United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report SRS–116

A Southern Region Conference 

on Technology Transfer and 

Extension

Hot Springs, Arkansas 

August 2-4, 2006
May 2009 

Southern Research Station 

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd. 

Asheville, NC 28804

DISCLAIMER

The use of trade of firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.

PESTICIDE PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENT

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations 

for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of 

pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be 

recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or 

other wildlife if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. 

Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and their containers.

Papers published in these proceedings were submitted by authors in electronic media. Some 

editing was done to ensure a consistent format. Authors are responsible for content and accuracy 

of their individual papers and the quality of illustrative materials. 
A Southern Region 

Conference on Technology 

Transfer and Extension

Hot Springs, Arkansas 

August 2-4, 2006 

Edited by 

Sarah F. Ashton 

Senior Editor 

Southern Regional Extension Forestry 

Athens, GA

William G. Hubbard 

Southern Regional Extension Forester 

Athens, GA 

H. Michael Rauscher 

U.S. Forest Service (retired) 

Asheville, NC
II

Review Process

Manuscripts for oral presentations were assigned to either the senior or managing editors and peer reviewed by at 

least two professionals, in most cases, three. Reviews were compiled and returned to authors to revise. Revised 

manuscripts were returned to the senior editor for final review and editing. Manuscripts were then compiled as one 

document and sent to the Forest Service, Southern Research Station for editing and publishing.

The senior editor and Conference Planning Team would like to extend a special thanks to the following people who 

graciously acted as managing editors on these conference proceedings: 

H. Michael Rauscher 

U.S. Forest Service (retired) 

Asheville, NC

Bill Hubbard 

Southern Regional Extension Forester 

Atlanta, GA

Andy Londo 

Mississippi State University 

Mississippi State, MS 

Wayne Clatterbuck 

University of Tennessee 

Knoxville, TN

Daniel Cassidy 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

 and Extension Service 

Washington, DC

Lauren McDonell 

University of Florida 

New Castle, CO
III

PLENARY PAPERS

Past, Present, and Future of the Extension 

System ......................................................................... 3

Bill Hubbard and Larry Biles

Science Delivery at the Southern Research 

Station ......................................................................... 8

Carol Whitlock, Zoë Hoyle, 

Rodney Kindlund, Livia Marqués, 

Randy McCracken, Claire Payne, 

H. Michael Rauscher, Perdita 

Spriggs, Louise Wilde, and 

Alan Salmon

Changing Public Behavior with Help from 

Target Audience Research ....................................... 17

Elaine Andrews

A Framework for Outreach Activities ...................... 28

Martha Monroe 

Building on Our Strengths for Better Science 

Delivery ..................................................................... 32 

Ann Bartuska

Andragogy’s Challenge: Teaching Different 

Generations of Learners .......................................... 37

Ben Jackson and Matthew Howell

NON-TRADITIONAL AND UNDERSERVED 

AUDIENCES

In Their Own Words: Perceptions of Forestry 

Among African-American Forest Land Owners 

in Arkansas Delta ...................................................... 45

Caroll Guffey, Eric Heitzman, 

Richard Williams, Tamara Walkingstick, 

and Pat Stephens Williams

Backyard Woodlot Owners: A Growing Issue 

and New Approach ................................................... 51

Adam K. Downing, Jonathan Kays, 

and James Finley

Challenges and Potential for Hispanic Labor 

Training: Insight from North Carolina’s Christmas 

Tree Industry ............................................................. 57 

James V. Hamilton, Fred W. Cubbage, 

and Toddi Steelman 

MULTI-AGENCY COLLABORATION

Educating Landowners for Southern Pine 

Beetle Prevention in Mississippi: A Collaborative 

Project with the Forest Service and Mississippi 

State University ......................................................... 63

Andrew J. Londo, James R. Meeker, 

and T. Evan Nebeker

Changing Roles: Wildland-Urban Interface 

Professional Development Program ....................... 66

Martha C. Monroe, Lauren McDonell, 

and L. Annie-Hermansen-Báez

Wood to Energy: Technology Transfer 

and Education Programs for Southern United 

States ......................................................................... 74

Martha C. Monroe, Richard Plate, 

and Lauren McDonell

OUTREACH AND TECHNOLOGY 

TRANSFER TOOLS

Connecting Non-Timber Forest Products 

Stakeholders to Information and Knowledge: A 

Case Study of an Internet Web Site ......................... 87

James Chamberlain, Matt Winn, and 

A.L. (Tom) Hammett

A Look at GIS Distance Learning ............................ 95

David W. Long

The Forest Encyclopedia Network: Delivering 

Scientific Knowledge to Forest Practitioners ....... 102 

H. Michael Rauscher, John M. Pye, 

Kenneth Outcalt, Kier Klepzig, 

Tattersall C. Smith, Bryan J. Jordan, 

Matthew Howell, and William G. Hubbard

Using the Web to Facilitate Extension Program 

Delivery and Management ..................................... 110

Scott Leavengood

New Knowledge and Education Systems 

for Development of Forest Bioenergy 

Systems ................................................................... 115

Jianbang Gan, Larry Biles, Daniel 

Cassidy, Darwin Foster, William G. 

Hubbard, Ben Jackson, J. Bryan 

Jordin, Chyrel Mayfield, H.	Michael

Rauscher, C.T. Smith, and Eric Taylor

Table of Contents
IV

NEEDS ASSESSMENT, AUDIENCE 

RESEARCH, PLANNING, AND EVALUATION

Interactive Video as a Short Course Delivery 

Method in Mississippi: Participant Acceptance 

and Lessons Learned ............................................. 127

Andrew J. Londo, Debbie A. Gaddis, 

Timothy A.Traugott, John D. Kushla, and 

Stephen G. Dicke

Improving Educational Programming by 

Understanding the Clientele .................................. 130

Lance D. Stewart, Laura A. Grace, and 

Andrew J. Londo

Natural Resource Programming Through the County 

Extension Network in Tennessee: Successes, 

Problems, and Potential Solutions ........................ 134

Wayne K. Clatterbuck

Understanding Working Forest Landowners in North 

Carolina: Integrating Participant Survey Results in 

Programming and Delivery .................................... 138 

Robert E. Bardon and Mark Megalos

Preferred Methods for Delivering Education 

Information to Forest Landowners ........................ 149

Robert E. Bardon, Dennis Hazel, and 

Kevin Miller

CASE STUDIES AND SUCCESSFUL 

PROGRAMS

Delivering Science-Based Information to Forest 

Landowners: The Southern Pine Beetle 

Prevention Project in East Texas ........................... 159

Ronald F. Billings

The Implementation of a Technology Transfer 

Program for Silvopasture in The Southeast—Our 

Perspective .............................................................. 167 

Jim Robinson, Sid Brantly, Greg Ruark, Bruce 

Wright and Richard Straight

Decisions for Managing Storm Damaged 

Timber ...................................................................... 172

Walter M. DeLoach and Stephen G. Dicke

Timely Response to Natural Disaster Has Huge 

Impact ...................................................................... 175

Walter M. DeLoach, S.G. Dicke, 

D.G. Gaddis, G.H. Hughes, G.D. Bales 

and A.S. Bailey

Providing Successful Learning Opportunities 

through Forestry Extension: An International 

Comparison ............................................................. 180

J.H. Creighton, J.E. Johnson, and 

E.R. Norland

The Seven Basins Project: A Case Study of 

Extension Leadership in Community Wildfire 

Planning .................................................................. 190

Max Bennett and Gail Perotti

Getting Science Out—A Boston Mountains 

Forest Underplanting Tool Online ......................... 197

Martin A. Spetich, Daniel C. Dey, 

and Jim Lootens

The Crossett Experimental Forest—72 Years of 

Science Delivery in the Silviculture of 

Southern Pines ....................................................... 203

James M. Guldin

Forest Education without Forests: Overcoming 

Obstacles ................................................................ 210

Jennifer A. Seitz and 

Martha C. Monroe

Finding Effective Ways to Provide Knowledge to 

Forest Managers about Non-Timber Forest 

Products: A Case-study of Distance Learning 

Approaches ............................................................. 215

A.L. (Tom) Hammett, Jim Chamberlain, 

and Matt Winn

POSTER ABSTRACTS

Linking User Needs and Soil Resource Information: 

A Case-Study in Mississippi .................................. 225

W.L. Kingery, D.B. Johnson, 

and M.E. Lilly

Warnell School’s Model for Distance Learning in 

Forestry and Natural Resources ........................... 226

Ben Jackson, Morgan Nolan, 

Eugene MacIntire, and Jason Derifaj

When Nature Is at Your Doorstep: The Making of an 

Effective Outreach Video ....................................... 227

Lauren McDonell, Martha C. Monroe, 

Annie Hermansen-Báez, and 

Edward A. Macie

Use of County Tax Rolls for Marketing Extension 

Programming .......................................................... 228

Andrew J. Londo, J.D. Kushla, and 

P. Smallidge
V

Technology Transfer Activities of the Southern 

Center for Wildland-Urban Interface Research 

and Information ...................................................... 229

Annie Hermansen-Báez and 

Edward A. Macie

Forest Certification and Non-Industrial Private 

Landowners: Assessing Awareness, Acceptance 

and Educational 

Preferences.............................................................. 230

David C. Mercker and 

Donald G. Hodges

Web-Based Tree Crown Condition Evaluation 

Training Tool for Urban and Community 

Forestry ................................................................... 231

Neil Clark, Matthew Winn, 

and Philip Araman

Partnerships of the Southern Center for 

Wildland-Urban Interface Research and 

Information .............................................................. 232

Annie Hermansen-Báez and 

Edward A. Macie

Building Programs through Partnerships ............ 233

Alan Long and Chris Demers

Survey Studies How to Reach Primary Hardwood 

Producers with New Information ........................... 234

Philip A. Araman, Robert L. Smith, 

and Matthew F. Winn

Computerized Training for the Hardwood Sawmill 

Industry: The Edging and Trimmer Trainer 

(Version 3.0) ............................................................ 235 

Philip A. Araman, A. Jefferson Palmer, 

Matthew F. Winn, and D. Earl Kline

From a Promising Strategy to a Practical 

Management System .............................................. 236

Boris Zeide

The Minimum Number-Maximum Yield Strategy for 

Tree Growth ............................................................. 237

Boris Zeide
VI

Foreword

Forests cover approximately 212 million acres in the Southern United States. This equates to 40 percent of all 

timberland in the United States. These forests provide raw material for a vital, domestic forest products industry; 

habitat for countless species of plants and animals; and contribute immensely to environmental values and quality 

of life for residents and visitors. Urban and wildland-urban interface forests also provide critical ecosystem services 

and quality-of-life benefits for residents. Appropriate management and use of these various forest resources 

depends upon continuous research and education efforts that respond to changing human and naturally occurring 

pressures on the forest.

A synthesis of southern forest science was published in 2004 to describe the contributions science has made 

and continues to make to the care and management of southern forests (Rauscher, H.M.; Johnsen, Kurt, eds. 

2004. Southern forest science: past, present, and future. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS−75. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 394 p.). However, the production of useful scientific 

knowledge is only part of creating and maintaining sustainable forest ecosystems in the South. Getting this 

knowledge to people who need it to effect positive changes in the forest landscapes is just as important as 

producing it in the first place. The function of science delivery/technology transfer is to (1) synthesize scientific 

knowledge into larger, more meaningful units; (2) translate this knowledge into the language and style that appeals 

to forestland owners and managers; and (3) connect scientific results, conclusions, and forecasts of impacts in a 

timely manner with the needs and issues of forestland owners and managers.

For the first time in recent memory, specialists in natural resource technology transfer and science delivery from 

throughout the Southern United States gathered together in conference in Hot Springs, AR, in August of 2006 to 

share experiences, identify common issues and problems, create a sense of group identity, develop a common 

vision, and craft working relationships and partnerships that can help us help each other do the best job possible. 

Of the over 100 participants at this conference, 50 percent represented extension; 30 percent came from the 

Forest Service; and the remaining 20 percent were members of State forestry organizations, environmental 

nongovernmental organizations, and other Federal Agencies. The conference participants were extension workers, 

natural resource specialists, teachers and professors, technology transfer specialists, and many others who work 

tirelessly to put new science and technology into the hands of users where that knowledge can make a difference.

Because our forestland owners and managers have different needs and preferences, it is important to use a 

multifaceted science delivery/technology transfer program to reach them. Multifaceted science delivery programs 

offer similar content in a wide range of products including printed publications, face-to-face workshops and training 

sessions, satellite-based and pod-casting-based distributed learning courses, and a wide range of Internet-based 

products. These proceedings from the Southern Region Conference on Technology Transfer and Extension in 

Natural Resources contain 4 keynote papers, 18 papers on various technical and procedural aspects of science 

delivery, and 9 papers describing successful technology transfer efforts. As a collection, these papers describe the 

state of activities and thinking in Southern United States natural resource science delivery and technology transfer.

The proceedings of this Southern Region Conference on Technology Transfer and Extension in Natural Resources, 

coupled with the proceedings of the status of southern forest science (Rauscher and Johnsen 2004) provides the 

best existing snapshot of natural resource science and technology transfer that exists today.

For more information on southern regional extension forestry and technology transfer products, please visit 

http://www.sref.info.

Sarah F. Ashton 

Senior Editor 

Southern Regional Extension Forestry 

Athens, GA 

William G. Hubbard 

Southern Regional Extension Forester 

Athens, GA

H. Michael Rauscher 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 

Southern Research Station 

Asheville, NC
VII

Fred Allen 

Southern Group of State Foresters 

Forest Service 

Southern Research Station 

Asheville, NC

Wayne Clatterbuck 

University of Tennessee 

Knoxville, TN

Daniel Cassidy 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service 

Washington, DC

Janean Creighton 

Washington State University 

Pullman, WA

David Hoge 

Agricultural Research Service 

Atlanta, GA

Bill Hubbard 

Cooperative Extension Service 

Southern Region 

Athens, GA 

Jim Johnson 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR

Allyson Lawrence 

Cooperative Extension Service 

Southern Region 

Athens, GA

Conference Planning Team

Andrew Londo 

Mississippi State University 

Mississippi State, MS

Paul Mask 

Alabama Cooperative Extension Service 

Auburn University, AL

Susan Matthews 

U.S. Forest Service 

Southern Research Station 

Asheville, NC

Martha Monroe 

The University of Florida 

Gainesville, FL

Claire Payne 

U.S. Forest Service 

Southern Research Station 

Asheville, NC 

H. Michael Rauscher 

U.S. Forest Service (retired) 

Asheville, NC

Eric Taylor 

Texas A&M University 

Overton, TX

PLENARY PAPERS

1

Bill Hubbard, Southern Regional Extension Forester, Athens, GA 30602; Larry Biles, Southern Forest Research Partnership, Athens, GA 30604.

3

Past , Present, and Future of the Extension System

Bill Hubbard and Larry Biles1

Abstract—The Cooperative Extension Service is often referred to as the third arm of the Land-Grant University System; 

the other two being the research and teaching arms. The Extension Service has been officially operating since the adoption 

of the Federal Smith-Lever Act in 1914 and is a unique partnership including Federal, State, county and volunteer forces. In 

these almost 100 years of operation, Extension has provided leadership in the areas of agriculture, natural resources, 4-H, 

family and consumer sciences, and other educational areas. Extension’s success has been largely due to the relationships it 

develops with and between those who do research and those who use research. These multiple communication processes 

have been enhanced over the years through technology, improved delivery mechanisms, and a better understanding of 

effective teaching and learning tools. Extension’s future lies in how well it can provide educational services to a largely 

urban audience that is more than ever dependent on a safe, inexpensive food supply; an abundant, sustainable natural 

resources system; safe and productive families; and our youth, who will soon become caretakers and leaders of this country.

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY

This paper focuses on the Extension System, its history 

and impact over the past 100 years, and where it is heading 

in the future. The Extension System has been referred to 

as the largest non-formal education network in the world 

(Forest 1989). It is unique in nature—designed to help 

people help themselves by using research-based knowledge 

and information to improve their lives. Extension’s history, 

a very rich history, dates to the late 1700s, with the creation 

of many universities in the South and throughout the 

country. The purpose of many of these universities includes 

teaching and research, but also Extension and outreach to 

farmers, ranchers, and homemakers, the citizenry of the 

United States of America.

Extension was at least a 50-year-old concept in practice by 

the time it was formalized in 1914 with the Smith-Lever 

Act. This Act was the Federal legislation that created 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Extension 

Service, a unique partnership involving Federal, State, and 

county partners that effectually works as the third arm of 

the university. It is located at each of the 1862 and 1890 

universities in the country (Rasmussen 1989). In addition, 

the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions have become key players 

within the Extension Service. These are Native American 

tribally controlled colleges and universities that were 

granted land-grant status under an Act of Congress in 1994. 

There are more than thirty 1994 Land-Grant Institutions, 

most of which operate in the western United States (http://

www.ascr.usda.gov/faq/faq1994_cr.html. Date accessed: 

July 14, 2007).

Extension, therefore, has a presence in every State, every 

county or parish, and even in most territories. Some offices, 

due to budgets, are combining their efforts; even so, there is 

a very large presence of > 15,000 county-based employees, 

5,000 State-based (either administrative- or specialistbased), and another 10,000 that are support staff or clerical 

staff. If volunteers are added into the total, the numbers 

expand even greater. These include for example 4-H, 

Master Gardener, and Master Woodland Owner volunteers. 

PEOPLE AND PROGRAMS

Extension’s programs are based on audience needs. County 

advisory councils and committees provide direction 

for those programs delivered by specialists and agents. 

Similarly, at the State level, the Renewable Resource 

Extension Act and other committees provide direction 

to State specialists. State specialists will spend a certain 

percentage of their time answering questions, responding 

to emails, but also, identifying needs, developing 

programs, and evaluating those programs. It is a fairly 

complex system, involving both proactive and reactive 

programming. 

From a discipline perspective, the Extension Service has 

traditionally focused their efforts on agriculture, family 

and consumer sciences, and 4-H programs. In recent years, 

there has been an increase in the amount of programming 

taking place in the forestry and natural resources areas. 

Figure 1 shows the Southern Region’s capacity to develop 

and deliver programs in the natural resources programming 

area (Hubbard 2006). More universities, however, are 

hiring split appointments. New professors are hired with 

contracts that include a mix of teaching, research, and/

or Extension. The most difficult appointments are the 

3- and 4-way splits: teaching, research, Extension, and/or 

administrative duties.

According to a survey conducted by the Southern Regional 

Extension Forestry office, there are approximately 145 

professionals conducting natural resources Extension 

programs in the South: 53 percent are in forestry, 

which includes traditional forest management areas; 
4

approximately 20 percent are conducting wildlife-related 

programming; 10 percent are in wood products; 8 percent 

are in urban forestry; 7 percent are in environmental 

education; and 3 percent are in continuing education for 

professionals. These numbers add up to slightly more than 

100 percent due to rounding (Hubbard 2006).

Figure 2 shows these disciplines from a State-by-State 

comparison across the South. There is a fairly large variation 

by programming area. The dark shaded areas at the bottom 

of each column represent forestry Full Time Equivalents 

(FTEs); those successively stacked on top show other related 

natural resource activities (Hubbard 2006). 

In Figure 3, natural resources Extension FTEs are delineated 

by their administrative structure. These categories are 

State, paraprofessional, area (multi-county), and county 

levels (Hubbard 2006). Predominantly, natural resources 

Extension is State-based versus county-based. This is 

different than most other Extension programming areas, 

such as agriculture, 4-H, and family and consumer 

sciences. Some States have developed multi-county 

or area specialists. Louisiana, for example, has had a 

longstanding productive regional structure that other States 

have emulated. Virginia is the most recent to have created 

regional specialists. Alabama recently created a regional, 

multi-county natural resource-based structure. These 

regional positions are key because they have the ability to 

work more closely with local constituents, such as State 

forestry agencies, non-government organizations (NGOs), 

and State natural resource agencies to communicate sciencebased information. They also aid with State-level program 

development and general natural resource education. 

Forestry

77 FTEs

53%

Wildlife

28 FTEs

19%

Wood products

1.45 FTEs

8%

Environmental

education

14.75 FTEs

10%

Urban forestry

9.75 FTEs

7%

Countinuing

education

4.6 FTEs

3%

Figure 1—FTEs by discipline - Southern Region.

0

5

10

15

20

25

AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX VA

State

FTEs

Wildlife Wood products Environmental education

Urban forestry Continuing education Forestry 

Figure 2—Natural resource FTEs by State.
5

INNOVATIVE AND TARGETED DELIVERY 

MECHANISMS

From a delivery perspective, Extension uses a number of 

programming techniques and technologies depending on 

various factors, such as cost, available technology, interest, 

and experience of the Extension professional, among other 

variables. Examples presented throughout these proceedings 

include “coached planning,” “peer-to-peer,” and other 

programs that involve the student to a greater extent than 

traditional workshops or one-on-one instruction do. The 

belief is that by getting students involved in developing 

management plans or practicing management—wildlife, 

forestry, or any other natural resource-based activity on the 

land—they will become more actively engaged and become 

better stewards of their property. These programs have been 

successful in many parts of the country.

There are also leadership institutes that empower people 

at the local, regional, and national level to speak out about 

proper, science-based forest management in an effort to 

move forestry leadership forward. The Kellogg Foundation, 

for example, funded North Carolina State University’s 

Extension Forest Resources Department to develop a Natural 

Resources Leadership Institute. Their prerequisite for 

funding this effort was to invite other States to participate 

in the planning and development of the program. In this 

manner, the program would be adopted in several States over 

the years. To date, several States such as Florida, Virginia, 

and South Carolina have adopted this program. Volunteer 

recruitment and training, again as in Master Gardener and 

Master Tree Farmer programs, also teach leadership skills. 

Another fairly new delivery mechanism is satellite distance 

learning and internet-based programming. The Master 

Tree Farmer/Master Wildlifer Series, for example, takes 

advantage of satellite-based programming, via the county 

delivery systems of Extension and State forestry agencies. 

Extension has had astounding results with the Master Tree 

Farmer and Master Wildlifer Series and satellite programs 

reaching over 15,000 landowners and wildlife enthusiasts 

between 2001 and 2006. Extension works closely with the 

USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry Agency 

in the Southern United States to deliver these programs. 

Other satellite-based programming includes professional 

development training in urban forestry and wildland/urban 

interface training. Finally, an introduction for certification 

programming via satellite was conducted at the regional 

level. These and other programs have been digitalized, 

and links to them can be found on the Southern Regional 

Extension Forestry homepage (http://www.sref.info).

Southern Extension natural resources professionals are also 

involved in several web-based programs. These Internet 

solutions have been a boom for agencies such as Extension 

whose business is information and education. Extension is 

moving into whole new areas. There is the national initiative 

“eXtension” by which Land-Grant Institutions in all fifty 

States and territories are working together to provide more 

FTEs

0

5

10

15

20

25

AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX VA

State

Faculty Professional nonfaculty

Area agents County agents

Figure 3—FTEs by professional status.
6

unity in delivery of information. If a homeowner, landowner, 

or whomever needs information, they may locate it much 

easier from a nationally-based, branded website; they 

may enter from several entry-points on the web, such as 

Google®, and they will get a very localized solution that 

has been developed by a national team of experts. This is all 

based on an innovative computer technology called a content 

management system (CMS) whereby much more access to 

websites is given to several content contributors rather than 

one “web-master.” 

Another example is the National Learning Center for 

Private Forest and Range Landowners, found at http://www.

forestandrange.org. This is a USDA initiative in partnership 

with the University of Tennessee. This online center contains 

several modules that have national significance across the 

wildlife, range, and forestry arenas. One more example is 

Virginia Tech’s online Woodland Options program (http://

www.cnr.vt.edu/forestupdate/pages/courses.htm). These are 

online short courses that meet the needs of several of today’s 

busy forest owners and future forest owners. Finally, one 

more of many examples includes Texas Agrilife Extension’s 

online continuing education website for natural resource 

professionals to participate and obtain continuing education 

credits. 

Other regional initiatives include the Forest Encyclopedia 

Network (http://www.forestryencyclopedia.net); the 

Southern Regional Extension Forestry portal (http://www.

sref.info), and the forestry videos and forestry webinars 

portals (http://www.forestryvideos.net and http://www.

forestrywebinar.net). There is also a general forestry index 

website found at http//www.forestryindex.net. 

Recently, a hardcopy publication, funded by USDA 

CSREES, has been “morphed” into a CD-based tool by 

Kris Irwin of the University of Georgia Warnell School 

of Forestry & Natural Resources. In turn it has become 

an Internet product. The Forest*A*Syst program (http://

www.forestasyst.org) provides entry-level information 

for landowners and farmers alike. Additionally, Extension 

still develops correspondence courses for those who prefer 

to take a book home with them and read it in the comfort 

of their living room rather than going to a workshop or 

spending time online. One final project worth mentioning 

is the Southern Regional Extension Forestry peer review 

extension publication system that incorporates peer review 

and reduces duplication of efforts across the region. These 

publications are an excellent way to provide State-level 

Extension specialists with regional recognition.

PROGRAM IMPACT AND EVALUATION

Extension has developed several means by which to measure 

impact. One of the newer methods is the use of the Logic 

Model (W.K. Kellogg Foundation 2001). Figure 4 is an 

example of how Extension might use the Logic Model to 

evaluate a forest landowner short course. Another method 

was used to evaluate the Master Tree Farmer Series. Over 

Where does evaluation fit?

Long-term

follow-up,

modeling,

forecasting

Actual use

- follow-up

phone

interview

Increase in

knowledge/skillpost session

survey

# of NIPF attending

sessions

% of total

demographics

Quality of

curriculum

# of sessions

delivered

Staff

Money

Partners

Forest

landowner

curriculum

Provide 7

training

sessions

Targeted

landowners

attend

NIPF’s

increase

knowledge

NIPF’s

learn new

practices

NIPF’s

implement

new

practices

Increased

social,

economic

and

environmental

benefits

INPUTS OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

EVALUATION: What do you want to know? How will you know it?

Figure 4—Evaluation.
7

15,000 landowners, foresters, and others have attended these 

courses over the last 5 years. Starting in 1999 in the State 

of South Carolina with 200 participants and reaching over 

4,800 in 2003, the Master Tree Farmer/Master Wildlifer 

Series is unparalleled. This was most likely the largest live 

Extension event that has ever occurred in the South. Four 

thousand eight hundred people taking a 7-week course 

with 21 hours of contact is over 100,000 contact hours. The 

acreage figures are astoundingly higher. The Master Tree 

Farmer program impacted over 1 million acres in just 5 

years; the Master Wildlife program impacted several times 

that in managed and leased lands. In addition to pre- and 

post-testing, the instructors queried participants in one State 

as to their knowledge retention and application of tools and 

principles on the ground. Results were encouraging; over 

90 percent of the participants who responded to the survey 

had completed at least one forestry practice on their property 

since participating in the course (unpublished evaluation 

report).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the natural resources Extension System in 

the South is about people, programs, technology, change, 

and impact. Extension strives to teach people how to 

think, not what to think, so that they can make informed 

decisions regarding their lands. With decreasing budgets, 

and increasing audience needs, Extension’s role in the future 

remains challenging. Newer technologies and developing 

better evaluation tools will be important if Extension is to 

survive and prosper.

REFERENCES 

Forest, L.B. 1989. The Cooperative Extension Service. In: Merriam, S.B.; 

Cunningham, P.M eds. Handbook of adult and continuing education. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hubbard, W. 2006. Southern Regional Extension Forestry Annual Report. 

Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

Rasmussen, W.D. 1989. Taking the university to the people: seventy-five 

years of cooperative extension. 1st ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University 

Press.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. 2001. Using logic models to bring together 

planning, evaluation and action: logic model development guide. Battle 

Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
1

Assistant Station Director for Science Delivery, Science Writer, Art Director, Science Delivery Coordinator, Web Manager, Technical Information Specialist, 

Research Forester, Press Officer, Production Editor, and Technical Editor, respectively, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC 28804.

8

SCIENCE DELIVERY AT THE SOUTHERN RESEARCH STATION

Carol Whitlock, Zoë Hoyle, Rodney Kindlund, Livia Marqués, Randy McCracken, 

Claire Payne, H. Michael Rauscher, Perdita Spriggs, Louise Wilde, and Alan Salmon1

Abstract—The Southern Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for developing 

and distributing timely, credible, and pertinent science products that contribute to forest sustainability in the South. These 

products are developed collaboratively by the scientists of Station’s Research Work Units, other cooperating scientists, and 

the Station’s Science Delivery Group. The Science Delivery Group and the Research Work Units continue to improve their 

performance in the area of science delivery. In response to a changing customer base, the scientific and science delivery 

staffs are working together to shift the Station’s scientific product line to incorporate more information about natural 

resource issues, better access to expert advice, practical tools, and syntheses of research results. Web-based products are 

supplementing and at times replacing paper for research reports and conference proceedings. Where material works best 

in paper format, more effort is being placed on tailoring products to specific customer groups. Color photographs, maps, 

and graphics are being used more extensively in these products. The need for customer testing of products is becoming 

generally accepted. As the Station moves forward in its effort to develop a truly interactive science delivery program, the 

Research Work Units and Science Delivery Team seek opportunities to develop new partnerships, share resources, and 

improve customer service.

INTRODUCTION

Until late in the 20th century, science delivery almost 

always meant publishing in scientific outlets aimed at 

specialist readers. The two Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture research organizations in the South, the 

Southern Research Station and Southeastern Forest 

Experiment Station, each had eight employees concentrating 

on technical editing, styling manuscripts and submitting 

them to journals, and publishing the manuscripts the 

scientific journals could not use. In keeping with the 

university approach to research, Forest Service scientists 

learned to think it was their job to produce the research 

findings and somebody else’s job—possibly that of someone 

in our Agency’s State and Private Forestry program—to 

extract or develop practically useful material from those 

findings and present it to the lay public. Although some did 

present their findings in forms that were more accessible 

and useful to landowners and managers, such efforts were 

ad hoc, rarely supported by Station headquarters, and often 

judged by peers as diversions from “pure” science. People 

needing information could order in-house series publications 

or journal articles from the Stations. These publications 

were highly credible but with low levels of accessibility for 

non-scientist audiences. There was scant accommodation 

for those who did not have the time or the inclination to read 

and digest the primary scientific literature. 

The close of the century brought the consolidation of the 

two experiment stations to form the Southern Research 

Station (SRS) as well as new challenges and expectations in 

the area of science delivery. Congress became less inclined 

to spend dwindling natural resource dollars to fund science 

for the sake of science. The Office of Management and 

Budget questioned our ability to demonstrate the value of 

our research to the public. Our own U.S. Department of 

Agriculture expressed frustration with a science organization 

that could raise questions, but could not provide practical 

answers. And customer surveys conducted in the mid-1990s 

showed that our science, though still highly credible, was 

becoming less relevant to the needs of the South. The old 

model of conducting narrowly focused, hypothesis-driven 

studies in association with a relatively small number of 

cooperators was losing relevance. 

