision to harvest or not harvest. In would be inadequate to merely study general level beliefs to predict who might harvest. For example, Virginia NIPF landowners who hold the general level belief that we are "exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity” are less likely to have information about forestry and forest management. Having this knowledge directly influences who harvests, not the general level belief. Those who hold this general level belief are also more likely to believe that harvesting has an 113 114 adverse effect on nature. But as the path model also illustrates, those who have information about forestry and forest management are less likely to believe harvesting has an adverse effect on nature. From this one scenario alone, it is possible to begin to design forestry education programs which target uninformed beliefs about "harvesting adversely affecting nature“. t Im2li2a2i2aa_2f_fns_rs§sarsh_f2£_f2reatrx Studies on private forest landowners have not focused on the interaction of belief systems and other social dimensions of resource decision-making. Thus, while there is significant literature about . characteristics of private forest landowners, there has been little attempt to understand how their belief systems and socio-demographics interact to affect their forest-land management decisions. Having a broader understanding of Virginia private forest landowners and the factors which influence their forest land-use decision-making has implications for three interrelated areas. Iorest policy Traditionally, forestry programs provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia have focused on commercial production of timber on NIPF lands to support forest industry. Little attention, until recently, has been given to programs which support managing NIPF lands for non—market objectives. Not all NIPF landowners are interested in commercial production of timber. Some are more concerned about maintaining the aesthetic quality of the resource by preserving nature and protecting scenic beauty and wildlife habitat. Aesthetic reasons for forest management need to be considered as having equal importance as those associated with economic production of timber. The Virginia Department of Forestry is currently involved in introducing the Virginia Forest Stewardship Program to NIPF landowners in the state. The program is geared to meeting the aesthetic objectives of these landowners. 115 However, unlike traditional programs which relied solely on Department of Forestry personnel, these new programs require inter-agency cooperation, such as wildlife habitat management advice offered by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. This, in itself, has implications because it will require a shift in institutional infrastructure for agencies which are currently charged with delivering services to NIPF landowners in the Commonwealth. Any programs which are initiated will require adequate infrastructure through which they can be carried out. A pilot project is being developed by the Virginia Department of Forestry which has two purposes. The first is to disseminate information to NIPF landowners about a new program which focuses on non— market reasons for ownership, and the second is to gather data on the number of requests for this type of program. The policy issues this project will raise are both institutional within the Virginia Department of Forestry and at the state level. Will the current infrastructure of the department be able to support the project if the demand is high? If not, will the administration of the Virginia Department of Forestry be willing to make changes to support it, changes which might break with tradition? For example, could all reforestation efforts currently being undertaken by the Department and all prescribed burns be contracted to private consulting foresters? What if the Department of Forestry is not willing to make institutional changes and thus cannot support the demand of NIPF landowners who have aesthetic management objectives? If this is the case, should the Department really consider itself concerned with all the forest resources of the Commonwealth, or just those associated with commercial production of timber? What type of policy changes might be necessary at the level of state government? More positions? A larger operating budget? 116 Forestry education outreach The second area in which this research has implications, is related to the development of more effective and relevant forestry education/assistance programs for NIPF landowners. Much more attention must be paid to reaching the NIPF landowner and increasing their levels of knowledge about forestry and forest management as well information on the availability of professional forestry assistance. As the path model indicates, uninformed beliefs about forestry and forest management are related to lack of information. Information provided by this survey will assist the Virginia Department of Forestry in developing the most effective approaches to working with Virginia NIPF landowners to change their uninformed beliefs and attitudes about forest management and to change behaviors associated with harvesting. Forestry education materials for NIPF landowners can be produced which focus on the non-market objectives of owning forested land, while at the same time discussing the role harvesting can play to maintain the aesthetic quality of the forest. Until very recently, almost all the brochures which are available for NIPF landowners in Virginia focused on practices associated with commercial production of timber, with little attention being paid to dispelling uninformed beliefs. As Richmond and Baumgart (1981) indicate, demonstrating that attitudes and beliefs towards the environment are ordered in some way allows for sequencing of educational material, a technique which could be used for forestry education programs. Forestry curricula The third implication of the research is in regard to the role of colleges and universities with a forestry curricula. Schools of forestry can play an important role in the process of educating NIPF landowners by better preparing their students for interaction with this group. Social components should be included within the curricula geared towards more effective communication and interaction with NIPF 117 landowners. Traditionally, forestry education curriculums, like forestry research, have focused on the biological and physical dimensions of the resource. Yet foresters must also have a understanding of, and sensitivity to, the social dimensions which drive forest-land