|
2002
|
Save
or Print a PDF copy of Fact Sheet #16
Washington's non-industrial private forest
(NIPF) landowners control 3.1 million acres, or nearly 20%,
of the forestland in Washington State. Results of a mail survey
suggest that educated and informed NIPF landowners are more
likely to show interest in ecosystem-based management programs.
NIPF respondents in Washington State indicated an appreciation
for the temporal vision and landscape perspective crucial to
understanding the foundation of ecosystem management. NIPF landowners
must be actively involved in the decision-making so that the
process, for them, is one of self-governance. Providing landowners
with opportunities for education and assistance may offer the
best prospects for achieving ecosystem management objectives
across diverse ownerships. |
|
Washington's NIPF forested holdings total 3.1 million
acres or nearly 20% of the state's total of commercial forestland.
Landowners harvested nearly 1.2 billion board feet (Scribner scale)
in 1998, accounting for 29.3% of the timber harvest in the state
on a volume basis. However, the growing interest in Washington's
NIPF lands goes far beyond their role in providing raw material
for the state's solid wood and pulp paper products sectors. NIPF
lands provide critically important environmental and recreational
values to their owners and to the people of the state. These lands
are also often highly sought after by developers for a wide variety
of purposes and individuals seeking more a rural life style.
Both private and public landowners are facing challenges regarding
society's view of forests and traditional forest management practices.
Issues of water quality, forest fragmentation, endangered species
and sustainable resource use are at the forefront. Ecological considerations
of preserving biological diversity, and restoring ecosystem functioning,
while providing a sustainable resource base are challenges for both
professional natural resource managers and NIPF landowners.
Ecosystem management (EM) is a concept born from the challenge to
develop forestry practices that are "…scientifically sound
and socially acceptable…" (Salwasser 1990). Although the
basic principles of EM have been a part of natural resource conservation
since Aldo Leopold, the specifics were somewhat indefinable (Nelson,
1996). Government agencies have adopted many of the principles of
EM in directing their land management activities, but there is still
debate regarding the goals of EM and how they should be met (Yaffee
1996 b). A definition widely accepted by natural resource managers
is, "…knowledge and technology can be used in actions
to encourage desired conditions of ecosystems for environmental,
economic, and social benefits, both now and for future generations"
(Salwasser 1994). This definition has its limitations; the meaning
of "desired condition" differs between individuals and
among society as a whole. Nonetheless, there are some major elements
of EM that are important. The first is that the scale of EM takes
place over the long term, with a greater geographical expanse than
do traditional management activities (Yaffee 1996 a). Second, management
is centered around the relationships between the biotic and abiotic
factors of an ecosystem, rather than on managing specific populations
of organisms (Irland 1994; Salwasser 1994; Barnes 2000). Third,
EM transcends the boundaries of geography, administration and ownership
(Grumbine 1994). EM has yet to be officially applied to non-industrial
private forestlands (Rickenbach et al. 1998) for a number of reasons.
Because of its "across boundaries" approach and the implications
of regulatory increases and loss of control, many NIPF landowners
perceive EM as a means for the government to take away their private
property rights (Brunson et al. 1996). Past studies indicate that
many NIPF landowners in the US agree that, if necessary, private
property rights should be limited in order to protect the environment
(Jones et al. 1995). Under an ecosystem-based management regime,
however, property rights issues may become a more significant deterrent
to participation by private landowners (Rickenbach et al. 1998).
Distrust of government by private landowners makes potential partnerships
between private and public interests difficult. In order for EM
to be successful both private and public forestlands must be involved.
In 1998 and 1999 a random sample of NIPF forestland
owners was drawn from all forested counties in Washington. Sample
sizes for each individual county were based on the proportion of
NIPF lands in that county. A total of 800 names from western and
800 names from eastern Washington were drawn. Questionnaires were
mailed to landowners during early fall of 1999 by the Washington
State University Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC).
The overall completion rate was 49%.
Survey results indicate that Washington's NIPF landowners have a
strong sense of stewardship towards their forestlands. Although
a variety of ownership objectives were presented, a large proportion
of landowners identified several non-monetary values of land ownership,
including privacy of a rural setting, the satisfaction of owning
land, the opportunity to contribute to fish and wildlife conservation,
as well as income opportunities from commercial timber sales. These
results are consistent with similar studies completed for other
regions in the United States (Blatner et al. 1991; Brunson et al.
