AN ‘NWSTIGATION OF PRIVATE FOREST LANDOWNERSHIP IN THE SOUTHERNMOST THIRTY=SEVEN COUNTIES OF THE LOWER PENINSULA OF MlCHlGAN Thesis for the Dogma of Ph. D. MICHBAN STATE UNIVERSWY Con H Schall'au 1961 This is to certify that the thesis entitled '- AN INVESTIGATION OF PRIVATE FOREST LANDOWNERSHIP IN THE SOUTHERNMOST THIRTY-SEVEN COUNTIES OF THE LOWER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN presented by Con H.8challau has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .1). degree in FOI‘GStI‘Y 154% V Major professor Date July 10, 1961 0-169 ‘orestry ll“. the 5 13 men; 3&0.th and t‘xe ”card . -ex 0!: e r 1 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF PRIVATE FOREST LANDOWNERSHIP IN THE SOUTHERNMOST THIRTY-SEVEN COUNTIES OF THE LOWER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN by Con H.8challau Some 127,000 landowners hold 2,428,000 acres of forest land in the 37-county study area of southern Michigan- Nearly two-thirds of the forest land is divided among landowners having less than 25 acres of forest land. Only 12 percent own more than 50 acres. It is apparent that economic incentives to practice forestry are quite limited for most forest landowners in the study area. Private woodland owners were classified into 12 occupational groups. The full-time farmer group accounted for the largest single share (24 percent) and the business-professional group ranked 3 close second with 20 percent of the forest acreage. 0 It was estimated that the average woodland owner held his forest tract 25 years. This rate of turnover of forest land is relatively rapid when the time it takes a tree to produce timber products is taken into account. The owner who already has a pro- ducing woodland enterprise is able to formulate plans and expectations regarding future returns from his forest land. But for the individual possessing cut- over land, the time it would take to produce monetary mm W mic. T? totfieir c cmcept o! fisage,< C: smart Ta' fuest ec he lRCO“ products Ti! ohm: tenure , 381.?" titea at haWest: Cjtt 1' “g ti‘i pr EMT". proges! Cation Cum” \ 3:6. r '2 Con H.8challau returns would generally outdistance his managerial life cycle. The 207 interviewees were classified according to their concepts of forest management. An owner's concept of forest management was found to vary with his age, occupation, and family ties. Collectively, the southern Michigan woodland owners make a significant contribution to the state's fwest economy, but for many of the individual owners the income received (if any) from the sale of timber products is generally unimportant. Only a third of the owners had harvested timber products during their tenure. Owners who had harvested timber during the five-y¢‘r period, 1954-1959, had their cutting prac- tices appraised. Three out of five of such owners harvested in a "fair" or better manner, but "poor" cutting was more prevalent than "good" cutting, Cut- ting practices varied considerably among occupational groups. FO!’ instance, 50 percent of the business- professional group Qualified for a "good" classifi- cation, while none of the wage earners were so ranked. Cutting practices also varied depending on the owner's age, family ties and concept of forest management. The majority of the respondents selling stump- age restricted the logger's cutting activity, but 41 percent 11'. Actually. 3 intended t' Pi the vooila regarding cent of t‘ I ‘J 1 k Con H.Schallau percent allowed the operator to cut any tree he wanted. Actually, 34 percent of the sellers of timber products intended that everything merchantable be harvested. Findings of this study disclosed that most of the woodland owners who sold timber were poorly informed regarding timber marketing procedures. Fifty—six per- cent of the owners admitted that they had no basis for judging the fairness of the prices received for their timber products; 89 percent accepted only one bid before selling their timber, and only 36 percent of the interviewees who sold timber used a written contract. Urban encroachment was found to be an important factor affecting the forest resources in southern Michi- gan. The actual usurping of forest land was not the only facet of urbanization shown to be important. Forest landowners in the urban. fringe were less inclined to claim timber production as their objective of holding fare't property than woodland owners in the less densely populated sectors. "Poor" cutting practices were more pronounced in the urban fringe than elsewhere. Woodland owners were queried regarding their participation and interest in various forestry assist- ance programs- Although few interviewees had partici- pated, the interest shown in certain programs was encouraging. The Cooperative Forest Management ser- vice forestry program had the most appeal both in Con H.8challau terms of actual participation and potential clientele. Owners were apathetic toward such institutional devices as yield taxes, forest credit and the capital gains provision of the income tax code. A significant share of the interviewees did show interest in a tim- ber products price and market "information service. It was concluded that the present level of timber output from southern Michigan's forests can be maintained indefinitely despite the threat of urbaniza- tion. On the other hand, overcutting could lead to degeneration of present timber market channels. This suggests the need for directing more information and aggigtance to owners of merchantable growing stock to effect: more orderly marketing of their timber products. AN INVESTIGATION OP PRIVATE FOREST IANDOWNERSHIP IN THE SOUTHERNMOST THIRTY-SEVEN COUNTIES OP THE LOWER PENINSULA OP MICHIGAN By Con H.Schallau A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry 1961 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to take this Opportunity to express his sincere thanks to the persons who helped make this study possible. He is particularly indebted to Dr. Lee M. James of the Department of Forestry at Michigan State University for his guidance and assist- ance during the conduct of the investigation and in the preparation of the final manuscript. Special acknowledgment is also extended to M. B. Dickerman, Director of the Lake States Forest Experiment Station, and to members of his staff who assisted the author. The comments and suggestions offered by James T. Morgan, Chief of the Division of Forest Economics Research, were especially appreciated. Lastly, the writer wishes to thank his wife, Leanah, for typing and editing the first draft of this manuscript and for her patience throughout the entire ordeal. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . Objectives of the Study . . Study Area . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . Forest landownership Studies "Motivation and Behavioral" Research Urbanization . . . . . . . . I II . l‘lETl‘lODOLOGY e a o a a o e s o Locating Sample Townships . Determination of Forest Area and Number of Woodland Owners Subsampling for Interview and WOodland Inspection . . . IV. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FOREST LAND- OWNERS IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN Distribution of Forest Owners, Area, and Forest Value, by Occupation Forest Area, Growing Stock Value and Number of Owners, by Area Classes Distance of Residency From Forest Property . . . . . . . . . Characteristics which Influence Forest Landowners' Planning Horizons Age of Owner . . . . . . . Length of Tenure . . . . . iii Page ll 12 23 33 40 41 44 47 53 54 57 61 62 63 6S CHAPTER V. VI. Family Ties and Planning Horizons . Tenure Arrangement . . . . . . . . . THE SOUTHERN MICHIGAN PRIVATE FOREST IANDOJNER AS A TIMBER PRODUCER . . . . Owner's Concept of Forest Management . Objectives of Ownership . . . . . . . Timber Harvesting Activity . . . . . . Cutting Practices . . . . . . . . . . . -u. H.” "M“ Owner's Surveillance of Logging ActiVity O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Negotiating the Sale of Timber . . . . WOOdland Improvement Practices . . . . THE INFLUENCE OF URBANIZATION ON PRIVATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHERN I'lICHxGAN O O O O O O O I O I O O O O 0 Population Changes in Southern Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spatial Relationship of POpulation Density with Forest Owners and Forest Area . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Distinguishing Characteristics of the "Urban Fringe" Forest Land- ownerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . Owner Occupations by Pepulation Density Zones . . . . . . . . . . Extent of Very Small Wooded Tracts by Population Density Zones . . . Owner Objectives by Population Density Zones . . . . . . . . . . 