At the same time that demand for usable science was 

growing, capacity within the forestry community was 

diminishing with shrinking Federal and State budgets. And 

due largely to the Internet, the potential users for research 

had grown from a handful of professional foresters to the 

millions of landowners whose individual holdings were 

small but who collectively comprised the best hope for 

forest sustainability in the South. For a variety of reasons, 

only a small percentage of these landowners received 

services from a forestry professional.

In the early 2000s, the SRS embarked, with our 

national forest counterparts and other Federal and State 

organizations, on a project that required us to approach 

science delivery in new and better ways. The Southern 

Forest Resource Assessment (Wear and Greis 2002) was 

a landmark event for several reasons. The Assessment 

leaders used a question-based approach to define scope and 

organization: the questions were proposed by experts from 

the forestry community and vetted in a series of open forums 

with the public. Credibility of the science was ensured in 

a blind peer review process, in which reviewers’ identities 

were unknown to authors and substantive comments were 
9

refereed by the Assessment leaders. The conclusion of the 

Assessment identified urbanization as the greatest threat 

to forest sustainability in the South, which was presented 

in a communications effort that reduced polarization and 

involved the public in serious discussion about this issue. 

The result was a changed communications environment—

one characterized by an increased public and media appetite 

for accessible forest science information.

Shortly after completion of the Assessment, scientists, 

communications professionals, and research administrators 

from the six regional research stations and the Forest 

Products Laboratory convened in St. Paul, MN to identify 

measures of success in science delivery. Those sessions 

produced two results that are of interest here. The first was 

an affirmation that the Forest Service research program has 

a responsibility to ensure that its findings are adopted. The 

second was the development of a behavioral model that 

would increase the likelihood of adoption. This behavioral 

model has four elements: 

•	Engaging users and partners in identification of research 

needs, priority-setting, and program delivery planning 

•	Providing information seekers with understandable, rapid 

response answers synthesized from current and past 

findings 

•	Developing products that meet users needs, are easy to 

locate and apply, and are supported throughout their life 

cycle 

• Building user confidence through an effective branding

protocol that associates the agency’s research products 

with the established credibility of its research program. 

By branding, we mean a uniform way to identify Forest 

Service science products servers to assure users that 

proper quality control has been applied to the available 

information

As a result, a new science delivery environment has been 

implemented in the SRS. In many of the Research Work 

Units, recognition of the importance of science delivery has 

been translated into a commitment to fund communication 

of study results. At headquarters, a revamped Science 

Delivery Group has added capacity in marketing, Web 

presence, customer service, and design—partly through 

a modest increase in funding and partly by redirecting 

resources freed up by a reorientation of its publications 

processes. These new investments have strengthened our 

Web outreach with products like TreeSearch and the Forest 

Encyclopedia Network (FEN), and have allowed us to 

refocus our editorial and design efforts on products for the 

user community.

The objective of this paper is to describe the science delivery 

program of the SRS; a $6 million per year effort that 

represents a little more than 10 percent of the SRS budget. 

The first part of the paper describes the Station’s Science 

Delivery Group, its programs and products. The second 

part of the paper summarizes the science delivery work 

being performed by the Research Work Units of the SRS. 

The paper concludes with a discussion of steps the SRS is 

taking to reorganize its scientific staff for improved research 

planning and delivery, and other plans underway to improve 

delivery and adoption of SRS research findings.

Southern research station Science

Delivery Group

The SRS’s Science Delivery Group collaborates with 

Research Work Unit scientists and others to develop timely, 

credible, and pertinent science products that contribute 

to forest sustainability in the South. These products 

address current conditions and emerging issues, reflect the 

capabilities of our scientists and partners, and are made 

available through a large variety of delivery mechanisms 

preferred by different audiences in the South. The Science 

Delivery Group has a total annual budget of $1.5 million for 

salary and operating expenses.

Our staff of 18 specialists and assistants work in formal and 

ad hoc teams to: 

•	Edit and design publications, posters, fact sheets, 

brochures, and other hard-copy products 

•	Disseminate published material and provide customer 

services of all kinds

•	Prepare and publish COMPASS, a quarterly magazine 

about important natural resource issues in the South 

•	Deliver research products by means of Internet services 

•	Synthesize and deliver scientific knowledge in the FEN 

Editing and Publishing

The editing and publishing group helps authors prepare 

high-quality manuscripts by providing editorial support for 

authors for those manuscripts destined to be published by 

scientific journals. For those authors that wish to publish 

manuscripts through the SRS, the Science Delivery Group 

also provides design, layout, and printing support resulting 

in high quality published material for consumption by 

different audiences.

The SRS produces several different types of publications:

• General Technical Reports (GTR)—convey technical 

information but do not contain original study results. 

Examples include field manuals, computer programs, 

educational posters, regional assessments, restoration 
10

guides, and annotated bibliographies. Conference 

proceedings of all types also fall under this category

• Resource Bulletins—present information of permanent 

value about timber and other forest resources or their 

utilization

• Research Papers—cover the results, analyses, and 

conclusions of formal studies or experiments

• Research Notes—present information about incidental 

discoveries or how-to information about new techniques, 

instruments, or equipment developed during the course of 

an experiment

• Miscellaneous Publications—special purpose publication 

that are often aimed more specifically at landowners and 

other non-scientific audiences.

Over the last 3 years, the SRS has published significantly 

fewer research papers as scientists have increasingly brought 

that material to scientific journals (table 1). In contrast, the 

SRS has published more miscellaneous publications aimed 

at non-scientific audiences. A significant portion of the 

SRS Science Delivery budget is used to support in-house 

publications (table 2). 

Direct Customer Services

The Customer Services Team of the Science Delivery 

Group provides many services directly to customers 

through a variety of channels. Customers may walk into 

the SRS headquarters in Asheville, NC and physically 

ask for information. More frequently, customers request 

publications by phone, through publication ordering 

cards distributed as part of the SRS marketing effort, 

and through the Internet. In 2006, the Customer Services 

Team filled more than 42,000 requests for hard-copy 

publications and CD’s with weekly shipments of 600 to 

800 publications being fairly common. Internet requests 

through the publication request inbox (pubrequest@fs.fed.

us) average between 40 and 60 requests per week. Requests 

for multiple copies of a single publication, bulk mailings of 

the COMPASS magazine, and bulk mailings to national and 

international libraries are routinely executed by a contract 

vendor who is required to meet stringent delivery time 

schedules. Currently, the single most popular publication 

is “Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests” (Miller 

2003) with over 150,000 copies of this book in circulation.

All SRS publications include a customer feedback comment 

card. Customers use the card to evaluate the relevance of the 

topic presented; the publication’s writing style, organization, 

and graphics; the packaging of the material relative to its 

intended audience; and the publication’s usefulness. This 

information is used to evaluate how well customers are 

being served and how to improve the SRS’s published 

products. Each feedback comment is carefully examined and 

routed to the authors of the publication for consideration.

The publication order cards contain a request that users 

identify which of 15 audience groups that they belong to. 

The audience group choices are:

University faculty U.S. Forest Service

High school faculty Other Federal agency

Student Non-government 

organization (NGO)

Recreation user Forest industry, 

recreation

Forest consultant Forest industry, wood 

products

International agency Non-industry forest 

landowner (< 100 acres)

State agency Non-industry forest 

landowner (> 100 acres)

Other

The Customer Service Team is therefore able to identify 

which publication was ordered by which customer audience 

group (fig. 1). Furthermore, using this response data, it is 

possible to identify how the customer base is changing. For 

example, the landowner category has grown more than 30 

percent in 2006. Information such as the articles that most 

Table 1—Number of publications published by the Southern 

Research Station by type for the last three fi scal years

Fiscal 

year GTRs

Resource 

bulletins

Research 

papers

Research 

notes

MiscellaneousTotal 

published

 number

2003 17 10 16 1 5 49

2004 10 10 1 0 8 29

2005 19 8 5 0 9 41
11

appeal to categories of customers and how many copies of a 

specific paper have been requested and by which customer 

groups are also readily available and useful for evaluating 

the impact of the science program of the SRS.

Internet Services

The commitment of the SRS Science Delivery Group to 

embrace technology that delivers its research products to 

the widest possible audience is best demonstrated by the 

Station Web site (www.srs.fs.usda.gov). This Web site offers 

in-depth information about the Station’s areas of research, 

its scientists and their publications, and special projects 

and programs. Customer response has been excellent: the 

customer base has risen from an average of 200 requests 

per day in 1998 to over 20,000 requests per day in 2005 

(fig. 2). In 2005, the Web site was accessed by an average of 

2,000 distinct hosts each day. Traffic patterns and customer 

feedback showed clearly that research publications are our 

most sought-after products and that demand for them is 

always increasing. To meet this demand the Internet Services 

Team designed TreeSearch, a Web-integrated database 

to automate the delivery of research publications via the 

Internet.

Uploading electronic documents into TreeSearch is time 

consuming and requires great attention to detail. Relatively 

inexpensive student workers are used to create electronic 

versions of hardcopy publications. This conversion is then 

checked for quality by an Internet Services Team member 

before the records are released to the public. Since this 

TreeSearch was released in January 1999 it has grown to 

over 5,500 SRS records with links to over 23GB of full-text 

publications in PDF. These records contain both Station 

series publications and journal articles. Users have the 

ability to view and print PDF versions of these publications 

and are given the option of ordering hardcopies of our 

Station series publications.

The Internet Services Team redesigned the original version 

of TreeSearch to accommodate other Forest Service research 

stations that wanted to participate in this effort. This 

improved database now serves as the platform for the entire 

Forest Service Research and Development TreeSearch Web 

site. TreeSearch (treesearch.fs.fed.us) is the Forest Service 

Web site for one-stop acquisition of research products. 

Containing over 14,000 records with links to full-text 

publications, it is the largest known collection of forestry 

research publications available at no cost. This project, 

originally created and now administered by the SRS, relies 

on each of the participating Forest Service research stations 

to produce and maintain content. The information contained 

within TreeSearch maintains its Station identity but is 

presented in a unified delivery system for all Forest Service 

research products.

The SRS Web site also supports science delivery in many 

areas other than delivery of publications. For example, an 

online database of all Station scientists is available to give 

our users access to experts in a wide range of sciences 

that serve forestry. Users are able to browse or search for 

scientists by area of expertise, title, or Research Work Unit 

and view a summary of each scientist’s education, current 

and collaborative research, and a dynamic link to his or her 

publications. The Congressional Corner provides a Stateby-State summary of forest research in the South with 

information about current projects, awards, and budgets for 

each Research Work Unit and program. 

The Forest Encyclopedia Network (FEN)

The FEN project began in 2000 with funding from a 

U.S. Department of Agriculture National Research 

Initiative competitive grant to facilitate the transfer of 

Forest

consultant

20%

U.S. Department 

of Agriculture

Forest Service

18%

University faculty

academic

17%

Nonindustrial

forest landowner

11% 

State

agency

10%

Other government

9%

Forest industry

4%

Nongovernment

organization

4%

Retired

4%

Other

1%

Library/resource

centers

2%

Figure 1—Southern Research Station publication orders by customer 

category, June 2005–2006.

Table 2—Total number of copies of all publications 

printed and total printing cost for the last three 

fi scal years

Fiscal 

year

Total number of 

copies printed

Total printing 

costs in dollars

2003 126,758 256,422

2004 75,644 167,880

2005 140,311 263,347

Note: Printing costs do not include editing, layout, or formatting costs.
12

usable knowledge from scientific experts to managers, 

policymakers, and other natural resource professionals. 

The network has been a joint project of the SRS and the 

Southern Regional Extension System (www.sref.info) from 

its inception. Users of the network are offered what adult 

educators call a self-directed learning tool that enables 

individuals to obtain information on an as-needed basis. The 

FEN currently includes six ongoing encyclopedia projects 

in various stages of development (www.forestencyclopedia.

net). As of the summer of 2006, the system contained 3,260 

encyclopedia pages, 2,457 images, 450 tables, and 13,444 

citations. The network attracts approximately 76,000 unique 

visitors per year. 

The Encyclopedia of Southern Appalachian Ecosystems was 

the first and is the most mature. It has been peer reviewed, 

published, and has moved into the continuous updating 

mode. The Encyclopedia of Southern Fire Science has 

been published and is accepting continuous updates. The 

Encyclopedia of South-wide Forest Science is currently 

being written from two publications offering a combined 

1,000 pages of peer reviewed content (Rauscher and Johnsen 

2004, Wear and Greis 2002). Content has been written for 

the Encyclopedia of Southern Bioenergy, it has been peer 

reviewed and is accepting continuous updates. The content 

for the Encyclopedia of Forest Environmental Threats has 

been written and peer reviewed and is currently being edited, 

with publication expected in July 2008. The Encyclopedia 

of Southern Pine Beetle is the most recent FEN project. 

Content is currently being written with publication 

sometime in 2009.

A typical encyclopedia project begins with the development 

of the “core material.” It is directed by one or more subject 

matter experts who act as the managing editors. These editors 

are responsible for creating an information architecture, 

identifying the content, and engaging authors to write needed 

synthesis pages. They are also responsible for guiding the 

peer review process for each section. Assistant editors work 

with the managing editors to ensure that the content material 

gets properly placed into the hypertext encyclopedia and 

that the figures, tables, and citations are all properly linked. 

Finally, technical specialists are responsible for maintaining 

the common computing infrastructure and making 

improvements in page design, workflow, and system function.

The encyclopedia projects share the same computing 

infrastructure to reduce implementation costs. Once the core 

material for an encyclopedia is in place, the encyclopedia 

moves to a continuous update mode in which volunteer 

authors submit new or revised material to keep the content 

current and expanding. This continuous contribution of 

new content functions much as a scientific journal system 

does. For example, authors are rewarded by their employing 

agencies for getting content published in the FEN much 

as they are rewarded for publishing in a scientific journal. 

The main difference is that the network is interested in 

results, conclusions, and expected impacts of new science 

knowledge rather than in methods and detailed mathematics. 

The network peer review process also focuses more on 

utility and understandability to management and lay 

audiences than do most scientific journals.

Creating and maintaining encyclopedias takes a great 

deal of effort and thus requires contributions from a 

wide array of institutions and individuals. As the FEN 

expanded, the southern forestry university community and 

the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture State 

Web site requests (million)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 2—Information requests received at the Southern Research Station Web site, 

1999–2005.
13

and Private Cooperative Forestry Program also became 

active participants. This multi-agency collaboration draws 

on the strengths of all parties to improve the synthesis of 

scientific information and its delivery to the broader forestry 

community. Funding from these sponsoring organizations 

has been augmented by grants from U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s National Research Initiative and Bioenergy 

Program, the National Fire Plan, the Joint Fire Science 

Program, and the National Forest Threat Assessment Centers 

of the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Compass Magazine

The SRS’s quarterly science magazine, Compass, is 

designed to address issues affecting Southeastern forests 

and to showcase pertinent research by Station scientists and 

collaborators. The magazine’s intended audience includes 

the general public, elected officials, media, educators, land 

managers, researchers, cooperators, private landowners, and 

engaged citizens. 

Compass represents an upgrade from a publication of 

the same name that featured short articles followed by 

an annotated list of products (reports, scientific articles, 

proceedings, other media) recently published by the Station. 

In summer 2004, the Science Delivery Group decided 

to reformat the smaller publication and convert it into a 

full-fledged magazine. An editorial board was formed and 

format, topic selection, review, and approval procedures put 

in place.

Each issue of Compass is built around a topic identified as 

being of pressing interest to the intended audience. Each 

issue consists of one to three feature-length articles, two to 

five shorter articles and sidebars, a profile or interview with 

a Station researcher, a profile of an experimental forest or 

important research site, recommended readings related to 

the feature article, a landowner’s toolbox, news from around 

the Station, and the annotated list of new products. The 

products listings are chosen and written to complement the 

focus of the issue, and represent another way that the Station 

markets newly published scientific publications. Readers 

can use a card enclosed in the magazine to order hard copies 

of publications they select from the list. The card also has a 

section readers can use to subscribe to future issues of the 

magazine.

The focus topics for the first six issues were: biomass 

and bioenergy (Winter 2005), invasive plants (Spring 

2005), longleaf pine restoration (Summer 2005), forest 

fragmentation (Fall 2005), forests and water quality (April 

2006), and the restoration of hardwood forests in the Lower 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley (July 2006). The next two issues 

will cover pressures related to the wildland-urban interface, 

and methods (agroforestry, constructed wetlands, and 

others) used to restore the ecological functions of forests to 

degraded areas. 

Currently, 5,000 copies are printed of each issue of 

Compass. These are distributed through a growing mailing 

list, through research units, and at meetings across the 

Southeast. Current and archived issues of Compass are also 

available in both PDF and html format from the Station 

Web site at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/compass/. Readers 

can also subscribe to the magazine from the Web site and 

use links in the products list to access full text versions 

of the listed publications. Articles and sidebars from the 

magazine will be used to build a content database that will 

further interconnect Station projects, which are in fact highly 

collaborative. Because of the long-term nature of most 

Station research, the stories in Compass have a much longer 

shelf-life than those of popular magazines, and are written 

to provide usable blocks of information for other science 

delivery projects. 

SCIENCE DELIVERY EFFORTS BY SOUTHERN 

RESEARCH STATION RESEARCH WORK UNITS

One hundred twenty-nine scientists, organized into 15 

Research Work Units, conduct scientific studies and 

develop technical tools used by the Station’s customers. The 

scientists and Units work to transfer this technology to our 

customers through publications and presentations and by 

providing formal and informal training. The science delivery 

activities outlined in this section are in addition to those 

discussed in previous sections of this paper.

Organizational Structure

The Research Work Units have recently been reorganized 

to enable them to better serve the changing needs of their 

customers. The 28 Units that existed previously have 

been realigned and now form 15 Units. Based on their 

primary research focus, the 15 individual Units have been 

organized within 5 broader science areas identified in the 

SRS strategic plan. Management functions of the Units have 

been consolidated for increased efficiency, and the Station 

maintains its full research capacity.

A Science Delivery Coordinator leads the Outreach and 

Science Delivery Team within the Science Delivery Group 

and works directly with the Research Work Units to 

facilitate the transfer and adoption of research findings. The 

principal function of the Outreach and Science Delivery 

Team is to identify the relevance and applicability of 

research results to the unique needs of the Station’s diverse 

customer base.
14

Resources

As in many government offices, human and financial 

resources are a limiting factor for the Research Work Units. 

Inadequate staffing, or lack of time, was identified as one 

of the top barriers to science delivery at the Unit level. 

The scientists must continuously strive to strike the proper 

balance between doing the research and transferring the 

technology. Six of the 15 Units have a technology transfer 

specialist on staff. According to the Unit project leaders, the 

availability of these specialists significantly increased the 

ability of their units to implement comprehensive science 

delivery programs. 

The Unit technology transfer specialist organizes and 

coordinates the overall planning of technology transfer 

activities. This work takes a significant amount of time and 

was previously done by the research scientists or not done 

at all. The specialist also plays a central role in outreach and 

partnership activities by making and keeping local contacts 

and developing working relationships.

Products and Activities

Due to funding constraints, it is not expected that the total 

number of Research Work Unit technical products and 

activities will change significantly over the next couple 

of years (table 3). However, the types of products and 

delivery methods will likely change. Some changes are 

being initiated to overcome barriers to science delivery. 

For example, several Units will pursue videotaping or 

live broadcasting of training sessions to overcome space 

limitations at their facilities. Other changes, such as 

developing more interactive web-based tools and DVDs, are 

being considered to meet customer requests.

Customers

The SRS has historically had a large customer base of 

private landowners. This customer base is rapidly changing 

and growing. Due to many factors in the Southeast, 

changing ownership patterns for privately owned forests, 

including industrial forests, is increasing. Along with this, 

there is an increase in the fragmentation of large tracts of 

land as more private, industrial forests are sold in response 

to economic pressures. If this trend continues, there will 

be a significant increase in the total number of landowners, 

making outreach efforts more challenging, and a decrease 

in the average size of land units, making large-scale studies 

more difficult.

In addition to private landowners, the Research Work 

Units have customers from universities, state and local 

governments, Tribal governments, other federal agencies, 

State agencies, and numerous non-governmental 

organizations. Although the Units share several customer 

groups, each Unit also has unique groups of customers based 

on the nature of its research.

The SRS serves a broad range of customers; this is a 

major challenge partly because it requires striking a proper 

Table 3—Technology transfer products and activities of Southern Research Station Research Work Units, 

fi scal years 2003–2005

Fiscal year

Products and activities 

of research work units 2003 2004 2005

number

Nonrefereed publications 522 616 508

Journal articles (refereed publications) 275 381 336

Presentations to scientifi c and professional organizations 646 697 668

Presentations to lay organizations 199 206 205

Tours to educational and professional organizations 287 240 267

Short courses/training to educational or professional groups 108 119 136

Videos and slide presentations developed on research fi ndings 141 121 74

Technology transfer activities (e.g., scientists helping other stations understand 

research, training in new techniques, research fi ndings on the Web) 766 929 1128

New inventory technologies (i.e., sampling methods, software, models) 8 10 29

Research tools and technologies 106 48 47

 Total 3,058 3,367 3,398 
15

balance of resources. The Science Delivery Group assists 

the Research Work Units in developing state-of-the-art tools 

and delivery methods required by some customers while 

ensuring that less technologically savvy customers are not 

excluded. To truly meet the needs of our customers, it will 

be essential to provide the same information in multiple 

formats by targeted delivery methods.

Sample Success Stories

SRS researchers have engaged in many successful science 

delivery activities, which benefit a variety of internal and 

external customers. These successes include:

The Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research succeeded 

in gaining the inclusion of a new silvicultural technique, 

researched and developed by our scientists over the last 10 

years, into the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Dr. 

Ted Leininger and Dr. Emile Gardiner worked with Farm 

Service Agency policymakers to include the technique of 

incorporating hardwood species between rows of Eastern 

cottonwoods. The resulting two-species planting provides 

landowners with multiple income sources above and beyond 

the annual CRP program payments, making the conversion 

of agricultural land to forests an attractive option. After 

this technique was adopted by the Farm Service Agency, 

program enrollment increased 200 percent in 6 months with 

indications for future increases. 

The Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface Research 

and Information has been particularly successful in 

developing tools to help reduce the risk of wildfire around 

homes in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). One example 

is the decision support systems (DSS), which was developed 

based on the Center’s WUI fire research, and is available on 

the Center’s Web site, InterfaceSouth. One DSS, the wildfire 

risk assessment, helps the homeowner to assess risk from 

wildfire around their home. The other, a flammability key, 

helps resource professionals to develop flammability plant 

lists of local species used in landscaping.

The Southern Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Unit 

leads the Nation in client response and contacts. In 2006, 

they conducted 52 percent of the data requests and received 

44 percent of the FIA data Web retrievals in the United 

States. Having a variety of users, the majority of these 

contacts are with forest industry (29 percent) and academic 

(19 percent) users covering an array of projects that assess 

the status, trends, and sustainability of Southern forests. FIA 

data was used for rapid assessment from catastrophic events 

such as Hurricane Katrina and the Georgia wildfires in 2007. 

With increased concern regarding global change (population, 

climate, and markets), FIA data is used to monitor forest 

health and invasive species, assess wood supply for bioenergy and forest sustainability, assist decisionmaking 

activities for public policy and private enterprises, as well 

as predictive models for land-use change and forest fire 

dynamics. Maintaining close contact with the users, the 

Southern FIA team seeks innovative ways to integrate 

additional data sources to assess current forest conditions 

and predict potential risks to the forest resources. 

Conclusions and outlook for science

delivery

The SRS recently consolidated its 28 Research Work 

Units into 15, grouped into five science areas—threats 

to forest health, management and restoration, watershed 

science, technology and social science, and inventory and 

monitoring—and outlined a research planning process that 

shifts the planning focus from the Unit to the science area. 

The goal is to transform research planning into a broader, 

more integrated, and more inclusive process. As the leaders 

of the newly created science areas work through questions 

of mission, issue identification, objectives, and problem 

definition, they will be looking for input and guidance 

from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, both for their 

unique perspectives and for their grasp of what is needed 

to ensure the sustainability of Southern forests. We expect 

that this approach will help the SRS involve stakeholders in 

identifying emerging issues and will allow us the flexibility 

to shift scientific and science delivery resources as new 

issues emerge. 

The SRS’s Science Delivery Group is actively involved 

in the science delivery aspects of the science areas. The 

Science Delivery Group is helping to coordinate stakeholder 

engagement, identifying products that have potential for 

delivery, and working with partners inside our Agency, in 

the Extension Service, and in State forestry organizations 

to craft well focused, user-friendly products. We expect 

that these products will take many forms including science 

syntheses, virtual tours and short-courses, podcasts, 

interactive learning, and decision tools. 

The SRS has a long history of credible science publications, 

both in journals and in Station series. In response to a 

changing customer base, the scientific and science delivery 

staffs are working together to shift the Station’s product 

line so that it incorporates more information about natural 

resource issues, direct contact with experts, practical tools, 

and syntheses of research results. Web-based products are 

supplementing and, at times, replacing paper for research 

reports and conference proceedings. For material that works 

best in paper format, more effort is being placed on tailoring 

products to specific customer groups. Color photographs, 

maps, and graphics are becoming more common for these 

products. The need for customer testing of products is 

becoming generally accepted.

Many of the answers to today’s problems and issues can be 

found in the research findings of the past. What is missing 
16

is the capacity to form rapid responses, whether a simple 

answer to a landowner question or a multi-agency effort 

to pull together information needed in an environmental 

crisis. For this, networks and systems must be in place to 

provide user-friendly processes for receiving, managing, and 

responding to customer needs for information and solutions 

to problems. A region-wide commitment is required to 

organize available information, improve access and retrieval, 

and dedicate the human and financial resources to gather, 

compile, interpret, and synthesize existing data. Web-based 

science synthesis products such as the FEN are likely to 

play a central role in rapid-response delivery of scientific 

knowledge. A rapid-response project might start with an 

existing scientific synthesis in the FEN and quickly update 

and expand that section to ensure that answers to current 

critical questions become available in a timely manner.

Too often, scientists develop decision tools and other 

products that represent cutting-edge research, but are 

difficult to use or are out of the mainstream in terms of 

software compatibility and support. We intend to work with 

partners and stakeholders to identify products that have the 

potential to meet user needs or solve sustainability problems, 

and then invest the resources required to fully develop their 

potential for accurate and clear usability.

The advent of the Internet has revolutionized access 

to information without providing enough guidance 

about the credibility of information sources. In this new 

environment, astronomy and astrology are perceived 

to have equal credibility. Anyone can post a version of 

science findings that supports special interests. Without 

consistent branding, useful research products are submerged 

in a welter of competing ideas, opinions, and proposals 

that Web surfers encounter in their search for answers to 

significant questions. To avoid being just another voice 

in the cacophony, each science partnership needs to find 

subtle ways of consistently and clearly identifying the 

contributions of its individual members.

In summary, the SRS brings to the table the credibility of 

our science, some knowledge of landowner preferences, and 

a high level of writing, publishing, design, and computer 

expertise. We look to our partners for expertise in science 

delivery, identification of priorities, and hands-on work 

to develop and evaluate joint projects that respond to user 

needs and create impacts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the scientists and support staff of the SRS 

Research Work Units for data, other useful information, 

and valuable comments. The authors thank Susan Bowman, 

Donna Burnett, Jeff Duckworth, Paras Kinariwala, Edward 

Mundy, Alan Salmon, Pearley Simmons, and Michael 

Weldon of the Station’s Science Delivery Group for 

information and technical support.

REFERENCES

Miller, J.H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of Southern forests. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS–62. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 93 p.

Rauscher, H.M.; Johnsen, K. 2004. Southern forest science: past, present, 

and future. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–75. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 394 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS–53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p.

Whitlock, C.; Rauscher, H.M. 2008. An approach for delivering research 

results in the Southern United States. In: Communicating forest science: 

A daily task. Proceedings of the International Meeting “Communicating 

through the media—why and how”. IUFRO Occasional Paper 20: 18-23. 
1 Director, University of Wisconsin Environmental Resources Center, University of Wisconsin, College of Agriculture, Environmental Resources Center, 

Madison, WI 53706.

17

CHANGING PUBLIC BEHAVIOR WITH HELP FROM 

TARGET AUDIENCE RESEARCH 

Elaine Andrews1

Abstract—This paper summarizes the purpose and sample results of a meta-analysis study to describe a body of 

information that water educators can use to guide their work and to identify what questions to ask when considering work 

with a particular target audience. The study compiles best education practices (BEPs) for 14 different audiences that have 

been shown to be more effective in studies of water and environmental outreach. These BEPs will make it easier than 

in the past for educators to apply the most appropriate information when designing initiatives that build citizen skills 

and motivation to address complex water management scenarios. The meta-analysis applied rigorous and documented 

procedures to identify and organize research-based information. The process identified a number and diversity of studies 

available to guide water educator efforts, but also indicated large gaps in research. Recommendations and products 

are based on findings reported in 96 research articles. Farmers were the most widely studied audience and landowners 

the next most studied group. Based on the quality of research, we believe that the findings reported in the analysis and 

in related reference pieces are reliable. The study pointed to the complexity of identifying and practicing effective 

outreach techniques which respect citizen decisionmaking processes, but lead to a more universal commitment to careful 

management of the water resource and its related human and natural ecosystems. Building educator skills in implementing 

effective practices will make a difference. Research that amplifies these results will increase understanding for how to 

make that difference.

INTRODUCTION

Water scientists and educators strive to address a demanding 

range of environmental management needs. They aim to 

provide citizens with information, skills, and motivation to 

maximize the quality of water and to manage water quantity. 

Ultimately the goal is to “protect and enhance the nation’s 

natural resource base and environment” according to a 

USDA Research, Education, and Economics (REE) strategic 

goal (2003).

Researchers and educators work to improve environmental 

management by transferring information to relevant 

audiences, by providing tools and techniques, and by 

facilitating the decision process. But what does “transferring 

information” actually accomplish, and how do we do it 

effectively? What does it mean to “provide” tools and 

techniques? Are educators under any obligation to ensure 

that techniques are used, once they are provided? Any 

decision process is multifaceted. Personal qualities, group 

dynamics, politics, economics, and social structure all 

play a role. What kind of decision-support system must 

educators design to address this level of complexity? How 

do educators objectively facilitate citizen decision processes 

with the protection of the natural resource in mind?

Educators need resources, training, and support to tackle 

the challenging tasks suggested by these questions. The 

REE strategic goal provides a laudable benchmark, but 

implementing outreach techniques that lead to measurable 

impacts is not a simple or straight-forward process. Some 

parameters that educators need to consider include: 

• Defining the problem in specific terms

• Understanding the critical factors that affect the likelihood

that an individual will adopt an environmentally significant 

behavior

• Identifying behavior goals that the targeted audience can

achieve

• Selecting outreach techniques most relevant for facilitating

behavior change by a particular audience

• Determining how to measure whether the individual

achieved the behavior goal

As these parameters imply, the most effective outreach 

initiatives focus on specific audiences; they do not merely 

try to communicate with the “general public.” A given 

audience is selected according to the probability that its 

current practices impact the environmental condition. 