management decision-making. Given the beliefs and attitudes held by private forest landowners, it will be important for forestry curricula to address the role of social dimensions in forest management. As this research illustrates, the social dimension is pervasive and new approaches must be developed to deal with the issues which are raised. What type of policy changes would be necessary in schools of forestry to prepare their students to deal more with the non-market issues related to forestry than the traditional biological issues? Will they offer courses in sociology, communication and other more social science oriented classes? u t e sear While the results of this study illustrate the potential for using an integrated approach to gaining an understanding of why people behave towards forestry resources the way they do, there is a need for further research in three areas—-forestry, human ecology and attitude theory. Forestry and human ecology It is difficult to separate further research needs in the area of forestry without combining them with human ecology as the research efforts must focus on social dimensions surrounding forest resources. This includes methods to identify NIPF landowners--who they are, where they are, and how to reach them. Without this information, one can only plan general forestry outreach programs, which tend to reach those who, most probably, already have an interest in forestry assistance. By not knowing who or where the NIPF landowners are, it limits the ability of forestry professionals to design educational outreach programs which target specific groups of NIPF landowners who may be most likely to hold 118 a certain set of beliefs. In a marketing strategy prepared for the Virginia Department of Forestry, Hodge (1992) found that there was a direct correlation between beliefs held and the amount of forested acreage owned. Yet, in Virginia, the exact number of NIPF landowners and the size of their forested holdings are unknown. Before forestry education programs can be disseminated to forest landowners to dispel uninformed beliefs, more information must be gathered as to who owns what size parcel. Further research also needs to explore the relationship between information people have about the physical environment, and how this affects their belief systems and their decision-making processes about forest resources. NIPF landowners in Virginia have uninformed beliefs about the effects of harvesting on nature and about the adequacy of their own forested resources, both of which are influenced by the levels of information they have about forestry. In turn, these beliefs lead to an opposition to harvesting. If the NIPF landowner had more information about forestry and the positive effects of harvesting, one wonders if they would still hold the same beliefs. Would they choose different management strategies (as opposed to no management) of their forested land? Research in human ecology and forestry could also focus on the issue of whether harvesting is done ”sustainably". First, however, a definition for ”sustainability” must be determined. In terms of NIPF lands in Virginia, what is sustainable forest land management? Gale and Cordray (1991) came up with eight definitions to answer the question “what should forests sustain”? Several of these definitions, e.g., "community stability“, “human benefit sustainability“, ”self-sufficiency sustainability” and "ecosystem type sustainability", seem relevant for Virginia given the diversity of her forest resources. Therefore, any research on sustainable harvesting in Virginia would first necessitate a clear definition of the word. Copious information about the harvest 119 would also be needed such as the site index, the type of trees, the specific harvesting practices used on the different species harvested, the conditions under which the harvest was done (were best management practices followed) and any other relevant information. Another area for further research is how information, for all natural resources, can be disseminated so that people make informed, as opposed to reactionary choices about natural resources. How much of an infrastructure will it take? Will society be willing to assume the (30.12.? Attitude theorists For attitude theorists, this research illustrates the need for more research on the hierarchical structure of attitudes and beliefs as they relate to natural resource issues. By having more of an understanding how beliefs and attitudes are related either by logical necessity or logical implication, one will have a clearer idea of missing dimensions in attitude hierarchies. Further research also needs to focus on non-belief variables such as information and socio-demographics that may act influence relationships between beliefs in order to identify ways to change uninformed beliefs. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTERS IICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 120 DEPAI‘DGNT 0' MY Dear Virginia Forest landowner: Forests cover over 15.4 million acres in Virginia, 75% of which are privately owned. These forests and their management play a vital role in Virginia. They provide timber, and they are places of great scenic beauty. People enjoy Virginia forests for hunting, fishing, canoeing, hiking and 'getting away from it all". Because so much of Virginia's forests are privately held. the opinions and preferences of Virginia's private forest landowners are very important for the management of forests in the state. I am conducting this study to learn more about Virginia's private forest landowners. This is not a test but a way of measuring what Virginia private forest landowners believe about forests and forest management practices. Your response is voluntary but wry W as the information you provide will help shape future forest management programs in Virginia. In order for the results to truly represent Virginia private forest landowners. it is important that the questionnaire be completed and returned by as many forest landowners as possible. The results of the survey will be used to plan forestry programs for private forest landowners in Virginia. There will be a range of programs to assist you in managing your forest land according to your own needs. These programs might include assistance in managing for gypsy moths. increasing wildlife on your property. or planning a timber harvest. just to name a few. Yournamewasdrawnfromarandomsampleofownersofforested landin PW county. For this survey. 