'Cutting Activity by Population Density Zones . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 67 69 72 73 80 84 91 99 107 117 129 130 132 137 137 139 139 143 CHAPTER Cutting Practices by Population Density Zones . . . . . . . . . . Sale of Wooded Tracts for Resi- dential or Commercial Development . . . . . . . . . . . Future Urban Encroachment Upon Southern Michigan's Forest Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII. OWNER INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC TECHNICAL AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND OTHER DEVICES DESIGNED TO PROMOTE FOREST MANAGEMENT. \3 Forestry Extension . . . . . . . . . . \g¥Soil Conservation District Program . . Agricultural Conservation Program . . Sci]- Bank 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O ”4 COOperative Forest Management Program. Forest Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . The Property Tax and its Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . Operation of Michigan's Woodlot Tax Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operation of Commercial Forest Reserve (Pearson) Act . . . . . . Capital Gains Provision of the Internal Revenue Code . . . . . . Forest Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . 'Public Timber Price and Market Information Service . . . . . . . . Private Organizations Seeking to Improve the Management of Small Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michigan Tree Farm System . . . . . V Page 145 147 152 156 159 167 174 185 191 205 206 209 210 219 222 228 231 231 CHAPTER Page Consulting Forestry Opportunities in Southern Michigan . . . . . . . . 233 Cooperative Arrangements to Enhance Private Forest Management . . . . . 234 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . 237 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 A Profusion of Woodland Owners Exhibiting Wide Diversity in Occupational Backgrounds . . . . . . 237 Small Forest Acreages Supporting Low Value Growing Stock . . . . . . 238 Limited Planning Horizons . . . . . . 240 Infrequent Incomes From Forest Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Mediocre Concepts of Forest I'lanagement o o o s s s a a o a a a s 241 Poor Cutting Practices . . . . . . . . 243 Woodland Owners' Ignorance of Timber Marketing Procedures . . . . 245 Negligible Woodland Improve- ment Activity . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Urban Encroachment Upon Southern Michigan's Forest Resources . . . . 248 Indifference to Public Assistance Programs and Other Devices Designed to Improve Private Forest Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Woodland Owners also Apathetic Toward Certain Private Schemes . . . 258 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Suggestions for Future Research . . . 264 APPENDICES...................267 BIBLIOGRAPHY..................297 LIST OF TABLES Page Number of Forest Landowners and Distribu- tion of Forest Area, by Occupation Classes . 45 Allocation and Accomplishment of Field Interviews, by Owner Occupation Class . . . 51 Number of Owners, Forest Area, and Forest Value, by Occupation . . . . . . . . 55 Comparison of Forest Area, Growing Stock Value and Number of Owners by Area Classes . 59 Comparison Between the Distribution of Growing Stock Value, Forest Area and Forest Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Distribution of Forest Owners and Forest Area, by Age Classes . . . . . . . . 64 Length of Time That Forest Property has been Owned by Present Owners . . . . . . . . 66 Number of Generations Prior to Present Ownership that Forest Property has been in the Family 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 68 Distribution of Forest Owners and Forest Area, by Tenure Arrangement . . . . . . . . 70 Owner's Concept of Forest Management, by Occupation Classes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Age of Woodland Owner, by Concept of Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Association Between the Number of Genera- tions Forest Land has been in Family and Owner's Concept of Forest Management . . . . 81 Objective of Ownership, by Occupation Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 vii TABIE 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25, 26, .27 28, 29 Objective of Ownership, by Growing Stock Value Classes . . . . . . . . . . Date of Most Recent Cutting . . . . . . Why Owners Have Not Harvested Timber . . Purpose of Timber Harvest . . . . . . . Association Between Owner Age and Cutting Practices . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship Between Owner's Cutting Practices and Family Ties . . . . . . . Cutting Practices by Occupation . . . . Relationship Between Cutting Practices and Owner's Concept of Forest Management Comparison Between Cutting Practices of Those Owners Who Did, and Those Who Did Not Do Their Own Logging . . . . . . . . Relationship Between Freedom Allowed the Logger and Resulting Cutting Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship Between Owner’s Concept of Forest Management and Freedom Allowed the Logger . . . . . . . . . . . Cutting Practices Resulting From the Various Methods used to Restrict Loggers Owners Who Intended to Remove All Merchantable Growing Stock, by Occu~ pation Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cutting Practices of Owners Who Did, as Compared with Owners Who Did Not Intend that all Merchantable Growing Stock be Harvested . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Written Contract in Timber Sale Negotiations, by Occupation . . . . Comparison of the Cutting Practices of Owners who Used a written Contract with Those Owners Not Using a Contract . . . v1 i Page C3 U1 89 9O 93 95 97 98 100 102 103 105 106 108 111 112 TABLE 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43, Relationship Between Method of Payment and Owners' Cutting Practices . . . . . Relationship Between Owner's Concept of Forest Management and Method of Pay- ment Used in Selling Timber Products . . Means by Which Forest Owners Determined the Reasonableness of the Price Received for Stumpage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improvement Practices Adopted by Forest Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship Between Owner's Concept of Forest Management and'Woodland Improve- ment ActiVity O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Owners' Reasons for Not Improving Forest I‘Ianagement o o o e e e o o o o e o o o o Extent of Tree Planting Activity, by Occupation Class . . . . . . . . . . . . Owners' Objectives in Planting Trees . . Distribution of Land Area, Forest Owners, Forest Area and Growing Stock Value, by Population Density Classes . . Comparison of Growing Stock Value Per Acre and Per Owner, by Population Density Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forest Owners in Population Density Zones, by Occupation Class . . . . . . . Distribution of Forest Landownerships One to Three Acres in Size, by Popula- tion Density Zones . . . . . . . . . . . Forest Owners' Objectives, by Popula- tion Density Zones . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Forest Landownerships in Which Commercial Timber Sales Have Been Conducted, by Population Density Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 114 116 122 124 126 127 134 136 140 142 144 TAB LE 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55, 56. Forest Owners' Cutting Practices, by POpulation Density Zones . . . . . . . . Sale of Wooded Tracts for Residential or Commercial DevelOpment, by Popula- tion Density Zones . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Owners Who Had Been Approached for Sale of All or a Part of Their Woodland for Residential or Commercial Development, by Population Density Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Owners Who Had Been Approached for Sale of All or a Part of Their Woodland for Residential or Commercial Development, by Total Value of Growing Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . Forestry Extension Assistance Provided Through County Offices in Southern I'IiChi-gan O O O C O O O O O O O O C O O 0 Owners Who Received Non-Forestry Assistance from County Agent, by Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes of Woodland Owners Toward Extension Forester Assistance . . . . . Soil Conservation District Program Status as of June 30, 1960 . . . . . . . Land Conversions Effected by SCD Cooper- store in Michigan from July 1, 1959, Through June 30, 1960 . . . . . . . . . Owners Having SCD Farm Plan, by Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACP Forestry Accomplishments in Southern Michigan, 1956-1959 . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes of Forest Landowners in Southern Michigan with Respect to the Forestry Aspect of ACP . . . . . . . . . Owner's Main Reason for Not Applying for ACP Forestry Assistance Despite Knowl- edge of Program . . . . . . . . . . . . X Page 146 148 149 151 161 163 166 169 171 173 178 180 182 TABLE Page 57. Attitudes of Forest Landowners with Respect to the Forestry Aspect of ACP, by Occupation Class . . . . . . . . . . . 184 58. Conservation Reserve Tree Planting Activity (CR-A-7) in Southern Michigan, 1957“].960 e e o o o e o o o o o e e o a o 187 59. Forest Owners Participating in Soil Bank Program, by Occupation Class . . . . 188 60. Owner's Main Reason for Not Participating in Forestry Aspect of the Conservation Reserve Despite Knowledge of Program . . . 190 61. Attitudes of Forest Landowners Regard- ing CFM Service Forestry Program . . . . . 194 62. Attitudes of Forest Landowners Partici- pating or Showing Interest in CFM Assist- ance, by Occupation Class . . . . . . . . 197 63. Owner's Main Reason for not Applying for CFM Forestry Assistance Despite Knowledge of Program . . . . . . . . . . . 199 64. Comparison of Cutting Practices of Owners Having Received CFM Assistance and Those Not Receiving Such Aid . . . . . 201 65. Relationship Between Annual Property Tax and the Value of Owners' Growing Stock . . 215 66. Owner Status Regarding Knowledge of and Interest in Michigan Yield Tax Laws . . . 218 67. Owner Status Regarding Capital Gains Provisions of Income Tax Law . . . . . . . 221 '68. Owner's Interest in Forest Credit . . . . 225 69. Owner's Main Reason for Lack of Interest in Forest Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 7Ch Forest Owners Source of Price Information. 230 71" Forest Owners Interest in Public Timber ' Price and Market Information Service . . . 232 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Southern Michigan Study Area . . . . . . . 8 2. Location of Sample Blocks in Southern Michigan Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3. Example of Scheme Used to Determine Whether or Not Woodland Owner was a "count-omer" o o o e e e o e e o e e o e 49 4. Distribution of Private Forest Owners, Area and Growing Stock, by Concept of Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 xii AN INVESTIGATION 01' PRIVATE FOREST IANDOWNERSHIP IN THE SOUTHERNMOST THIRTY-SEVEN COUNTIES OF THE LOWER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Private forest landownership has been identi- fied as a "forestry problem" for many years. For instance, in the Forest Service's first comprehensive forest resource analysis, the Capper Report,1 prepared over forty vears ago, ownership was singled out as a basic forestry problem. Today, however, the concern regarding private forest landownership represents a lBO-degree shift from that of the Capper Report. The official title of the Capper Report, "Timber Depletion, Lumber Prices, Lumber Exports, and Concentra- £335 (italics nine) of Timber Ownership" immediately suggests the contrast. It is paradoxical that in a relatively short span of years foreaters have been concerned with both too ggg'and too 3532 timber land- OUI'ICPB . 1U.S.D.A. Forest Service, "Timber Depletion, Lumber Prices, Lumber Exports, and Concentration of Timber Ownership," Report on Senate Resolution 311, U.S.D.A., 1920, 71 pp. Looking back, it can't be said that foresters actually solved the early "large ownership problem." If anything, it resolved itself. Many of the early large owners either lost or liquidated their holdings. In more recent years, large ownerships have become accepted as an aid and not a handicap to forestry. It would be highly desirable if, in the future, the small private ownership problem.would favorably resolve itself without the intervention of forestry programs. However, there is no adequate basis for such presumption. Urbanization during the past decade and a half promises to introduce additional complexities to the mall ownership problem and to the general forest resource situation as well. The extreme mobility and growth of the nation's population, manifest in the rapid expansion of its cities and villages, has only recently been recognized as a real threat to the forest resource base of our country. For example, the Forest Service Chief, R. E. McArdle, recently had this to say with regard to urban growth: There isn't going to be enough land to go around. Up to a few years ago we in the Forest Service thought there was ample land in trees to grow our timber needE'if efficiently managed. Even in the Timber Resource Review study completed in 1958, we only raised a mild caution on this point. we su gested then that further significant reduc- tion n commercial forest land should be made only 'with full realization that such withdrawals may adversely affect future timber supply.‘ In light of present circumstances we think this was too conservative. we are now genuinely concerned. Initially at least, urbanization will have its greatest impact on the small private forest ownerships located near the outskirts of the nation's major metro- politan areas. This process raises serious questions about the location of efforts in the public and private assistance programs which are attempting to increase the efficiency of the nation's small private forest land holdings. It is becoming increasingly apparent that fores- try assistance programs will have to assume a higher degree of selectivity in the future than is presently the case. In the first place, as Kenneth Pomeroy has pointed out, "We are not equipped with enough man power to treat all potential clients."3 And even if we were, there would be little justification for attempts to encourage all small woodland owners to devote more time to their woodland enterprise(s). This is because there is good reason to believe, as Marion Clawson ‘points out, that many small woodland owners are 2Richard E. MCArdle, "The Sixties-~Decade of Decision." Address before 83rd Annual Convention of «American Pulp and Paper Assn., New York, Feb. 25, 1960, PM 4. 3Kenneth B. Pomeroy, "The Problem," American 7Forests, 64(5): 14-15, 38-44, 1958. behaving in an economically more rational manner, given their aims and objectives, than their advisors have .proposed.4 The matter of selectivity has several facets. For one thing, such an approach would recognize regional, state, and even intra-state differences as far as timber .productivity potential of the private owner is concerned. It would also allow for the fact that certain educational and technical assistance programs are more effective than other means to reach particular objectives in given regions. And lastly, of course, a more discretionary administration of educational and technical assistance programs would recognize that certain types of owners will respond more favorably than others to assistance programs. It is obvious that if a more discretionary approach to forestry assistance programs is to be undertaken, we must be able to develop criteria which Will serve to most efficiently direct public and pri- vate assistance funds to those owners whose potential for increasing the nation's timber output is the greatest. Size might be one criterion. The TRR Points out that, by concentrating programs on owners “Marian Clawson, "Economic Size of Forestry Operations," Jour. of Forestry, 55:521-526, 1957. of more than 30 acres of commercial forest land, for example, half of the small woodland owners might be eliminated with a loss of coverage of only six percent of the total commercial forest land area.5 But as Pomeroy mentions, using size alone as a criterion might lead to rank discrimination; ten acres of good Douglas fir might be worth more than half a township of scrub oak.6 If size is not an all-inclusive criterion to use, then what other factors should be used by those who are endeavoring to promote improved management on small forest holdings? Many of the answers are depen- dent upon the owners themselves. we must learn more about them-~who they are, how they react to suggestions, why some practice forestry and why some don't. Objectives of the Study This study was undertaken primarily in recog- nition of the need for more information about the small Private forest landownership situation in the nation's farm woodlot areas.7 Since the study area selected 5U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Timber Resources for America's Future, U.S.D.A. Forest Resource Report 14, llfififi‘ifi'3IIT—" 6Pomeroy, 22. cit., p. 43. 7This investigation was an official study of the Lake States Forest Experiment Station. The objectives were initially set forth in the work plan for line PrOject No. FS.