Educators collect information about that audience and use 

the information to design a program that closely relates to 

that audience’s needs and preferences (Andrews and 

others 2002, McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999, Tetra Tech, 

Inc. 2003). 

This paper describes a meta-analysis study of water outreach 

research that provides findings about audiences of strategic 

interest to water educators. Results can also inform outreach 

for other stewardship education and outreach topics. In this 
18

paper, the term “outreach” is used to encompass all the roles 

of the natural resource educator described above, including 

training, technology transfer, formal education, information 

transfer, group facilitation, and communication.

USING TARGET AUDIENCE INFORMATION IN 

DESIGNING AN OUTREACH INITIATIVE

A target audience is a segment of the population with 

potential to effect desired change, a segment that is likely to 

be affected by the change, or both. Segmenting a market by 

specific audiences is considered an essential technique in the 

process of promoting, selling, and distributing a product or 

service. Segmenting audiences for the promotion of targeted 

behaviors is also central to development of social marketing 

strategies (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999). 

The value of targeting an audience lies in: (1) identifying 

the particular benefits of and barriers to the targeted and 

competing behaviors for the specific audience; and (2) 

optimizing the message and method to accomplish the 

educational objective, that is, to be most effective in 

effecting the desired change in behavior. Studies of teaching 

and of human learning, development, and motivation show 

that ways of thinking and learning vary among individuals, 

and also with variations in the context of the learning 

situation (American Psychological Association 1997, 

Andrews and others 2002, Falk and Dierking 2002, Holsman 

2001, Horton and Hutchinson 1997, Knox 1993, Merriam 

and Caffarella 1999, Sgroi and Cavaliere 1992). 

Stern (2000), summarizing two decades of research about 

adoption of environmentally significant behaviors, identified 

four critical factors that affect individual willingness to 

change: attitudinal, contextual, personal capability, and habit 

and routine (fig. 1).

Assessment techniques allow educators to determine which 

of these factors may influence a particular behavior choice 

for a selected audience, and provide details about how the 

specific factor is likely to affect the individual’s willingness 

to change. As illustrated in figure 2, educators can also 

use assessments to clarify the particular environmental 

situation and to determine what indicators to use to measure 

change. Information resulting from these assessments allows 

educators to select one or more “interventions” that are most 

likely to lead to desired short and/or long-term outcomes. 

For example, Burger and Waishwell (2001) wanted to test a 

fish fact sheet. They wanted to know:

What message did the audience obtain from the fact sheet?

Who should be the target audience for the fact sheet?

Who should be concerned about risks of fish consumption?

What are the best methods of disseminating this kind of 

information?

To answer their questions, Burger and Waishwell surveyed 

people fishing along a certain river, in person, and asked 

about their response to information on a fish fact sheet. 

Their audience could be described according to various 

critical factors: literacy (personal capabilities), ethnic 

backgrounds (contextual factors), and attitudes about health 

and the environment (attitudinal factors). Querying people 

on a personal level (intervention technique) established 

almost 100% interest in receiving information or sharing the 

• Contextual factors

– Material costs and rewards

– Laws and regulations

– Available technology

– Social norms and expectations

– Supportive policies

– Advertising

• Attitudinal factors

– General environmentalist 

 predisposition

– Behavior-specific norms and 

 beliefs 

 – Nonenvironmental attitudes

 – Perceived costs and benefits 

 of action

• Personal capabilities

– Literacy

– Social status

– Financial resources

– Behavior-specific knowledge 

 and skills

• Habit and routine

Individual willingness to change environmental behaviors is based on:

Figure 1—Factors that affect individual willingness to change environmental behaviors (Stern 2000).
19

information with others. The majority of people understood 

at least one message correctly from the fish fact sheet. But 

audiences had different content interests. African-Americans 

were interested in health risk levels from contaminated fish 

and wanted to know where to get more fact sheets. White 

Americans were interested in the level of contamination in 

the fish. 

Recent efforts to encourage educator use of tested 

communication techniques, such as Getting in Step: A Guide 

for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns (Tetra Tech, 

Inc. 2003), provide guidance for how to build motivation 

and skills to change behavior. Figure 3 summarizes typical 

steps for planning an outreach initiative identified in Getting 

in Step as well as other resources (Andrews and others 

1995, Seng and Rushton 2003, Simmons and others 2004). 

Recommended steps clearly rely on information about 

the targeted audience at many points in the process. Best 

choices for how to work with the target audience depend on 

the particular situation and the particular audience. Making 

these choices is the art of the outreach educator’s work and 

requires experience, coupled with opportunities to share 

ideas with other educators.

A nationwide need to provide a more consistent focus for 

education as part of the work to improve water management 

• Assess and describe the environmental problem with attention to specific 

 causes and opportunities

• Become familiar with the "community of interest"

• Define and assess the target audience

• Develop clear goals and objectives

• Inventory resources and constraints

• Focus initiative on goals, audience, and resources

• Actively engage target audience in planning 

• Pilot test and modify 

• Implement, deliver, or disseminate 

• Evaluate and revise

Outreach planning steps

Figure 3—Typical steps for planning with audience components italicized.

Figure 2—Connecting the situation with the people.
20

has been recognized as a national goal for many years. 

Several efforts each emphasized the need for research about 

targeted audiences, training, communication strategies, 

and local partnerships (Stevens and Andrews 2006). With 

the exception of Getting in Step (Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003), 

which provides general guidance for development of 

communications initiatives, there are no readily accessible 

summaries of research about behavior change that focus 

on water-related behavior, or presentations of audiencespecific, behavior-change research in a form useful to water 

educators. 

USING BEST EDUCATION PRACTICES IN 

DESIGNING AN OUTREACH INITIATIVE

Stevens and Andrews (2006) recently completed a metaanalysis of target audience research to help close the gap 

between research about behavior change and research about 

water-related behavior by specific audiences. To accomplish 

the meta-analysis, Stevens and Andrews conducted an 

extensive review of research published from 1988–2004 

to identify methods for water education and outreach that 

were shown to be best practices for educating specific target 

audiences.

A meta-analysis is a system for transforming a body of 

individual research results to category summaries which 

can be analyzed to determine a range of impacts, or to learn 

about generalities and trends. Methodologies for conducting 

a meta-analysis agree in principle but vary in application 

according to the type of data available. Meta-analysis 

is most frequently defined as “a set of procedures for 

summarizing the quantitative results from multiple studies.” 

Relevant studies are reviewed for key characteristics. 

Findings from “moderate” to “strong” methodologically are 

included, and quantitative comparison methods are applied 

(Campbell and others 2000, Cooper and Lindsay 1998, 

Hines and others 1986).

The need for some kind of process to enrich educator 

understanding of how to work effectively with specific 

audiences led to the effort described in this paper to identify 

best practices. Many authors have described the need for 

quality water education (Fedler 2001a, Siemer and Knuth 

2001), and have identified elements required to improve its 

effectiveness (Fedler 2001b, Zint and others 2002). Among 

these, authors conclude that effective outreach planning 

requires that education lead toward a specific purpose, and 

that educators apply essential skills, such as those identified 

as best practices (Andrews 2007). Fedler (2001b) defined 

best practices for stewardship education as clearly defined 

practices or programs that have been “refined through 

repeated delivery and supported by a substantial body of 

research.” In the water outreach meta-analysis, Stevens and 

Andrews (2006) further explain that to call an education 

practice a best education practice (BEP) is to say it is better 

than all other practices to which it has been compared using 

some standard or criterion of comparison. 

In the simplest terms, applying best practices means: 

knowing your goal; knowing how to achieve that goal; and 

knowing how to measure effectiveness. The concept of 

best practices can easily be demonstrated through a fishing 

analogy. Visualize a young man, fishing pole in hand, 

lying on his stomach at the edge of a hole in the ice. It’s 

clear to the observer that the young man has a goal—he is 

determined to catch a fish. He knows something about how 

to achieve the goal—he’s dipped his line into the cold lake 

waters, through a hole in the ice. Finally, we can measure 

the effectiveness of his technique, and whether he picked the 

best spot, by noting whether or not he catches a fish. If his 

goal is simply to have fun on a winter’s day in Wisconsin or 

to exercise his curiosity, his strategy for how to achieve each 

of those goals and how to measure their effectiveness might 

be different (Andrews 2007).

Andrews (2007) has provided a detailed discussion 

describing the foundation for BEP recommendations arising 

from environmental education, stewardship education, youth 

and adult education, and new understandings about how 

people learn. Stewardship proponents such as the North 

American Association for Environmental Education, the 

Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation (RBFF), the 

American Fisheries Society, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(AFWA), and the Institute for Learning Innovation (Falk and 

Dierking 2002) have each proposed refinements suited to 

their particular goals.

The Water Outreach project itemizes BEPs that relate to 

water and stewardship education (University of Wisconsin 

2006a). The project presents BEPs in two ways: according 

to theory, and as a summary of research about specific 

audiences. In Essential BEPs, which are derived from 

education theory, BEPs are grouped according to typical 

ways that the educators think about learners, as: individuals, 

groups, communities, or units beyond the size of a 

single community. Essential BEPs summarize education 

theory (such as provided by the American Psychological 

Association 2002), and incorporate key findings from 

other summative initiatives such as the RBFF initiative 

(Fedler 2001b), work by Holsman (2001), and studies that 

analyze what makes youth nonformal or informal education 

successful (Horton and Hutchinson 1997). 

Target audience BEPs are grouped according to the purpose 

of the education practice under investigation. The practice 

could relate to the audience, message content, message 

delivery, outreach design, outreach implementation, public 

participation, or evaluation. Study-specific recommendations 

for 14 audiences are reported on the water outreach 

website (Stevens and Andrews 2006). Additional audience 

recommendations are derived from a national symposium to 
21

further analyze what we know about audiences of strategic 

interest to water educators (Reilly and Andrews 2006). A 

new study is underway to identify BEPs from 2004–07 

research about water outreach and education (University of 

Wisconsin 2006b).

Recommendations provided either as Essential BEPs or 

target audience research results confirm the benefit of 

focusing on the learner and on learning contexts.

METHODS

The meta-analysis described in this paper reviewed existing 

research about specific audiences of interest, and compiled 

audience-specific BEPs identified through the analysis 

(Stevens and Andrews 2006). This investigation helps to 

define what practices are shown by research to have an 

impact on knowledge change, skill development, or behavior 

change. This study is provided, along with other resources, 

on the National Extension Water Outreach Web site 

(University of Wisconsin 2006a).

The meta-analysis results describe a body of information 

that water educators can use to guide their work and to 

identify what questions to ask when considering work with 

a particular target audience. Fourteen different audiences 

are considered in detail. The study compiles BEPs for 

each audience. These will help educators apply the most 

appropriate information when designing initiatives that 

build citizen skills and motivation to address complex water 

management scenarios. 

To find those education practices that were shown as best 

for educating audiences important for water management, 

we reviewed research literature on water information, 

communication, outreach, and education programs for each 

of 21 audiences identified as particularly significant to water 

management activities by a project advisory committee. We 

reviewed 15,082 references and abstracts (when abstracts 

were provided) and found 117 references that met our 

criteria (fig. 4).

We considered different meta-analytic approaches to 

synthesizing our research findings in useful ways. A 

standard approach uses quantitative methods, like those 

described in Cooper and Lindsay (1998) and Wolf (1986), 

to capture patterns in results across multiple quantitative 

studies. The studies we reviewed were not conducive 

to meta-analysis using quantitative methods. We chose 

a Adults was not one of our original audience category, but we found one extension-education study that used university 

employees working in positions that ranged “from grounds maintenance to upper administration” to identify effective methods for 

conveying information to working people and retirees on environmental and public policy issues resulting from growth and 

development Iams and Marion (1991). Working people and retirees are a large percentage of the adult population in the United 

States. We read the results as applying generally to all adults.

b We identified only one study that was primarily and exclusively targeted to ethnic groups. However, when analyzing the studies, 

we also considered two studies of Farmers and one of Recreational water users that also related to specific ethnic groups. As a 

consequence of this duplication, subsequent tables will identify four studies with application to Ethnic Groups.

Figure 4—Distribution of relevant references by their application to target audiences.

Adults a

Agricultural commodity groups 

Aquaculture producers

Environmental/conservation NGOs 

Farmers 

Government agency professionals 

Homeowners 

Households 

Industrial water users 

Landowners 

Land development businesses

1

0

1

0

41

4

8

11

6

10

0

Local decision and policy makers

Loggers 

Neighborhood organizations 

Recreational water users 

Retailers of water recreation equipment 

Service clubs 

Soil and water conservation districts 

Specific ethnic groups b 

Water-related recreational businesses 

Youth and college educators 

Youth and college students 

Total

4

2

1

7

0

0

0

1

0

9

11

117

Target audience No. Target audience No.
22

instead to organize and discriminate our findings by 

narrative categories following on the examples of Fien and 

others (2002) and Holsman (2001). We modified some 

of Holsman’s categories and added several of our own to 

accommodate the wider scope of our interests and research. 

Ultimately we evaluated 14 categories of information in our 

review of each study (fig. 5). 

Our evaluation and characterization of research methods 

relied on four schemes (Campbell and others 2000, Holsman 

2001, Leach and Pelkey 2001, Runkel and McGrath 1972). 

We combined the research characteristics captured by the 

four schemes into a unified scheme that rated the quality 

of each study on six characteristics: sample size; subject 

selection; presence and timing of observations; group 

comparisons; characteristic comparisons; and description. 

We based the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of 

our study on 96 of the 117 studies and reports we originally 

considered relevant. We dropped the other 21 studies from 

consideration when, after careful review, we observed that 

they did not provide evidence-based recommendations for 

audience-specific education or outreach. Considering only 

the 96 studies or reports that were retained for analysis, 

research-based evidence for audience-specific BEPs was 

moderate or strong for all 15 audiences. Our confidence 

in the evidence for audience specific BEPs is highest for 

households and farmers because of the combination of a 

higher number of references with higher overall research 

quality for these two audiences.

Stevens and Andrews (2006) provide a more detailed 

description of study methodology in Outreach That Makes 

a Difference: Target Audiences for Water Education—A 

Research Meta-Analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis findings are reported according to: 

•	What the finding had to recommend for working with 

specific audiences 

•	What patterns or themes emerged from the data across 

audiences

•	How the research findings related to classic education 

practices

Stevens and Andrews (2006) found that research findings 

could be grouped according to seven themes:

•	Audience information

•	Message content	

•	Message delivery vehicle	

•	Outreach techniques	

•	Role for public participation	

•	Support for outreach professionals	

•	Evaluation strategies and uses	

Taken as a group, the studies described a purpose for each 

theme and suggested research questions that could help 

define success or failure for activities with that goal. Figure 

6 provides examples of definitions and questions for three 

of the themes. Figure 7 provides an example of landowner 

findings for one of the themes, “message content.” Figure 

8 provides examples of research about “message content” 

summarized across all audiences reported in the analysis.

As mentioned earlier, Andrews (2004) summarized classic 

education techniques through previous work. These 

Essential BEPs are grouped according to the type of learning 

experience:

•	For the individual	

•	For the group	

•	For Web-based learning	

•	For the community	

•	For beyond the community	 	

Figures 9 and 10 provide examples of how research findings 

illustrate these classic techniques for the farmer audience.

• Supporting reference

• Study location

• Resource issue

• Target audience

• Education/outreach theory

• Education provider

• Education purpose and behavior change method

• Type and quality of evidence (research method)

• Concept comparison

• Research purpose

• Measure

• Significant findings

• Body of literature

• Search source

Water outreach literature review and 

summary categories

Figure 5—Categories used for the literature review and summary.
23

What information to provide

How participation in environmental 

decision-making contributes to 

measurable change

How to develop and use evaluation 

to improve the quality of water 

outreach

1) Specific content to convey

2) Content frame or perspective

1) When to use

2) What type to use in given context

1) What to measure

2) How to use results

Message content

Public participation

Evaluation

Theme Definition Applicable research questions

Figure 6—Sample outreach themes identied through a target audience meta-analysis (Stevens and Andrews 

2006, table 15).

Landowner best education practices

Message content research recommendations

• Include information that shows:

 – How the message affects landowners personally

 – What specific actions landowners can take to improve the situation

• Acknowledge landowner interest and concern for the quality of their land

• Provide regular feedback about how well goals and plans have been achieved

Figure 7—Sample “message content” research ndings for landowners (Stevens and Andrews 2006, table 16).

Best education practices for all audiences

Message content research recommendations

• Specific content to convey

 – Cost savings or improved economic benefit

 – Ease of doing the right thing 

 – Explicit instructions about what to do

 – The exact nature of the problem; what information is important to 

 know and why

• Content frame or perspective

 – Tailored to address specific audience circumstances

 – Easy to understand

 – From a trusted source

 – Up-to-date

 – Addressing: attitudes, knowledge, intentions, behaviors

Figure 8—Sample “message content” ndings summarized from research across all audiences (Stevens and Andrews 

2006, table 24).
24

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis results provide evidence to support the 

promotion and use of specific education practices. Findings 

add audience-specific examples for classic education 

techniques, and they amplify information about how to 

most effectively accomplish various outreach strategies, 

both for specific audiences and for water education as a 

whole. They indicate that water educators have begun to 

develop sophisticated techniques that couple dissemination 

of significant information with citizen goals to achieve 

improvement in water management. The Essential BEPs 

applied in organizing findings for the report are applicable 

to environmental stewardship and management education in 

general. Audience BEPs reported in the meta-analysis are 

research-specific. Study findings provide useful guidance for 

any educator working with these audiences, but need to be 

validated for any specific situation.

The study identified a number of needs. There is a need 

for careful attention to research techniques for judging 

outreach effectiveness. For example, we were unable to use 

results from several studies due to their failure to carefully 

associate outreach impacts with specific audiences or 

The learning experience for 

the group:

Promotes active engagement 

and real world problem 

solving.

• Provide information to farmers in three stages:

 – Information to stimulate farmer interest

 – Personal contact with farmer to provide new 

 farming practices that are viewed as solutions to 

 their problems

 – Work collaboratively and cooperatively with the 

 farmer in the adoption of new practices

• Design outreach to address farmers’ preferred 

 learning styles

 – Provide farmers with opportunities to solve a 

 problem, in addition to providing other standard 

 hands-on outreach techniques such as 

 opportunities for talking with specialists, field 

 days, demonstrations, etc.

 – When training new farmers, focus on 

 problem-solving and production agriculture skill 

 development

Essential BEP Farmer BEP example

Figure 10—Research about the learning experience for farmers learning in a group (Stevens and Andrews 2006, 

appendix C).

The learning experience for 

the individual:

Can be adapted to individual 

differences in learning 

strategies and approaches.

• Link education to production decisions to reflect the 

 fact that operators prefer to make production 

 decisions based on their own farm records and 

 advice from on-farm employees.

• Work with operators to review farm records in order 

 to consider potential impacts of proposed changes

 - Increase knowledge of on-farm advisors 

 - Collaborate with many groups/organizations to 

 convey important information

 - Work with farmers individually to determine 

 participation level

Essential BEP Farmer BEP example

Figure 9—Research about the learning experience for farmers learning as individuals (Stevens and Andrews 2006, 

appendix C).
25

techniques. While there is adequate diversity in research 

about impacts of water outreach, there is a need for more 

research about selected audiences and a need for research 

that more comprehensively addresses the complexity of the 

outreach effort for all audiences. In particular, educators 

would benefit from more studies about ethnic groups, 

local decisionmakers, students in higher education, and 

volunteers. Educators could also use more audience-specific 

findings that describe effective use of “message delivery 

vehicles,” “public participation,” “support and motivation 

for professionals,” and “evaluation.” There is a need for 

more research investigating the effectiveness of Web-based 

learning strategies. Finally, there is a need for research 

which highlights best practices for training policymakers, 

organization leaders, and agency administrators who 

promote or supervise water education and management 

activities, as well as facilitating their own groups’ 

knowledge-development strategies.

No study can do or cover everything. For instance, as much 

as we endeavored to be comprehensive in our review of 

current literature, we are confident that we missed research 

that might have added to the quality of our results. The 

following are other study strengths and weakness of which 

we are aware (Stevens and Andrews 2006):

• We were as transparent as possible with our procedures so

that critical readers can know how and where we drew the 

boundaries of our research and know its limits. 

• Meta-analysis recommendations are based only on

literature published in journals cited in the databases in 

the study. We did not make an exhaustive effort to find 

research literature published elsewhere, nor did we search 

for “grey” literature. We did, however, make repeated 

checks with specialists to attempt to discover literature of 

interest to this study.

• The quantity of supporting research is quite limited for

several target audiences considered in this study. As a 

result, some audience-specific findings are not as robust as 

they might have been had we found more primary research 

and literature reviews relevant to the study.

• We faithfully documented the schemes we used for rating

the quality of research. We used schemes drawn from 

multiple sources to maximize their objectivity. However, 

no rating is completely objective. No matter how objective 

the scheme, its implementation is always, to some degree, 

subjective. 

• We rated the quality of each study and report as a whole.

We did not attempt to rate differences in the quality of 

individual findings within each study. Individual findings 

may differ in their strength and quality, but we report them 

here as if they were equal in validity and veracity. 

To do otherwise was beyond the scope and resources of 

the project.

• We report recommendations and references for each target

audience as a group. A new resource, the Target Audience 

Database, allows users to identify a citation for each 

specific finding. Please see at http://wateroutreach.uwex.

edu/cpb/tad/index.cfm. 

• We engaged in an interpretive process to convert study

findings and recommendations to BEPs. While we made 

every attempt to faithfully mirror the research finding in 

the BEP statement we created, it is likely that we missed 

some relevant points or that, in some cases, we made an 

interpretation not fully validated by the research.

Recommendations in this meta-analysis are based solely on 

the research described in the 96 studies we considered in the 

analysis. We did not attempt to compare recommendations 

about a specific topic, such as message content or message 

delivery strategies, with other research conducted on 

that specific topic when it was derived from studying 

applications that lay outside the water outreach parameters 

defined for our analysis.

Extension professionals are committed to providing new 

information while respecting citizen decisionmaking 

processes. This study points to the complexity of identifying 

and practicing effective outreach techniques that respect 

that goal while facilitating a commitment to careful 

management of the water resource and its related human and 

natural ecosystems. It also points to the strength of work in 

progress. 

Building educator skills in implementing effective practices 

will make a difference. Research that amplifies these results 

will increase understanding for how to make that difference. 

A new study initiated shortly before the conference, 

Changing Public Behavior: Increasing Citizen Involvement 

using Target Audience Information, is exploring techniques 

for building educator skills in using results of this study, and 

for developing location-specific information about specific 

audiences when developing an outreach plan (University 

of Wisconsin 2006b). The project is pilot testing in-person 

and online training resources. Elements include a sevenstep process described in an online self-study module. The 

module specifically emphasizes how to assess audience 

interests and select outreach techniques that reflect results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Mark Stevens, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin Urban and 

Regional Planning, lead the effort to develop the metaanalysis procedure, identify relevant research articles, and to 

summarize study findings.
26

REFERENCES 

American Psychological Association (APA). 1997. Learner-centered 

psychological principles: a framework for school redesign and reform 

(Revision prepared by a work group of the APA Board of Educational 

Affairs). http://www.apa.org/ed/ lcp.html. [Date accessed: July 13, 2005].

Andrews, E. 2004. Essential best education practices.,National Extension 

Water Outreach Education. http://wateroutreach.uwex.edu. [Date 

accessed: March 28, 2006].

Andrews, E. 2007. Fostering aquatic stewardship with the help of best 

education practices. In: Knuth, B.A.; Siemer, W.F., eds. Aquatic 

stewardship education in theory and practice. American Fisheries Society, 

Symposium 55. Bethesda, MD: 25-32.

Andrews, E.; Heimlich, J.; Farrell, E. [and others]. 1995. Educating young 

people about water—a guide to program planning and evaluation. 

Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, ERIC Clearinghouse. 

Educating Young People about Water www.uwex.edu/erc/eypaw. [Date 

accessed: April 1, 2006].

Andrews, E.; Stevens, M.; Wise, G. 2002. A model of community-based 

environmental education. In: Dietz, T.; Stern, P.C., eds. New tools 

for environmental protection: education, information, and voluntary 

measures. Washington, DC: National Academy Press: 161-182.

Burger, J.; Waishwell, L. 2001. Are we reaching the target audience? 

Evaluation of a fish fact sheet. The Science of the Total Environment. 

277: 77-86.

Campbell, M.; Buckeridge, D.; Dwyer, J. [and others]. 2000. A systematic 

review of the effectiveness of environmental awareness interventions. 

Canadian Journal of Public Health. March-April: 137-143.

Cooper, H.M.; Lindsay, J.J. 1998. Research synthesis and meta-analysis. 

In: Bickman, L.; Rog, D.J., eds. Handbook of Applied Social Research 

Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications: 315-337.

Falk, J.; Dierking, L. 2002. Lessons without limit: how free-choice learning 

is transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Fedler, A.J. 2001a. An examination of the relationship between recreational 

boating and fishing participation and aquatic resource stewardship. 

Alexandria, VA: Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation. 

Fedler, A.J. 2001b. Fishing, boating, and aquatic stewardship education: 

framework and best practices recommendations. In Fedler, A.J., ed. 

Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship education. 

Alexandria, VA: The Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation: 4-17.

Fien, J.; Scott, W.; Tilbury, D. 2002. Exploring principles of good practice: 

learning from a meta-analysis of case studies on education within 

conservation across the WEF network. Applied Environmental Education 

and Communication. 1(3): 153-162.

Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. 1986/1987. Analysis and 

synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a metaanalysis. Journal of Environmental Education. 18(2): 1-8.

Holsman, R.H. 2001. What works: documenting standard practices for 

aquatic resource education. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5.

Horton, R.L.; Hutchinson, S. 1997. Nurturing scientific literacy among 

youth through experientially based curriculum materials. Columbus, 

OH: The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural and 

Environmental Studies, Center for 4-H Youth Development. 

Iams, D.R.; Marion, M.H. 1991. Reactions to alternative delivery methods. 

Journal of Extension. 29(2): 4 p.

Knox, A.B. 1993. Strengthening adult and continuing education: a global 

perspective on synergistic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Leach, W.D.; Pelkey, N.W. 2001. Making watershed partnerships work: a 

review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning 

and Management. 127(6): 378-385.

McKenzie-Mohr, D.; Smith, W. 1999. Fostering sustainable behavior: an 

introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: 

New Society.

Merriam, S.B.; Caffarella, R.S. 1999. Learning in adulthood: a 

comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reilly, K.; Andrews, E.. 2006. Best education practices (BEPs) for water 

outreach professionals: defining BEPs, refining new resources and 

recommending future actions. University of Wisconsin, Environmental 

Resources Center. http://wateroutreach.uwex.edu/proceedings.cfm. [Date 

accessed: August 1, 2006].

Runkel, P.J.; McGrath, J.E. 1972. Research on human behavior: a 

systematic guide to method. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Seng, P.T.; Rushton, S., eds. 2003. Best practices workbook for boating, 

fishing, and aquatic resources stewardship education. Alexandria, VA: 

Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation. http://www.rbff.org/page.

cfm?pageID=89. [Date accessed: April 1, 2006].

Sgroi, A.; Cavaliere, L.A. 1992. Concluding notes: a direction for learning. 

In: Cavaliere, L.A.; Sgroi, A., eds. Learning for personal development. 

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 115-124.

Siemer, W.F.; Knuth, B.A. 2001. Effects of fishing education programs 

on antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of 

Environmental Education. 32(4): 23-29.

Simmons, B. [and others]. 2004. Nonformal environmental education 

programs: guidelines for excellence. North American Association 

for Environmental Education Web site http://naaee.org/pages/npeee/

nonformal.html. [Date accessed: April 1, 2006].

Stern, P.C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant 

behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 56(3): 407-424.

Stevens, M.; Andrews, E. 2006. Outreach that makes a difference: target 

audiences for water education—a research meta-analysis. A study 

conducted for the National Extension Water Outreach Project. Water 

Outreach Project Web site http://wateroutreach.uwex.edu. 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003. Getting in step: a guide to effective outreach in your 

watershed (EPA 841-B-03-002). Washington, DC: National Service 

Center for Environmental Publications, 800/490-9198. http://www.epa.

gov/owow/watershed/ outreach/documents. [Date accessed: April 

2, 2006].
27

Wolf, F.M. 1986. Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis 

(Vol. 59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Zint, M.; Kraemer, A.; Northway, H.; Lim, M. 2002. Evaluation of the 

Chesapeake Bay foundation’s conservation education programs. 

Conservation Biology. 16(3): 641-649.

University of Wisconsin. 2006a. Water outreach Web site. http://

wateroutreach.uwex.edu. [Date accessed: April 2, 2006].

University of Wisconsin. 2006b. Changing public behavior Web site. http://

wateroutreach.uwex.edu/CPBhomepage1.cfm. [Date accessed: February 

15, 2008].

USDA Research, Education, and Economics. 2003. Strategic Plan 2003-

2008: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/ree/strategic_plan.htm. [Date accessed: 

February 12, 2006].
1

Professor, University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Gainesville, FL 32611-0410.

28

A FRAMEWORK FOR OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

Martha C. Monroe1

Abstract—A variety of activities fall under the broad heading of “outreach.” The diversity of programs, procedures, 

skills, and models can make it difficult for those who conduct outreach to communicate with each other. This presentation 

proposes a model of four types of outreach skills that vary by audience motivation, engagement, and purpose of the 

outreach. At the core of all categories is providing science-based information. If audiences are seeking this information, 

providing it is all we need to do. If audiences are not seeking it, however, we must understand the audience needs well 

enough to provide relevant and meaningful materials and programs. These two nested categories form the foundation for the 

remaining two. If there is agreement that the agency should promote a change in behavior, the third category includes the 

skills and models that enable us to create effective programs. If there is not yet agreement, outreach experts can be engaged 

in facilitating stakeholder discussion groups that aim to find common ground and directions for next steps in the fourth 

category. Because of the variation in audience and purpose, the evaluation questions in each category can be different.

INTRODUCTION AND SITUATION

In 2004, I attended a Technology Transfer conference in 

Troutdale, OR that I believe was an inspiration for this 

gathering. Although I am an extension specialist and 

educator, I spent the whole first day trying to figure out if 

I did technology transfer, if they did education, and what 

the difference might be, if any. Most confusing was the fact 

that we used similar words and had similar goals, but didn’t 

appear to be using similar strategies or even reaching the 

same types of audiences. Outreach means many different 

things.

In the end, I decided we did share much in common, but as 

we stray from that common core, we use different words 

and have different techniques that have the potential to 

contribute interesting and unique strategies and practices. 

This presentation introduces a framework that may provide a 

common language and give us a way to talk to one another. 