'forestad land' means anylandtlrstls {nested alt-ow orsaub. If you do not own more than 20 acres of land that is forested. cut-over or scrub in ' ERIEQE EDWARD County, plea. check this box E] and return this letter in the envelope provided; you may discard the questionnaire. In the following pages, you will find questions about forest resources owned by Virginians. Most of the questions give you answers from which to choose; if none of the choices represents your opinion, please write your answer in the blank labeled 'othar'. Please try to answer each question in the way which best represents your opinion or belief. All answers are important. even those you indicate as 'don't know'. You may also be asked to skip around questions which don't apply to you. In that case, either an arrow or a phrase such as 'iGO T0 QUESTION 1 Bl will direct you to the next appropriate question. This questionnaire should be answered ml! by the person who makes the decisions about how this land is managed. If the person who makes decisions about this forested land cannot answer the questionnaire please check this box D and return this letter in the envelope provided; you may discard the questionnaire. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. i am doing this forestry research as part of my program ofgraduatastudyinforestryandamalong-tima residentofCharlottesville. lam theonlypersonwhowillhave access to your name. The questionnaire has an identification number. This is so that I may check your name off of the mailing list when I receive your envelope. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. Please return the survey in the envelope provided. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Please write me at Route 2. Box 211, Charlottesville. VA., 22901 or call me at collect at (804) 823-4001. Sincerely, Jam]. lav-J79— Sandra 5. Hodge Forestry Researcher mus-wawwmrm 121 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPMWINTOIPOIES‘IIY Dear Virginia private forest landowner: About three weeks ago I wrote to you seeking information on private forest landowners in Virginia. As of today, I have not received your completed questionnaire. (If you did respond to the earlier mailing. please call me collect at 804-823-4001 or write me. so that I can be certain I received it and so that I will not bother you again.) I have undertaken this study because of the belief that information on the opinions and preferences of private forest landowners need to be considered when planning forestry programs in Virginia. Your response is very important as the information you provide will help shape future forest management programs in Virginia. I am writing to you again because of the significance each questionnaire has to the usefulness of the study. Your name was drawn through a scientific sampling process to select private forest landowners in Virginia. In order for the results of this study to be truly representative of all private forest landowners, it is essential that each person return the questionnaire. In the event that youhavs misplaced the questionnaire. a replacement is provided. For this survey. 'forestad land' means any land that is forested. cut-over or scrub. If you do not own at least 20 acres of 12mm in the county mentioned at the top of the first page of the questionnaire. please check this box [3 and return this latter in the envelope provided. You may discard the questionnaire. This questionnaire should be answered mix by the person who makes the decisions about how this land is managed. If the person who makes decisions about this forested land cannot answer the questionnaire please check this box D and return this letter in the envelope provided. You may discard the questionnaire. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. I am doing this forestry research as part of my program of graduate study in forestry and am a long-time resident of Charlottasvilla. I am the only person who will have access to your name. The questionnaire and letter has an identification number. This is so that I may check your name off of the mailing list when I receive your envelope. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Cordially. W/W Sandra 5. Hodge Forestry Researcher MSU It at Affirmative Adios/Equal Opportunity Imitation 122 Virginia Private Forest Landowner Survey 123 Questions In this survey relate prlmarly to forested land you own In county. However. lf'your forest land Is located on the border of another county or state and you own parcels In the other county or state that admin your forested land In county. please answer , these questions for those parcels of land also. By parcel we mean moss pieces of land for which you receive aseparatetaablll. BememberJorestedImdnferstolandwldttlmbermrthatlscm-overor scrub land. Inthlsfirstsectlon,Iwouldlikeyoutogivemealittlelnfonnatlonaboutyourselfandyourbackground. I. Ietheareayoulvehnewuur (Pleaseeheekthemoetopreprleteenewerl AlergecltyloverSO0.000peepleI .................. El ammrsopooiesoomopeopiei ........... El Acne-olmtopooiosopoopeoplei ........... Cl AemdtowntLSOOto 10,000 people) ............. U AerndvilegetLSOOpeepleerleeel ................ D htheepeneetmtry.notonafarm .................. D Onafarm .................................. D 2. Whatleyourage? 3. AreyoquaIeoeremele? 4. Heeeeelrclethefldteetgredeyeufinlehedheeheel. 12145010010I11213141810 rite tezoztzazs OradeOeheeI leer-sensed Wane.“ are-eon mosses...» 5. wawwmmuwmehwflehywmmmofmfle? (Pleeeeeheckthemoet Mariam. Aiupeouyroversoopoopeopm ................ U A medium elty «50.000 to 500.000 people) ......... D A omen eltyI10.000 to 50,000 people) ............. Cl Ain‘town (2.500 to 10.000 people) ............ Cl AemdvlageILBOOpeepleerleeel .............. CI lntheepenoountry.notenaferm ................ D Onafenn .................................. D 6 Areyou ..... 7 w. ....................... D MlAfrIoanAmerlsafl .......... Cl AelenIAaIenAmerIeanI ........... D Marleenlndan ................ D Other ...... . ................ Dbleaeeepeelfyl 7. Whetleyeurourrentheueeheldlnaamerenoebeferetaaeel? Below 05.000 per year ........... U ts.ooo-oe.eee . . . .............. D tto.ooo-tie.eee ............... Cl tzo.ooo-tzs.eee ............... EJ ”once-tau” . . . . ........ . . . Cl uo.ooo-ue.eee ............... D 050.000.59.91» D teo.ooo-ses.eee . . . ......... . . . El 070.000 and above .............. D 124 8. The folowing chart concerns Information about your forested land. as deserted at the top of page 1. if you own more than five parcels o've information about the five most important parcels. By parcels we mean those pieces of land for which you receive a separate tax bill. Remember. forested land refers to land with timber. or that is cut-over or scrub land. Please “intimidate wherenaoessaryorchecltthebestanswsr. I e .. m m................ --_-- l 2. Who owns this land? (Check the appropriate category below for each parcel) Sole owner Husband and wife Family partnership Family corporation Non-fsrniiy partnership Non-family corporation Other (please specify) I 3. How did you acquire each parcel of your forested land? Purchased from relative Purchuad from non-relative Inheritance Gift Other (please explain) ..H..................m -—_-- 5. Where do you live in relation to each parcel of your forested land? On the property Within 25 miles Within 50mllas Further than 50 miles 6. Whattypeoftreesdoyouhaveoneachparoelofyourforestedland? Msedpineandhardwoodebutmcstlypine Mxed pins and hardwoods but «ready hardwoods Pine Igrows naturdy) Pine (planted) Other (please describe) 7. What is the average slope (steepness) for each of your parcels of forested land? Oto 5% I 5 to 10% I over 10% I 125 9. Do you plan to change ownershb of any of your forested land in the next 10 years? Please check one. Duo D Yes ---> Howwlthenawownsrsoquireit? Plaasecheckone. Cl Purchase El cm CI Inheritance D Other (Please expldn) 10. Which of the following would be your best estimate of the current market value of your forested land? (PleaseMIncludethsvalue of your residemeif it is ontheforseted property.) Less m 010.000 ...... El 010,000-215,000 ....... D cameo-50.000 , ....... D tso.ooo-75.ooo . ..U ne.000-r00.000 . . . . . .D tloo.ooo-lso.0oo ..... D "50.000.200.000 ..... D 0200000250000 ..... C] Moumenrzsopoo ....U 11. Do you own other forested land In Virdnia (other than that which you mentioned above?) DNo D Yes---> Howmanyacres? 12. Other than the forested land you own in Virdnia. do you own any other land in the United States? 0N0 D Yes ---> l-Iowmanyaorss? Whattypeoflandislt? (ChecksllthstmpIyJ U Agricldturd Cl Residential D W D Land for development (housing. shopping centers. etc.) D Other (Please explain) I3. Owners of forested land In Virginia have different reasons for owning their land and many different ways of using it. Please indicate how Important m is each of the foIowlng uses for m forested land. Circle one answer next to each use which best represents how you feel. Very Somewhat Not 9!! mm lmmmfill linmmmn VA. Wildlife for hunting VI SI NI ./ B. Maintaining scenic beauty VI SI NI yc. Real estate investment VI SI Ni O. Leasing land for hunting Vl SI NI x6. Producing commercially saleable wood VI SI NI VF. Producing firewood for personal use VI SI NI A. Viewing wildlife VI SI Ni I-l. Non-wildlife related outdoor recreation (hiking. non-motorized trail biking. horseback riding. comm. etc.) VI SI NI J.’ Preserving nature VI SI NI J. First or second home site VI SI NI K. Conservation easement VI SI NI L. For a buffer from adiacent properties VI Si N) M. Other (Please explain) VI SI NI 126 In the next set of questions. we are Interested In how you feel about your forested laid. Please circle the answer next to each statement which best Mcstes how you feel. The choices are: SA - Strongly Agree: A - Agree: N - Neither agree or disagree: 0 - Disagree: SO - Strongly Disagree. I4. Maldngmoneyfrommyforsetedlend.now.ismonhponurttomethsn managing it so that it will continue to produce many years in the future. SA A N D SD 15. Onmyforsstsdpropertylfeellhavetherlghttousewhatever harvesting practices I want. . SA A N D 80 we. lhaveamordoblgstlontcmaintainmyforeatedlandscthst future generations can use It. SA A N 0 SD 17. I am willing to wcept less profit from harvesting my forested land if the method of harvosting wfl be more environmentallybaound. SA A N 0 SD ,18. lbelieve In manadng mylandfor future generations only lfitdoesnot " Iessentheprofitaloanmdts. SA A N 0 so _.-19. lflhaveanoutbrsdtcflnseotpeetsortraediseasasinmyforest. J lwouldnotheeitatetouseanymsanstocontrolthsm. SA A N 0 SD V20. Iown forested land so thatlcanprotect itfor future generations. SA A N O Si) 21. Heaaehrlcatewhedrsrornotmhofthefolowingstatenununpmentshowycu feelabout harvestingtreeafrornyour property. Circle 'YES' or 'NO' for each statement that applies. (By harvesting we mean cutting any amount of live or dead trees). J A Ihaveneverthoughtabouthervestlngtrsesfrommyproperty YES NO 8 lthinkthepriceoffersdorctmentmarketvduefortlnterlstoolow YES NO J c Idon't mm (M trees are ready for harvest YES NO D I think harvesting would adversely affect hunting on my land YES NO E lthink scenicbaautyisadvarselyaffeotedbyharvesting YES NO J P l distrust loggers YES NO \1 G l distrust foresters YES NO vii I don't know who to contact about harvesting YES NO I I am opposed to Mar harvesting YES NO J J I think harvesting destroys wildlife habitat YES NO J K I don't think I have enough land to harvest trees YES N0 of. The land had been harvested when I acquired it YES NO M I am saving the trees to harvest for lncorne for my retirement YES NO N I am saving the land for my heirs YES NO 0 Iamholdingthetreesincaseofanemergsncyandlneedmoney YES. NO P I third: harvesting timber interferes with the forest's natural growth process YES NO 0 The land is too stoop to harvoat YES NO It I don't think there is a market for the tirrber YES NO S Ithinkmytlmberls of toopcorqualitytohervest YES NO T Ithinltthetimberonmylandistoolowavclumeperacretoharvest YES NO gU I only cut firewood or timber for personal use and don't consider this harvesting YES NO 22. During the time that you have owned it. have you harvested trees from your forested property? D Yes lrleueeulplooueeuonzsonelemupopel D No a . l- - > Do you plan to harvest trees for comrnerolal timber from any of your forested property? Duo DYES---->Howeoondoycuexpectthistooccur? WithinStoIOyeers................. .......... .. CI PoeeiblyetaomefuturedatehfterIOyears) D Which of the (clawing reasons listed as A through U in Question 21 Is the most lrnportant reason you W trees from your forested property? Please write the latter here Ifyouhavenotharvested.plsasesklpto0ueetion200npaga0. 127 23. Whatwasthamghreasonycuharvestedtreesfromyourforsstedland? Plaasecheckonlyone. Iwasoffersdagoodprioeforthetimber lnesdedtoclearsomeland.... Thatimberwasmature................................................... lneededaomeofthetimberformycwnuae....................... ....... Oenerdforestmanagmntfdiruingnalvadngdnterfromdseasecrflrs) m ...OO00............OI.ll.......O.‘.0..-.000000000000000. (Please explan UDUDUDD 24. Answer this question W. The fclowing questions concern who may have helped you choose the trees you harvested. which harvesting practices you may have used on your different parcslls) of forested land. and why you used them. Please answer these questions for W you identified in question 8 on page 2. PARCE. 