Search

In this study, we examine how family forest owners who receive various types of assistance differ from unassisted landowners with respect to their forestland management practices, attitudes and concerns, and future management, use, and ownership intentions. We do so by utilizing a national database containing information on private forest owners and the forestland they own. By defining an assisted landowner according to several attributes contained in this database (e.g., has a forest management plan, received cost-share assistance, or received advice), important similarities and differences between recipients and nonrecipients of various types of assistance are identified. The study shows that assisted and unassisted landowners are different with respect to several characteristics of the owners and the forestland they own, land management practices undertaken, and reasons for forest landownership. For example, assisted landowners are more likely to harvest timber and improve wildlife habitat than the unassisted owners. Yet no distinctions are found between assisted and unassisted landowners with respect to their plans to either subdivide or sell their land. In many cases, the differences between assisted and unassisted landowners are not related to the type of assistance the landowner received.

The USDA Forest Service’s Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) is the nation’s most prominent private forestry assistance program. We examined the FSP using a multiple analytic approach: analysis of annual FSP accomplishments, survey of state FSP coordinators, analytic comparison of family forest owners receiving and not receiving forestry practice assistance, and focus groups with family forest owners. We found the FSP reaches a small fraction of eligible landowners; states use FSP funds to address local private forestland issues; landowners obtaining assistance commonly associated with the FSP (e.g., management plans) differ from others in sociodemographics, ownership objectives, and land management actions but not in terms of intent to sell/subdivide forestland; and traditional FSP activities are not influencing inactive family forest owners to become active managers. We believe current practices (e.g., state-level flexibility) help the FSP reach its goals, alternative assistance-related efforts may increase the reach of the FSP and support strategic goals, and data collection improvements may enrich future FSP evaluations.