-4-el-4-LS, dated October, 1958. encompasses In opportur growth whit Th istration the scope to seek m clues vhi try assis fically, encompasses several metropolitan areas it also afforded an opportunity to examine certain aspects of urban growth which affect forest resources. The development of criteria to guide the admin- istration of forestry assistance programs was not within the scope of this study. Rather, the study was designed to seek and identify certain problems and to provide clues which might guide the administration of the fores- try assistance programs in the study area. More speci- fically, the objectives of this study were as follows: 1. To determine who are the small woodland owners, how they may be grouped into various owner classes (e.g., occupations and size of holdings), how much forest land each group owns, and how'management differs between groups. 2. To determine the extent to which various forestry practices are being carried out by owners in the study area. 3. To determine if and how certain variables, such as size of holding, length of tenure, form of ownership, owner's age, distance of owner from forest land, experience with timber production and marketing, and urban- ization affect the forest landowner's atti- tudes, concepts and actions regarding forest management. c“Hie. f”Gate Effie hE 4. To determine the objectives of ownership and how they affect forest management. 5. To evaluate certain assistance programs in terms of owner acceptance and improved forestry practices and to suggest desirable changes. 6. To determine, on the basis of ownership patterns and owner attitudes, whether or not increased production of wood products from private forest land in the study area can be anticipated. Study Area The study area includes the southernmost 37 counties of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. (See Figure l for study area location.) Once almost entirely covered with forest, the area is now only 17 percent forested.8 Except for the northern tier of counties which were once a part of the great Michigan pinery, the study area has never experienced an organized attempt to har- vest the timber. Danford who describes early lumbering in southern Michigan as a transition stage-~to an 8Virgil E. Findell, 33 a1., Michigan's Forest 1Resources, 0.8. Forest Service,_rake States Forest Expt. Sta., Sta. Paper 82, 1960, p. 5. 57 CANADA ,/‘LAK£ ERIE 1. Southern Michigan Study Area were: ., ‘.1 ‘n 'Jstrlu. uioreers u that loggz '1‘} Vichigan, for cost where 91 supports axed 91 pa '1'! HWE'Jer , Of 50‘1t'f‘ the L0“ is $978: industrial and agricultural base-~points out that the pioneers were intent upon establishing farmsteads and that logging was strictly incidental.9 The study area, which coincides with District 4, Michigan, of the Lake States Forest Survey, accounts for most of the state's economic activity. This area, where 91 percent of the state's 7.8 million people live,10 supports about 75 percent of the total number of farms and 91 percent of the urban employment. Such statistics would appear to relegate fores- try to a minor position, especially in light of the fact that only 16.6 percent of the 15.2 million acres of the study area is classified as commercial forest.11 However, a few comparisons between the forest resources of southern Michigan with those of the northern half of the Lower Peninsula, a region where timber production is generally conceded to be the highest and best use of much of the land, suggests that forestry should not be ignored in the study area. Seventy percent of the 9Ormand S. Danford, "The Social and Economic Effects of Lumbering on Michigan,1835-1890," Michigan ,flistory Magazine, 26:346-364, 1942. 103. Allen Beegle and John F. Thaden, "Popula- tion Changes in Michigan, 1950-1960," Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta., 1960, p. 3. 11Private owners account for all but five per- cent of the commercial forest land in the study area. Cf., Findell, 55.31., 22. cit., p. 39. northern 'fia teams: t< latter are.‘ acreage-C Tne value each highe Thus, alt‘. the north cubic foo 10 northern half of the Lower Peninsula is forested in contrast to 17 percent in the southern half, but the latter area accounts for nearly twice as much sawtimber acreage--986,000 acres as compared to 501,000 acres.12 The value of timber per unit of volume tends to be much higher in the study area than farther north. Thus, although the 1954 harvest from the forests of the northern half of the Lower Peninsula, in terms of cubic foot volume, was nearly twice that from southern Michigan's forests, the dollar value of the respective harvests was nearly the same--$9.8 million in the nor- thern half as compared to $9.1 million in the southern half}:5 12Findell, 22. cit., p. 38. 13Source: Basic work tables, Michigan Survey Report, Fall, 1957, (unpublished). Rest z‘es expanie then were that {0'3} toniccted . I ‘mw 8 milard c 5'15 ”stifle: 0 1M u-gerest ‘ CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Research in forest landownership and management has expanded greatly in the last decade. Ten years ago there were only five such studies completed. To date, almost four times as many ownership studies have been conducted and their findings published. As a result, we know a good deal more about the nation's private woodland owner--his characteristics, his management, his marketing practices, and his knowledge of and interest in various government assistance programs. The first portion of the ensuing literature review'will attempt to capsulize the findings of the ‘various forest landownership studies which have been completed. The second portion of the review takes cognizance of the fact that there is much to be accom- Plished in the future regarding private forest landown— erahip research. For example, we need more information 0" owners' value systems and how these affect concepts of and interest in forest management. we need to determine the most effective information media to use 1“motivating woodland owners to accept particular ideas and practices regarding woodland management and 11 project «is en'.’ bet. tion that imesti‘et final sect tion and 1 NSO'J‘CCQS 12 product marketing. In the second section, "motivation and behavioral" research will be reviewed on the assump- tion that it is indicative of the approach which forest investigators will use in the future. The third and final section of Chapter II will pertain to urbaniza- tion and its probable impact on forests and other land resources . Forest Landownership Studies The first attempt to study private woodland owners was made in northwest Wisconsin.1 The objective of this study was "to appraise the factors affecting private ownership in the region to obtain some clues as to trends in this form of tenure." This study, ‘which was based on a mail canvass, was limited to a :five—county area predominately held by large corpora- ‘tions. Despite a limited scope and the fact that it ‘was based on a mail canvass, the examination set a good standard for future studies. Among other things, for instance, the questionnaire was designed to evaluate Owners' attitudes toward public assistance leading toward better forest management. \ 1Charles H. Stoddard, Jr., "Future of Private Forest Land Ownership in the Northern Lake States," Journal of Land and Public Utilities Economics, 18:267- ’ O Am 9?ch was c an explore? private for take a ctr: and the 51' as no Que tigation c Work for f S" the Bitua' 3E0?! in "men. ”'3 was EHm't‘dzaf ”Matt c find in H. Tate an ‘ with Pat 13 Another early study was that of Folweiler's which was conducted in Louisiana.2 This study was of an exploratory nature and concerned public as well as private forest land. There was no attempt to under- take a strenuous examination of owner characteristics and the study did not consider attitudes at all. There was no questionnaire or interview involved. This inves- tigation can best be summed up as serving to lay ground- work for future studies. Shortly after Folweiler completed his survey of the situation in Louisiana, Chamberlin st 21. conducted a more intensive ownership study in southern Arkansas, northern Louisiana, and central Mississippi.3 The work area was confined to one timber type--the loblolly- shortleaf. Although the questionnaire was designed to collect considerable information, very little was uti- lized in the final presentation. The authors used a "pine stocking index" to rate an owner's management practices. This criterion, which was first outlined by Folweiler, assumed that 2A. D. Folweiler, "Forest land Ownership in Louiaiana and its Influence on Timber Production," Louisiana Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 377, 1944, 56 pp. 3H. H. Chamberlin, L. A. Sample, and Ralph w. Hayes, "Private Forest Land Ownership and Management ixl‘the Loblolly-Shortleaf Type in Southern Arkansas, Northern Louisiana and Central Mississippi," Louisiana Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 393, 1945, 46 pp. "an irdicat: forest lard ducted a 5' England to about owne tier. raffle forest 2.31 P‘. TQCHR‘LC 81 14 "an indication of the owner's attitude toward his forest land is to be found in its relative productive condition." Using a case study approach, Barraclough con- ducted a study of private forest landowners in 23 New England towns.