1 PARCE. 2 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 4 PARCEL 5 I. Who selected the trees to be harvested? (Please check all that I selected the trees forester (Virdnia Dept. of Private forester forester Timber or Afriend.relativeorneighborwhoisnotanyofthe above Not sure Other (Please 2. Wflch of the forested land? (Please check al that Clear cut Seed tree Selective cut Diameter out Not sure 3. For each were used. (Check al that To provide or To provide fuelwood To the scenery (removing dead trees. etc.) To the area for recreation To tirrberklledbyineects.dlseaeeorfire Totfdnthetreeetoirmrovetheforestland To timber for a commercid eds Thepeopledolngtheharvestingthoughtitwasthe best practice to use Other (please speciM 128 25. When you harvested. what products did you get? Please check all that apply. Veneeriogs.... D Mwood................... ........ D Don'tltnowwhetprcductawershervssted.......... [I] (please explain) 20. Are you aware of the Forestry Incentives cost-sharing program (PIP) for reforestation in Virginia? D No D Yee--> Have you ever used the Forestry Incentive coat-sharing program for reforestation in Virginia? 0 No D Yes 27. Are you aware of the Reforestation of Timberlands cost-sharing program (RT) for reforestation in Virginia? D No D Yes—~> Have you ever used the Reforestation of Timberlands program (RT) for reforestation in Virginia? C] No D Yes Inthefolowlngquesticns. wearehterestadlnthekhdsofadvlcsyoumayhavereceivedaboutmanaglngyour forested land. Please mswer these questions whether . l l . - ' . forestryadvlcewemeanadvlcs. fromperscns whohaveprofessicnalforssuytrahlng.aboutthammagamentofyour forestedland. 28. During the time that you have owned your forested land. have you sought advice from persons with professional forestry training. flout the management of your forested land? D Yes (Combine with m as.) D NO - - - > Even though you dd not seek It. have you ever received advice frcrn persons with professional forestry training. diout the management of your forested land? Duo Elves PIsaseaklptoOusstionS‘lcnthenextpsgs 20. If you have sought forestry advice. please complete the folowing box. Next to each agency or person who provides forestry advice. there are three columns. Please answer YES or NO in each column. for each agency or person Rated. The columns ask if you sought advice. if you folowed it and how satisfied you were. I-Iaveyou Didyou Howsatlsfiedwereyouwiththeedvice ever sought follow al provided? (Circle one answer for each AGENCIES OR PERSONS PROVIDING advice from or some of agency from which you sought advice.) PROFESSIONAL FORESTRY ADVICE any of these the advice? persorls? Very Son-what Soniewhst Very Satisfied Seflefled Dissatisfied Dissatisfied i _ Sol Conservation Service pereonnel Yes No Yes No VS SS SD VD Cooperative Extension Service persorlrlal Yes No Yes No VS SS SD VD Virginia Department of Forestry personnel Yes No Yes No vs ss so vo Industrial Landowner Assistance Progrln forester Yes No Yes No VS SS SD VD Private consulting foresters Yes No Yes No VS SS SD VD Commercld Ioggerltirlter buyers Yes No Yes No VS SS 50 VD Virdnia Department of Game and Inland Fished“ personnel Yes No Yes. No VS SS SO VD Family. friends or neighbors who are not any Yes No Yes No VS $5 $0 VD ofthsabove 129 .30. Whetdidyouseskthisforestryasaistanceoradwcefor? Pleeeeohsoltalthatmply. Tlrnbsrstand management (thinning. irmrovernent cuts. pruning. herbicidemplication.prssoribedbuming.etc.l....................... Timtiersales (timber marking. sales assistancs.timbervaluetion. etc.) . . . . . . . General forest management (planning. surveying.lnsectanddiseess control) Reforestationandplanting ...................................... Asaistmeinpreparingaforestmsnegsmsntplan......... ......... OM 00...........OI.........OOIOOOIOCOOO IIIII 0.0.0.0.... DDDDUUCI (Pleasespecify) lfyouhavesoudltadvlosnkbtoqusstionSZbelow. 31. lfyouWadficsfrcmpersonswlthprofsesional forestry assistanoetralnlngaboutthsmanagement of your forsatsdlandduringthetimeycuhaveownedmpleaaechsokthersasonsbslowwhichbestreprssentwhyyouhavenot sought such advice. Check all that apply. lnsverthoughtaboutgsttingforestryadvicsoressistanoe ....... ..... . .............. .. D Iamnotlnterestsdinanyforsstryedvice . ....... ......................... ..... U Ihaveenoughknowledgsfioutforsstmanagsmsnt... .................. . .................. CI Idldn'tknowforestryadviceorassistancewasevailable . ......... . ..... ..... U lknowmylandis too stoop to manage ................................................. D Ididn'tthinklcwldaffordtheservice' ................ D Ididn‘tknowhowtocontactanyoneforforestryedvlceoressistancs ..... . ....... D Ihadtomakeaquickdecislonendldidn'thavetimetoseekadviceorsssistance. ............... U lreceivsdprofeseiondforestryedvloewlthoutsseitlnglt...................... ...... U IrecaivedmyinformationfromanothersourcefPleasespecify) U In the section which follows. the statements or questions are deslmsd to explore your knowledge about forestry and forestry mmsgernent In Virginia. 32. Each statement below refers to one. two. three. four or all of the trees listed below which are commonly found in Virginia forests. which are listed next to the statement. For each statement. please circle on: answer-YES. NO or OK (Don't Know)—-in ”_gh of the columns with the tree names to Moate whether you believe that statement applies to that particular tree. (See the example below). STATEMENTS Example: Trsenarns begins with 'O' Stays green al year No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Seeds are in cones No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Seedsare oiled acorns No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Young trees tolerate only a small amount of shade No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Young trees tolerate a moderate amount of shade No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Often sprouts new. young - trees from the stunt after N0 OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK cutting Prefers to grow in drier areas No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK The favorite food of gypsy moths No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK 130 33. Oeflrltionssrsdvenbslowfordiffersnt forestmansgsrnsntprectices. Aftereaohdefinidon. four practicsswllbeilsted. MdrdeMprscdcansxttoeaohmchhwaedpmflumdeflddon. a. Anareaofatlsastfiveaorsswhsrsdtrses. clear selective seed