I will suggest the theoretical foundations for this framework 

and provide some examples. I welcome questions and 

challenges and other ways of thinking about our work.

PROGRAM

Providing Information to Interested Audiences

At the core of much of our work in technology transfer and 

extension is providing information. This is typically sciencebased information that our audiences want to know. One 

speaker at the Troutdale conference compared this work to 

that of interpreters or translators—taking technical, scientific 

reports and making them understandable to those folks who 

need that information. This is exactly how most agriculture 

extension specialists define their jobs—conveying research 

findings to farmers (see for example, http://edis.ifas.ufl.

edu/PI043). Farmers need research-based information 

to efficiently and economically grow crops or manage 

livestock. Similarly, much of the tech transfer work of the 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture is aimed 

at forest managers (see, for example, http://www.fs.fed.us/

pnw/publications/index.shtml). Our audiences are so keen to 

have this information that we don’t worry much about how 

it looks; the text is the most important thing. We remove 

academic jargon, we explain the context, we simplify the 

outcomes, but we make sure the information is still accurate, 

not over-reaching the conclusions, and appropriately 

generalizable.

Some extension and tech transfer specialists, however, are 

aiming to reach audiences who are slightly less motivated 

to plow through the straight information, or who may get 

so many newsletters and flyers that there is competition for 

their attention. Publications may have color photographs, 

bulleted lists, and interesting comparisons. The text is even 

more readable, and the graphic design is appealing and 

interesting. Large clever titles grab attention, but the mailing 

list is still a rather defined and narrow audience (Outen 

2006).

There is an extensive body of literature in the field of 

communications that supports our work in this area, 

primarily around text readability, visual communication, and 

graphic design. 
29

Providing Information to Audiences Who Are Not 

Motivated to Seek It 

Our publications, such as wallet cards and brochures, may 

also be designed to reach and educate an audience who is 

not looking for information. If these materials are successful 

at attracting attention and conveying information, it is 

because we take steps to understand their values, ideas, 

concerns, and motivations. In this category are the social 

science skills for audience analysis and a number of models 

that guide our efforts to introduce people to new issues, 

create awareness, and build mental models that will create 

understanding.

Because we know it is important to link our message 

to strongly held values and concerns, we often focus 

on issues that reduce risk to both human and ecological 

communities. We have to understand our audience to be 

able to communicate with them effectively. We do this with 

literature reviews, interviews, focus groups, surveys, and 

observations, typically. We look for:

•	Initial conceptions of the issue or problem

•	Potential misconceptions of the issue or problem

•	Concerns and attitudes about issue

•	Values that conflict with solutions to problem

In addition to text material, we often design interactive 

programs and presentations to engage the audience so we 

can immediately check for understanding, provide feedback, 

and make sure that they understand. A recent streamtable 

display at the Smithsonian Festival in downtown Washington 

D.C. that allowed members of the audience to design a 

stream and then witness the water flow is a good example of 

engaging people with concepts to further their understanding 

(Personal communication. 2006. A. Bartuska, Deputy Chief, 

U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC 20024). 

The theories that guide our communication activities with 

this information relate to cognitive dissonance, relevance, 

interestingness, misconceptions, and experiential learning 

(Petty and Priester 1994). We create more readable text, 

more vivid descriptions, interactive programs, and use the 

concerns that residents have to introduce a topic. Once we 

have a handle on how our audience perceives this issue, we 

can communicate information and suggest ways they can 

use our topic to meet their goals (Monroe 2005). 

Changing Behavior

In many circumstances, of course, we communicate 

with audiences not because their life will be better if 

they know about native trees, but because we want them 

to do something, such as plant native trees in their yard 

and remove invasive species. Just as the second category 

encompassed and added to the initial core of providing 

information, so too does this category build on the second 

and first. In addition to translating science-based information 

and using audience analysis to craft messages and programs, 

outreach programs in this category use the power of 

persuasion and social marketing to encourage audiences to 

adopt new practices. In rare cases information alone can 

change behavior, but only when the lack of information is 

the barrier to action (Schultz 2002).

There are clearly some situations that are appropriate for 

social marketing and some that are not. When the message 

is clearly within an agency’s jurisdiction, it is reasonable 

that staff would promote it, such as water conservation, 

habitat protection, and air quality. When the message is 

urgent, you also expect a government agency to safeguard 

life and property and provide persuasive information, 

as with wildfire, evacuation, and toxic waste. When the 

message is not controversial but merely makes life better, it 

is reasonable to use social marketing, to encourage boater 

safety or promote birdwatching, for example. When the 

community is in agreement that a new practice should be 

employed, social marketing is acceptable. 

We should not use social marketing when the issue is 

controversial and the outcome is not yet determined by 

the agency, community, courts, or stakeholders. Prior to 

resolution, a government agency probably should not be 

advocating for one side or another. The outreach activities 

for such issues belong in the fourth arena.

A variety of social marketing tools are possible to nudge 

audiences toward an agreed upon goal (McKenzie-Mohr 

and Smith 1999). Purposive communication campaigns 

could use techniques such as persuasive communication, 

reminders at the point where the behavior happens (called 

prompts), incentives and disincentives, demonstrations and 

modeling, feedback about how the campaign is progressing, 

opportunities to practice the behavior without fear or risk, 

and commitment. The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen 

1985), Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers 1995), Reasonable 

Person Model (Kaplan 2000), and others (De Young 1993, 

De Young 2000, Hungerford and Volk 1990, Stern 2000) are 

widely used in the development of these programs.

Engaging in Deliberation

Many of our communities have important questions facing 

them about sustainable resource management as they look 

to a future of more people, greater diversity of expectations, 

and more demands for the goods and services our resources 

provide. There is uncertainty and there is conflict. When 

there is not clear agreement about how to proceed, outreach 

programs can be used to help find common ground. 

A variety of experiences have been used within the area 

of natural resource and environmental decisionmaking to 
30

bring both the experts and the citizens together to learn 

from each other (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). It may be 

called collaborative learning, reaching informed judgment, 

public deliberation, or adaptive collaborative management. 

The facilitator of this process could easily be an extension 

or technology transfer specialist. It would require of them 

skills that bring groups together, create an atmosphere of 

trust and acceptance, engage people in an exploration of 

the known and unknown, mediate or negotiate, and allow 

information to come forward from multiple perspectives 

(Allen and Kilvington 1999, Daniels and Walker 2001). In 

the case of conflicts, the outcome of such a process may 

be a proposal that has broad acceptability. In the case of 

proposed management strategies, the outcome may be 

citizen-established indicators of acceptable standards for 

management.

This process really only works when the decisionmaking 

body (agency or municipality) believes that their next 

move should be with stakeholders and in pursuit of 

common ground. Such an attitude seeks and rewards 

citizen participation. This process will not work if 

participants believe the agency is not bound to follow their 

recommendation, or if the decision was already made and 

public involvement is merely a required activity.

EVALUATION

Regardless of the type or purpose of our outreach activities, 

we plan, pilot test, implement, and evaluate them according 

to the measures of success we have identified. Each of these 

four categories uses evaluation to answer slightly different 

questions.

Within this first category, we typically evaluate success with 

the number of brochures and newsletters distributed, because 

they are picked up by people who want this information. 

We equate obtaining with reading with understanding. 

Occasionally we send a survey to this motivated audience 

and ask if they read our materials, if they find them useful, 

and what other topics they would be interested in. We know 

these audiences fairly well—they are closely connected 

to our work: they are forest managers, forest landowners, 

farmers, and natural resource professionals. They look to us 

to provide them with information they need to do their job 

better, more efficiently, more economically, or with more 

desirable outcomes.

In contrast, we evaluate the materials and programs 

produced in the second category by determining if materials 

were designed to meet the audience’s needs, by testing for 

understanding, and by documenting shifts in attitude or 

knowledge. We stop short of measuring change in behavior 

because we acknowledge that there are many variables that 

determine or prevent behavior; providing good information 

is only one piece in that puzzle.

We evaluate behavior change programs, the third category, 

by measuring intent to change, perception of barriers, 

acceptance of the new idea, and actual behavior change. 

Sometimes we can measure changes to the resource, such as 

improvement in water quality indicators, increase in acres 

under a new management scheme, or population increases. 

Finally, programs that create discussions that allow parties to 

understand each other can be evaluated by measuring change 

in perceptions, increased understanding, establishment of 

indicators to measure management outcomes, and change in 

positions among conflicting parties.

CONCLUSION

There are four distinctly different types of skills and 

activities within our worlds of extension, outreach, and 

technology transfer (fig. 1). Although some of us may tend 

to be in one arena most of the time, any given issue may 

demand that we work across these lines and tap the skills in 

several arenas to create and facilitate communication.

For example, a team at the University of Florida’s School of 

Forest Resources and Conservation is working in three of 

these four categories in a new Wood to Energy community 

outreach program. To those who are motivated, we provide 

a General Technical Report with a review of the literature, 

case studies of supply curves, and feasibility studies. We 

have also conducted studies to better understand public 

perceptions, concerns, and notions about energy resources 

and forest management. A very carefully crafted set of fact 

sheets will explain carbon-neutral energy sources, compare 

wood to fossil fuels, discuss forest management on private 

lands, and explore air quality emissions from open burning 

and controlled incineration. These fact sheets will be 

readable and attractive, and they will present advantages and 

disadvantages of wood in the context of the South and rising 

energy demand. We are not likely to promote the social 

4 2 1 3

Figure 1—Four types of outreach activities and skills.

1 = Providing information to interested audiences

2 = Providing information to uninterested audiences

3 = Changing behavior

4 = Engaging in deliberation
31

marketing category because we don’t honestly know the best 

energy resource for every community. We believe they need 

to determine that for themselves. In some cases, burning old 

tires or construction debris will be economical. In others, 

waste wood from forest operations can be used. In both 

cases we think the community should be involved in setting 

criteria of acceptable limits on forest management, forest 

harvest, transportation, air emissions, and any of a number 

of concerns they might have. To that end, we are promoting 

citizen workshops that will introduce information, ask for 

questions, and generate a vision of what an acceptable 

energy future might be. 

This is a rather long answer to the questions of who are we 

and what do we have in common. I hope this framework 

gives us a common language and enables us to talk about 

our projects in a way that we can all understand, rather than 

in words that are unique to one agency or another. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many thanks to the participants of the Troutdale Oregon 

Technology Transfer conference in 2004 who sparked the 

idea and need for this framework, and to Kelly Biedenweg, 

Elaine Andrews, Bill Hubbard, and Lauren McDonell who 

offered suggestions and improvements.

REFERENCES 

Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: 

Kuhl, J., Beckman, J., eds. Action-control: from cognition to behavior. 

Heidelberg: Springer: 11-39. 

Allen, W.; Kilvington, M. 1999. Why involving people is important: the 

forgotten part of environmental information system management. 2nd 

International conference on multiple objective decision support systems 

for land, water and environmental management (MODSS ’99) Brisbane, 

Australia. http://landcareresearch.co.nz/sal/envinfsys.asp. [Date accessed: 

August 8, 2006].

Daniels, S.E.; Walker, G.B. 2001. Working through environmental conflict: 

the collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger. 

De Young, R. 1993. Changing behavior and making it stick: the 

conceptualization and management of conservation behavior. 

Environment and behavior. 25: 485-505.

De Young, R. 2000. Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally 

responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 56 (3): 509-526.

Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.L. 1990. Changing learner behavior through 

environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education. 

21(3): 8-22.

Kaplan, S. 2000. Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. 

Journal of Social Issues. 56(3): 491-508.

McKenzie-Mohr, D.; Smith, W. 1999. Fostering sustainable behavior: an 

introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: 

New Society Publishers. 

Monroe, M.C. 2005. Addressing misconceptions about wildland-urban 

interface issues. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service 

Fact Sheets FOR 108, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 5 p.

Outen, D. 2006. An end to seemingly endless mowing. Inside Agroforestry. 

A newsletter of the USDA National Agroforestry Center. 15(1): 4+ p.

Petty, R.E.; Priester, J.R. 1994. Mass media attitude change: implications of 

the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Bryant, J.; Zillmann, 

D., eds. Media effects: advances in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum: 91-122.

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Schultz, P.W. 2002. Knowledge, information, and household recycling: 

examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In: Dietz, 

T.; Stern, P.C., eds. New tools for environmental protection: education, 

information, and voluntary measures: 67-82.

Stern, P.C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant 

behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 56(3): 407-424.

Wondolleck, J.M.; Yaffee, S.L. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons 

from innovation in natural resource management. Washington DC: 

Island Press. 
1

Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, Research and Development Program, Washington, DC 20250.

32

Building on Our Strengths for Better Science Delivery

Ann M. Bartuska1

Clearly the whole issue of research and science delivery 

is a concern of all the different organizations that are 

represented here: Research and Development (R and D) 

and State and Private programs of the Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Extension, State 

Forestry communities, the NGOs that are here, as well as the 

academic sector of the Extension Service. So all of us have 

different roles that we play, and I think part of our challenge 

is figuring out a delivery mechanism that allows us to take 

advantage of each of our strengths and abilities and start 

working in a seamless fashion. 

In one of my first meetings after starting this job, my boss 

challenged me, “So what does that mean, how do you work 

with Extension?” I don’t think we’ve come up with an 

answer yet, but I do think there are some real opportunities 

in front of us. Being here with members of the Extension 

community I think is really an especially important 

accomplishment for us, because it is an organization that 

has been around for a long time and therefore has networks 

that could help our Agency’s science delivery efforts. These 

networks extend deeper into the communities than we in the 

Federal Government, especially our research organizations, 

typically can do. So a partnership among us really has 

the makings of a world class communications network. 

Such a network must be flexible enough to encourage new 

players as they emerge, but formal enough to enhance 

communications, set priorities, and secure resources. 

I’m not going to spend much time now on the mechanics 

of all this; that’s maybe something we can talk about later, 

but I think one of our challenges in science delivery is that 

the dollars available to do the job are woefully inadequate. 

Not a surprise, I think everybody here knows that. One 

of the strengths of the community in issues like this is 

we can leverage each others funds and capitalize on our 

connections, and maybe stretch those dollars even further. 

And so I think that you have real opportunity in your 

conversations during this meeting to discuss this important 

question: How do we leverage the different skills and 

abilities that we all have? 

That leveraging of funding is certainly something the Forest 

Service community is trying to do. What I want to do is 

spend the rest of my time talking about what we’re doing 

in the interest of stimulating further conversation about 

whether we are on the right track and what more could we 

be doing. 

When I came into this job, we began talking about different 

science themes that the Forest Service has been promoting 

as we look toward the future. One of those themes, “science 

you can use,” has become almost a little trademark or brand 

for the R and D program. And if you haven’t seen that 

phrase in some of our documents, then we’re not giving 

them and showing them appropriately. But it is something 

that we are trying to make a part of the way we do business 

by having it in front of us all the time. Although we all 

know that not every bit of science is going to directly link 

to useful products, it seems to me that we’ll be on a better 

track if we’re always thinking about the applications step 

in the research process and the opportunities we have to 

contribute to that step. So the issue of “science you can use” 

is something that I hope will become part of every research 

station’s vocabulary. 

The Forest Service R and D Program is committed to 

playing a larger role in science delivery. And I think one 

of the things that we have recognized for a long time is 

that we need to learn the language of our customers and 

to understand who makes up that customer base and what 

products and delivery mechanisms will help us be more 

responsive to their needs. 

Clearly a big challenge is technology, which is changing so 

quickly that we are in danger of failing to keep up with our 

research collaborators and the communities we are serving. 

One of the strengths of a science delivery partnership would 

be to open technological options and to advise the Federal 

component on where we need to become more flexible. 

For example, a few days ago somebody was telling me “So 

we just hired some 18 year-old to just set a blog up about 

Forest Service research and if you really want to reach 

people, blogging is the way to go.” I don’t know the first 

thing about blogging, but I do recognize that it is the kind 

of new mechanism that we could be taking advantage of. 

In recognition that we want to take advantage of emerging 

technologies, our station directors have agreed to set aside 

funding that will be dedicated to the electronic environment 

and to making materials both more understandable and 

more readily available. Starting by making our Web sites 

searchable in formats that people can more readily use, we 

ultimately want to move beyond organizational structures 

and begin organizing our materials by topics that interest our 

customers. A couple of examples that come to mind include 

the Southern Regional Extension Forestry Portal and our 

own TreeSearch database of online publications. 
33

We know that there are many different mechanisms that 

we can be using to establish a mass multi-faceted science 

delivery effort. Printed publications are still a priority for us, 

even in the midst of all the electronics; they have just gotten 

more sophisticated, with more graphics, accompanying 

tools, and interactive displays. Also, we are aware that faceto-face meetings provide opportunities for linkages with the 

customer base that will help us talk about our products and 

understand how customers want to use it. 

We are increasingly recognizing that science delivery is 

more than just products coming out as a by-product of 

research and that it extends to how we do science and how 

we communicate with customers and potential customers 

about the science we are planning and doing. For many of 

you that’s obvious, but to go beyond that recognition and to 

figure out how a scientist or a research unit could translate 

those approaches into a different way of bridging the gap is 

an important and difficult challenge for us. We know that we 

have special people in our work force who just do a really 

good job at that particular task. We also know that there are 

others who are doing fundamental research that is unlikely 

to yield immediate products but holds the promise for giant 

leaps in science. So our job as research administrators is to 

develop a system that nourishes both ends of the spectrum, 

both sets of skills and everything in between. This is the 

strength of any effective research organization and I think 

it’s a potential strength of this community of interest. 

The move toward a more integrated research and science 

delivery program is an evolution from a couple of years ago, 

when the President’s budget examiners gave us a wake-up 

call and said, “Okay we want you to do 22 million dollars 

of science and technology and application, and by the way 

you’re taking the money out of your budget to do that”. And 

I said, well, let’s rethink that. We really don’t want to unfund 

programs that are already stretched thin, but we can still 

deliver on science and technology if you will give us some 

flexibility on how to proceed. And in fact we were listened 

to as one of the examiners said, “Okay prove it to me,” so, 

the last couple of years, we’ve been proving it, and I think 

increasingly successfully. 

Our first step was to establish a Science Application 

Partnerships Initiative. We have asked the stations to 

set aside some funds for partnerships that deal with 

incorporating research applications into science planning 

and delivery. I think there are some really excellent 

examples where these partnerships have been successful. 

Just a few here in this region are the Southern Center 

for Urban Forestry Research and Information and the 

Southern Center for Wildlife Urban Interface Research and 

Information. And I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the Forest 

Encyclopedia Network. Those southern examples are being 

replicated all across the country that we have used to give 

ourselves permission to change how some in our workforce 

look at the way we deliver our science. 

What else are we doing? We don’t want the concept of 

research applications and science to become an initiative 

or a program, but to become the way we do business for 

all the programs that are in place. One of those examples 

is the National Fire Plan, which is a source of funding 

for many researchers in the South. At the national level, 

we have set aside and developed fire fuel strategy that 

is composed of four programmatic areas. Each of the 

programmatic areas has a science and technology piece. So 

instead of setting science delivery aside as a separate entity, 

we have concluded that it is our responsibility to integrate 

applications efforts within the research process, and we have 

set up processes to ensure that expectations for delivery will 

be tracked. So building that into the way that we manage 

our programs and holding ourselves accountable will be 

something that you will increasingly see. 

And we’re also looking into how we reward our scientists 

for their technology transfer and application efforts. Those 

of you in this room who do research know the challenges 

involved in acknowledging science delivery in the research 

panel process, our way of evaluating and promoting 

scientists that mirrors promotion in tenure at the university 

level. We are exploring the possibility of establishing a 

new career track for employees specializing in science 

applications. But we also have employees in the research 

cadre who spend a large part of their time in science 

applications; for them we will need to take advantage of the 

tools that we have in the human resources which we almost 

never use, but we know the authority exists to advance 

people’s careers based on increased knowledge. We just 

need to be more deliberate about recognizing the skills that 

we have out in our workforce. 

Many of those employees are coming together in our newly 

formed National Science Applications Team, which consists 

of representatives from all of our stations and has become 

an incubator for new ideas on how to get our science and 

our formats and products to better meet our customers’ 

needs. And I think in just a very brief life that the team has 

done a great job in serving as the liaison with the rest of 

the workforce. If we’re doing it right, there’s going to be a 

continual feedback mechanism among the team members 

and the rest of the science workforce so that they know 

they have a voice to bring some new ideas forward and 

eventually try new technologies and new opportunities. So I 

think it’s an idea that really works organizationally. Again, 

we are a very large organization so some of these structural 

changes are necessary to give horsepower and recognition to 

leadership. I’m really pleased at the extent of to which they 

really jumped on that idea. 

Among the projects the National Science Applications Team 

is considering for the next 5 years is a short-term project 

on a 100 years of science applications, which would gather, 

in one place, all of the projects that answer the age-old 

question, “So what have you all done for us lately?” 
34

Another effort that I think is especially timely is an approach 

for dealing with large scale disturbances; whether brought 

by fires, hurricanes, or biological invaders. Last week some 

of us were looking at the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita in Mississippi and we asked ourselves, “Where is 

science in all this?” The public recognizes science can play 

two roles, first in helping to respond to those emergencies, 

and second, to better understand the forces at work. And 

so the National Science Applications Team has adopted the 

idea of forming rapid science assessment teams or a rapid 

response team out West to mobilize resources and rapidly 

get information into the hands of others. They are not 

thinking in terms of publication, which take several years 

to produce, but merely a format that helps people learn 

quickly how to be better prepared for the next event. I think 

it’s also important for us to recognize that we’re living in a 

large scale disturbance world which seems to be continuing 

unabated, so having science right at the table to advise and 

contribute would be incredibly valuable. 

This idea of using technology to improve science delivery is 

becoming more important as travel costs increase. Examples 

include online symposia, video teleconferencing, and 

even the possibility of a central call-in service for fielding 

customer questions, something like 1-800 RESEARCH. I 

can’t help thinking that the call-in service would be useful 

for customers who can’t necessarily get online all the time 

or who need in-depth information about a particular subject. 

So those are some of the ideas of the National Science 

Applications Team is considering. Many of them, in fact in 

all of them, are not limited to just the Forest Service, but 

will have to involve the larger forestry community so that 

we can take advantage of the work that’s already being done 

and the information that’s already available. 

The last thing I wanted to talk about is a mechanism for 

knowing whether we’re doing what needs to be done and 

how well we are doing it. This idea of customer service 

goes back to our discussions with the President’s budget 

examiner who asked the question “So, not only, what are 

you producing, but also, how good are you at it?” It is 

an issue not only for Forest Service R and D, but for the 

National Science Foundation, National Institutes for Health, 

and the entire Federal research community. We are now 

being called on to report how we’re performing and what 

we’re producing with the tax dollars we’re spending. And so 

part of the challenge is that our traditional metrics of science 

delivery—number of citations, number of publications, 

number of our talks given—are not effective for those who 

are interested in what science produces, which leaves us 

struggling to come up with metrics that make sense. The 

metrics we choose must take into account the reality that 

science doesn’t happen in a nice annual cycle, that only 

with long term investments will we achieve those “Aha!” 

moments—a process that takes 30 years, or 40 years, or 50

years to really know what you know from the science 

you’re doing. 

What is a short term way to assess performance? Based on 

input from the forestry community, we decided that one 

measurement is customer satisfaction that we have served 

their needs well. And so we decided to establish a customer 

service survey that would supplement the anecdotal 

information we have with regular feedback and collect 

statistics to track where we are on the spectrum and whether 

we’re getting better or getting worse. We contracted with a 

highly experienced marketing firm to develop and send out a 

survey instrument to about 11,000 names. The response rate 

was 12 percent, which I’m told was reasonable, in fact above 

average for surveys of this type. I actually got a few personal 

emails like “Is this a spam?” “What is this coming from?” 

For some reason, my personal inbox showed up as the 

address to reply. There weren’t too many, I think somewhere 

around 12, but still, they gave me an interesting perspective 

on how people respond to surveys. 

Their final reports from the survey are not out yet but the 

preliminary data suggest an overall customer satisfaction 

index of 72, which is the average rate for equivalent surveys 

that the contractor has done with other groups, especially in 

the Federal sector. Interestingly enough, when we compare 

across the different programmatic areas, such as fire versus 

invasive species versus recreation versus wildlife and fish, 

there was really no difference in customer satisfaction. And 

the reason I point that out is, I’ve tracked what The Nature 

Conservancy has done—in fact every 3 months or so, they 

measure what the community is thinking about in certain 

conservation issues —and they’ve consistently found a much 

higher recognition of fire versus other conservation issues, 

especially wildlife which is always on the lowest end of the 

interest spectrum. I’m not quite sure what to make of that 

difference between these two sets of results, except that 

ours measures satisfaction survey, which would suggest that 

we’re providing materials equally in all the different areas of 

the strategic work that we do. 

When we look at whether or not we’re doing well at 

delivering those materials, our scores rise into the 80s, 

which is an above-average response to the specific statement 

that customers are “highly satisfied with products, services, 

and courteousness and helpfulness”. So we are in fact doing 

not too badly in the delivery of certain things. As we look 

at which products and services to improve we will need to 

be aware of how demands are changing relative to those 

products. 

But we also have scores that are down in the 60s. One is 

in the perceived usefulness of the information we’re 

providing, either in terms of actionable solutions where 

users can easily comprehend what to do to apply our 

information, or in terms of users getting answers that are 

workable within an existing resource, which I assume to 

mean money, time, and people. And so that’s really an 

interesting perspective to incorporate when we’re looking at 

how we’re producing information and what we’re doing with 

it as we translate it for a broader community. 
35

Our other below-average score was in communications and 

in informing users about the availability of our products 

and services. Improvements in this area will have to come 

from an understanding of both the delivery systems that 

are available and the way in which our customers prefer to 

access information. For example, I can say for myself that 

when I want to find information on what the Forest Service 

is doing, I don’t go to the Forest Service Web site, not 

because I won’t find it, but because I—like most people—

can find what I need a lot faster on Google or Google 

Scholar in the case of science information. This recognition 

of how people access information will help us make 

significant improvements in how we communicate now that 

we have a metric on where we are, where we could be going, 

and how our work is valued by the public. 

I believe that we’ve taken some important first steps that 

demonstrate our commitment to bringing our science and 

our products forward. I also believe that your enthusiastic 

attendance at this conference demonstrates that effective 

and efficient application of our science findings is a 

critical part of the work we do. It’s critical to becoming 

a high performance organization and to fulfilling our 

responsibilities in government’s performance reporting. But 

more importantly, it’s a commitment to taxpayers that we 

will provide information that people can actually use and 

that they can put to use in the work they do. This is what the 

public expects and what we can do if we all work together. 

We have an opportunity to raise the profile of science to a 

higher level. A revamping of the Forest Service strategic 

plan is underway now. In it will be a new strategic goal, 

number seven, that is all about technology application, 

which we will use to hold ourselves accountable not only 

to ourselves but to Congress and the American public. If 

we can work together on developing and measuring the 

effectiveness of new science tools, we will never again be 

stumped by the perennial question “Well what are you doing 

this year and what budget are you putting to it and what 

resources are you putting to it?” If we can rethink how to get 

science and technology applications into the hands of users 

and address some of the bigger issues of sustainability both 

of lands and communities, we will have provided great value 

to the public. 

So again thank you very much for giving this opportunity to 

be a part of this conference. We still have a little time for a 

few questions now, and I hope that you will not hesitate to 

contact me with follow-up ideas and questions. 

Questions and Answers

Q: It seems to me that in light of some of the internal Forest 

Service decisions about trying to outsource or compete 

our Web development and production services, there’s 

a dichotomy between retaining control of the scientific 

information that is presented on the Web and the actual 

posting of pictures and documents. I wonder if any thought 

has been given to parsing those responsibilities such that 

Forest Service R and D and our cooperators could retain 

the science component in ways that address the changes we 

expect to see in Web delivery of science.

A: It’s one thing to outsource quality Web design but you 

can’t export the content of that web design. There’s no 

question in my mind that whoever does Web design and 

refreshing will be turning to us for the content and creating 

the network that allows us to provide that content. So it will 

be the job of research administrators to ensure that science 

delivery be left in the hands of the people who understand 

the science, not somebody whose only skills are in design 

and production.

Q: Back 25 years or so we had what they called technology 

transfer and it involved Extension, Service, State Forestry 

agencies, and the science application sponsorship initiative 

of the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Do you 

envision that degree of involvement or is this effort strictly 

internal to Forest Service R and D?

A: The science partnerships are designed to be broader 

than just internal. The National Science Application Team 

is an internal team and I think that to avoid violating the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), we probably 

need to keep it an internal team, but I think there are plenty 

of opportunities to involve others. It will be a challenge to 

ensure that the community of interest is involved without 

violating FACA, but I believe there are many mechanisms 

for us to do that. One obvious solution is for partners to 

develop an organization and invite Federal employees to 

participate. With every station director and the 

R and D program as a whole viewing science applications 

as a priority it should not be difficult to figure out how to 

best make use of existing networks so we have the skills that 

we need, recognizing that there’s always going to be some 

variability. An example here in the South is the networking 

opportunities when the Extension Service created the 

position, currently occupied by Bill Hubbard, which is 

dedicated to adding leadership and focus throughout the 13 

Southern States.

Q: You know the Extension Service has evolved over the 

years and today we think a lot more about our role being 

not necessarily the link between the research community 

and the end user, but a more integrated function, that earlier 

in the process becomes part of the research process itself. 

Maybe to pull a little bit of money out of the research effort 

and make it available for extension work as the research is 

progressing, but certainly to involve the extension function 

much earlier in the process. You do the research project 

and when it’s all over, and the papers are published, you 

say “Okay, now what do we do with it?” The application 

of science should be part of research project planning and 
36

implementation all the way through. So my question is, have 

you given any thought to having internal technology transfer 

people or maybe having extension partners involved earlier 

in the process?

A: We’ve been talking about those kinds of activities since 

I came into the job and that’s what I meant when I talked 

about starting a new career track, making it easier for a 

particular research work unit or science community to 

identify people who are explicitly charged with bridging 

technological gaps, using networks seamlessly, and 

connecting to their counterparts in the Extension Service. 

Part of the problem with some positions that we have is that 

the employee starts as a GS-9 and then the only way to be 

promoted is to take another job in another location. If we 

made better use of current authorities to promote employees 

in place, then they actually could stay within their unit and 

acquire additional experience and knowledge. In effect, we 

would be growing our own specialists in the applications 

arena. It’s one of the goals of the National Science 

Applications team to more regularize that opportunity.

Q: I am curious about the Forest Service R and D program 

on the Web. Aside from products like the TreeSearch 

database of online publications, would you say R and D is 

going more towards a national Web presence or maintaining 

separate Web identities for individual stations?