“ Designed to obtain basic information about owners of small forest holdings, the investiga- tion made no attempt to relate owners or attitudes to forest management practices. Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin Number 33 describes a comprehensive analysis of private forest landownership in Central Mississippi.5 The investigation was directed toward finding out who the forest landowners were, how they grouped into different classes, how much forest land each group owned, how management differed between groups, and what were some of the important pressures, needs, abilities, beliefs and degrees of knowledge “Solon L. Barraclough, "Forest Land Ownership in New England," Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard Ihniversity, 1949, 269 pp. Also for a summary see: Solon Barraclough and James C. Rettie, "The Ownership of Small Private Forest Land-holdings in 23 New England Towns," U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern I"’orest Expt. Sta., Sta. Paper 34, 1950, 32 pp. 5Lee M. James, William P. Hoffman, and Monty Payne, "Private Forest Land Ownership and Management 31n.Centra1 Mississippi," Mississippi Agr. Expt. Sta. frechnical Bul. 33, 1951, 38 pp. past cutting :ique was a; than the "p Tn: investi :i'ber mama Sec he tore itproved 5' main; pm "ET, the:- Programs, Yc “W61 Hi mm lalt {MM 918‘ ing 300d ; Caht. how 0? Jig tke iv- 15 which affected the owners' decisions. Timber management was rated on the basis of past cutting practices and fire protection. The tech— nique was admittedly subjective, but more authentic than the "pine stocking index" used by Chamberlin st 31. The investigation also evaluated the owner's concept of timber management, which was shown to have a direct bearing on management practices--as an owner's concept became more enlightened, the owner's management rating improved steadily. Owners were also interviewed con- cerning programs for improving timber management; how- ever, there was no attempt made to delve into particular programs. Yoho's study, which was patterned after the central Mississippi study, was conducted in the nor- ‘fhern half of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan.6 He found that only a fraction of the owners were follow- ing good forest management practices. More signifi- Cant, however, was the.fsct that only half of the Owners in the study area saw a possibility of improv- ing their timber management. Unlike previous investigators, Yoho attempted to evaluate owners' attitudes and acceptance of specific 6James G. Yoho, "Private Forest Land Ownership and Management in 31 Counties of the Northern Portion of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan," Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1956, 343 pp. progrets ' fifortuna progress: effective attituies Texas, .“fi. mmers :1 to do so 16 programs directed toward improving forest management. Unfortunately, most owners were unfamiliar with such programs; this limited the attempt to determine the effectiveness of the programs in terms of owners' attitudes and improved forestry practices. In a case study conducted on a small scale in Texas, Mignery tried to determine why some woodland owners practiced forestry while the majority failed 7 Although the analysis failed to answer to do so. this question, it did shed light on what character- izes an owner who practices forestry. This investi- gation found that it was the more enlightened and well-to-do owners who practiced good forest manage- ment, but that even these individuals did not under— take management until professional foresters encouraged them to do so. In addition, nearly all of these owners had receivec continuous assistance from public or pri- vate agencies. In a brief report of the results of 651 inter- Views with forest landowners in the Tennessee Valley, it was disclosed that better forest management was on the increase.8 This study used a rather complex system 7A. L. Mignery, "Factors Affecting Small WOod- land Management in Nacogdoches County, Texas," Jour. morestry, 54(2):102-105, 1956. ""' 8Tennessee Valley Authority, "Private Forest MQuagement in the Tennessee Valley," T.V.A., Norris, ennessee, 1954, 13 pp. :ttin; mu. tuiy we sEip st: .35 9001 cooxra state 3 These 5 593%! BCI‘QS 3&28‘e 595 m “fit I "new 0 “Ere E9 "U r'- Rte r1 «god ”3m 217. 17 of rating management practices. The evaluation rated management by a composite scoring of degree of planning, logging control, grazing control, employment of a cut- ting budget, fire protection, reforestation, timber cutting system, insect and disease control, and improve- ments. Shortly after the findings of the preceding study were published, T.V.A. completed another owner- ship study.9 A case study approach was used, involving 505 woodland owners in the "T.V.A." states who had cooperated with the Authority and their respective state agency in establishing case demonstration forests. These 505 demonstration forests, which were established between 1943 and 1948, varied from 3 acres to 118,000 acres in size. Using approximately the same scheme for rating management as in the 1954 T.V.A. investigation, the 505 owners were categorized into one of three manage— ment groups: "satisfactory," "unsatisfactory," and "marginal." The owners falling into the last group wEre not analyzed. This left 200 "satisfactory" and 39 "unsatisfactory" owners. Judging from these 289 interviews, the basic motive in good management was ‘ 9Tennessee Valley Authority, "Influence of Woodland and Owner Characteristics on Forest Manage- ulent," T.V.A. Division of Forestry Relations Report 217-55, 1956, 38 pp. 18 pride of ownership and interest in productive land management as a long-time family enterprise.10 Low income and financial difficulties were the main rea- sons for unsatisfactory management. Christensen,11 working in New York State, deve10ped, applied, and tested a methodology for investigating forest owners' management objectives. Though most of the subject matter dealt primarily with the statistical biases stemming from geographical dif- ferences, and the use of mail questionnaires, certain conclusions regarding the owners' objectives and moti- vations were given:12 1. The assumptions that woodlands are managed to produce timber for net return . . . may not be valid. In the counties comprising the study area, only 19 per cent of the 959 respondents listed a 'timber products for sale' objective. 2. The contributions of forest land in terms of wildlife, recreation, and home-use timber pro- ducts appear to be the most important objectives in the minds of forest owners. 3. The role of timber products seems to be closely related to the acreage of forest owned . . . a substantial increase in the frequency of this objective is noted with each increase in woodland area class. 4. . . . the reason which underlies the existence of management objectives stems from a complex of sociological economic and psychological influences. 10Ibid., p. 4. 11Wallace W. Christensen, "A Methodolo y for Investigating Forest Owners' Management Object ves," thlpublished Ph.D. thesis, State University of New York, 1957, 184 pp. 121b1d., p. llef. In I regarditg 5 land owners tion pellet not quest‘ hwy thocg' assistance in the 5.": A? 53pport 0' fid provi ASA woo-1'1 Be an good IQEpz if s: I New York SPECiEiC can be U win res -“‘_‘ ation c. K.‘ 6"‘(7):.‘] 19 In order to determine the consensus of opinion regarding suggested means to cope with the small wood- land ownership problem, the American Forestry Associa- tion polled its membership in 1958.13 Using a structured- type questionnaire, the ABA asked its membership what they thought about certain public and private forestry assistance schemes. The result of this poll appeared in the American Forests about a year 1ater.14 Although no single suggested scheme received the support of a simple majority of those voting, the poll did provide some insight as to what characterizes an AFA woodland owner.15 He would like some help in putting his forest in good condition, but he prefers to retain personal responsibility. He has confidence in his ability, if someone will show him how to do the job. A study conducted in three counties in southern New'York State by webster and Stoltenberg was designed Specifically to determine what ownership characteristics can be used to predict whether or not a woodland owner will respond to forestry assistance programs.16 y 13Kenneth B. Pomeroy, "American Forestry Associ- ation Small woodlands Opinion Poll," American Forests, 54(7):31-53, 1958. 