1996; Rickenbach et al. 1998). This suggests that NIPF landowners
view their forests as a multi-use resource, such that they can achieve
environmental, economic, and social benefits from their lands. However,
recent studies suggest that voluntary participation by landowners
in ecosystem management programs is often stalled by a fear of increased
regulations (Raedeke et al. 2001).
Most respondents recognized the role of their forests in local communities
and the region. They indicated an understanding that their forests
operate in the larger system. Although a large percentage of respondents
indicated a willingness to manage their forests across ownership
boundaries, it is difficult to determine who would actually participate
in such a program (Rickenbach et al. 1998). Cynicism towards public
agencies, potential economic risks, and a distrust of neighbouring
landowners may affect participation. However, most respondents indicated
an appreciation for the temporal vision and landscape perspective
crucial to understanding the foundation of EM. Many of these landowners
are working professionals with above average incomes, are well educated,
and although they may have small individual holdings, collectively
they control a substantial amount of natural resources. Education
can provide tools to help NIPF landowners meet management objectives
while at the same time providing them with information necessary
to make land-use decisions that are ecologically sound, economically
sustainable and socially acceptable.
Intermingled ownerships make ecosystem management difficult and
if the loss of decision-making power by an individual is potentially
a result, this may dissuade even the most willing NIPF landowner
from participating. Public agencies need to involve private landowners
in ecosystem-based projects by using a more "place" based
cross-boundary management approach (Cantrill 1998). NIPF landowners
must be actively involved in the decision-making so that the process,
for them, is one of self-governance (Weber 2000), and trust is created
between both private and public stakeholders (Raedeke et al. 2001).
This study, and similar ones carried out across the USA, suggests
that better educated and informed NIPF landowners are more likely
to show interest in ecosystem-based management programs. These objectives
can be met through educational and assistance programs, and may
provide the best opportunity for achieving ecosystem management
objectives across diverse ownerships (Irland 1994; Sample 1994;
Campbell et al. 1996; Raedeke et al. 2001).
References:
- Blatner, K. A., D.M. Baumgartner, and L.R. Quackenbush (1991).
"NIPF use of landowner assistance and educationprograms in
Washington State." Western Journal of Applied Forestry
6(4): 90-94.
- Brunson, M. W. (1993). ""Socially acceptable"
forestry: what does it imply for ecosystem management?" Western
Journal of Applied Forestry 8(4): 116-19.
- Campbell, S. M. a. D. B. K. (1996). "Ecosystem-based management
on multiple NIPF ownerships." Journal of Forestry 94(2):
24-29.
- Cantrill, J.G. (1998). "The environmental self and a sense
of place: communication foundations for ecosystem management."
Journal of Applied Communication Research 26(3):
301-318
- Grumbine, R. E. (1994). "What is ecosystem management?"
Conservation Biology 8: 27-38.
- Irland, L. C. (1994). "Getting from here to there: Implementing
ecosystem management on the ground." Journal of Forestry
92(8): 12-17.
- Jones, S. B., A.E. Luloff, and J.C. Finley. (1995). "Another
look at NIPF's: facing our myths." Journal of Forestry
93(9): 41-44.
- Raedeke, A. H., J.S. Rikoon, and C.H. Nilon (2001). "Ecosystem
management and landowner concern about regulations: A case study
in the Missouri Ozarks." Society and Natural Resources
14: 741-59.
- Rickenbach, M. G., D.B. Kittredge, D. Dennis, and T. Stevens.
(1998). "Ecosystem management: capturing the concept for
woodland owners." Journal of Forestry 96(4):
18-24.
- Salwasser, H. (1990). "Gaining perspective: Forestry for
the future." Journal of Forestry 88(11): 32-38.
Sample, V. A. (1994). "Building partnerships for ecosystem
management on mixed ownership landscapes." Journal of
Forestry 92(8): 41-44.
- Weber, E. P. (2000). "A new vanguard for the environment:
Grass-roots ecosystem management as a new environmental movement."
Society and Natural Resources 13: 237-59
- Yaffee, S. L. (1996 a). "Ecosystem management in practice:
the importance of human institutions." EcologicalApplications
63(3): 724-27.
- Yaffee, S.L. (1996 b), "Assessment" in S.L. Yaffee,
A.F. Phillips, I.C. Frentz, P.W. Hardy, S.M. Maleki, andB.E.Thorpe
(eds) "Ecosystem management in the United States: An assessment
of current experience" Island Press,Washington D.C. pp. 3-39.
|