A: There’s always going to be a station identity because 

there will be place-based needs, people will want to look 

for their favorite station, but for those who don’t know us 

already, whether they are visiting the Southern Research 

Station or the Forest Products Laboratory is irrelevant. They 

are looking for information regardless of its source, which 

can only be achieved through national Web presence. My 

belief is that if we minimize the organizational “clutter,” we 

can focus more on the “science you can use.” If customers 

want information about fuel research or invasive species, 

our job is to get them to that information and the involved 

scientists as quickly as possible. When congressional 

appropriation staffers say they can’t find anything on our 

Web site, so they always Google it, that bothers me because 

it means that we do not have a unified Web presence. One 

thing I want to do is make “science you can use” the first 

thing that comes into view when a visitor lands on our Web 

site, and to feature 10 stories that visitors can scroll through 

and click on one to get the rest of the story. The stories 

would be freshened up on a quarterly basis, so we’re always 

bringing new information forward in a way that matches the 

way customers are searching. 

Q: Here’s a little bit of a challenge. I’m from out West in 

Oregon and I see some great research happening at the 

Pacific Northwest Station and the Pacific Southwest Station 

but there’s really no integration at all between them and the 

Extensions Service. I get the sense that, here in the South, 

the fact that this meeting is taking place means that there’s 

some integration, which is pretty impressive to me. But I’d 

like to see more of that in our region out West.

A: Different stations have different histories and different 

types of associations. In the West, because we’ve been so 

linked to the national forests, our customers have been 

internal to the Forest Service and it’s been easier to deliver 

our information to them. Lately there has been more 

focus on external customers by the three western station 

directors, all of whom are relatively new to the job. They are 

working together and all were in the national office when 

we developed the “science you can use” theme, so if you 

don’t start seeing a change I would be surprised. In fact I’ve 

already heard of a lot more connections being made between 

station headquarters and the universities.

Q: You were talking about integrating extension and Forest 

Service research; are you describing the creation of an 

Extension Service within the Forest Service? 

A: That’s not something I would want to do. Here’s an 

example of what I’m thinking. A research work unit would 

continue to have research grade scientists and forestry 

technicians, but would also have a technology application 

specialist. This would be somebody who was hired for 

that job, would have good communication and research 

skills, and would become “best friends” with Extension 

Service specialists at the local university or wherever 

opportunities exist for collaboration. The goal would be 

to maintain direct contact between the research unit and 

the delivery mechanisms offered by Extension Service. 

This would regularize the linkage to Extension Service, not 

waste resources by trying to duplicate a system that already 

exists. In conversations with representatives of other USDA 

agencies in Washington, the focus has been on seamless and 

integrated delivery.
37

INTRODUCTION

As Extension educators there are two general issues we 

face. The first is to provide information delivery that is 

relevant to adult learners interested in forestry and natural 

resources. The second is to provide information delivery 

to adult learners who have no particular interest forestry 

and natural resources. The current delivery models 

most commonly used, static web pages and face-to-face 

lectures, may limit us in reaching our potential audiences, 

especially younger adult learners. Quite often educators 

do not consider the needs of their audience resulting in 

the educational experience not being as rewarding for the 

learner as it 

could be. 

The first purpose of this paper is to remind educators or 

maybe even introduce them to recognizing the differences 

in learners and how they learn. Adult learners share a 

similar set of learning objectives even thought they have 

a number of different learning styles. It is also true that 

there are significant generational differences among 

learners. Dealing with these differences can be a challenge 

so recognizing them is most important. All of these 

differences are discussed here. The second purpose is to 

offer several suggestions for effectively incorporating 

teaching methods and tools to improve educational 

programs and make them rewarding for all learners 

regardless of age or learning style.

What is andragogy? It was first defined as the art and 

science of helping adults learn (Knowles 1984). A broader 

meaning has evolved since Knowles first introduced 

the word. Now it refers to learner-focused education 

for anyone. The model asserts that five issues are to be 

addressed. The first three include letting learners know 

why something is important to learn, showing learners 

how to direct themselves through information, and relating 

the topic to the learners’ experiences. In addition, people 

will not learn until they are ready and motivated to learn. 

Finally, often this requires helping learners overcome 

inhibitions, behaviors, and beliefs about learning.

Knowles’ assumed adult learners need to know why they 

needed to learn something before attempting to learn it. 

Adults need to be responsible for their own decisions and 

be self-directed. Readiness to learn means that adults are 

ready to learn those things they need to know in order to 

cope effectively with life situations. In their orientation 

to learning, adults are motivated to learn to the extent 

that they perceive that it will help them perform tasks 

they confront in their life situations (Atherton, 2003 and 

Hoffman 2006). 

Who is and who is not an adult learner? Adults tend to seek 

out learning opportunities. Often life changes serve as the 

motivation for the adult to seek new learning opportunities 

(Cross 1981). They usually want to learn something that 

they can use to better their position or make a change for 

the better. They are not always interested in knowledge for 

its own sake. Learning is a means to an end, not an end 

in itself. These adults bring a wealth of information and 

experiences to the learning situation. They generally want 

to be treated as equals who are free to direct themselves in 

the education process (Zemke 1984). 

Hoffman (2006) offers some tips and techniques for 

teaching adults. Using problem-oriented instruction, case 

studies, simulations, problem solving groups make the 

instruction relevant to their situation. Instruction should be 

about tasks not memorization of content. Instructors should 

not be afraid to have ideas and instruction challenged. 

Make the environment comfortable and leave time for 

breaks (every 45-60 minutes). Instructors should use openended questions to bring out the experiences of the adult 

learners. 

There are four keys to adult learning. Let adults direct 

themselves in the instructional process. Integrate new 

information with previous experiences. Make sure the 

information is relevant and make sure the information is 

readily useable for the learner (Hoffman 2006). 

ANDRAGOGY’S CHALLENGE: 

DIFFERENT GENERATIONS OF LEARNERS

Ben Jackson and Matthew Howell1

Abstract—We begin by discussing the meaning of andragogy or learner-focused education. In this framework, learning 

objectives must be precise and give each learner and understanding of the instructional outcome. There are different types 

of learners and they may reach understanding by different avenues. The four learning styles discussed are visual/verbal, 

visual/non-verbal, tactile/kinesthetic, and auditory/verbal. There are generational differences that are significant in adult 

learning. Summarized here are some of the characteristics of four different generational groups from traditionalist, to babyboomers, x-gers and milennials. Also presented are some effective ways to reach each group in educational programs.

1

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602; Southern Regional Extension Forestry, University of Georgia, 

Athens, GA 30602.
38

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING STYLES

Objectives should identify a learning outcome, what the 

learner is to perform, not how the learner learns. They 

should be able to explain the principles in their own words. 

Objectives should be consistent with what the learners 

need to know. Finally, objectives should be precise and 

give different people the same understanding of the desired 

instructional outcome (Clark 2000). 

It is possible to consider that there are four learning styles: 

visual/verbal, visual/non-verbal, auditory/verbal and 

tactile/kinesthetic (Miller 2000). Below is part of Miller’s 

summary of these styles and approaches to reaching the 

different learners.

Visual/Verbal Learning Style 

They function best when information is presented 

visually and in writing. In a classroom, they benefit from 

instructors who use the whiteboard to list the essential 

points of a lecture, or who provide them with an outline 

to follow during lecture. They benefit from information 

obtained from class notes and they tend to like to study by 

themselves in a quiet room. They often see information 

“in your mind’s eye” when they are trying to remember 

something. 

Visual/ Nonverbal Learning Style

They learn best when information is presented visually and 

in a picture or design. In a classroom, they benefit from the 

use visual aids such as film, video, maps and charts. They 

benefit from information obtained from the pictures and 

diagrams in textbooks. They tend to like to work in a quiet 

room and may not like to work in study groups. When 

trying to remember something, they can often visualize 

a picture of it in their mind. They may have an artistic 

side that enjoys activities having to do with visual art and 

design. 

Tactile/Kinesthetic Learning Style 

They learn best when physically engaged in a handson activity. In the classroom, they benefit from a lab 

setting where they can manipulate materials to learn new 

information. They learn best when they can be physically 

active in the learning environment. They benefit from 

instructors who encourage in-class demonstrations, handson student learning experiences, and field work outside the 

classroom. 

Auditory/Verbal Learning Style 

They learn best when information is presented auditory 

in an oral language format. In a classroom setting, they 

benefit from listening to lecture and participating in group 

discussions. They also benefit from obtaining information 

from audio tape. When trying to remember something, 

they can often “hear” the way someone told them the 

information, or the way they previously repeated it out 

loud. They learn best when interacting with others in a 

listening/speaking exchange. 

Regardless of a person’s learning style it is important 

to remember the significance of active versus passive 

learning. Over time learners tend to remember ten percent 

of what they hear (very passive) and 30 percent of what 

they see (passive). Learners remember 70 percent of what 

they figure out and do. Finally, learners remember 90 

percent of what they figure out and verbalize. This is very 

active learning. This is the beginning of subject mastery 

(Anon 2006).

DIFFERENT GENERATION OF LEARNERS

Generational differences can be defined many ways. For 

our purposes we will include four categories. The first are 

traditionalists who are over 60 years old in 2007. The next 

are the 75 million baby boomers ages 60 to 42. The final 

two groups are the 51 million X-Geners, age 41 to 26, and 

42 million Millennials, ages 25 to16 (Ibsen 2006).

Included here are some ways to bridge the generation gap 

or steps to be taken for success (Ibsen 2006). Be aware of 

the differences, acknowledge that everyone is different. 

Appreciate the strengths instead of harboring frustration 

over differences, focus on the positive attributes. Manage 

the differences effectively. For example, once X-Geners 

have acknowledged the differences and taken time to 

consider the strengths, find ways to interact with them that 

will be mutually beneficial (Mayo Clinic 2005). 

Below are some characteristics of each group as identified 

by the Mayo Clinic (2005).

Traditionalists 

They were born between 1900 and 1945. Sometimes 

referred to as the World War II generation, traditionalists 

have worked longer than any of the other generations. 

Experiencing two world wars and the Great Depression 

taught most members of this generation how to live within 

limited means. Traditionalists are loyal, hardworking, 

financially conservative and faithful to institutions. Many 

are approaching retirement or are retired and now working 

part-time jobs.
39

Baby Boomers

They were born between 1946 and 1964. When the baby 

boomers entered the work force, they felt compelled to 

challenge the status quo, and they’re responsible for many 

of the rights and opportunities now taken for granted. 

Their boundless optimism led many to fight for change. 

Because of their large numbers, they faced competition 

from each other for jobs. Baby boomers all but invented the 

60-hour workweek, figuring that demonstrated hard work 

and loyalty to employers was one way to get ahead. Their 

sense of who they are is deeply connected to their career 

achievements. 

Generation Xers

They were born between 1965 and 1980. Generation Xers 

are technologically savvy, having ushered in the era of 

video games and personal computers during their formative 

years. In contrast to the baby boomers’ overtime work 

ethic, generation Xers believe that work isn’t the most 

important thing in their lives. They’re resourceful and 

hardworking, but once 5 o’clock hits, they’d rather pursue 

other interests.

If you are a baby boomer, here are some strategies to 

use with generation Xers. Get to the point. State your 

objectives clearly when communicating with generation 

Xers. Use e-mail. Take advantage of technology in your 

correspondence with them. Save meetings for issues which 

require face-to-face communication, and use e-mail when 

the matter can be handled via a well-worded, concise 

written message. Give them space. Do not micromanage 

generation Xers. Generation Xers crave autonomy. Give 

them direction and then allow them to figure out the best 

way to get results. 

Generation Xers are used to getting things done on their 

own, so they tend to be independent problem solvers and 

self-starters. They want support and feedback, but they 

do not want to be controlled. Because many of them grew 

up with computers, Generation Xers are technologically 

literate. They are familiar with computer technology and 

prefer the quick access of Internet, CD-ROMs, and the 

World Wide Web as their sources for locating information. 

Expecting immediate gratification, Generation Xers are 

responsive. They want stimulation and expect immediate 

answers and feedback. As learners, they do not want to 

waste time doing quantities of school work; they want 

their work to be meaningful to them. “They want to know 

why they must learn something before they take time to 

learn how” (Caudron 1997). Generation Xers are lifelong 

learners. They seek continuing education and training 

opportunities (Hornblower 1997). 

According to Brown (1997) there are 14 million college 

students in the United States. There are several effective 

ways to improve X-gen learning experiences. They are as 

follows:

• Focus on outcomes rather than techniques

• Make learning experiential.

• Give students control over their own learning

• Highlight key points

• Motivate learning - engage students in creating their own

learning environments

• Provide challenges - engage learners in projects that

demand new skills and the application of existing skills to 

new situations

Millennials

They were born between 1981 and 1999. Many in this 

generation are still in school, but the oldest millennials 

are recent college graduates just now entering the work 

force. These are kids who have had access to cell phones, 

pagers and personal computers all their lives. Millennials 

are eager to learn and enjoy questioning things. They are 

confident and have high self-esteem. They are collaborators 

and favor teamwork, having functioned in groups in school, 

organized sports and extracurricular activities from a very 

young age. They reject the notion that they have to stay 

within the rigid confines of a job description. Expect them 

to keep their career options open. As opposed to generation 

Xers who change jobs, millennials are more likely to make 

entire career changes or to build parallel careers.

Here are some characteristics of millennials derived from 

National Center for Education Statistics (2006).

•	14 million college students in the United States 

•	55 percent are female 

•	30 percent are students of color 

•	44 percent over the age of 25 

•	75 percent are considered nontraditional 

•	27 percent have dependents 

•	44 percent enrolled in 2 year programs 

•	80 percent are employed 

•	39 percent are part-time students 

The following are key observations about millennials

•	The Internet is better than TV

•	Computers are not technology 

•	Reality is no longer real 
40

•	Doing is more important than knowing 

•	Learning more closely resembles Nintendo than logic 

•	Multitasking is a way of life 

•	Typing is preferred to handwriting 

•	Staying connected is essential 

•	There is zero tolerance for delays 

•	Consumer and creator are blurring 

Here are ways to enhance working with millennials with 

these tactics: Challenge them. Millennials want to work 

on things that really matter. Offer more responsibility 

as a reward for their accomplishments. Ask them their 

opinion. Millennials love to collaborate and be team 

players. They respond less enthusiastically to a dictatorial 

chain-of-command style of management. Find them a 

mentor. Millennials have an affinity and great respect 

for traditionalists. Establish mentor-mentee relationships 

between these two groups, and both parties will benefit. 

Provide timely feedback. Millennials are used to getting 

feedback instantaneously. 

Oblinger (2003) observed that there are important elements 

to remember in understanding new students or millennials. 

• Gravitate toward group activities

• Feel close to parents/values

• More time doing homework/housework than

watching TV 

• Cool to be Smart

• Fascinated by technology

• Racially Diverse—1/5 immigrant parent

• See doing as more important than knowing—the 1⁄2 life of

information is quite small 

• Nintendo Learners—use trial and error process to 	 	

eventually be successful (win the game) 

• Zero tolerance for delays

• Believe if it is in digital form it belongs to everyone

• Believe they deserve excellent customer service

Here are more ideas on millennial learning preferences 

(Raines 2002): teamwork, technology, structure, 

entertainment and excitement, and experiential activities. 

Millennial communication preferences include being 

positive, respectful, respectable, motivational, electronic, 

and goal-focused. 

Below are the results of Astin’s survey of 275,000 students 

in 2003 (Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning 2006) 

• 75 percent highest value to raise a family

• 73 percent financial success as high priority

• 39 percent develop a meaningful philosophy of life (86

percent in 1967) 

• 74 percent volunteered in last year/ 65 percent in last

month 

• 45 percent drink weekly—down from 74 percent in 1982

• Only 6 percent smoked cigarettes in H.S.

• 25 percent discuss politics—up from 19 percent in 2002

• 94 percent use Internet for school work

• 78 percent indicated Internet helped them with their

school work 

• 81 percent use E-mail to talk with friends

• 56 percent prefer E-mail to telephone

• 56 percent said Internet improved relationships with

teachers 

• 89 percent got some information from their teachers via

the Internet 

• 19 percent would rather use E-mail than face to face

interaction to talk with teacher 

Heathfield (2006) has eleven tips for managing millennial 

learners. They are as follows:

• Provide structure

• Provide leadership and guidance

• Encourage the millennial’s self-assuredness

• Take advantage of the millennial’s comfort level with

teams

• Listen to the millennial

• Millennial are up for a challenge and change

• Millennial are multi-taskers on a scale you’ve never seen

before

• Take advantage of the millennial’s computer, cell phone,

and electronic literacy 

• Capitalize on the millennial’s affinity for networking

Roberts (2005) says that in order to build suitable training 

for today’s learner, you must tailor training by addressing 

key characteristics of this new breed. Research reveals that 

today’s younger learners value relevant development, rich 

experiences, flexibility, community, technology, and instant 

results. 
41

How do these values translate into tailored learning 

programs? The goal-oriented segment of your workforce 

is eager to learn and apply new skills. As long as they 

perceive the objectives as relevant, they’re willing to go 

for it. Provide multiple channels to allow these learners 

to seek out more information. It’s no longer viable just to 

gather a group of learners in a classroom for multi-day 

training programs. Learning needs to occur in smaller 

chunks of time, and, at least to some degree, be available 

at varying times. Consider blending self-study modules, 

web-based training, virtual classroom sessions and faceto-face workshops to provide a comprehensive, blended 

curriculum. 

Roberts (2005) continues to say younger workers grew up 

with technology, making them a natural fit for any blend of 

remote training. Whether it’s mobile learning on a wireless 

phone or iPod, web-based learning on your intranet, online 

discussion forums or remote virtual classroom experiences, 

younger adults are ready to embrace it. Layers of content, 

interaction and fun are the secrets to using technology 

to its greatest advantage in a learning application. They 

value speed, efficiency, gratification and results. What does 

this mean when they’re learning? They need a variety of 

activities and interactions and they need to move at a brisk 

clip. They want instant feedback and rewards, so be sure to 

let them apply new knowledge immediately, and let them 

know how well they’ve performed.

What could on-demand learning look like? You might want 

to combine the following:

• Self-study learning guides

• Web-based training

• Web-based discussion forums

• Online workshops

• Mobile wireless courseware

• Face-to-face workshops

In conclusion, Roberts (2005) says a purposefully blended 

training strategy is a key to success. By keeping step with 

changing technologies and an evolving workforce, you can 

meet the training demands. You can show them that you’re 

committed to growth and achievement. 

CONCLUSIONS

Andragogy is a valuable concept for Extension educators 

to be aware of and incorporate in their training and 

education programs. It is vitally important to try to provide 

an educational experience that is valuable and enhances 

learning for all four learning styles. Millenial learners and 

x-gen learners have different expectations associated with 

the learning experience as compared to baby-boomers and 

older learners. To effectively reach each learner generation, 

regardless of the educator’s age, the program must be 

tailored to the learner’s needs. 

references

Anon. 2006. http://lpc1.clpccd.cc.ca.us/lpc/hanna/learning/ 

 activelearning.htm. Accessed: August 2006.

Atherton, J.S. 2003. Doceo: angles on learning and teaching at college, 

university and professional levels [Online]. UK: Available at: http://

www.doceo.co.uk/ . Accessed: August 2006.

Brown, B.L. 1997. New learning strategies for generation x. ERIC 

Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education. ERIC 

Digest No.184. Available at: http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/x.htm. 

Accessed: August 2006.

Caudron, S. 1997. “Can generation xers be trained?.” Training and 

Development, 51(3): 20-24. 

Clark, D. 2000. More on learning objectives. Available at: http://www.

nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/objectives.htm. Accessed: August 2006.

Cross, K.P. 1981. Adults as learners: increasing participation and 

facilitating learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 315 pages.

Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning. 2006. Ferris State University. 

Available at: http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/academics/center/Teaching_

and_Learning_Tips/Millennial_Characteristics.htm. Accessed: August 

2006.

Heathfield, S.M. 2006. Managing millennials: eleven tips for managing 

millennials. Available at: http://humanresources.about.com/od/

managementtips/a/millenials.htm. Accessed: August 2006.

Hoffman, R., ed. 2006. The encyclopedia of educational technology. 

Available at http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/andragogy/index.htm. 

Accessed: August 2006.

Hornblower, M. 1997. “Great xpectations.” Time, 129(23): 58-68. 

Ibsen, D.A. 2006. Generation next: millennials on the rise. Five blogs 

before lunch. Available at http://daveibsen.typepad.com/5_blogs_

before_lunch/audiences_and_cultures/index.html. Accessed: August 

2006.

Knowles, M. 1984. Andragogy in action: applying modern principles of 

adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lancaster, L.C.; Stillman, D. 2006. How to solve the generational puzzle 

at work - the answers. Available at : http://humanresources.about.com/

od/conflictresolution/l/bl_genx_quiz2.htm. Accessed: August 2006.

Mayo Clinic. 2005. Workplace generation gap: understand differences 

among colleagues. Available at: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/

working-life/WL00045. Accessed: August 2006.

Miller, S. 2000. Learning style survey. Available at: http://www.metamath.

com/lsweb/fourls.htm. Assessed: August 2006.

Oblinger, D. 2003. Boomers, gen-xers and millennials: understanding the 

new students. Educause Review, 38(4): 37-47.
42

National Center for Education Statistics. 2006. Available at: http://nces.

ed.gov/. Accessed: August 2006.

Raines, C. 2002. Managing millennials. Excerpt from Connecting 

Generations: The Sourcebook. Avaialble at: http://www.

generationsatwork.com/articles/millenials.htm. Accessed: August 2006.

Roberts, S. 2005. “Millennial” learning: on demand strategies for 

generation x and beyond. Available at: http://www.elearningmag.com/

ltimagazine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=262368. Accessed: August 

2006.

Zemke, R. 1984. Computer literacy needs assessment. Reading, MA: 

Addison-Wesley.
NON-TRADITIONAL AND 

UNDERSERVED AUDIENCES

1

 Extension Forester, University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, School of Forest Resources, University of Arkansas-Monticello, Monticello, AR 

71656; Assistant Professor, Division of Forestry, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6125; Associate Professor, School of Forest Resources 

and Conservation, University of Florida, Milton, FL 32583; Associate Center Director, Arkansas Forest Resources Center, University of Arkansas Cooperative 

Extension Service, Little Rock, AR 72203; Assistant Professor Visiting, Arthur Temple College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, 

TX 75962, respectively.

INTRODUCTION

The Mississippi River Valley is a broad floodplain 

that extends from Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico and 

encompasses seven states. One of these states is Arkansas, 

where the valley is known as “The Delta.” Today, the fertile 

soils of the Delta support an agricultural economy based on 

cotton, rice, and soybeans. Although most of the bottomland 

hardwood forests have long-since been converted to row 

crops, about 2.1 million acres in the Delta, or about 23 

percent of the land, remain forested. Over 90 percent of 

these forests are oak-gum-cypress, oak-hickory, and other 

hardwoods, and 70 percent are owned by nonindustrial 

private forest (NIPF) landowners (Rosson and others 1997, 

Stanturf and others 2000).

A number of studies have examined various characteristics 

of NIPF landowners in the Delta (Greene and Blatner 1986, 

Kluender and Walkingstick 2000, Montgomery 2002), but 

none have focused specifically on African-Americans. There 

has been no research on African-American NIPF landowners 

in the Delta concerning their views about, and uses of, 

their forested land. In fact, only from North Carolina and 

Alabama has information about African-American NIPF 

landowners been reported (Hilliard-Clark and Chesney 

1985, Gan and Kolison 1999, Crim 2003, Gan and others 

2003). 

The objectives of this study were to use focus groups 

to describe the attitudes and forest practices of AfricanAmerican NIPF landowners in the Arkansas Delta; to 

identify barriers to African-American participation in 

extension sponsored opportunities; and to identify content 

areas for future program and education opportunities to 

serve the African-American forest landowner. We wanted 

to learn how these landowners view their forest land, why 

they own forest land, how they use their forest land, and 

what problems they face. African-American landowners in 

general have not taken advantage of government assistance/

incentives programs in farming or forestry (Kalbacher 

and Rhoades 1993, Jones 1994, Grim 1996). The lack of 

participation by this particular group of forest landowners 

indicates that this group is being underserved; therefore, 

what type of information they need, where they go to get 

that information, and how they learn about educational 

opportunities is important for future program development 

and service. 

METHODS

The study involved African-American NIPF landowners in 

seven counties in the Arkansas Delta, including Lonoke, 

Prairie, Monroe, Phillips, Lee, Woodruff, and St. Francis 

Counties (fig. 1). These counties were selected because of 

the relatively high population of African-Americans. On 

average, 36 percent of the population in these counties is 

African-American, compared to the 16 percent statewide 

average (IEA 2005).

45

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: PERCEPTIONS OF FORESTRY AMONG

AFRICAN-AMERICAN FOREST LANDOWNERS IN ARKANSAS DELTA

Caroll Guffey, Eric Heitzman, Richard Williams, 

Tamara Walkingstick, and Pat Stephens Williams1

Abstract—Focus group meetings were held with African-American forest landowners in the Arkansas Delta to determine 

how participants viewed their forests and sought and accessed forestry information. Most landowners inherited their forests 

or acquired them while purchasing agricultural land. Many landowners viewed their forests negatively or indifferently. 

They typically received forestry information through friends or relatives, direct mail, or local businesses. Many participants 

distrusted the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) because of perceived racial discrimination by local USDA 

employees. However, the few landowners who had participated in forestry cost-share programs were satisfied with their 

experience.
From December 2001 to December 2002, five focus groups 

were conducted in four counties (Lee, Monroe, St. Francis, 

and Woodruff); participants came from within the seven 

counties in the study area. Participants were selected with 

the help of the group organizers based on the knowledge 

that they owned forest land. In keeping with standard focus 

group methodology (Krueger 1994), each group met once 

and consisted of a set of African-American NIPF landowners 

from the surrounding local area. Groups were organized 

with the help of county extension agents, a local community 

development organization, the University of Arkansas 

Small Farm Outreach Program, and a local acquaintance. 

A total of 42 African-American NIPF male and female 

landowners participated in this study in groups of 2, 6, 7, 

12, and 15 persons. Females were present in three of the 

five focus groups. No subject participated more than once. 

Although the recommended size for focus groups is 4 to 12 

participants (Krueger 1994), the largest and smallest groups 

did not differ in participation dynamics or content outcome 

from the other groups. The meeting locations included 

community centers, a Cooperative Extension Service work 

center, a restaurant, and a local convenience store/diner. 

We developed a short survey that was given to participants 

after the meeting and seven open-ended questions to 

facilitate discussion during the focus groups. The survey 

requested basic information such as age, size of property 

ownership, and other information that would be helpful for 

comparisons with other studies. We ran descriptive statistics 

from the survey. Focus group and survey questions were pretested with an African-American NIPF landowner from the 

Delta (but from outside the study area) to ensure question 

and desired information clarity. 

The focus group meetings lasted from 1 to 2 hours and 

were recorded for transcription at a later date. Field notes 

were also made to the extent that they did not interfere with 

the discussions. The same researcher collected data and 

recorded field notes from all five focus groups. The seven 

question set was delivered to all of the focus groups. After a 

question was asked, all participants gave their thoughts, with 

discussion between participants being encouraged. When the 

discussion on one question came to an end, the next question 

was introduced.

Analysis of the meeting transcripts, as well as notes taken 

during and after the meetings, was done in two steps. 

First, the responses to individual discussion questions 

were examined to identify the specific issues raised by the 

question. This was accomplished by taking all the responses 

to the same question from each focus group and combining 

them into a single set of responses. These comments could 

then be used to show the overall reaction of the participants 

to each individual question. The second portion of the 

analysis classified the themes that arose based upon the 

responses given by the participants. This was done by coding 

individual thoughts into specific response categories (Strauss 

and Corbin 1990, Krueger 1998). Similar thoughts were 

then reassembled to develop concepts or themes (Strauss 

and Corbin 1990, Bryman and Burgess 1994). One example 

of these themes would be the desire of the landowners 

to produce income from their forests. Some focus group 

participants mentioned this during the question about 

growing and harvesting timber, while others mentioned it 

during the question about nontimber uses of their forests. 

Identification of themes allows for a deeper understanding 

Figure 1—Study area in the Arkansas Delta.

46
of some of the underlying reasons for landowner attitudes 

toward their forest lands.

The focus group method does not lend itself to statistical 

analysis. It is useful for working with small populations; 

however, care should be taken not to generalize the results to 

larger populations. 

RESULTS

Survey Results

Descriptive statistics from the written survey indicated 

that most of the participating landowners were 50 years 

or older (70 percent). Thirty-eight percent were over 60 

years of age. These landowners were on average younger 

than the 60-year average age of forest landowners in the 

South (Butler and Leatherberry 2004). Of the participants, 

28 percent owned 10 acres or less of forest land, and 

68 percent owned 40 acres or less of forest land. Eighty 

three percent of the participants in this study also owned 

farmland. Only 5 percent of the Arkansas participants had 

a written forest management plan for their property; this 

is similar to other landowners in the South (Moulton and 

Birch 1995, Butler and Leatherberry 2004). While most 

did not have management plans, most were interested 

in such a plan. Timber had been sold at some point of 

ownership by 60 percent of the participants. Only 28 percent 

of the landowners we surveyed were familiar with U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) forestry cost-share 

programs, and only 18 percent had participated in them. 

Focus Group Question Set and Discussion Results

Types of activities on forest land during the last 10 

years—The purpose of the initial question was twofold: to 

serve as an “ice breaker” to get the landowners participating, 

and to get them thinking about their forest land and its 

past uses. About one-third of participants indicated that no 

activities had taken place on their property. One response 

was, “It is not timberland and not farmland—just brush 

land. I do not know whether to cut the timber off of it or 

get timber growing on it. I do not do anything with it—I 

just own it.” One-third of the landowners stated they had 

harvested timber in the past decade. Hunting and fishing 

were also commonly mentioned uses of the forest lands on 

the property. 

Reasons for owning forest land—Although the reasons 

for owning forest land varied, there were two common 

responses. First, the land was passed down through the 

family. As one landowner stated, “I inherited my little bit I 

got. I kind of like it and I do not really know what to do with 

it about cleaning it up.” The second common response was 

that the forest came with the farm when it was purchased. 

An example was, “I am just a plain old country boy and I 

like living in the country. It was there when I purchased the 

land and there it is. I just enjoy it and appreciate hunting it.”

In three of the focus groups, participants had forest land 

because they could not clear it for farmland or pasture. Most 

of these landowners were prevented from clearing land by 

“the government” because it was classified as a wetland. 

These landowners were disappointed in owning forest land 

because they were not able to convert it to other uses. 

Use of the property for hunting and fishing was another 

reason given for acquisition and ownership. Forest land was 

also held for the production of firewood for personal use. As 

one older landowner explained, “As long as I was cooking 

with wood, I used it for my personal use....” Owning forests 

for environmental reasons was also mentioned, “They came 

in and cleared the land now the clearing has spread erosion 

and chemical runoff that was detrimental to the water, now 

they are trying to get people to put a percentage of their land 

into production for growing trees.”