14Kenneth B. Pomeroy, "What the AFA Small woodland oWl'lers Want," American Forests, 65(2):l4-15, 57-60, 1959. 151b1d., p. 57. 16Henry H. webster and Carl H. Stoltenberg, "What (”Mnership Characteristics Are Useful in Predicting Response t<> Forestry Programs?" Land Economics, 35(3):292-295, 1959. AlthoL‘gh pation, : years or mic’erm of these or not t ever, tx owed, a 20 Although they tested such factors as owner's age, occu- pation, method by which forest property was acquired, years owned, distance of forest property from owner's residence, and value per acre of standing timber, none of these pnaved to be significantly related to whether or not the owner responds to forestry assistance. How- ever, two other characteristics, acreage of forest land owned, and assessed value of the owner's property, were positively correlated with response to public assistance programs. Bruce's work, which was limited to one aspect of the small ownership problem, describes the position of the woodland owner when he markets timber products.17 The total of 1,222 mail questionnaires analyzed in this study represented 2.6 percent of the small forest land- owners in the Washington State study area. Bruce found ‘that only 56 percent of the owners received "before- sale" assistance (i.e., aid in management, cruising, marking timber for sale, etc.). From this he concluded that: Apparently one of two things is happening: either landowners are so well educated in forest practices that they need no assistance, or they are so unin- formed that they do not realize their need for help. 17Richard W. Bruce, "Marketing, Sawlogs and PUlpw'ood From Small woodland Holdings--an Economic Ahalysis," State College of Washington, Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 599, 1959, 31 pp. One t.‘.:' are re: a anal A in St. Eel Water‘s Eomd t‘:a grazs our. gererallj. eating 5 I" 1 3'.“ Va.“ Orr. 21 One thing seems clear, most peOple who want help are rece ving it,13ut apparently these people are a small minority. A survey of 51 randomly selected woodland owners in St. Helena Parish in Louisiana serves to substantiate webster's and Stoltenberg's findings.19 This study also found that the owners who had undertaken management pro- grams owned above average size tracts of timber and had generally more financial resources than the non-manager. Casamajor, 33 al., recently completed an inter- esting study of timber marketing and landownership in 20 Although changes in forest landowner- California. ship patterns were studied, this research was aimed at developing more efficient timber marketing in Mendocino County, California, and at bringing about a better under- standing of timber marketing in an area of rapidly expanding cut . Interviews with 126 randomly selected, small (less than 5,000 acres) woodland owners suggested that despite the importance of forest industries in the local 'economy, there were numerous imperfections in the timber 18mm. , p. 6. 19R. W. McDermid, et al., "Ownership Factors Affecting Management of Small—Woodlands in St. Helena Parish, Louisiana," Louisiana Expt. Sta. Bul. 520, 1959, 19 pp. 20Paul Casamajor, Dennis Teeguarden, and John Zivnuska, "Timber Marketing and Landownership in Mendo- Cino County," Calif. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 772, 1960, 55 pa. 1 ‘.nfl untold: sold after the who variety 0 frienishi ten contr but exper lack of h Espects ( tract prc } tog-Y" 8t! forest at 50'3t52n, lake Sta in t'F-e S “Macy? Aflflar 5?: 8 WV“- ah ties," 22 marketing processes. For example, timber was usually sold after negotiating with only one buyer. Also, because of the owner's limited market contact, and his desire to deal with a buyer in whom he has confidence, the selection of this buyer was often determined by a variety of non-monetary considerations (e.g., personal friendship, good reputation, only buyer known). Writ- ten contracts were used by two-thirds of the owners, but experience in Mendocino County showed that the lack of knowledge regarding the legal and physical aspects of marketing timber often meant that the con- tract provided little or no protection to the seller. McClay summarized the findings of nine "explora- tory" studies conducted in 1958 by the five eastern forest experiment stations of the Forest Service: tSouthern, Southeastern, Northeastern, Central, and 21 A total of 957 woodland owners located Lake States. in.the states of New'York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, iKentucky, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Georgia, and tArkansas were interviewed. These studies validated much that was already known about woodland owners. However, there were sev- eral findings that shed added light on the subject. ‘ 21T. A. McClay, "Similarities Among Owners of Small Private Forest Properties in Nine Eastern Locali- ties," Jour. of Forestry, 49(2):88-92, 1961. For itsts services so by for Iic e191: literate: not be it ‘l'foortan tacts. other a:- feasible 23 For instance, owners who had used professional forestry services were asked "whether they were influenced to do so by foresters, private individuals, non-forester pub- lic employees, demonstrations or meetings, or forestry literature."22 The original motivating force could not be determined, but the findings did bring out the importance of personal as opposed to impersonal con- tacts. These studies also indicated that leasing or other arrangements for forest management might be feasible in some areas. "Motivation and Behavioral" Research Farm managers and small woodland owners, though exhibiting some common characteristics (in many instances an individual may be both), should not be considered altogether identical as far as their motives are con- cerned. Since they are his source of income, economic considerations are paramount among the factors which determine how'the farmer manages his various crop and livestock enterprises. However, forces other than those 'Jf an economic nature may be more instrumental in deter- ulining what the small private woodland owner does with t111s forested tract. Despite this and perhaps other <1if'f'erences, research techniques and findings of \ 22Ibid., p. 91. investig gerial 1 as a re gets to profile! as foll "u-‘re pe w an "it h88 f0 24 agricultural economists and rural sociologists regard~ ing the farm managerial processes may prove useful to investigators studying the small private woodland owner. A number of useful concepts concerning the mana— gerial processes have been formulated by Glenn L. Johnson as a result of his attempts to determine how farm mana- gers cope with risks and uncertainties. He classifies ‘problems facing the manager into one of five categories as follows:23 Technology Innovation Prices Personalities . Institutions UlbUle-i \Jhenever a manger is confronted with a problem, be it .an."institutional" or say a "price" problem, Johnson ‘has found it possible to describe the manager's posi— ‘tion in terms of one of six knowledge situations.24 Faced with a problem, the manager may be ready, ‘Wdlling and able to take action immediately as a result of having perfect knowledge or at least the conviction that knowledge is nearly enough perfect to behave as if it were actually perfect. Or else the owner may find himself in one of five stages of "imperfect 23Glenn L. Johnson, "Handling Problems of Risk and Uncertainty in Farm Management Analysis," Jour. of Esra Economics, 34(2):807-8l6, 1952. 24Ibid., p. 812. 25 knowledge." He might be categorized in the risk situa- 5133. Here, despite the lack of perfect knowledge, the manager is still willing to "risk it" because the "addi- tional knowledge concerning this problem is not worth the cost of acquiring it."25 The third possible group- ing is the learning situation. Here the owner finds that the subjective cost of more knowledge is less than the subjective value of more knowledge and so refrains from taking positive or negative action. An inactive status describes the manager who does not have enough information for positive action but finds the value of accruing more knowledge less than its cost. In the ;§9rced action situation some outside factor causes the tnanager to act despite the fact that if he had more ‘time he would have remained in the learning situation. 