diameter largsandsmsl.areharvestedstthssamstima. cutting cutting tree cutting b. Usualythecldeetsndthslargesttrseears clear selective seed damster harvested. either In smal groups or Individually. outdng cutting tree ‘outting c. Atleastelghttreesperscrearslsftlnacut-over ares. clear selective seed diameter ' gutting cutting tree WNW d. AI trees over a certain size in an area are harvested. clear selective seed dierneter cutting cutting tree cutting 34. Inthsboxbalow.mhstatamsntrsferstoons.ormorsthanons. ofthsharvestingpracticeslisted besideit. Undergm practice listed indicate whether you believe that practice Qplies to the statement or not. Please do not guess at the answers. If you beIeve it applies. circle 'Yes': if you 9.9.091 believe it mples. please circle 'No'. If you don‘t know. please circle 'OK'. I PRACTICES II STATEMENTS Clear cutting Diameter cutting Selective cutting Seed Tree Often slows a lot of sunlight to reach the forest floor Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Oftenailcwsonlywseksunlighttoreach the forest floor Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Oftenresultsinaltreeslnsnareabeinga similaragssndehe Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Often results in treeslnanarsabeing different ages and sizes Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Promotes the beat YELLOW POPLAR reproduction Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Promotes the best LOBLOLLY PINE reforestation Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Promotes the best WHITE PINE reforestation Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Promotes the best OAK regrowth Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK SS. ‘i'hefoflowingstatemsntsaredroutpins. Clrolethssnswsrnsxttoeachstatsmsntindlcating whsthsryou believe the etaternsrtt to be true or false. If you don't know the answer. please circle don't know. Mostofthstimeaftsrsplnsstsndisout.itwilnatursly DON'T grow back to the same qualty stand that eidsted before cutting. TRUE FALSE KNOW Altypesofyoungplnsswilgrowfromstumpsofpineswhich DON'T have been cut. TRUE FALSE KNOW To ensure a guilty stand of pineltis neoessaryto dosome site preparation-such as hurling and applying herbicides—prior DON'T to replanting the pine. TRUE FALSE KNOW After pines are harvested. hardwoods can bedn growing in the DON'T fight and space that result. TRUE FALSE KNOW Thinningloblolypinestandsrssldtslnbettsripaiity. DON'T more wel-developed tress. TRUE FALSE KNOW DON'T Thinned Iobioly pins can be sold as ptdpwood. TRUE FALSE KNOW 36. 37. 38. 39. 131 The statements below are concemsd with your views on how some of the harvesting practices used In Vlrglrda affect wildlife and scenery. Nexttoeschstatemsntyou wilfind fourharvestingpractices-clsercutting. dametercutting. selectivecutting. and seed trees. Indicate for m3 of these practices whether you believe the statement is applicable. More than one practice can apply for each statement. If you believe it Qpllee. circle 'Yes': If you w believe it applies. circle 'No'. If you don't know. circle 'OK'. STATEMENTS Often knproves an area for garns wldiife (deer. turkey. quail. rabbit. etc.) Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Often improves an area for non-garne wildlife such as songbirds Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Can improve the scenery in one year Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Can improve the scenery after 10 or more years Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK Yes No OK The next statements are about differences In dela forests today as compared to 10 years ago. Please check the box next to the one answer In each question that you believe Is the best answer. Compared to 10 years 090. the total arneunt of forested land that exists today in Virginia is SW”IOMWOOOOOOOOIOIIOOI... ..... O ......... 0". D L...“‘owmmOOOIOOOOIOOOOIOI.OOOOOOSOIOOOOIOOOOOO D Dm“kmw.................IIOOCODOCOCIOIIOIOI ......... D Conpsred to 10 years 000. today the amount of Virdnla forests planted in pine Is Morethan‘lOysarssgo..... ...... ...... ..... .D mu'o ‘0”."m......O...00............OOCOOOOOOOOOC D WM10mm0000000000000000000.0.0.0... ...... .0. D M‘tkmw0.0.0.0....0......IOOOUII.OIOOOIOOOOOOOOGOOOO D Ccrnpsred to 10 years ago. the amount of wood being harvested from Vlrdnla forests today is G'“‘.' M 10 ”m m I O 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O I O O O O I I O O O D SirnilartolOyearsago.. .................... ........... “..N"1om.”0000.000.......IOOOOOOOOOOOCOOI.0.... DUE) M'tkmw.0.....I...I......IOOOOO......IOIOIOOOOOOOOOO Compared to 10 years ago. the deer population In Virdnie today has lncreaaedfromIOyearsego D Rsmainsdaboutthssamsastyearsago .................... ... D OeoreaaedfromlOyearsago.............. ................. .E] 132 Thefollowlngquestions concern youfealklgsaboutalforestsanirdnlaIngenerd. notlustyourown forested land. For each of these questions. please circle the one response which best Indicates how you feel about forested land In Virginia. Thechoicas are SA - Strongly Agree; A - Agree: N - Neither agree or disagree: D - Disagree: SD - Strongly Disagree J41. A person who owns forested land in Virginia has the right to do whatthey want wlthittomakeaprofitrsgsrdlesaofanylong-tsrm consequences to the land. - SA A N O SO 42. It is more ln'lportant to harvest timber from Vlrdnla'a forests than ” itisto worryaboutconserwngforestareasforrareplanteand animals. SA A N O SD 43. The positive benefits of economic growth In forest industries in Vlrdnia far outweigh any negative srwironmental consequences. SA A N D SD 44. Too much controversy ocollrs about harvesdng in Virdnla's forests. No matter how they are harvested. Vlrdnia's forests will - . dwaysgrowbeokandbsabletosupplygoodqudltytlrrber. SA A N O SO J 45. With new and better technology. Virdnia'a forest resources wil always be able to rnset the growing need for wood in Virdnia. SA A N O SO 46. In Virg’nia. the selection of a harvesdng practice should not be basedsoielyonocst.‘l'hslnpactthetthspracticewilhaveon wildlifehabitat. sceniobssutyandfuturegsnsrationsshouldba considered as equdy Important. SA A N O SO 47. The benefits of conservation laws in Virdnie far outweigh any negativeimpaotstheymayhsveonhumsnwell-being. SA A N D SO 48. More money should be invested in research to increase timber yields from Virdnia's forest resources. and less on trying to conserve thsrn. SA A N O SO 49. The State of Virdnia must uldmately control what landowners do with their private forest land in the stats. SA A N O SO 50. Persons who own forestsdlandln Vlrdniahavatherighttodo what they want with it for their own enjoyment. regardless of any long-term consequences to the land. SA A N O SO We are Interested in your preference regardng different aspects of Virginia's forests. For each of the questions below. please check the one box which hdicates your preference. 