Growing and harvesting timber—When asked how they 

felt about growing and harvesting timber, the overwhelming 

majority of comments were positive. Examples of these 

comments were, “That is why I am here—to figure out how 

to get the water off, grow trees, cut them, and grow some 

more.” Many of the negative views expressed were not 

necessarily against harvesting trees but rather were directed 

toward growing trees; some people would rather clear their 

forest land for farming. One older landowner stated, “But 

at my age it [growing timber] don’t seem like it would 

benefit me a whole lot. I need something now. I feel alright 

about harvesting timber.” A few landowners were opposed 

to harvesting timber. Overall, only a few individuals had 

negative attitudes toward both growing trees and harvesting 

timber. 

Nontimber sources of income—Participants were 

questioned about their interest in using their forest lands 

to produce income from nontimber sources. Many of the 

participants were interested in producing income from their 

forest land. While the interest level on this subject was 

very high, the landowners still wanted to maintain control 

of the forest land. One comment was, “Yes, as long as it 

does not strip or drain the land. As long as it is not going 

to hurt anybody or the property, that would be fine.” Other 

landowners wanted to make sure that these practices did not 

interfere with their other activities on the property. Some 

forest landowners were interested in leasing only certain 

parts of their lands for hunting and keeping other parts for 

their own use. 

In some areas of the Delta, leasing hunting rights was 

well known. In other areas, the practice was not common. 

Although interest was high, few participants indicated that 

they currently leased their land for hunting. One interesting 

47
comment came from a landowner who had earlier discussed 

having beaver problems on his forest. He said, “Well, if you 

can make money on the beavers, leave them out there.” 

In addition to hunting, wildlife watching was mentioned as a 

possible source of income. There was also discussion about 

making money from producing nuts. Most of this discussion 

centered on growing pecans and walnuts, or collecting 

acorns to sell to nurseries that grow hardwood seedlings. 

Forestry-related sources of information—In general, 

participants stated they would either ask friends or family, 

or did not know where to go for forestry information. Of 

those sources that were mentioned one source of information 

was the University of Arkansas, Cooperative Extension 

Service (UACES). However, the fact that individuals from 

the UACES helped to choose participants and locations for 

three of the focus group meetings could have influenced this 

reply. The Natural Resources Conservation Service and the 

Arkansas Forestry Commission were also mentioned less 

commonly as sources of information. There was almost 

no mention of fact sheets, brochures, or other literature, 

suggesting that participants either were not familiar with or 

did not receive this type of information. 

Notification of forestry meetings—Over one-half of the 

participants preferred to be notified about upcoming forestry 

meetings (e.g., workshops, field days) by mail. Many were 

already on mailing lists of some of the State and Federal 

natural resource management agencies. Another important 

preference was using local contacts such as a community 

business or church for holding meetings or workshops. 

Leaving notices or handouts about meetings at local 

businesses was also mentioned, such as the community 

grocery store. Using local businesses and churches as points 

of contact has not appeared in previous NIPF landowner 

studies.

Less popular ways of finding out about meetings were 

newspapers and radio. Elaborated upon in two of 

the meetings, most of the participants lived in small 

communities outside the larger cities, did not view the 

newspaper and radio as being of local interest, and therefore 

did not subscribe or listen. The only contact with the 

newspaper was second-hand by seeing someone else’s copy, 

often at a later date. Consequently, landowners typically 

found out about advertised meetings too late. As one person 

remarked, “A newspaper is alright, but a letter is better.” 

Experience with USDA programs—Although there are 

several separate agencies under the USDA umbrella, the 

landowners in this study did not seem to differentiate among 

them. Instead they lumped them all under the USDA name. 

Most of the participants were not familiar with and had 

not used any of the USDA forestry cost-share programs. 

However, all seven of the landowners in this study who 

had previously participated in such programs were satisfied 

with them. An example, “We planted some trees 8 years 

ago through the USDA program; they had their rules, but 

they helped us.” Many of the comments received in the 

focus groups centered on landowner dissatisfaction with the 

rules or the processes in the various programs, or problems 

relating to various USDA agencies in the past. In particular, 

participants related personal experiences of unfair treatment 

they attributed to being a minority. 

As one person said, “Over the last 5 years, a lot of minority 

folks just started getting information on the USDA 

programs. Part of the problem was the administration that 

was in the White House at that time. Part of the problem 

was as a result of the legal issues on the part of USDA. 

Minorities were totally left out of the system and were not 

allowed to participate or get any money on these programs. 

At the same time, a lot of minorities had things literally 

jerked out from their feet. Even though they were not 

participating in these programs, a lot of times if you were 

not in compliance, the next thing you know your land is 

going up for auction or your house is getting ready to be 

auctioned. So this is something that has happened all these 

years. It has just started changing in the last decade. I am 

being quite candid about it.” 

Although there were negative feelings and experiences with 

the various programs, there was also much interest in the 

possibility of participating. For example, participants from 

three of the focus groups recommended holding meetings to 

discuss and explain the various USDA programs associated 

with forest land. These comments relate closely a study 

(Gan and others 2005) that found minority landowners felt 

that some USDA programs excluded poor farmers, and that 

assistance from government agencies was inadequate.

Common Themes

Negativity and indifference toward forests—The AfricanAmerican participants in this study often viewed their 

forest land in a negative context. These negative views 

were expressed in several ways. First, many comments 

concerned the landowner being denied the opportunity to 

clear the forest to create agricultural land. One farmer’s 

comment summed up this feeling: “I bought the land with 

the intentions of farming it, but they [U.S. Government] said 

I could not farm it. I could not do anything to pay for it, just 

let it sit there.” This situation arises in many cases from the 

land being classified as a wetland and government [USDA 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] regulations preventing 

the clearing of wetlands for farming. Second, many older 

participants remembered clearing forest land to convert it 

to farmland when they were young. This experience still 

influences how these landowners view forest land and the 

possibility of converting cropland back to forest land. Said 

one landowner, “I picked up enough chunks and helped 

48
clear the land, I could not plant trees back there.” Third, 

participants had negative views of forest land because of 

their unfamiliarity in managing forests as opposed to 

row crops. 

Racial discrimination—The subject of racial 

discrimination was alluded to in most of the focus groups; 

however, it was explicitly brought out in two groups. Past 

negative experiences caused some participants to feel 

they had been unfairly treated when dealing with some of 

the local USDA offices. This sentiment was expressed in 

the comment, “I can guarantee you that 75 percent of the 

minorities will tell you there have been instances when 

people in the USDA offices approach you with an attitude. 

They look at you and wonder what you are doing there.” 

Another landowner said, “Recently there was a person 

[USDA employee] calling minorities telling them that they 

did not qualify for the program [EQIP].” Other participants 

felt they were deliberately left out of government programs 

creating distrust of the USDA in general. One person 

remarked, “You might get in on the tail end of a program, 

maybe you get a little out of the end of a program, but it is 

over before you even know it. Maybe things could have been 

gotten, but you don’t know and nobody is going to tell you.” 

In addition, there was the perception that most minorities 

are not informed about new funding opportunities, thereby 

preventing them from using a particular program. This 

feeling was expressed in the comment, “If you miss a 

meeting that you did not hear about then it is your fault if 

you don’t go in and sign up.” 

Producing income—The desire to produce income from 

forest lands was a prevalent theme throughout the study. 

Some participants had harvested timber in the past. One 

retired farmer said, “I am still into trees. Trees are valuable; 

most people do not know that. I’m having trees cut right 

now.” The opportunity to sell timber in the future was 

discussed by many participants. One landowner remarked, 

“We have been logging and running a [saw] mill since 

1950. That is how we make our extra money to subsidize 

our farming.” Yet many landowners were concerned about 

their lack of knowledge concerning timber values and the 

timber sale process. One example was, “I really want to 

know what it’s worth first.” Another landowner was in 

favor of harvesting trees with the caveat, “As long as cutting 

is kept to a minimum.” These apprehensions related to 

the landowners’ feelings of loss of control over what will 

happen to their forest during the harvesting operation. One 

landowner stated, “I do not like to deal with timberland. I 

really do not want any more timberland, except to hunt on.” 

Another example was, “It’s not timberland or farmland, just 

brush land. I don’t know whether to cut the timber or get the 

timber growing on it.”

Importance of forest recreation—Most of the landowners 

in this study did not own their forest land solely for 

producing income. A place for recreation was the main 

reason some acquired their forest land. One landowner 

explained, “[The forest land] mainly came down through 

the generations for deer and duck hunting. Duck hunting 

is a way of life for us and the main reason we keep our 

timberlands.” Others owned their forest land for less 

tangible reasons such as, “[To] walk in the woods and 

relieve aggravation,” and “It’s just there, you know, but it is 

good to have.” 

DISCUSSION

The limitations of the focus group method again should 

be considered before applying these findings to larger 

populations. However the findings will hopefully give 

some perspective of this particular group and may offer 

ideas or insights when seeking to reach other underserved 

populations.

The majority of African-American NIPF landowners in this 

study were farmers who did not own forest land because 

they purposefully set out to do so. Rather, most inherited 

their forest land or acquired it as part of farming property 

they purchased. In general, they did not attach high financial 

importance to their forests, especially those landowners who 

had purchased the land with the intention of clearing the 

forest and converting it to agricultural land. Many were also 

somewhat dubious about converting crop or grazing land 

back into forest land. Participants often used their forest 

land for personal enjoyment and to pursue such activities as 

hunting, fishing, viewing wildlife, and walking in the forest. 

Although timber production was not a priority, the majority 

of landowners had sold timber in the past, and about onehalf planned to sell timber in the future. Most were very 

interested in learning more about the different aspects of 

selling timber, such as how to determine value before sale, 

how to contact timber buyers, and how to sell timber. In fact, 

participants were searching for any way to make money 

from their forests, including leasing the property for hunting 

or producing acorns and other nuts. Yet most landowners did 

not actively manage their forest lands, and only 5 percent 

had a written forest management plan. Furthermore, there 

was a decided lack of knowledge regarding where to go or 

whom to contact for forestry-related information. These 

landowners are not familiar with fact sheets and other 

literature that many agencies use as primary means of 

disseminating information.

Unfortunately, there was a strong distrust of the USDA 

and of its handling of the various agricultural cost-share 

programs. This distrust had spread into the forestry-related 

programs, even though most of the landowners in this 

study had not used them and were unfamiliar with most of 

them. This distrust, as well as participants’ perception of 

racial discrimination inherent in such programs, had not 

promoted the use of these programs in the African-American 

49
community. Much of the knowledge landowners had about 

programs was second-hand, and in many cases incorrect. 

This distrust and misinformation kept many landowners 

from pursuing information about these programs. The 

few landowners who had used forestry-related programs 

expressed satisfaction with their experience, indicating that 

more African-American NIPF landowners would probably 

enjoy similar results if they participated. In fact, many of the 

landowners indicated an interest in using these programs in 

the future. 

Clearly, greater effort should be made in reaching these 

landowners with information about government programs 

in general forestry and wildlife management. Technology 

transfer approached appropriately in identified content areas 

of interest and need would create high levels of interest, and 

possible participation, among participants in this study. This 

informational need was regularly mentioned in the focus 

groups despite the distrust of the USDA. These programs 

might provide the incentive for many African-American 

NIPF landowners to see their forest lands in a more positive 

sense. Indeed, the opportunity to get assistance with some 

forestry or wildlife management practices could be the factor 

that would influence some landowners to begin management 

of their forest lands. 

Special efforts are required if Delta landowners are to be 

reached. We must recognize how these landowners find out 

about meetings and their preferences for being notified. 

Putting articles in local newspapers or on the radio is not 

the way to reach them. Targeting African-American NIPF 

landowners by mail, phone calls, or advertising at local 

businesses and churches will produce better results in 

reaching this group of traditionally underserved landowners. 

Their informational interests centered on timber harvesting 

and how to contact timber buyers, as well as determining 

timber value and volume. These needs come at a critical 

time in managing forests (harvest); poor decisions made here 

will impact the years of growth up to this point. The overall 

goal should not be having all forest land owners managing 

their forests, but to provide them with information that will 

allow them to make choices that suit their needs. 

REFERENCES 

Bryman A.; Burgess R.G. 1994. Analyzing qualitative data. London: 

Routledge. 

Crim, S.D. 2003. Characterizing underserved forest landowners in rural 

Alabama. Auburn, AL: Auburn University. M.S. thesis.

Gan, J.; Kolison, S.H. 1999. Minority forest landowners in southeastern 

Alabama. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(3): 175-178.

Gan, J.; Kolison, S.H.; Tackie, N.O. 2003. African-American forest land 

owners in Alabama’s Black Belt. Journal of Forestry. 101(3): 38-43.

Gan, J.; Onianwa, O.; Schelhas, J.; Wheelock, G.; Dubois, M. 2005. Does 

race matter in landowners’ participation in conservation incentives 

programs? Society and Natural Resources. 18(5): 421-435.

Greene, J.L.; Blatner, K.A. 1986. Identifying woodland owner 

characteristics associated with timber management. Forest Science. 

32(1): 135-146.

Hilliard-Clark, J.; Chesney, C.E. 1985. Black woodland owners: a profile. 

Journal of Forestry. 88(11): 674-679.

IEA. 2005. Census state data center. www.aiea.ualr.edu/census/censusdata/

census2000/County/CoRae1.html. [Date accessed: April 15, 2005].

Kluender, R.A.; Walkingstick, T.L. 2000. Rethinking how nonindustrial 

landowners view their lands. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 24(3): 

150-158.

Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 

2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Krueger, R.A. 1998. Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moulton, R.J.; Birch, T.W. 1995. Southern private forest landowners a 

profile. Forest Farmer. Sept: 44-46.

Montgomery, R.A. 2002. The Conservation Reserve Program in the 

Arkansas Delta. Monticello, AR: University of Arkansas. M.S. thesis.

Rosson, J.R.; Hartsell, A.J.; London, J.D. 1997. Forest statistics for 

Arkansas’ Delta counties—1995. Resour. Bull. SRS-11. Ashville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 

Stanturf, J.A.; Gardiner, E.S.; Hamel, P.B.; Devall, M.S.; Leininger, T.D.; 

Warren, M.E. 2000. Restoring bottomland hardwood ecosystems in the 

Lower Mississippi alluvial valley. Journal of Forestry. 98(8): 10-16.

Strauss A.; Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory 

procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

50
1

Extension Agent, Forestry and Natural Resources, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Northern District, Madison, VA 22727; Extension Specialist, Forestry, 

Maryland Cooperative Extension, Western Maryland Research and Education Center, Keedysville, MD 21756; Extension Specialist and Professor of Forestry, 

The Pennsylvania State University, School of Forestry, State College, PA 16802, respectively.

51

INTRODUCTION

Today’s most underserved forest landowner audience is the 

majority. Small acreage forest owners account for the vast 

majority of owners in the United States and especially in 

the Northeast and Southeast Regions. Landowners with less 

than 10 acres of forest own 59 percent of forest properties 

in the Eastern United States (Butler and Leatherberry 2004). 

While the overall acreage of this audience is still relatively 

small (8 percent), they represent a growing underserved 

audience that could be a significant political base in support 

of forestry programs (Eagan and Luloff 2000, Hull and 

others 2004). At the rural/urban interface, the percentage of 

land held in small ownerships can be significant. A recent 

study in Pennsylvania found that 54 percent of the forest 

land in Berks County near Philadelphia was in ownerships 

smaller than 10 acres. Statewide average ownership sizes 

previously estimated that Berks County had 9,400 owners; 

newer, more precise estimates suggest there are nearly 

27,000 forest owners in this urbanizing county (Metcalf and 

others, unpublished).

Traditionally, natural resource professionals have stood on 

the sidelines watching as private forest landowner (PFL) 

characteristics have gradually but drastically changed. 

We have a “new” type of landowner and new resource 

challenges.

The “New” Landowner

Most forest land in the United States is owned by private 

forest landowners (PFLs). In the 17 Southern States, for 

example, 59 percent of the 215 million acres of forest 

land is in PFL ownership (Butler and Leatherberry 2004). 

Historically, these PFLs have met most of society’s fiber 

needs. However, as our Nation’s population has become 

increasingly affluent and older, many people have chosen 

to follow the American Dream of land ownership. Through 

this process, the finite supply of land is under increasing 

pressure, and we find that parcelization is rampant. 

In the Southern Region, for example, the average forested 

tract size in 1978 was 45 acres, and by 1994 the average 

dropped to 38 acres (Birch 1996). The next 10 years dropped 

another 10 acres from the average. In a 2004 survey by 

Butler and Leatherberry, the average forest ownership size 

was 28 acres for PFLs in the Southern Region (2006).

In general, small acreage landowners compared to larger 

landowners cite ecologic and amenity values as ownership 

objectives more frequently. This differs little from the 

common ownership objectives of forest owners nationally, 

which are aesthetics, privacy, and family legacy. One major 

difference is that, when those who harvest firewood are 

excluded, the less forest land owned, the less likely it is 

that the owner will harvest trees for timber (Butler and 

BACKYARD WOODLOT OWNERS: 

A GROWING ISSUE AND NEW APPROACH

Adam K. Downing, Jonathan Kays, and James Finley1

Abstract—As populations expand into rural areas, the Eastern United States, particularly, is experiencing forest 

fragmentation and parcelization. This process creates major challenges for natural resource managers, as rural forest 

and agriculture land convert into suburban developments. Meeting the diverse ownership objectives on these smaller 

forest land parcels, which do not often focus on timber production, requires innovative and sophisticated methods of 

communication to convey both the benefits and responsibilities associated with land stewardship. Landowners with less 

than 10 acres of forest own 59 percent of forest properties in the Eastern United States. While the overall acreage of this 

audience is still relatively small (8 percent), they represent a growing underserved audience and a significant political base 

that could provide support for forestry programs. Forests in this changing landscape can provide myriad environmental 

benefits to society as well as raw materials for forest industry. Landowners who believe non-management is the best 

management practice do not think about their connection to natural resources, or they have insufficient information 

for making informed decisions about improving the ecological function of this evolving urban landscape. As a result, 

landowners do not understand the intrinsic benefits gained from managing their forest land, no matter how small. A new 

educational tool and approach entitled, “The Woods in Your Backyard” is available to encourage small acreage landowners 

to understand their role in conserving forest values and to lead them to more active involvement with their natural 

resources.
52

Leatherberry 2004). This reinforces the contention that 

education for smaller acreage owners should focus less on 

timber production and extraction, and more on the other 

values mentioned above.

Kendra and Hull (2005) found that new, small acre, forest 

owners in Virginia were most motivated by lifestyle 

concerns such as living simply, near nature, and escaping 

the urban stress. They have interests in growing their 

own food and recreating on their land. They express less 

interest in financial considerations when deciding what 

to do with their property. Yet, they are not necessarily 

preservationists desiring to leave the land “pristine.” For 

example, management tools such as herbicides, tree pruning, 

and harvesting are options these landowners would consider 

using to improve wildlife habitat, forest health, and scenic 

views. Kendra and Hull (2005) found that landowners cite 

many reasons for not managing their land, such as, they 

never thought about it, time and money limitations, parcel 

size, and lack of knowledge. Many of these can be addressed 

through information, demonstration, consulting, and 

outreach programs.

Clearly, segments of the new forest owner generation offer 

new challenges and opportunities for resource managers 

and educators. While these individuals most likely tend to 

look inside their boundaries, the decisions they make have 

ecologic, economic, and social impacts across the landscape. 

In this regard, resource professionals should recognize they 

have a role with this new clientele. Scaled down traditional 

forest management approaches may work in some cases, but 

there is a need to restructure both our ideas and approaches. 

Hull and others (2006) suggest that the management of 

these lands is important for the environmental services they 

provide and because these owners are politically active. If 

educators and professional foresters are to remain relevant, 

they must be proactive in making the changes necessary to 

serve this growing audience and the resources they control.

The Issue

Unfortunately, land parcelization in general and forest 

parcelization specifically are legacies of our heritage. 

The settlement of our country was largely driven by the 

individual desire for land, which was readily within the 

reach of the commoner. Our transportation systems, 

recreation demands, economic success, and individual 

needs and social expectations exacerbate land consumption. 

Numerous studies and reports document, quantify, and 

articulate the potential threats of our land resource 

consumptions (Egan and Luloff 2000, Macie and others 

2002, Sampson and Decoster 2000, Vince and others 2005, 

Wear and Greiss 2002).

Resource professionals have the training to understand the 

effects and ramifications of landscape fragmentation—

the breaking apart of systems as we impose varying land 

uses. These same professionals find frustrations in the 

parcelization of the land—the separation of land into 

different ownerships where objectives, if not land use, 

change and vary by owner wants and needs. Whether we 

fragment or parcelize the land, the potential to adversely 

affect forest and ecosystem health, economic structures, and 

future management is enormous. Resource professionals 

need to respond by encouraging responsible stewardship to 

traditional owners and to the new tenants of the land.

The Void

There are voids to address. In the East, less than 5 percent 

of PFLs have a written management plan, and only about 

14 percent have sought management advice in the past 

5 years (Butler and Leatherberry 2004). Without a plan 

or professionally offered advice, the likelihood of any 

management, let alone sustainable management, decreases. 

The statistics for small ownerships, < 10 acres, is not 

explicitly known; however, we do know that large acreage 

owners are more likely to have a written management plan 

and seek advice (Butler and Leatherberry 2004). Perhaps a 

larger question is the necessity of written forest management 

plans for small acreage landowners where timber harvesting 

and large-scale disturbance is unlikely. It is more likely that 

a better understanding of basic ecological and management 

techniques along with a local support network may result in 

the implementation of better stewardship practice.

The importance of private forest land ownership is 

indisputable. Increasingly, stakeholders from diverse 

perspectives recognize the role they play in providing 

ecological services to the public. The traditional economic 

benefits remain, but often there is increasing recognition of 

the social and ecological values forests provide. Because of 

ownership patterns in the East, this places a large emphasis 

on the private forests. In the past, governmental incentive 

programs focused on the timber base encouraging forest 

owners to manage for products. Recent programs expanded 

the discussion to wildlife, water, and recreation. The Forest 

Stewardship Program, launched in 1991, is one of the most 

recent Federal initiatives to assist PFLs with management. 

A principle stewardship goal is to provide PFLs with 

management plans to guide their decisionmaking. In the 

first 6 years, 329,000 forest owners, controlling 16.5 million 

acres, received help to reach their goals through economic 

assistance in planning and education (Esseks and Moulton 

2000). Unfortunately, this valuable program targets forest 

owners owning > 10 acres, leaving smaller acreage owners 

with no publicly supported source of technical or cost-share 

assistance.

Why was the threshold set at 10 acres? Resource 

professionals (read that as foresters) argued that smaller 

ownerships are too difficult to manage—it is inefficient. 

Can we afford this luxury? Weir and Greis (2002) argue 

that we have to change our perspective and reach out to the 
53

landowner of smaller forests if we are to continue to meet 

societal needs. The reliance on the one-on-one model of 

technical assistance presently used to assist forest owners is 

not plausible for the multitude of owners in the fragmented 

landscape.

With the current base of service providers and assistance 

programs, small acreage landowners rarely come in contact 

with resource professionals. This void calls for a variety of 

new tools, including educational material for small acreage 

forest owners that, to begin with, enable them to develop 

their own plan. Also needed are educational resources 

and opportunities to assist them with implementation of 

practices. Cooperative Extension and agency partners are 

well situated to meet this educational void of small acreage 

landowners with some of the new tools becoming available. 

Perhaps the more challenging part is the current lack of 

service providers adept at working with the audience.

While ‘train the trainer’ programs can provide local 

education delivery and mentoring, and it is a proven costeffective way to leverage limited forestry resources for 

landowner education, something different is needed to 

train potential service providers. New forestry education 

programs targeting professionals currently working on 

these types of properties, such as home/landscape and 

arborist professionals, can equip them to take advantage 

of the business opportunities that servicing this clientele 

can provide. Along with training opportunities for existing 

forest professionals such as loggers, foresters, and other 

natural resource professionals, a whole new cadre of service 

providers can be developed to fill this void.

METHODS

The objective behind the Woods in Your Backyard project 

was to reach small acreage landowners (1–10 acres) with 

research-based information to help them create or enhance 

natural areas while meeting their personal goals and 

improving their property’s contribution to ecosystem health.

The initial grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

developed a team approach by Maryland, Virginia, and 

Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension systems along 

with a professional writer and targeted the Mid-Atlantic 

region. The authors initiated the project in early 2003 with 

publication of the manual in September 2006. While there 

was one initial meeting of the authors in early 2003, all other 

communication was done by conference call and email.

Approach

The first step was to define an approach to reach small 

acreage woodlot owners. Knowing that there are 

increasingly more of them, and relatively, if not actually, 

fewer of us, we adopted a train-the-trainer model. The 

Master Gardener and the newer Master Naturalist programs 

are excellent examples of extension programs using this 

approach. Even in the forestry field there are excellent 

examples of success using this model (i.e., Coverts, Master 

Woodland Owners and Forest Steward Volunteers) which 

have had significant success reaching a greater number of 

PFLs through a trained volunteer network than by solely 

relying on trained professionals.

The train-the-trainer model simply attracts interested 

citizens to participate in training programs with the 

agreement that they will share information with others 

in a peer learning approach. Efforts are made to select 

individuals who are opinion leaders in their communities, 

have a record of volunteer involvement and are willing to 

commit some time to the effort. In practice, these individuals 

have access to networks and opportunities that cannot be 

accessed by trained professionals, resulting in information 

dissemination by credible citizens in the community that 

is more highly valued and therefore more likely to be 

implemented. Additionally, peer-to-peer modeling has an 

additional advantage in that well-respected peers have more 

credibility than the “professional” who usually comes in as 

an outsider.

Tool 

After choosing an approach, the authors began crafting the 

“tool” for training volunteers. However, we soon realized 

that the product envisioned would also serve as a stand 

alone product for independent use or self-assessment. “The 

Woods in Your Backyard: Learning to Create and Enhance 

Natural Areas Around your Home” is the end result (fig. 1). 

Development proceeded using the following principles:

• Utilize a case study approach

• Focus on better management of existing natural areas and

conversion of lawn into forest

• Focus on nontimber values

• Require no forestry tools or previous knowledge, and

utilize user-friendly jargon

• Provide support materials for volunteers responsible for

delivery and mentoring

• Include a separate workbook for personal assessment of

the user’s property

• Design the publication to be used as a guide for group

education and outreach efforts with new extension 

audiences

• Assume the user has Internet access to retrieve needed

resources and make those resources available at a specific 

website
54

Figure 1—Front cover of The Woods in Your Backyard.

Before publication, we sought input from landowners in 

forestry volunteer programs and State agency foresters and 

wildlife biologists in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 

Using a focus group format, we found support for the casestudy approach used in the publication and received many 

useful comments on perceived gaps in the presentation. We 

found this investment of time to reach out to potential users 

generated great excitement by those involved and was a huge 

success. The publisher, the Natural Resource, Agriculture, 

and Engineering Service Cooperative Extension (NRAES), 

orchestrated a more formal peer-review to further refine the 

manuscript with input from volunteers and professionals 

representing a cross-section of the Eastern United States.

RESULTS

The Woods In Your Backyard (Kays and others 2006) uses 

a case-study approach to guide users through a process 

of creating their own plan while learning basic forest 

stewardship concepts. Table 1 presents the headings for 

the four major parts of the publication and incorporated 

workbook in part five. 

While there are three case-studies in the publication, the 

users follow the Nelson’s story (a case-study) throughout 

the manuscript. When we introduce activities which could 

become homework assignments, if the trainer chooses to 

deliver the material as part of a multi-day program. “The 

Nelsons” serve to demonstrate the results of their activity. 

For example, Activity 1 is to draw a property map, and the 

publication highlights the Nelsons. For Activity 2, we ask 

the user to describe property features using a worksheet and 

present the Nelson’s example to help the user become more 

comfortable completing the activity for their property in the 

workbook portion of the publication.

Users who work their way through the material will have, 

in the end, a self-designed plan with research-based input 

to help them accomplish their goals in a sustainable and 

ecologically sound manner. It is likely that users may only 

complete the parts of the plan they see as relevant, but 

regardless, there are adequate case studies upon which they 

can make their assessment.

To date, this material has been used to train over 600 

volunteers in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Early 

follow-up results from trainings indicate the volunteers are 

using the materials for their own properties and for working 

with others.

Because each group trained is different, we created tools for 

customizing training. Experience suggests that professionals 

gain familiarity with the material quickly (under an hour), 

while lay audiences usually require 1.5–2 hours of training 

to reach a comfort level with the publication and training 

materials. The training materials consist of the publication 

and a CD that includes an overview PowerPoint presentation 

that can be adapted for different audiences, as well as 

Table 1—Publication contents

 

Part Theme Lessons

1 Introduction Identify interests and mapping

Family involvement 

Constraints to management

2 Property 

inventory

Landscape view 

Management unit identifi cation 

Tree and plant identifi cation

3 Ecological 

processes

Succession 

Principals of forestry

Water resources 

Wildlife ecology

4 Putting 

knowledge

to practice

Recreation and aesthetics potential

Choosing projects 

Land management techniques 

Timetable of activities 

Recording progress

5 Workbook Twenty activities completed while 

working through the fi rst four 

sections and in tandem with 

a case study
55

individual PowerPoint presentations that break the 

materials into five classes and provide additional photos 

and information above that found in the manual. All these 

presentations can be used as is or edited by the individual, as 

long as they have the PowerPoint software.

The CD also includes a press release, brochure, ordering 

information, fact sheets from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 

Virginia Cooperative Extension and other organizations, as 

well as web-links to other resources. One component of the 

manual is a resource list with websites for more information 

on specific topics (pages 131-138). This resource list is 

found on the website as a Word document with all the 

websites hyperlinked. The CD is only provided at certain 

trainings, and is not included with the publication when 

purchased. All resources found on the CD are available free 

for download at www.naturalresources.umd.edu.

While targeted to the Mid-Atlantic region, the manual has 

application to most areas of the country. Extension and other 

natural resource professionals can use the core manual and 

adapt the resource list, PowerPoint presentations, and other 

CD resources to suite their respective area.

DISCUSSION

Research into adult learning and the use of information by 

adults suggests that self actuation—wanting to learn and 

to solve their own problems—is important and leads to 

higher levels of implementation (Knowles 1984, Allman 

1983). Extending these concepts is central to adult learning, 

which is also known as androgogy. We believe it is useful 

to engage landowners in developing their own plans, which 

should lead to higher implementation levels. We set out to 

create a tool for owners of smaller tracts that they would 

find useful in a guided planning process. We believe that 

we have a need to reach out to the “new” landowner to 

provide educational materials that they can use to guide 

their stewardship of land. We also believe that we lack the 

capacity to lead this process using traditional materials 

and approaches. Therefore, we offer “The Woods in Your 

Backyard” as an approach that people will find useful and 

provide us the means for guiding decisions that will affect 

economic, ecological, and social returns from the forests in a 

changing landscape.