'The last knowledge situation is that of forced learning. ‘Under such circumstances the owner is caused, again by external factors, to commence collecting information regarding a subject which normally he would not find it feasible to do. As Johnson points out, studying the risk and Uncertainty problems of the farm manager indicates 25Glenn L. Johnson, "Managerial Concepts for Agriculturalists," Kentucky Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 619, 1954, 55 pp. 26 the subjects farmers are trying to learn . . . those they are not trying to learn because the subjective marginal cost of learning exceeds its subjective marginal value . . . those they are not trying to learn because they are willing to 'risk it' on the basis of what they know.2 Results from the North Central Regional Inter- state Managerial Study (IMS) show that farm managers feel that price information is the most important kind of information, although such is not used as frequently as production information.27 This study also found that In general, the relative pattern of information dis- seminated in printed form in farm management texts, agricultural college experiment stations and exten- sion programs conforms rather closely with the pat- tern of information used by farmers and with the importance attagged by farmers to different kinds of information. Rural sociologists have developed a very use- ful conceptual framework for studying the process of how farmers respond to information concerning new farm ‘practices. This phenomenon is called the "diffusion process," and is described below:29 1. Awareness Stage - At this stage an indi- vidual becomes aware of some new idea, such as hybrid corn. He knows about the existence of 26Johnson, 1952, 22. cit., p. 816. 27Glenn L. Johnson and Cecil B. Haver, "Agri- ‘Cultural Information as an Aspect of Decision Making," liich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bul. 273, 1960, 55 pp. 28Ibid., p. 6. “0 ngeorge M. Beal, and Joe M. Bohlen, "The Dif- fusion Process," Iowa State College Agr. Ext. Service, Special Report 18, 1957, 5 pp. met si: ‘4! ex: iri- hos it H- '9 : Pew pr Q'flge 27 the idea, but he lacks details concerning it. For instance, he may know only the name and may not know what the idea or product is, what it will do or how it will work. 2. Interest Stgge - At the interest stage an individualfiwants more information about the idea or product. 3. The Evaluation Sta e - The individual makes a mental trial of the Idea. He applies the infor- mation obtained in the previous stages to his own situation. 4. The Trial Stage - If he decides that the idea has possibilities for him, he will try it. The trial stage is characterized by small-scale experimental use, and by the need for specific information which he deals with: how do I do it: how'much do I use; when do I do it; how can I make it work best? 5. Adgption Stage - This stage is character- ized by large scale, continued use of the idea, and most of all, by satisfaction with the idea. Recognizing that there are differences between farmers as to how they respond to information about new practices, Beal and Bohlen describe five types of managers:30 1. Innovators 2. Early Adopters 3. Early Majority 4. Majority 5. Non-adopters There is good reason to believe that only a Small percent of the farm managers fall into the "inno- Vator” class despite the fact that Hildebrand and Partenheimer, in the Interstate Managerial Study, 301818. fousd t disclt tent, tract adopt EET'g fare! H rrlc Ado; mgr. ‘ EXP: 28 found that 36 percent of the respondents classified them- 31 As Everett Rogers points out, selves as innovators. Innovators are usually regarded (by rural sociolo- gists, county agents, and farmers) as only the first two or three percent of the population to adopt new practices . . . . Secondly, the selec- tion method used by Hildebrand and Partenheimer actually only determines which farmers have inno- vator self images, and not which farmers have innovator behavior. There is considerable research evidence that (1) many farmers have innovator self images who are not actually innovators, and (2) many innovatgrs do not perceive of themselves as innovators.' A study based on data collected in Wisconsin disclosed that innovative behavior is rather consis- tent.33 Fliegel, comparing the adoption of 11 farm practices ir Sauk County, Wisconsin, found that the adoption of a new practice was a function of the far- mer's tendency to adopt others. Beal and Rogers found that just because a farmer was one of the first to become aware of a new Practice is no indication that he is an innovator.34 31Peter E. Hildebrand and Earl J. Partenheimer, "Socio-economic Characteristics or Innovators," Jour. .2; Farm Economics, 40(2):446ff, 1958. 32Everett M. Rogers, "A Note on Innovators," Jour. 2! Farm Economics, 41(1):l33, 1959. 33Frederick C. Fliegel, "A Multiple Correlation Analysis of Factors Associated with Adoption of Farm Practices," Rural Sociology, 21(3):286, 1956. 3('George M. Beal and Everett M. Rogers, "The Adoption of Two Farm Practices in a Central Iowa Com- munity," Iowa State University Agr. and Home Economics Expt. Sta. Special Report 26, 1960, p. 11. fie fi 9" learre: but he 3158?! Ft 29 The first to adopt practices do so not because they learned about the practice earlier than the majority but because they required less time to move from awareness to adoption. . In this same study it was pointed out that "technological farming ideas often flow from imper- sonal sources to the earlier adopters and from them as personal communications to the later adOpterJJS This suggests that in order to expedite the diffusion of information regarding new practices, change agents (i.e., extension, agricultural experiment station, etc.) should identify and seek out the innovators and "apply" the information at this point. Helpful in this respect are the studies which have sought to character- ize the innovators. A number of examples of such work, however, serve as word of.caution to anyone who wants to generalize on the subject of innovator character- istics. For instance, in an Iowa study the acceptors of farm practices in contrast to the non-acceptors read more state college bulletins, were more prone to join cooperatives, were younger, and took more trips to the 35Ibid., p. 19. See also, R. M. Dimit, "Diffusion and Adop- tion of Approved Farm Practices in Eleven Counties in Southwest Virginia," (Abs.), Iowa State College Jour- 331 of Science, 30:351, 1956. me of Bad he; Beal a: 2-4-3 ‘ in ”if Ever 1 Youngp Oiier. itta' Pratt: ‘efide; 955 30 nearest metropolitan center.36 These findings agree with a Kentucky study conducted by Marsh and Coleman.37 But Copp's analysis of Kansas and Wisconsin farmers found that (1) measures of economic productivity and (2) personality variables (i.e., mental flexibility and discerning ability) accounted for most of the vari- ance in the quantitative measures of farm practice adoption, and that social position (i.e., age, formal education, level of living and social participation) were of minor importance when the former two factors had been taken into account.38 In still another study, Beal and Rogers characterized the first adopters of 2-4—D weed spray and anti—biotic swine supplements in much the same fashion as Gross and Taves.39 How- ever in the latter work, innovators were found to be younger, while Beal and Rogers found innovators to be older. Various investigators have suggested the need to go beyond the socio-cultural variables used to _ 36Neal Gross, and Marvin J. Taves, "Character- istics Associated with Acceptance of Recommended Farm Practices," Rural Sociology, 17(4):327, 1952. 37C. Paul Marsh and A. Lee Coleman, "The Rela- tion of Farm Characteristics to the Adoption of Recom- ‘Tgnded Farm Practices," Rural Sociology, 20(3):289-296, 55. 38James H. Copp, "Toward Generalization in Farm Practices Research," Rural Sociology, 23(2):lO3-1ll, 1958. 39Gross and Taves, 22. cit. 31 characterize innovators and find the intervening fac- 40 One such tor(s) to explain empirical findings. study described "rationality" as a variable inter- vening between the operation of the socio-cultural variables (i.e., contact with extension, size of farm, age, tenure arrangements, level of living, etc.) and the act of adoption.41 The actions of the farm manager were judged to be rational or irrational on the basis of a three-point scale which assumed rationality to involve (l) the use of deliberation, (2) planning, and (3) the best available sources of information and advice in arriving at decisions as a means of achieving maxi- mum economic ends. Perhaps as it is used in this study, the limited definition of rationality does not bias the findings. It is apparent, however, that the only irrational behavior considered by these workers was action which involved deviations from what Rothschild termed the "capitalistic spirit."42 400E. ibid., p. 327. 