51. When cornparsd with today. what amount of forests with a mixture of trees (hardwoods and pines). would you like to see in Vlrdnla. 10 years from now? Agreaterlnountofmixedforeststhsntherearetoday.... ..... D Sirniiararnountsofrnlxedforestsssthsrearetoday. ......... ............... .. D wmd'mmmnm‘“wIIIIOOOIDOOOOOOOIOO ...... ... ....... O... D 52. When compared with today. what ernount of pine forests would you like to see in Vlrdnla. 10 years from now? Agreatararnountofpineforeststhantherearetcday .. ......... . ...... . .......... D Amountsslnilartothspinsforsetsthatsidsttoday... .......................... .. D me'mmw.mtm II.O...O......OOOOOOOOOODIGOOOI0.0...IO. U 53. When compared with today. what amount of timber from Virginia forests would you prefer to be harvested in the next ten years? Large Increase in harvesting ............................................... D Moderate Increase In harvesting . ............................................ D Same amount as is now harvested ...... . .................................... D Moderate decrease in harvesting ............................................ D Largedecreaseinharvseting ........................................... D 54. 133 Tenyearsfrcrnnow.howmanydeerwouldyouliketoseeinVirg'nle.ssoomparsdtotoday? WearelntersstedlnhowVIrdnlaprlvateforestlandownersfeslabouttheerwlronrnentlngenaral. Pleaselndlcate your answer by ckclklg one choice next to each statement which bestdescrlbss your feelings. The choices are: 57. Si. 62. S4. 67. SA - Strongly Agree; A -Agree; N - Neither agree or disagree; O - Disagree; SO - Strongly Disagree. WeareqlproschingthsfinitoftfwmanberofpeopletheEanhcaneuppon. SA Thsbdancsofnatureieverydelicateandessilyupeet. SA Humans have the right to modify the nsturd snvironrnent to suit their needs. SA Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature. SA When inmans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous results. SA Plantsandanimdeeidstprlrnarilytobeusedbyhumans. SA To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a 'steadybstate' economy where industrial growth is controlled. SA l-krmansmustliveinharmonywlthnstureinordertosque. SA Theearthislikeaspaceshipwithordylmitedroomendrseources. SA Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs. SA There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society carmot expand. SA Mankind is severely abusing the envircnrnent. SA A > ) > > > A A This meetion concerns the types of activities in which forest landowners and their families participate. have participated in over the last 12 months. please check one or both boxes after each activity. to indicate whether you did tit-MW «WW orm- GM the uncrow- Word-yawn did each activity. If you haven't done any. check NONE at the and of the list. Other Number Activity mm MIMI. 9L2!!! a. Fishing ........................ E) ........... El ........ _ b. Canoeing ...................... C] ........... D ........ _ c. Boating ....................... D ........... U ........ _ d. Deer hunting ................... . U ........... D ........ _ e. Quail hunting ................... E) ........... E) ........ _ f. Squirrel hunting .................. D ........... El ........ _ g. Turkey hunting . ............ . .El ........... E.) . ....... _ h. Camping ...................... D ........... U ........ _ i. Picnicking . . . . . ................ Cl ........... El ........ _ l. Backpacking .................... El ........... El ........ _ k. Horseback riding .............. . . .El ........... El ........ _ I. Walking/Hiking .................. El ........... D ........ _ m. Off-road vehicle use . . ............. D ........... U ........ _ n. Observing or photographing nature ..... U ........... D ........ _ o. Picking berries or mushrooms ........ U ........... U ........ _ NONE D ----> lfyouchecked ""none goontoquestlonSS. N N O O U O O (I) O O 0 Which ONE leisure activity from those which you checked above Ia most Important to you? Please write the letter here. SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 50 For the activities you 134 Theneflsudsmmduemmmpdvnefautmrdnstcw. Bynsturslresourceswe meanforests. waterresourcssanddepcsltsof minerals. oil. coal. etc. Please Indicate your snswsrby ckclngcnedrcicenexttoeedrstatunwflwiddlbestdescrlbesycufeelhgs. Thecholcesl'e SA - Strongly Agree; A -Agree; N - Neither Agree nor Disagree: D - Disagree; and SO - Strongly Disagree. SS. Wearsenterhgapedcdcfscardtyendshcrtagsofmoetnamrdreecuroee. SA A N O SO 00. Wiwrenaturdneourcesareprivetelyownsd.sodetyshculdhevemconool cverwhatthecwnerdceewlththem.‘ ' SA A N O SD 70. Moreemphesleshouidbepiacsdonankldlwdud'seocnondcrlghtsthancn sccietVs natural resource rights. SA A N O SO 71. Societymustuitirnatelyocntrcl whatcitiaensdc with the nation's natural resources. SA A N D SO 72. We must enicy life with the naturd resources we now have and let the future. take care of itself. SA A N D SO 73. Wewilhaveplentycfnsturalrescurcesifwshstirwentnewprocassesfor finding and developing thorn. SA A N O SO 74. The government is working to conserve naturd resources. SA A N O SO 75. The 'soarcity of natural resources” ls just a threat invented by environmentalists. SA A N O SO 70. Individuals can do much to aleviats the naturd resource shortage. SA A N D SO 77. The governrnsnt. not indvtduals. is largely responsible for causing natural resource shortages. SA A N D SO 78. We should turn to conserving naturd resources 2!!!! if it does in; change our life styte. SA A N O SD 70. Fearefnshndrseeurceeshcrtsgsashotddnotriecowageuefmmueingnaulrd resources and enlcying Ifs today. SA A N O SO 80. Government wilneverdo snythinginthsecclety‘sintereet unlesstheyars presstlred. SA A N O SD 81. lfweccntimeowidghlevelsofresourceuseduhrrsgsrwrsticnswlflngt be able to have a level of living like ours. SA A N D SD 82. The government would protect naturd resources even if there were no 'envircnmentd protests'. SA A N D SO 8:. Individuals are largely responsible for causing naturd resource shortages. SA A N D SO S4. The concern about the 'envircrsnent' is hat a passing fad. SA A N D SD SE. The potential for a natural resource shortage ls more serious than most people tNrdt. SA A N D SO 80. Government wil act in the pubic interest to protect naturd resources which are threatened. SA A N O SO 87. Individuals shctdd make every effort to conserve naturd resources. SA A N O SO SS. Corporations. not individuals. are largely responsible for causing natural resource shortages. SA A N 0 SD 89. If individuals tried to conserve natural resources. it wctdd really make a difference. SA A N O SO 90. Individuals can depend upon the government to 'plan ahead' to prevent naturd resource shortages. SA A N O SO 91 . If corporations tried to conserve natural resources. it would really make a difference. SA A N 0 SO 135 92. Do you receive any of the (slowing magazines about tree production. outdoor recreation or wildlife conservation? If so. check I that mply. TreeFannNewa ...... AmericanForeets..... ..... .. Foresthrmar ........ Journalchorestry. AudubonMegaline ........... .......... FieldsndStreem................. ....... ....... ........ ... VirdnlaWildlfe ...... SperteAfleld.... ......... OutdocrUfe ... ...... . Othsrsmegaaineaabcuttreeproductiorucutdoorrecreation crwildlifeconservatlon ...... Pleasslst: D DDDDDDDDDDDU NO.Idon’tresdorrsceiveanyofthern ..... . ........... D 93. Please check A“, of the following groups to which you belong. NationdWlldfeFederatlcn.................... ..... . ......... TrcutUnllmited................ ........ . ............... WilderneesSoclety.......... ....... .............. ... SlerraClub ..... ......... AudubonSoclety..... VirdnlanlrlfeFederstlon ..... ........ ............... . ..... . NatureConservency......................................... lseakWaltonLeague .......................... .......... ... Oifferentspcrtsassoclsticns(huntcltbsforbear.deer.etc.) Other environrnsntal or outdoor recreation groups notmenticnedabove.............. ...... ....... Pleaseapecify: DDDDDDDDDD D Idon'tbelongtoenycftheeegrcups............................ D S4. Ooyou have anyof your forested landin forest land-use? (Forestland usemeens that you partieipateineprogram.throughyourccunty.thatssseseesyoualowertaxratelfyournset certainreqdramsntsfor mdntairlngyourforsstsd land.) Um DYes SS. Are you eurrsndy envioyed? (Check one) D Yes—> Whatlsycuroccupadon Um 00. If you are m currently employed. are you retired? Dm D Yes --> What was your occupation? (Please fill in the blank) 136 Thank you for your tine in conpleting this survey. If you have any additional col-ants about the survey or your private forest land, please write than below. Please enclose the questionnaire in the envelope provided and return it tot Sandra 8. lodge forestry Researcher Route 2 Box 211 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 APPENDIX B FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR NEP ITEMS PC Extracted 137 APPENDIX B FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR NEP ITEMS 2 factors. Analysis 1 - Kaiser Normalization. Varimax converged in 3 iterations. Rotated Factor Matrix: NEP9 NEP2 NEP? NEP12 NEP11 NEP8 NEPI NEPS NEP4 NEP6 NEP3 NEPIO FACTOR 1 .76394 .68786 .68564 .67029 .66856 .65447 .64982 .52703 .05719 .07321 .26505 .34278 FACTOR 2 .12179 .21442 .08602 .32549 .10469 .10289 .15290 .18758 .83540 .81270 .63762 .53594 Factor Transformation Matrix: FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 1 .86056 .50935 FACTOR 2 -.50935 .86056 We: FACTOR lt Nankind aust respect nature and live capacity NEPl we are approaching the limit of the number support. Varimax Rotation l, Extraction 1. within Barth's carrying of people the Earth can NEPZ The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. NEPS When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous results. NEP? To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a "steady- state" economy where industrial growth is controlled. NEPS Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive. NEP9 The Earth is like a space ship with only limited room and resources. NEPll There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand. NEP12 Mankind is severely abusing the environment. EACTOR 2: Nan rules over nature NEP4 Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature. NEPG Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans. REPS Humans have a right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. NEPlO Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs. APPENDIX C 73 ORIGINAL VARIABLES USED TO CONSTRUCT MODEL 138 OQQOMbUNI-f saw hi0 HPJH btnh) stnwuw ow cunwuowea non nss scoop was unsounwos Hsnoao wcnwnco onnsounwos hwcn so: one: so nossnw tens nonoan Husnlcao unconua secs Ms Bossnuws weaves recs Ms noucnuw Hooves eonuw nonsense unnoa vsowwnunwosu noun nowunwsn no sunsnuw Roseanne Houses Onoushuunwosu uowsce ncwunwsc no sunsnuw Roseanne passes to thaw sues opesnw On sunsnuw necocnne we re usan escesn so: wnonoaana non nesahso use nocnwomwsn nsea. ass ennunnwnw 0m sunsnuw Hoaosnncse we mean u nsnnun wsccsnoo ow eschnosaosnuwwana. ass nosnnns soocn nss aescwnosaesne we ussn u Uuaawso mud. to sun uvpnounsvso nsc prawn 0m nse season On scoops nso munns nus asuoonn. ass suwusnc Om sunsno we cenw newhnunu use museum swoon. zscs ssausa Hsncnnono tens sunsno en Omnos pnoncnoa neauannosa nesswna. ao Buhsnues u snupnsa snosoam so tpwp sucs no escapes u saneunwlanunee enososw rsens psnsannwuw anatns we nosnnoHHee. assess scan Hess vs sunsosw tens sunsne es onoen no concede. ass munns we Hews u sound anew tens osww whawncn nooa use ncaocnnee. aseno use prawns no onetns cowosn sspns osn hsncannwuwwneo aonwenw nusson exvusa. susstn we decencyw ussawsn nsc escwnosaosn. assess succ u Rhosn no seesaw nso sunsnup escwnosaosn no sown nsown seeds. xusste tua nnounno no news econ nse noon 0n sunsno. ovusno use usnauwa oxesn pursuanww no so soon ow ssausa. asausa soon son unuvn no nso sunsnuw nscwnosansn seduces nscw nus unsure »n no sewn nsohn scene. so use csncnwsn u weapon 0» anunnwnw use asonnuoo 0n Boon sunsnaw nsaocnnee. Hm to nosnwsso can spas Hocowu cm nonocnno sac. noncnn onsonunhosa tHHH son 60 sows no suce u Pussy 0» chwso were osnu. are ponosnwuw non u sunsnuw nocosnne esonnune we Bone coupons nsus scan moowwe nshsr. to Boon csuow wens tens nso sunsnuw noaocnnoa to so: suco use won nse Honcho nuke nuns 0m pneewm. to escape nuns no nosaencwso sunsnuw nooocnnoa mbPKIHH Mn none bbm nausea osn Hume snaps. noun 0n suncnuw neaosnnca asonnuooo nonuw escape son nwanosnuoc so nnoa sense sunsnuw neaosnnca use nsuowwso Hume noouw. Hsowcwosuwa nus upwocpuno nso sunsnuw Hoaosnno asonnuoc. Hsnwcwocuwa escape Burs ucon< ommonn no nosaonco sunsnuw nooosnnoc. 139 we um um .0 up on em be Hm Hsohchosuwa nnwoo no nosaencs sunsnuH nooosnnoa. Hn soan nsuHHN Buss u nwmmonssns. Hn we Bone hamonnusn no suncocn nnassn nnss