“The Woods in Your Backyard” is a tool for reaching a 

currently underserved audience with both management 

information and mechanisms for designing their own plan 

and putting it into action. Planning leads to more informed 

decisionmaking and on the ground practices embedded 

in stewardship (Esseks and Moulton 2000). The hopeful 

ecologic outcome of this initiative is to stitch back together 

natural systems interrupted by fragmentation with more 

seamless, though still parcelized, landscapes. Economically, 

service provider opportunities and a supply of forest-based 

resources may yield jobs and niche manufacturing.

Serving constituents/clients/stakeholders/etc. is the most 

basic premise of public programs. The challenge is in how 

to do this with limited resources. Does it make sense to 

divert already limited funds dedicated toward traditional 

landowners that, although they are few in number they 

own the majority of the land, toward this rapidly growing 

landowner segment? They only control a very small 

percentage of the overall acreage, and ownership turns over 

rapidly. Can we really expect to affect change? Research by 

Kendra and Hull (2005) suggests this “new” landowner is 

very receptive, even “primed” to management input. Perhaps 

some moderate support in programs targeting backyard 

woodlot owners would have a duplicity effect. Diffusion 

of adopted innovations may spread more easily and faster 

through this community. Secondly, with the sheer numbers 

of this community, the result may actually translate into 

increased funding for government programs beyond the 

small amount initially diverted from existing programs.

CONCLUSIONS

While “The Woods in Your Backyard” is a step forward 

reaching out to small acreage landowners, it is only one 

step. We do need to train service providers. The audience’s 

socio-economic traits suggest they would be willing to pay 

for professional assistance to achieve their management 

objectives (Hull and others 2004). Trained service providers 

might have credentials and experience in a variety of 

areas such as raw material extraction (logging), resource 

management (forestry and wildlife), and home landscape 

care (arboriculture and/or horticulture). There is a clear 

need for individuals with a mix of skills who can work in 

the context of myriad ownerships and objectives. We need 

individuals with the traditional natural resource management 

skills, but in the situation where we see value for “The 

Woods in Your Backyard,” they require a set of new skills. 

They must have the ability to build trust (Hull and others 

2004) with this new clientele.

Professional training to prepare the different groups of 

professionals with the skills they need to work with this 

audience are not yet available. It will require that forestry, 

wildlife, and logging professionals partner with home/

landscape care professionals to develop targeted professional 

training to educate this diverse group of potential service 

providers, as well as utilize existing pesticide recertification 

programs when possible. The approach must include an 

assessment of business, marketing, and economics that 

will help convince professionals that serving this audience 

improves their existing business model and profits. This 

will require more assessment of small acreage owners to see 

how much, and for what services, they are willing to pay 
56

professionals. A followup survey of users of “The Woods in 

Your Backyard” manual can help to provide this information 

and gain more insight that will help answer questions that 

potential service providers will want to know.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the funding agencies, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Virginia Department of Forestry 

through the Potomac Watershed Partnership of this project 

for their patience and financial support. In addition, we 

thank our respective institutions, Virginia Tech, University of 

Maryland, and Penn State University for various resources 

provided throughout this 3.5 year effort.

REFERENCES 

Allman, P. 1983. The nature and process of adult development. In: Tight, 

M., ed. Adult learning and education. London: Groom Helm: 107-123. 

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994. 

Resour. Bull. NE-134. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Butler, B.; Leatherberry, E. 2004. America’s family forest owners. Journal 

of Forestry. 102(7): 4-9.

Esseks, J.D.; Moulton, R.J. 2000. Evaluating the forest stewardship 

program through a national survey of participants. In: Munn, I.A., ed. 

Proceedings of the Southern Forest Economics Workshop, Biloxi, MS. 

Athens, GA: University of Georgia: 168-173. http://sofew.cfr.msstate.

edu/papers/33esseks.pdf. [Date accessed: February 5, 2008]. 

Egan, A.F.; Luloff, A.E. 2000. The exurbanization of America’s Forests: 

research in rural social science. Journal of Forestry. 98(3): 26-30. 

Hull, B.R.; Robertson, D.P.; Buhyoff, G.J. 2004. Boutique forestry: new 

forest practices in urbanizing landscapes. Journal of Forestry. 102(1): 

14-19. 

Hull, B.R.; Ashton, S.F.; Visser, R.N. 2006. Who are interface landowners? 

In: Monroe, M.C.; McDonell, L.W.; Hermansen-Báez, L.A., eds. 

Changing roles: wildland-urban interface professional development 

program. Gainesville FL: University of Florida: 1-10. Fact sheet 2.1. 

www.interfacesouth.org/products/pdf/mod2fs1.pdf. [Date accessed: 

February 5, 2008]. 

Kays, J.; Drohan, J.; Downing, A.; Finley, J. 2006. The woods in your 

backyard: learning to create and enhance natural areas around your home. 

Ithaca, NY: Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service. 

138 p. 

Kendra, A.; Hull, R.B. 2005. Motivations and behaviors of new forest 

owners in Virginia. Forest Science. 51(2): 142-154.

Knowles, M. 1984. Androgogy in action: applying modern principles of 

adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 444 p.

Macie, E.A.; Hermansen, L.A., eds. 2002. Human influences on forest 

ecosystems: the southern wildland-urban interface assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-55. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 159 p.

Metcalf, A.; Finley, J.C.; Luloff, A.E.; Stedman, R.C. [Unpublished Data]. 

Private forest landowner access study. University Park, PA: Penn State 

University. 

Sampson, N.; DeCoster, L. 2000. Forest fragmentation: implications for 

sustainable private forests. Journal of Forestry. 98(3): 4-8.

Vince, S.W., Duryea, M.L.; Macie, E.A.; Hermansen, L.A., eds. 2005. 

Forests at the wildland-urban interface: conservation and management. 

Boca Raton: CRC Press, LLC. 312 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002. Southern forest resources assessment: 

summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-54. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

103 p. www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/report/index.htm. [Date accessed: 

February 5, 2008].
1

Instructor of Forestry, Haywood Community College, Natural Resources Department, Clyde, NC 28721; Professor and Associate Professor, North Carolina 

State University, Department of Forestry, Raleigh, NC 27695, respectively.

57

CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL FOR HISPANIC LABOR TRAINING: 

INSIGHT FROM NORTH CAROLINA’S CHRISTMAS TREE INDUSTRY

James V. Hamilton, Fred W. Cubbage, and Toddi Steelman1

Abstract—Christmas tree production is a $110 million dollar per year industry in North Carolina. Hispanic workers now 

make up over 80 percent of the industry’s labor force. Many studies indicate that Hispanic farm workers receive inadequate 

pesticide safety training, which presents risks to these workers and the environment as well as increased public and 

regulatory scrutiny of agricultural operations. A number of advocacy groups, agencies, and health care programs actively 

engage growers and farm workers on pesticide safety issues. However, Extension Agents might often be in a better position 

to reach this demographic group due to established networks and rapport with employers of Hispanic labor. This study 

uses a qualitative approach including interviews and a mail survey to investigate employer familiarity with worker training 

requirements, the impact of the language barrier among industry participants, and preferences for training delivery for 

Hispanic farm workers. Results indicate a predictable language barrier and knowledge gap regarding immigration rules and 

training requirements and policies. While bilingual publications are becoming more prolific for use by Hispanic workers, 

this study also points to the need for more Spanish-speaking personnel capable of training delivery. Recommendations 

are presented concerning Cooperative Extension’s potential role in the development and delivery of training programs for 

employers within this industry and others reliant on Hispanic labor. 

INTRODUCTION

Christmas tree production is a $110 million dollar per year 

industry in North Carolina. From a handful of entrepreneurs 

in the mid 1950s, the industry has grown to over 1,600 

Christmas tree growers who produce approximately 20 

percent of Christmas trees in the United States (North 

Carolina State University Christmas Tree Genetics Program 

2001). Hispanic workers, primarily from Mexico, make up 

over 80 percent of the labor force in this industry (Hamilton 

2004). While a number of policies and regulations have 

been implemented for the health and safety of farmworkers, 

the language barrier and unfamiliarity with worker 

training requirements among employers puts workers and 

the environment at risk. This issue plays a large role in 

regulatory and advocacy scrutiny of individual operations 

and affects public opinion regarding the predominantly 

Hispanic labor force in this and other agricultural industries. 

Many advocacy efforts and health care programs actively 

engage farmworkers on pesticide safety issues. However, 

Cooperative Extension is often in a better position to reach 

this demographic due to established networks and rapport 

with employers of Hispanic farmworkers. This study 

investigates employer familiarity with worker training 

requirements and the impact of the language barrier among 

industry participants. Recommendations are presented 

concerning Cooperative Extension’s potential role in 

the development and delivery of training programs for 

employers in this industry and perhaps others reliant on 

Hispanic labor. 

The EPA mandated Worker Protection Standard (WPS) 

requires that all farmworkers receive basic pesticide safety 

training. Yet many reviews of occupational health issues 

address pesticide exposure risks and the need for more 

effective pesticide safety education implementation among 

Hispanic farmworkers (Wilk 1986; Villarejo and Baron 

1999; Von Essen and McCurdy 1998). In North Carolina, 

for example, a study by Arcury and others (1999) of 270 

Hispanic farmworkers on 35 sites in 8 counties, found 

that only 35 percent of these workers reported receiving 

information or training on pesticide safety while 24 percent 

reported training during the current season or year. The 

survey also found that approximately one-half of the 

workers indicated that they had no source of information 

about pesticides on the farms despite training and fewer than 

4 percent could name any chemical around which they had 

worked.

Another study by Elmore and Arcury (2001) on exposure 

beliefs among workers in the Christmas tree industry found 

that among the 20 study participants, all knew how to reduce 

pesticide exposure—some had received training from the 

employer they worked for, and some had not. Attempts 

have been made over the years to improve the training and 

certification of workers; however, several studies indicate 

that training is still inadequate or ineffectual (Larson 2000; 

Perry and Difonzo 1998; Larson 1998; Davis and Schleifer 

1998; Mines and others 2001). This paper examines the 

results from a recent study of labor dynamics within North 

Carolina’s Christmas tree industry (Hamilton 2004).
58

METHODS

To better understand the worker training dynamic in this 

industry, employers and workers in the industry were 

interviewed. To assist in identifying potential study 

participants, County Extension Agents who work closely 

with Christmas tree growers were contacted in three 

counties to provide names of employers with different 

farm sizes and workforce compositions. Selections were 

based on employers experienced with Hispanic labor, while 

workers were chosen for their willingness to participate in 

the study. Interview questions were developed then reviewed 

by industry participants and County Extension Agents to 

verify relevance and tailor the language of the questions to 

address themes that participants felt would result in positive 

outcomes for future program development. Semi-structured 

interviews took place on individual farms in three western 

North Carolina counties with 20 Christmas tree growers and 

35 workers for a non-predetermined duration. Interviews 

consisted of open-ended questions that allowed participants 

to elaborate on training, communication, and other themes 

concerning labor within the industry.

Based on themes generated from the interviews, a mail 

survey questionnaire was developed, peer reviewed, and 

sent to 850 Christmas tree growers in 2002. Address lists of 

growers from six major Christmas tree producing counties 

were provided by Cooperative Extension and used as the 

sampling frame. Questionnaire booklets were mailed to 

every other contact listed in these county databases and 

consisted of 37 questions addressing hiring, training, and 

other labor issues within the Christmas tree industry. The 

questionnaire mailing and additional correspondence 

followed a modified approach to Dillman’s tailored design 

method (Dillman 2000). 

RESULTS

Overall usable returned surveys totaled 185 (or 22 

percent) which represents 13 percent of the estimated 

1,400 Christmas tree growers in western North Carolina 

(NCDA 1997). Survey responses indicate that 68 percent of 

Christmas tree growers who hire Hispanic workers are most 

concerned about occupational and pesticide safety issues 

(table 1). At the same time, 78 percent are either somewhat 

familiar or not familiar with many of the laws and policies 

governing the required training of their workforce (table 2). 

Language is a barrier and has the most immediate and 

influential impact on training. Less than 7 percent of 

employers indicated the ability to communicate comfortably 

in Spanish. Survey results also indicated that over 50 percent 

of the total workforce speak little to no English. Christmas 

tree growers felt that the language barrier restricted the 

extent to which they can effectively train workers. During 

the interview process, workers indicated that training is 

conducted in a number of different ways through handson or hands-off (videos or brochures) approaches by the 

employer. However many workers mentioned that they 

relied on fellow workers, who either understood English 

better or had prior experience in the job-related task, to more 

fully explain their tasks or the employers’ wishes (table 3). 

When asked “Would you be interested in training related 

to employer requirements regarding training of Hispanic 

labor?” 19 percent responded yes, 49 percent responded 

maybe, and 32 percent responded no. The survey noted 

that the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service 

was overwhelmingly indicated as the preferred training 

agent (table 4). During the interview process, employers 

mentioned that rapport with their county extension agents 

and the type of educational programming offered was more 

appropriate for meeting their needs. They often added that 

they trusted Extension Agents, with whom they maintain 

long-standing relationships, over other organizational 

representatives due to perceived regulatory and advocacy 

group scrutiny regarding their use of Hispanic workers. This 

trend may or may not be consistent across all States.

Table 1—Frequency of concern related to common migrant 

labor policy issues among employers who hire labor

Level of concern 

regarding the 

following types of 

policies/regulations

Very 

concerned/ 

concerned 

Somewhat 

concerned 

Not 

concerned 

 - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - -

Occupational safety/

pesticide safety 

regulations (n=102)a 68 22 10

Hiring and wage 

policies (n=104)a 69 21 10

Migrant housing 

regulations (n=99)a 50 21 28

a n varied as some growers either declined to answer certain questions or 

questions were not applicable.

Table 2—Familiarity among employers regarding legal 

requirements for migrant labor training

How familiar are you with 

laws and requirements for 

training of migrant labor

Very 

familiar 

Somewhat 

familiar 

Not 

familiar 

- - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - 

Hiring growers (n=125)a 22 50 28

Non-hiring growers (n=52)a 3 25 72

a

 n varied as some growers either declined to answer certain questions or 

questions were not applicable.
59

DISCUSSION

Frustration with communication due to the language barrier 

is a problem among employers and workers in North 

Carolina’s Christmas tree industry. This problem poses 

serious health and occupational environmental implications. 

Employers, even with the best intentions, are not equipped 

with the language skills and sufficient knowledge of 

regulations to properly train their workforce. Unfamiliarity 

with pesticide safety regulations among growers influences 

the extent to which workers receive proper pesticide 

safety training. Employer and worker awareness regarding 

pesticide and occupational safety has immediate and longterm impacts on the welfare of the workforce as well as the 

industry’s image.

Employers preferred the Cooperative Extension Service over 

other educational programming resources for issues related 

to labor. In many regards, Cooperative Extension is uniquely 

positioned to reach employers as well as the underserved 

farm worker demographic by capitalizing on the rapport 

and respect established by county agents that work with 

these industry participants. While bilingual publications are 

becoming more prolific for use by Hispanic workers, this 

study also points to the need for more Spanish-speaking 

personnel capable of training delivery.

CONCLUSION

Improving worker and employer understanding of regulatory 

and occupational safety issues within this industry (and 

others) can be achieved by quality training efforts. Offering 

training in Spanish is imperative for reaching the Hispanic 

farmworker demographic. Employers must also improve 

their personal knowledge of pesticide safety and provide 

proper WPS training to their workers to assure that their 

workers are following proper procedures. This will 

reduce short-term and long-term risks to themselves, their 

workforce, and the environment, while improving public 

perceptions and regulatory risks facing their operations.

Research-based educational programs such as those offered 

by Cooperative Extension and others who have established 

greater rapport with employers would be appropriate and 

participant-friendly delivery mechanisms for this type 

of information. Other educational entities would benefit 

from networking with Extension and using this established 

rapport to reach industry participants with whom agents 

traditionally have worked. In 2004 and 2005, extension 

agents and specialists in several western North Carolina 

counties used results of this study to develop an Integrated 

Pest Management training program in Spanish for Hispanic 

workers in the Christmas tree industry. This training, which 

also incorporates pesticide safety, was advertised among 

employers, conducted exclusively in Spanish, and received 

overwhelmingly positive feedback from all participants. 

Expectations that a majority of the industry’s Hispanic 

workers and growers will become bilingually proficient 

should be modest. More formalized, standardized, and 

frequent pesticide safety training should be implemented 

to improve grower and worker understanding of regulatory 

and safety issues. Employers are ultimately responsible for 

providing adequate occupational safety education of their 

workforce. However, while employers and workers often 

develop their own strategies for managing difficulties with 

the language barrier, improved training in Spanish with 

an entity with which rapport has been established offers a 

greater chance for improving education and reducing risk of 

on-farm injuries and pesticide exposure. 

Table 3—Frequency of Spanish language skill level among 

employers

 

Which of the following best 

describes your ability to speak 

Spanish? (n=120) Number Percent

I don’t speak Spanish 43 36

I know how to say a few work-related 

words/phrases in Spanish 53 44

I can handle very basic conversation in 

Spanish 16 13

I feel comfortable conversing in 

Spanish 7 6

I am fl uent in Spanish 1 0.8

Table 4—Preferred training delivery for migrant labor 

programs

Who would you most prefer to conduct 

employer training related to migrant or 

Hispanic labor? n=129

Department of Labor 5

Employment Security Commission 2

North Carolina Cooperative Extension 

(County Extension Agents) 43

NC Christmas Tree Growers Association a 19

A private consulting group 5

The employer should be responsible for his own 

training 12

A non-profit organization 2

No preference 12

a

A majority of NC Christmas Tree Growers Association educational programming is 

carried out by Cooperative Extension specialists and agents.
60

References

Arcury, T.; Austin, C.; Quandt, S.; Saavedra, R. 1999. Enhancing 

community participation in intervention research: farmworkers and 

agricultural chemicals in North Carolina. Health Education and Behavior. 

26: 563-578. 

Davis, S.; Schleifer, R. 1998. Indifference to safety: Florida’s investigation 

into pesticide poisoning of farmworkers. Available from: Migrant 

Farmworker Justice Project. Belle Glade, FL.

Dillman, D. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method. 

New York: John Wiley and Sons: 32-78.

Elmore, R.; Arcury, T. 2001. Pesticide exposure beliefs among Latino 

farmworkers in North Carolina’s Christmas tree industry. American 

Journal of Industrial Medicine. 40(2): 153-160. 

Hamilton, J.V. 2004. The dynamics of labor in North Carolina’s Christmas 

tree industry. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. http://www.

lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07072004-144313/ [Date accessed: 

April 24, 2006]. Ph.D. dissertation.

Larson, A. 1998. Enforcement of farm worker pesticide protection in 

Washington State. Available from: Columbia Legal Services. Seattle, 

WA. 

Larson, A. 2000. Migrant and seasonal farmworker enumeration profiles 

study: North Carolina. Migrant Health Program, Department of Health 

Resources and Services. 

Mines, R.; Mullenax, N.; Saca, L. 2001. The binational farmworker health 

survey: An in-depth study of agricultural worker health in Mexico and 

the United States. Available from: California Institute for Rural Studies. 

Davis, CA.

NCDA. 1997. North Carolina Christmas Tree survey. Available from: North 

Carolina Department of Agriculture. http://www.agr.state.nc.us/stats/

trees/xmastree.htm. [Date accessed: April 24, 2006].

North Carolina State University Christmas Tree Genetics Program. 2001. 

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/f/frampton/www/ctg.htm. [Date 

accessed: April 24, 2006].

Perry, S.; Difonzo, C. 1998. The worker pesticide knowledge survey: 

Measuring success of worker protection standard safety training. 

Available from: Michigan Department of Agriculture. Lansing, MI. 

Villarejo, D.; Baron, S.L. 1999. The occupational health status of hired farm 

workers. Occupational Medicine. 14(3): 613-635.

Von Essen, S.; McCurdy, S. 1998. Health and safety risks in production 

agriculture. Western Journal of Medicine (169): 214-220. 

Wilk, V.A. 1986. The occupational health of migrant and seasonal 

farmworkers in the United States. Washington, DC: Farmworkers Justice 

Fund, Inc.
MULTI-AGENCY COLLABORATION

1

Professor, Mississippi State University, Department of Forestry, Mississippi State, MS 39762; Research Scientist, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, 

Pineville, LA 71360; Professor, Mississippi State University, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State, MS 39762, respectively.

63

Educating Landowners for Southern Pine Beetle 

Prevention in Mississippi: A Collaborative Project 

with the Forest Service and Mississippi State University

Andrew J. Londo, James R. Meeker, and T. Evan Nebeker1

Abstract—The southern pine beetle (SPB) is the most destructive pest in southern pine forests, accounting for millions 

of dollars of damage annually across the region. Since most of the forest land in the South is owned by Non-Industrial 

Private Forest landowners (NIPF) and they are the likely to sustain the largest losses during beetle outbreaks. This group 

is the target group for performing SPB prevention activities as they are likely to sustain the largest losses during beetle 

outbreaks. This project was initiated to provide educational programs relating to the SPB and pine plantation thinning to 

NIPF landowners and professional foresters in Mississippi. Funds provided by the Forest Service were used to conduct 

37 educational programs statewide for 1,245 participants. Follow up surveys will be conducted with these participants to 

determine if they have implemented any SPB prevention activities on their property as a result of the programs. Additional 

follow-ups will be conducted with those who have performed prevention activities so their information can be added to the 

overall project database. Future plans for this project will also be discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The southern pine beetle (SPB) is the most damaging of all 

pests in southern pine forests. The SPB and its associates 

(ips engraver beetles and the black turpentine beetle) cause 

millions of dollars of timber damage every year in highhazard condition stands (Mayfield and others 2006). As SPB 

spots grow, the potential to cause widespread timber damage 

to all pine stands, regardless of stand condition or ownership 

boundaries increases.

Most of the forestland in the South is owned by private nonindustrial forest landowners (NIPF) (Birch 1996). It is with 

these landowners that the SPB and its associates pose the 

greatest threat. Targeting these NIPF landowners for SPB 

prevention has gained a lot of interest in recent years across 

the southern region (Mayfield and others 2006).

The Forest Service, Southern Region, Forest Health 

Protection has joined in collaborative efforts with all the 

southern states to conduct SPB prevention activities on NIPF 

forest lands. The overall goal is to reduce the overwhelming 

negative impacts the SPB can have on NIPF timberlands.

The 2006 Mississippi SPB prevention project is among the 

SPB pine prevention programs in that the Forest Service 

is working directly with the Mississippi State University 

Extension Service and the Departments of Forestry and 

Entomology and Plant Pathology, rather than the state 

forestry agency. This project is based entirely on the 

education of NIPF landowners across the state, rather 

than cost share programs employed by many other 

southern states.

This paper will describe the activities being conducted as 

part of the 2006 Mississippi Southern Pine Beetle Prevention 

project. In addition, future activities for this project for 2007 

and beyond will be discussed.

METHODS

The education program is being conducted primarily by 

the extension forestry group in the Department of Forestry, 

with support from the Department of Entomology and 

Plant Pathology at Mississippi State University (MSU). 

MSU Extension forestry has a long record of conducting 

educational programs for NIPF landowners, as well as 

professional foresters across Mississippi and the southern 

region (Londo and Monaghan 2002). The SPB educational 

program consists of county forestry association (CFA) 

meetings, workshops, publications, and mass media.

County Forestry Associations (CFAs)

CFAs are county based landowner groups, affiliated with 

the Mississippi Forestry Association. These groups have 

provided ready made audiences for extension forestry 

programs for years. For the SPB prevention project, 

individual CFAs were contacted to determine their interest 

level for such a program. Funds provided by the Forest 

Service were used to sponsor the meal at these programs. 

This encouraged 100 percent participation by those CFAs 

contacted.

The hour-long program given at these meetings was 

comprised of a comprehensive review of the biology, 
64

identification, and management activities for the SPB and 

its associates. Proactive management activities (namely pine 

plantation thinnings, and planting the right species on the 

right site) were emphasized during these meetings as being 

the best way to reduce the overall threat of the SPB. In 

most cases, 4-6 weeks following the CFA program, a pine 

plantation thinning workshop was conducted in the same 

county, as a follow up for the CFA meeting.

Pine Thinning Workshop

Forest landowner workshops were designed to provide 

more intensive, hands on training in specific subject areas 

(Londo 2004). The most popular of the workshops taught 

by MSU Extension Forestry is “Are My Pine Trees Ready 

to Thin”? This workshop begins with an hour long indoor 

“lecture” covering the basics of pine ecology, growth, 

thinning techniques, and the southern pine beetle. Following 

the indoor lecture period, is an outdoor laboratory session 

where participants are taught to collect some basic forest 

measurements information. Information collected includes 

average DBH, total heights, heights to natural pruning, and 

stems per acre (Traugott 2000, Londo and others 2002). The 

equipment needed to conduct the workshop (clinometer, 

D-tape, loggers tape, height pole, and increment borer) is 

provided by project funds. The equipment is made available 

to CFA members though their County Extension Office. 

Data on how often this equipment is being used will be 

collected in late 2006.

Although the overall goal of the region wide project is to get 

actual acres thinned on the ground, a survey will be sent to 

all CFA meeting and Pine thinning workshop participants 

to determine if they have undertaken any SPB prevention 

activities (namely thinning) on their property. Site visits will 

be held with those who indicated that they have thinned their 

stands as a result of the program they attended. Acreages 

thinned, as well as GPS point data will be collected for 

addition to the overall southern region database.

Publications

The preferred method for Mississippi NIPF landowners 

to obtain information is through publications (Gunter and 

others 2001). At all programs, a folder with publications on 

the SPB along with pine plantation thinning are provided. In 

addition, these publications are also made available on the 

MSUCares.com/forestry web page. To date, approximately 

9,000 publications have been distributed statewide.

Radio

The MSU Extension Service has a daily radio program 

called Farm and Family. This program is available on a 

number of radio stations statewide, as well as on the internet 

at MSUCares.com. Friday has been called forestry Friday 

for over two decades. Many of these forestry Friday radio 

shows in 2006 have discussed the SPB and pine plantation 

thinning. While the actual impact of these programs is 

difficult to determine, they do help improve the awareness 

of the SPB and it’s implications for forest management in 

Mississippi.

RESULTS

To date, a total of 37 SPB prevention programs have been 

conducted for 1, 247 participants. These programs can be 

broken down as follows: 18 CFA meetings, 16 workshops, 

1 short course, 1 Society of American Foresters chapter 

meeting, and one extension service in-service training 

program. There are 6 remaining programs to be conducted 

for the remainder of FY 2006, and early FY 2007.

We have directly distributed approximately 9,000 

publications through these programs. In addition, 1,300 

SPB landowner packets are being sent to select counties 

throughout the state for a total publication distribution of 

approximately 10,300.

Program participants will be surveyed during the fall of 

2006 to determine if they have implemented any SPB 

prevention activities since attending the educational 

programs. Participants, who indicate that they have done 

some prevention activities, will be contacted for a follow 

up site visit. The site visit is needed so that acreages and 

GPS locations for those properties will be collected for 

incorporation in the region wide data base.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

For 2007 and beyond, Mississippi will follow the lead of 

many other southern states by implementing a cost share 

program for NIPF landowners. This cost share program 

will encourage landowners to conduct pre-commercial and 

first commercial thinnings on high hazard pine stands. This 

will be done again in conjunction with the Forest Service, 

as well as the Mississippi Forestry Commission. While the 

guidelines for this have yet to be developed, the Mississippi 

guidelines will be modeled closely after the Texas Forest 

Service program (Billings 2005).

CONCLUSION

The 2006 Mississippi SPB prevention project is a 

collaborative effort between the Forest Service and 

the Departments of Forestry and Plant Pathology and 

Entomology at Mississippi State University. The project is 

designed to provide educational programs in SPB biology 

and management and pine plantation thinning for NIPF 

landowners across Mississippi. To date, 36 programs have 
65

been conducted for 1,245 participants statewide. In addition, 

over 9,000 publications have been distributed.

Surveys will be sent to program participants to determine if 

they have implemented an SPB prevention activities on their 

property as a result of the programs. These surveys will be 

sent out in the fall for 2006.

2007 will see a continuance of the educational program, 

as well as the addition of a cost share program for precommercial and first thinnings for pine stands and 

plantations. We will be collaborating with the Forest Service 

as well as the Mississippi Forestry Commission. 

References

Billings, R. 2005. Southern pine beetle prevention in east Texas using forest 

management and Federal cost shares. Texas Forest Service publication. 

18 p.

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994. 

USDA For. Serv. Res. Bull. NE-134. 183p.

Gunter, J.E.; Bullard, S.H.; Doolitte, M.L.; Arano, K.G. 2001. Reforestation 

of harvested timberlands in Mississippi: behavior and attitudes of nonindustrial private forest landowners. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, 

Bulletin # FO 172, Mississippi State University. 25p.

Londo, A.J. 2004. Forest landowner workshops: combining traditional 

forestry field days and short courses. Journal of Extension. 42(5). 

Available online at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004october/tt6.shtml.

Londo, A.J.; Monaghan, T.A. 2002. Forest landowner short courses at 

Mississippi State University. Journal of Extension. 40(5). Available 

online at: www.joe.org/joe/2002october/rb5.shtml.

Londo, A.J.; Traugott, T.A.; Dicke, S.G.; Roberts, S.D. 2002. How to 

determine when your Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pine 

plantation is ready to thin. USDA Forest Service, GTR SRS-48. 

Mayfield, A.E.; Nowak, J.; Moses, G.C. 2006. Southern pine beetle 

prevention in Florida: assessing landowner awareness, attitudes, and 

actions. Journal of Forestry. 104(5): 241-247.

Traugott, T.A. 2000. Are my pine trees ready to thin? MSU Extension 

Service. Publication number 2260. Available online at: http://msucares.

com/pubs/publications/p2260.pdf
 1 Professor and Program Coordinator, University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Gainesville, FL 32611; Center Manager, Forest 

Service, Centers for Urban and Interface Forestry, Gainesville, FL 32611, respectively.

66

CHANGING ROLES: WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Martha C. Monroe, Lauren McDonell, and L. Annie Hermansen-Báez1

Abstract—A number of communication and technology transfer techniques can be used to bring about change. When 

dramatic change is needed, however, some techniques are more powerful than others. Changing Roles: Wildland-Urban 

Interface Professional Development Program was designed to train natural resource professionals who work with interface 

issues in the South. The southern U.S. is experiencing unprecedented population growth and has the greatest amount of 

privately-owned land of any part of the United States. The need for this program was evident from focus groups conducted 

as part of the Southern Wildland-Urban Interface Assessment, which revealed that natural resource professionals felt 

unprepared to tackle the complex challenges associated with managing resources in a rapidly changing landscape. This 

program includes a training manual that allows natural resource agencies to design professional development for their 

staff that will enable them to work more effectively in the southern wildland-urban interface. There are four modules, each 

containing trainer’s guides with background information and interactive exercises to be used with workshop participants. 