41Alfred Dean, Herbert A. Aurbach, and C. Paul lflarsh, "Some Factors Related to Rationality in Decision ldaking Among Farm Operators," Rural Sociology, 23(2): ‘121-131, 1958. ‘fifi 42K. w. Rothschild, "The Meaning of Rationality: «a note on Professor Lange's Article," Review of Economic IStudies, 14:50-52, 1947. Rothschild suggested three types of irrationality: (1) "Real irrationality," a term applied to purely emotional, impulsive actions; (2) irra- tionality born from ignorance: and (3) irrationality as deviation from the "capitalistic spirit." other 61 ranageri valid w‘ the fir to CO"; taking progre T8528? Efiips c0251 32 Failure to recognize that rationality assumes (yther dimensions may preclude full understanding of Inanagerial behavior. This admonition is particularly *valid when dealing with problems arising from the ‘inability to distinguish between the household and the firm. Interdependence of the household and firm serve ‘to complicate the analysis of the managerial decision- lnaking process. One thing appears certain--little ‘progress is possible if the two aspects of managerial research are handled separately. As Johnson points out, "the lines of demarcation between firms and households ‘become so indistinct and the lines of interrelation- ships so complex that we are forced conceptually to combine the two and treat them jointly."43 Although there are many similarities, the inter- dependence of the household and firm can take on slightly L .XQOum mcwaohw can moa< .mauczc anyhow uum>wwm we scepstaumwc szmeono co_uoE chuE 3032 mm. c— . /l« yl/I/ ,r 44ml I/fy .305 9530.0 .0 2...; o\o B $2.30 $30“. oxo w§\ coca. .mmcom axe 8 .q assume «noocoo 0: mm, ”JV/4 / 0 W I w ”a m M; 76 owners (as far as forest management is concerned) gener- ally own more valuable woodlands on a per-acre basis, and they have larger total investments in growing stock than the less enlightened woodland owners. Although there is room for conjecture, an owner's degree of enlightenment regarding forestry probably has more effect on the value of his growing stock than the latter variable has on his concept of forest manage- ment. This contention will be further substantiated when cutting practices are compared with owner concepts. As Table 10 shows, conceptual variations are associated with differences in owner occupations. For instance, nearly all of the wage-earner woodland owners exhibited "below median" or poorer concepts of forest management, whereas most full-time farmers had some concept of the meaning of forestry. The businessman- professional category ranks first in the percent of owners represented in the "above median” or better concept class. However, this same group ranks below both the full-time farmers and retired woodland owners in percent of owners having a "median" or better con- cept. The retired owners have a larger percentage in "median" or better concepts than any other occupational group. An owner's concept of forest management varied to some degree with age (see Table ll). Generally TABLE 10 OWNER'S CONCEPT OF FOREST MANAGEMENT, BY OCCUPATION CLASSES W ~‘ -r---' W Concept of Forest Management Occupation No Below Above High Concept Median Median Median Concept Total (percent of forest owners) Full—time farming 4 7o 16 10 o 100 Part-time farming 15 73 6 6 0 100 Businessman- professional ll 71 4 l4 * 100 Wage-earner 36 60 4 0 0 100 Retired 32 40 20 8 O 100 Other 36 56 2 5 l 100 All occUpations 20 63 10 7 * 100 *Less than one percent. 78 TABLE 11 ACE OF WOODLAND OWNER, BY CONCEPT OF FOREST MANAGEMENT* Age of owner Concept of forest All management Under 41- 51- 61+ Age 40 50 60 Classes (percent of owners) No concept 13 ll 19 32 20 Below median 72 68 57 58 63 Median 8 12 10 9 10 Above median 7 9 15 l 7 High concept 0 ** 0 0 ** Total 100 100 100 100 100 *Concerns only individual-type ownerships. **Less than one percent. 79 speaking, the middle-aged owners (41-60 years of age) have a slightly better grasp of forest management than owners both younger and older.4 It might appear strange that the 61+ age group does not coincide more closely with the retired category in Table 10. Usually the retired owners professed greater understanding of forest management than did the 61+ age group. The difference can be explained partly by the fact that some of the retired owners are under 60 years of age and many of the owners 61 years of age or older have not as yet retired. In Chapter IV it was suggested that the longer a particular property remains in the same family the better the opportunity for the stewardship concept of land management to prevail. To the extent that this is true, one might eXpect an owner whose wooded property has been in his family one or more generations to have a higher concept of forest management. Although the findings of this study are not decisive, they do lend some support to the above premise. Interviewees whose wooded property had been in the immediate family for two or more generations generally have a slightly better concept of forest management than other woodland owners 4This "bell-shaped" distribution has been observed by other investigators who have studied various gerontological aspects of the farm management process. Cf. Heady, Back, and Peterson, pp. 31:. 80 (see Table 12). However, the difference between the concepts of owners whose wooded tracts were not in the immediate family prior to the present ownership is not significantly different from those whose property has been in their family one generation. Although it was not determined from direct questioning, it should be pointed out that the discus- sions with woodland owners brought to light the fact that many of the owners having "median" or above con- cepts of forest management had rather unique backgrounds which may help explain their degree of enlightenment. Several indicated that they had logging experience, while a few others indicated that they learned to appreciate forestry as a result of their Civilian Con- servation Corps experience. As will be pointed out later, contact with a professional forester may also have improved the woodland owner‘s knowledge of forestry. Objectives of Ownership Despite the fact that most private forest land- owners in southern Michigan have a poor grasp of forest management, the majority (52 percent) indicated that their main objective in owning woodland is producing forest products (see Table 13). But this does not hold true for all occupations. Three-fourths of the full- time farmers stated that forestcproducts production 81 TABLE 12 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF GENERATIONS FOREST LAND HAS BEEN IN FAMILY AND OWNER'S CONCEPT OF FOREST MANAGEMENT* Concept of Not pre— In family Izwgamily forest viously one prior more prior Total management in family generation generations (percent of owners) No concept 22 16 18 20 Below median 62 73 56 63 Median 9 4 16 10 Above median 7 7 10 7 High concept ** 0 O ** Total 100 100 100 100 *This comparison only concerns individual or family- type ownerships. **Less than one percent. 82 .COwuuzvoua asses wanes mcm Home .ams oEoc .pmrswu ensues mo mama .ofimm pom hoLEwu mcwaohw mocnaocHs OCH OCH OCH OCH OCH OCH 00H Hench a n q 0 5H 0 o nazuo m o a c a o o mocepfiwom op Hm ON on ma 0 o o>wuowzH m o m o c o o acmuwusoaAm unassumo>cH c N 0 0H s o o newumosoum m c Q m n o H assuasowhmm Lou umoao FM 0 m o e um 0H assumed mm am mm on on mm as izmuoocosa anyhow: Amsmcao awonOM mo ucoonoav scavamo a seahmm wmcoemmamoha mcwshmm wCHEsmm ssooo -< soLac roawumm mmmz IcaEemocvwsm oEwuousmm onunnasm awxmumcao 1&0 mo m>wuuowno cowumasooo .i .‘I.l.0.!i...'c...|.I'l.’i I) ‘ t mmmw<~0 ZOHEHEUMHmO mm mdmHuoocH m 0H 0 H o m e coHuaHnovam upcosumo>cH q c o H e m o coHuaouowm m em 0 o o m NH ossaHsoHsmw Low smoHo as o ‘ cs as 0 ma as «nausea mm an 00 He he mm mm «:wuoswoua unpack: Hmnwcao uwwacm mo ucwouwav mowmeo :ooum . t . . U.STéOFww -< +000 OH OOOGICOOM OGOQIOOON OOOHIOOOH OOOIH O OWIU/Hmwgo it 9 mo o>Huouwno soouw wcwaonm CH acwEumo>cH m.Lo:3o mo wsHm> LmHHoc ‘I. -.-l.-ll'.ll‘ mmuu<~c m2q<> goose czHacme am .aHmmmmzso no m>~somnmo «H mdmwuoocH o my -- -- a a -- -- possessooam unassumv>cm u- :1 un u: n n m m acauouuoom -u nu ma 5 H n h ow canvass amwwo you wouao 0N NH OH OH h o mN NH owauwmm om om we on on on os no msoseozn amazon Aucoowmav mah< whosao m0h< whocao m0h< mwocao mah< eaocao casewoc3o :omcHuu cocks: HHH 0:0N HH OCON H OCON ww>wuwwmno >H 050K HZON VFHmzwD ZOHEHhowhmO .mmuZBO HmmmOh Nd mgmwoomu no: we; hmcao m o nu nu un nu cm cw nu un 0H NH mocmumwmmm Emu co>woo nos we; wo53o Aucwopwav who who who who was who was son. was was was was < -cso < -cso < uaao < -cso < .530 < -cso possum Hmconwwmosa maELwL wcwEumu posse Umawuwm ummz ucmemoCWwam oswuuuamm oEwunHHsm mopsuwuu< COWumcsooo mm