A total of 39 exercises were created and pilot tested with students and resource professionals. Much of the information 

in the modules is presented in 28 fact sheets that can be distributed as reading material or used with other audiences as 

handouts. Twenty-three case studies provide vivid examples of interface issues across the South and how they are being 

resolved. PowerPoint® presentations are provided to help introduce concepts, discuss exercises, and engage participants 

in exploring case studies. Evaluation materials and additional resources are also provided. This paper demonstrates how 

a program can be developed to help bring about institutional change. This was done by helping agency leadership to 

understand the need for change, by carefully pilot testing and reviewing the draft materials for relevance and application, 

by training agency staff to adapt the program to meet their needs, and by supporting trainers with web-based suggestions 

and outlines.

INTRODUCTION

The wildland-urban interface is any area where increased 

human influence and land-use conversion are changing 

natural goods, services, and management (Macie and 

Hermansen 2002). The Southern Wildland-Urban Interface 

Assessment by the Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station, found that natural resource professionals often 

feel frustrated and sometimes powerless in the face of 

rapidly changing land use in the interface (Macie and 

Hermansen 2002). The complex issues in the interface 

affect how interface forests can be managed, how natural 

resource professionals communicate and work with 

interface residents and community decision makers, and 

how managers respond to and assist the development of 

local land use decisions and regulations that affect natural 

resources. To help natural resource professionals work 

more effectively in the wildland-urban interface, Changing 

Roles: Wildland-Urban Interface Professional Development 

Program was developed by the University of Florida in 

partnership with the Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station, Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface 

Research and Information (now the Centers for Urban and 

Interface Forestry). The Southern Group of State Foresters 

provided guidance and funding for the project.

SITUATION

In 1998 severe wildfires in Florida demonstrated the 

complexities of natural resource management in the 

wildland-urban interface. Following these fires, the Chief 

of the Forest Service declared the wildland-urban interface 

one of the major challenges facing the Forest Service in 

the southern United States (Roussopoulos 2002). In the 

summer of 2000, a series of focus groups was conducted 

in six wildland-urban interface communities across the 

southern U.S. The focus groups were part of the Southern 

Wildland-Urban Interface Assessment which aimed to better 

understand interface issues, challenges, and opportunities, 

as well as research and training needs (Monroe and others 

2003). Participants included Federal and state agency staff, 

public officials, community and transportation planners, 

private landowners, educators, extension agents, and 

other stakeholders. The focus groups revealed that natural 

resource managers feel hindered and sometimes helpless 

when addressing issues created by rapidly changing land 

use in the interface (Macie and Hermansen 2002). Because 

population and development pressures are increasing in 

the South and there is less publicly managed land than in 

other regions (such as the West), southern natural resource 

managers often play a different role in interface land and 

resource management. Managers often work across multiple 

properties and jurisdictions, and must communicate with a 

variety of stakeholders to effectively manage resources in 

the interface. 
67

The issues and needs identified in the Southern WildlandUrban Interface Assessment prompted the development of 

Changing Roles. The Southern Wildland-Urban Interface 

Council, the advisory council for the Southern Center 

for Wildland-Urban Interface Research and Information, 

requested that the program be developed for use at the state 

and local levels. The professional development program 

includes four modules: (1) Introduction to the range and 

complexity of wildland-urban interface issues, (2) Tools 

for effectively managing natural resources in the wildlandurban interface, particularly for enhancing forest health 

and meeting multiple landowner objectives, (3) Strategies 

for understanding and influencing the development of 

policies and plans that affect natural resources, and (4) 

Communication skills for working with interface residents 

and community planners and leaders. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service produced a video supplement to introduce 

training participants to wildland-urban interface issues. 

The video also serves as an outreach tool for resource 

professionals working with interface residents.

Each of the training modules include a trainer’s guide; 

PowerPoint® presentations; fact sheets with important 

points for participants; and interactive exercises that enable 

participants to apply what they learn. The program also 

includes case studies with examples of interface challenges 

and success stories from across the South; adaptable 

evaluation materials; and a resource list including literature, 

websites, fieldtrip and guest speaker suggestions relating 

to module topics. The program is designed to be flexible, 

allowing trainers to select materials that meet their needs 

and enable them to design programs of various lengths. The 

program has been distributed to state forestry agencies and 

other natural resource agencies across the southern United 

States. Trainers can put together an introductory two-hour 

program or a more comprehensive week-long course, 

depending on audience needs and the time available. Many 

of the materials are also suitable for use with other audiences 

such as extension agents, landowners, or community leaders.

The program materials are available on the InterfaceSouth 

website (the SCWUIRI’s website) at http://www.

interfacesouth.org/products/training/changing_roles.html. 

The website also provides trainers and participants with 

additional opportunities to provide feedback and a forum to 

share how the materials are being used. This tool is designed 

to encourage trainers to exchange ideas, learn from other’s 

experiences, and maximize the value obtained from using 

the materials.

Changing Roles is designed to provide essentials skills 

to enable natural resource professionals to respond to the 

challenges of a rapidly changing landscape. By working 

with landowners and assisting local leaders with community 

development and resource management decisions, resource 

professionals can help reduce interface problems.

IMPLEMENTATION

Changing Roles is designed to encourage natural resource 

agencies and professionals to become more involved in WUI 

issues by expanding management activities, communicating 

with interface residents more effectively, and assisting 

planners and policymakers by providing science-based 

information about natural resources. To accomplish 

these objectives, the program materials incorporate 

communication and behavior change techniques. Following 

is a description of how three specific communication and 

behavior change strategies were incorporated into the 

program: the Experiential Learning Cycle, Social Marketing, 

and the Theory of Planned Behavior.

Experiential Learning Cycle

The Experiential Learning Cycle, made popular by David 

A. Kolb in 1984, is often depicted as a four-part process 

(fig. 1) that suggests that learning occurs when people: 

1) experience something, 2) reflect upon their experience 

critically, 3) generalize what they learned from the 

experience, and 4) apply what they learned to new situations 

(Leck and Watson 1996). The activities that trainers are 

given in Changing Roles engages participants in a variety 

of experiences; walks the trainers through exercises 

and discussions to help the participants evaluate their 

experiences critically, both as individuals and in groups; 

encourages participants to generalize what they learned 

by drawing their own conclusions based on the program’s 

content; and allows them to apply their new knowledge to 

a variety of interface challenges. Several of the program 

exercises present participants with “what if” scenarios where 

they must apply the concepts they have learned to perplexing 

situations. 

Experience

Application Reflection

Generalization

Figure 1—The Experiential Learning Cycle (Leck and 

Watson 1996).
68

Social Marketing

Another communication model used in the development 

of Changing Roles is Social Marketing. In this model, 

McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (1999) suggest that identifying 

barriers and benefits for desired behaviors are key steps in 

fostering behavior change. Barriers may be internal such as 

the lack of motivation or knowledge, or external, such as 

the lack of supporting infrastructure. For natural resource 

professionals working in the interface, major barriers are a 

lack of knowledge and a lack of skill to work with policy 

makers. Changing Roles is designed to increase knowledge 

by providing basic information about interface issues, 

connections, solutions, and available support often through 

examples of communication where problems have been 

resolved. While knowledge alone does not change behavior, 

it is one prerequisite for behavior change. Module 3 in 

Changing Roles provides information and land use policy 

and several exercises to practice engaging in the policy 

making process. Participants are encouraged to discuss 

appropriate strategies for their agency and their context. 

Social marketing also emphasizes the importance of 

norms; social standards that help define acceptable 

behavior (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999). Norms 

provide boundaries for human behavior by supporting and 

encouraging certain actions while discouraging others. 

Norms are illustrated in the program through case studies 

of natural resource professionals collaborating with local 

leaders, citizens, and planning professionals to address 

interface issues. The case studies help create and support 

social norms that suggest that resource professionals 

should be involved in planning and policy decision-making 

processes where they can add value. The program helps 

resource professionals realize that they may have an 

important role to play at the decision-making table. 

Theory of Planned Behavior

Another model that shaped Changing Roles was the Theory 

of Planned Behavior. Ajzen (1985) suggests that a person’s 

behavior is determined by their intention. Intentions are 

formed by three factors: attitudes toward the behavior, 

subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen 

1985). Attitudes define how a person thinks about and values 

the consequences of performing a given behavior. Subjective 

norms are the perceived social pressures to perform or 

not perform a behavior. They are usually based on norms 

established by people whose opinion is important to an 

individual. For instance, if a person cares about a friend’s 

opinions and that friend insists that driving a hybrid car is 

the only right thing to do, the individual is more likely to 

drive a hybrid car. Perceived behavioral control is a person’s 

perception of his or her ability to perform a certain behavior 

(Ajzen 1985). For example, if someone demonstrates 

how to build and use a compost bin, onlookers may feel 

more capable of doing it themselves, thereby increasing 

their perceived behavioral control. These concepts were 

considered during the development of Changing Roles.

The program emphasizes how natural resource 

professionals’ involvement in addressing WUI issues can 

reduce challenges and enhance opportunities in their region. 

The program also models how resource professionals 

can begin to fill these “changing roles,” by providing 

examples of how resource professionals can offer expert 

knowledge, ideas, and support during processes that 

influence natural resources in the WUI. By addressing the 

positive consequences that could result from working in the 

interface, natural resource professionals may be more likely 

to do so. 

Ajzen states “people intend to perform a behavior when they 

evaluate it positively and when they believe that important 

others think they should perform it” (Ajzen 1985). It is 

safe to say that natural resource managers probably value 

what their employers care about. Changing Roles was 

approved by agency leaders, establishing subjective norms 

for resource managers. To encourage state and federal 

agency staff to use the program, the regional directors of five 

partner organizations signed a cover letter that conveys the 

importance of changing the way natural resource agencies 

operate in the interface. Agency support will be needed 

to facilitate the transition of resource professionals into 

increasingly influential roles. 

Finally, the program addresses perceived behavioral 

control by providing information about how natural 

resource managers can reduce problems in the interface. By 

including success stories it demonstrates that the behavior 

can accomplish what it intends to. Since the program was 

designed to be flexible and adaptable, trainers can customize 

their workshops to provide skill-building in essential areas, 

thereby increasing the perceived behavioral control for 

their participants. Although the program emphasizes the 

importance of manager support in interface communities, it 

cannot ensure it. Agency history, supervisor priorities, local 

government and community support are external factors that 

could influence success.

In addition to the use of these communication and behavior 

change models, other strategies were used to make the 

Changing Roles materials as useful and effective as possible. 

Materials include technical background information and 

references well as clear and simple directions. Trainer’s 

Guides use icons to refer to the supplementary resources 

for ease of use. Suggested agendas demonstrate how the 

materials can be reorganized and adapted. Each module 

includes a variety of exercises that help trainers engage 

participants in exploring and applying the concepts being 

conveyed. The video and case studies highlight communities 

that have invested in communication and planning processes 

to manage WUI issues. The following guidelines were used 

to develop each module: 
69

•	 Trainers need accurate and current information supported 

by documentation. 

•	 Trainers need a variety of tools to give them options for 

presenting information. We provide presentations, fact 

sheets, and background information.

•	 Trainers need to be able to adapt, change, revise, and 

recreate materials to meet their audiences’ needs. Most 

of the activities or concepts are designed to be used in 

any order; many are adaptable so that examples and 

issues can be altered. Handouts are provided in MS 

Word® files to make it easier for trainers to create their 

own versions. The website encourages trainers to share 

their adaptations with each other and models this 

behavior by providing some examples. 

•	 Participants learn from each other. Case studies and 

exercises provide discussion questions to help trainers 

engage participants in meaningful conversation.

•	 New skills are learned through practice in safe 

environments. Many of the exercises give participants a 

chance to try new ways of working in the interface during 

training workshops.

•	 Clear directions and icons help trainers who just want a 

cookbook of presentations, materials, and activities that 

they can do without much preparation.

•	 Adaptable presentations and materials on CD make the 

program flexible for trainers who want to invest more time 

customizing their trainings.

•	 Experts reviewed each module for accuracy and 

applicability across the region. Pilot tests of the materials 

helped improve the directions and the flow of the 

exercises. 

A training-of-trainers (TOT) workshop was conducted for 

50 participants, including state forestry personnel, extension 

specialists, and other natural resource professionals, to 

introduce the materials and help them begin the process 

of designing workshops for their colleagues. Feedback 

from the training workshop suggests that Changing Roles 

accomplished the desired goals. Workshop participants 

commented on the usefulness of the exercises, fact 

sheets, and case studies. Most recognized that it will take 

time to become comfortable with the material; but they 

also acknowledged that some sections are easy to use 

immediately. The material is perceived as relevant and not 

similar to existing materials. Participants rated the materials 

4.6 on a 5-point scale where 5 is “very relevant to the work 

of my agency or organization.” They also rated the materials 

2.6 on a 5-point scale where 5 is “very similar to resources 

I already have.” Workshop participants are likely to use the 

materials with others, share them with other trainers, and 

help train their staff. Respondents rated these latter three 

questions 4.2, 4.3, and 4.2 respectively on a 5-point scale 

where 5 is “very likely.” 

Respondent comments also reinforced our belief that state 

agencies have different needs and capacities for using this 

material. Some states may wish to participate in a follow-up 

regional workshop put on by local trainers. Others, such as 

Alabama and North Carolina, are planning to team up with 

extension faculty to organize a training program. 

Currently, 233 copies have been distributed to southern state 

forestry agencies, 150 to Cooperative Extension Service, and 

another 19 to various other organizations and individuals. 

Recipients of the training materials were surveyed and many 

of them have used or are planning to use the materials. 

Several state forestry agencies are holding trainings with 

their personnel. Extension specialists and agents are 

organizing workshops with local leaders, extension agents, 

other natural resource professionals, and community 

residents. Some agencies have created planning committees 

to help determine how the program can best benefit their 

region. In 2008 the Centers for Urban and Interface Forestry 

planned to announce a new position that will enable them to 

support broader implementation of the program.

Assessment of Use

A series of evaluations were conducted in May 2006, 

October 2006, and April 2007 of those who received 

Changing Roles either from the TOT or by request. The goal 

of these evaluations was to determine if and how trainers 

used the material, future plans for using the material, and 

provide an assessment of the materials’ effectiveness. 

Summaries of these three evaluations are provided below to 

show how the use of the program has increased over time.

In May 2006 each participant that had attended the TOT 

three months earlier was contacted regarding their use of 

the materials within their agency or organization. A general 

questionnaire was developed including questions about 

use of the materials, plans for future use, assessment, and 

current agency needs. Thirty-six percent of the Changing 

Roles recipients replied to the questionnaire. Of those who 

responded, 17 percent had already given a presentation or 

workshop, 33 percent were planning a workshop for later 

in 2006, 62 percent were planning a workshop to be held at 

an unspecified date, and four percent did not plan to use the 

materials due to conflicts with current job duties.

In Alabama, a presentation on Interface Issues was given 

to the Alabama TREASURE Forest Association (ATFA). 

The trainer distributed Changing Roles notebooks to the 

Alabama Wildland-Urban Interface Advisory Council, the 

Alabama Forestry Commission, and Alabama State Forester. 

The Alabama Forestry Commission referenced the materials 

in four publications. In Florida, the Cooperative Extension 

Service led a one day workshop in the Natural Resource 

Leadership Institute aimed at empowering and enabling 

participants to understand the complexity of the WUI 

and the opportunities that effective land-use planning can 
70

provide. The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources 

used the materials in a training program and distributed 

Changing Roles notebooks to the agency’s Management 

Team. The Oklahoma Forest Service Department introduced 

the State Forester and his staff to the program and provided 

them with notebooks. In South Carolina Changing Roles 

notebooks were given to WUI coordinators, regional 

foresters, and other personnel.

There is a wide range of materials to choose from. It will be 

possible to use the materials with several target audiences. I 

think the material will be useful in programs to the general 

public as well as resource professionals. 

May 2006 Evaluation Respondent

All of the participants who responded to this questionnaire 

provided a positive assessment of the materials. These 

respondents also said that the program materials met their 

needs.

A follow-up survey was administered in October 2006. 

Individuals who attended the TOT and those who otherwise 

received the Changing Roles notebook were contacted 

again to learn how they were using Changing Roles in 

their agency or organization. A questionnaire similar to 

the one sent in May was developed and sent to individuals 

via email. Individuals were asked to respond via email. 

Twenty-two percent of the individuals contacted replied to 

the survey. Of those that responded, 65 percent had already 

given a presentation or workshop, 43 percent are planning 

a workshop for later this year, and 21 percent did not have 

plans to use the materials. Since all notebook recipients 

were surveyed again, this response rate may reflect repeat 

respondents.

Basically, it is a very thorough program that really does a 

good job of explaining the multiple components of WUI. I 

would think that this is the most complete set of information 

and training activities within the nation, and will probably 

be copied or developed into a national program if you find it 

is used a lot.

May 2006 Evaluation Respondent

Respondent feedback provided new information about 

training activities. A member of Arkansas University faculty 

incorporated the Changing Roles materials into her 2006 

summer forestry camp curriculum and engaged students 

in using the materials to develop a workshop for interface 

residents. The Alabama Extension Service had to cancel 

their previously planned workshops, but was hopeful that 

workshops might be rescheduled in the future. The Georgia 

Forestry Commission, Sustainable Community Forestry 

Program held district training sessions and used Changing 

Roles slides to introduce WUI issues. They also used the 

materials to train foresters and district chief rangers. In 

Mississippi, notebooks were distributed to appropriate 

Forestry Commission personnel and a partnership was 

being developed with the state RC and D Council. 

Respondents from the Mississippi Forestry Commission 

also said several ideas from Changing Roles were used in 

their Firewise Awareness Field Days. The South Carolina 

Forestry Commission conducted two 2-day workshops in 

September 2006 for about 90 employees who ranged from 

forest technicians and supervisors to program managers. The 

Tennessee Division of Forestry held a WUI training session 

at their Annual Meeting.

The University of Florida performed a final survey in April 

of 2007 (a complete list of evaluation questions can be 

found in Appendix A). All TOT participants were contacted 

and at least one person from each of the 13 state forestry 

agencies was contacted by phone to assure their responses. 

The survey was done by phone and email and was designed 

to capture information regarding the programs usage, 

adaptability, impact, and assessment of the materials. The 

goal was to receive feedback about the Changing Roles 

materials from each of the southern state forestry agencies. 

A list of notebook recipients was created and emails 

were sent to each individual informing them that the final 

Changing Roles evaluation was being conducted, their 

participation would be helpful, and that the survey would 

soon be emailed to them. A second email with an attached 

copy of the survey was sent to the individuals and each 

participant was given the choice of whether they would like 

to complete the questionnaire via email or as a telephone 

interview. The email requested the best time to call if the 

participant preferred a phone interview. Several weeks later, 

a reminder email with the survey attachment was sent to 

those individuals who had not responded. The majority of 

respondents chose to complete the survey via email. 

Survey results revealed once again a variety of workshops 

had been held across the South. The Florida Extension 

Service used Modules 1 and 3 to conduct a two-day training 

for extension agents in February 2007 on land use, growth 

management, and understanding interface residents. The 

Georgia Forestry Commission successfully completed all ten 

of the planned district training workshops between October 

2006 and January 2007. These half-day workshops had an 

average attendance of 25-30 individuals and participant 

feedback on the trainings was positive. North Carolina 

State University used the Changing Roles materials in 

presentations given to the North Carolina Society of 

American Foresters and a statewide teleconference to over 

105 participants. The Texas Forest Service coordinated a 

week-long training for 85 participants in December of 2006 

to tackle WUI issues.

With forest industry leaving Texas, large tracts of land are 

being sold and often fragmented. Urban citizens are also 

moving outside the city limits to where it is more affordable 

and they can own small tracts of land. As a result ... the 
71

forestry profession is quickly changing. Traditional forestry 

still exists in Texas and yet at the same time there is a 

need to provide services to this new landowner to ensure 

that there are healthy forests in the future for Texans. The 

Changing Roles materials directly address these issues and 

provide natural resource professional the tools needed to 

contend with the changing face of forestry. Since training 85 

members of our personnel in December, “Changing Roles” 

has become a common phrase in our agency that means 

addressing these challenges.

April 2007 Evaluation Respondent

The Texas Forest Service wrote a successful proposal 

for a $40,000 grant that was used to train other agencies: 

Consulting Foresters, the U.S. Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, Texas Cooperative Extension, and 

Texas Parks and Wildlife.

Rather than holding an independent workshop, the Virginia 

Department of Forestry incorporated the Changing Roles 

program in a breakout session as part of a larger training 

academy. This approach was successful and a similar session 

is planned for an upcoming agency personnel conference. 

The Virginia Extension Service is planning additional 

workshops to emphasize the interconnected nature of 

interface issues and management for fragmented forests. 

The Forest Service worked with The Conservation Fund 

(CF) to blend Changing Roles into the CF course on Green 

Infrastructure. The one-week course was offered to Southern 

Forestry agencies and community members in May and 

July 2007 at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 

Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown, WV. 

Some organizations have also been able to incorporate 

the Changing Roles materials into their existing training 

programs. Participants have stated that “this is a good mix of 

material that can be just used as is or added to other material 

to put programs together or work with groups to address 

issues.” In North Carolina fact sheets and PowerPoint® 

presentations have already been used in other presentations 

and programs, future plans include incorporating some of 

the materials into woody biomass training materials. The 

Texas Forest Service expects the Changing Roles materials 

to be incorporated into other programs. In Kentucky, the 

Division of Forestry has incorporated materials from the 

program into their Stewardship training.

Many agencies found it useful to customize presentations 

and materials to their area and specific audience. “The 

program provides a great overview of the regional situation 

and a broad, basic foundation. It requires adaptation for 

specific and local programs.” Many agencies and partners 

plan to update fact sheets with local information and to 

adapt other materials to agency specific and local needs.

Most feedback was quite positive, such as, “We felt the 

materials were of great help and liked the case studies 

especially since they all related to Southern issues,” and 

“The land use and policy module is extremely useful in our 

state. More of our staff should be exposed to this material.”

Most agencies that responded to the evaluation found 

the materials to be user-friendly, “with printed materials, 

PowerPoint® presentations, exercises, fact sheets and 

activities, it is nice that everything is there.” One respondent 

also mentioned that the Changing Roles section of the 

InterfaceSouth.org Web site provided useful adaptations 

from trainers and workshop agendas that could be used as 

guides to structure a variety of presentations. Currently five 

agendas are available for reference on the “Trainer’s Corner” 

page of the website; these have been provided by trainers 

of workshops held in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and South 

Carolina. When asked what barriers other than time and 

money prevented the use of the Changing Roles materials, 

participants still responded with lack of time as well as 

conflicts with other work priorities. One Changing Roles 

trainer had two programs scheduled but “had to cancel due 

to dry weather and fire suppression activities.”

The evaluation data also seemed to indicate that the 

Changing Roles program is meeting the needs of agencies 

trying to deal with a “new type of forestry.”

It (the WUI) really impacts all natural resource professionals 

since demographics and land-use keeps changing and 

Changing Roles is proactive in performing natural resource 

management.

April 2007 Evaluation Respondent

Since the evaluations, Changing Roles has continued to 

be used across the South. In August 2007, the Tennessee 

Cooperative Extension Service used the program materials 

in three in-service trainings for a total of 26 county agents. 

Evaluations from the trainings revealed that 74 percent of 

participants considered WUI issues to be very or extremely 

important in their county, 89 percent expect Extension’s 

role in WUI issues to increase, and 100 percent of the 

participants thought the in-service training increased their 

awareness of WUI issues. In December 2007, the Texas 

Forest Service hosted a two-and-a-half-day event for a 

group of approximately 80 natural resource professionals. 

The workshop elicited so much excitement that a series of 

follow-up meetings were scheduled by the leadership to 

develop plans for future activities. 

In summary, most state forest agencies are using the 

materials to complement their own training programs, 

some agencies are partnering with extension to deliver 

workshops, and others are using the materials to build WUI 

expertise with other agency staff. One respondent said, 

“The (Changing Roles) program provides one of the first 
72

comprehensive training packages to incorporate all of the 

various components of the WUI issue in the South.” The 

trainers agree that the materials are well organized, easy 

to follow, informative, and provide creative instructional 

tips. Case studies are popular and additional examples 

were requested. Some trainers suggest that they are not as 

comfortable delivering the programs as they would like to 

be. State agencies are also developing ancillary materials 

that are more locally specific to complement the Changing 

Roles materials. Surveys created and administered by 

agencies after their training workshops show that some 

of the information provided by the program is starting to 

be practiced in the field. These findings suggest that the 

delivery, content, and organization of the Changing Roles 

materials have been, at least in part, successful in achieving 

their purpose.

Http://www.interfacesouth.org/products/training/feedback_

page.html features adaptations and suggestions for Changing 

Roles created with information from trainers. Modified and 

new fact sheets and exercises, and tips are posted for all 

trainers to view and download. 

Recommendations for Materials

The development of the original Changing Roles: WildlandUrban Interface Professional Development Program 

represents the beginning of a process. It was designed to 

be a living, growing resource that can be built-upon and 

customized to meet a variety of needs. There are many 

potential opportunities for improving and adapting the 

program including the following: 

•	Adapting the program to address issues and conditions in 

different regions (besides the South), 

•	Creating a national version of the program,

•	Adapting the program to better meet the specific needs of 

cooperative extension,

•	Revising pieces of the program to create high school or 

college curricula,

•	Developing additional modules that address other 

important WUI issues (e.g., a module strictly about 

wildfire issues),

•	Adding materials to existing modules (e.g., more case 

studies, or a fact sheet specifically about soil issues),

•	Simplifying the materials for the public, perhaps for use in 

town hall meetings or community forums,

•	Organizing a subset of the materials specifically for 

congressional committees or other elected officials. 

Additionally, evaluation data from recipients of the 

program provided the following recommendations:

•	Reduce the amount of detail in each lesson because 

important points get lost in over explanation,

•	Modify the book to be less confusing and cluttered with 

unnecessary detail and of little reference value, and

•	Modify the puzzle exercise concepts into a presentation for 

trainers with limited time. 

Respondents also recommended some additions including:

•	Fact sheet templates for individual states,

•	More case studies that provide solutions to problems,

•	Sections on ecosystem services, policy, aesthetics and 

zoning, and

•	A module to introduce the Southwestern Fire Risk 

Assessment product and how individuals can use this 

information to promote wildfire issues in the South.

CONCLUSION

The wildland-urban interface is a dynamic area where 

changes in land use and human influences are affecting 

natural resources. Population growth and demographic and 

land-use changes in the South are affecting development 

trends and natural resource use. The roles of natural resource 

professionals who work in the wildland-urban interface are 

rapidly changing and expanding. Resource professionals 

need new information and skills to enable them to 

effectively communicate with interface residents, work 

with community planners and policy makers, and manage 

and conserve natural resources in the interface. Changing 

Roles: Wildland-Urban Interface Professional Development 

Program aims to provide these skills and information. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

A project of this complexity is only possible with the 

contributions of a great number of people. We have had the 

good fortune to work with many talented and thoughtful 

individuals who care about the future of forest ecosystems 

in the South. We are particularly grateful to our the Southern 

Wildland-Urban Interface Council for having a bold vision 

for natural resource agency professional development, to 

our authors who applied their expertise to the changing 

landscape of the wildland-urban interface, to all the 

reviewers who added suggestions that improved these 

materials, to pilot-test participants who helped us refine the 

program, and to the production team of research assistants, 

editors, designers, and web support specialists who 

converted the information into this useful product. We would 

also like to thank the Southern Group of State Foresters, 

the Forest Service, the University of Florida, and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service for their financial and in-kind 

contributions that made this program possible.
73

REFERENCES 

Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. 

Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior. J. Kuhl and J. Beckman 

(Eds.), Heidelberg: Springer: 11-39.

Leck, J.E.; Watson, B. 1996. International student adviser student 

development training guide. A product thesis for the Program in 

Intercultural Management at the School for International Training, 

Brattleboro, VT. http://www.isep.org/PDF/conference/handouts/

session15_handout2.pdf. [Accessed February 2008]. 

Macie, E.A.; Hermansen, L.A.; eds. 2002. Human influences on forest 

ecosystems: the southern wildland-urban interface assessment. Southern 

Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC. General 

Technical Report SRS-GTR-055. 159 p.

McKenzie-Mohr, D.; Smith, W. 1999. Fostering sustainable behavior: an 

introduction to community-based social marketing, British Columbia, 

Canada, New Society Publishers. 160 p.

Monroe, M.C.; Bowers, A.W.; Hermansen, A.L. 2003. The moving edge: 

perspectives on the southern wildland-urban interface, southern wildlandurban interface assessment focus group report. General Technical Report 

SRS-63. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 35 p.

Roussopoulos, P.J. 2002. Foreword. In: Macie, E.A.; Hermansen, A.L. eds. 

Human Influences on Forest Ecosystems: the southern wildland-urban 

interface assessment. General Technical Report SRS-GTR-55. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: v. 
1

Professor, Faculty, and Program Coordinator, University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Gainesville, FL 32611-0410, respectively.

74

WOOD TO ENERGY: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND EDUCATION 

PROGRAMS FOR SOUTHERN United States

Martha C. Monroe, Richard Plate, and Lauren McDonell1

Abstract—The goal of the Wood to Energy outreach program is to help communities at the wildland-urban interface in 

the thirteen southern states decide whether to use woody biomass for electricity production. The overall objectives of 

this project are to: 1) increase awareness and knowledge about using woody biomass for energy production; 2) enable 

community leaders, potential woody fuel users, biomass suppliers, and forest managers to discuss the possibilities in 

their region; 3) provide tools and resources as communities begin to plan for new opportunities. In preparation for the 

development of these outreach materials, we have explored public perceptions about woody biomass with a series of 

interviews and surveys. Respondents’ opinions in the South appear to be consistent with perceptions in other parts of 

the world. People are concerned about the environmental impact of the facility, the future of nearby forests, and the 

trustworthiness of facility managers and information providers. The development of the outreach materials and the 

process for making this information available to the public will use the results of this perceptions research.

INTRODUCTION

The southern United States produces nearly sixty percent of 

the nation’s wood, and projections show that it will continue 

to be the leader into the future. The climate is well suited 

for fast-growing pines and hardwoods, and as a result, the 

timber industry has played a large role in the economic 

development of the region. The southern United States is 

also the region of the U.S. with the fastest growing human 

population. As urban centers spread, large areas of once 

primarily contiguous forestland are increasingly influenced 

by humans and surrounded by or intermixed with urban 

development. The South already has more cities with forests 

within 50 miles than any other part of the United States 

(Dwyer and others 2000).

The southern forests located in the wildland-urban interface, 

where increased human influence and land use conversion 

are changing natural resource goods, services, and 

management (Macie and Hermansen 2002), are particularly 

well-suited for taking advantage of woody biomass for 

energy. Because transportation costs tend to be a limiting 

factor for using wood energy, communities with a nearby 

source of wood have a distinct advantage over other 

communities. Not only can forestry activities provide waste 

wood, but urban forest debris can contribute a significant 

amount of wood.

Unlike other areas of the United States, most of the 

southern forests are privately owned by industry and 

individuals. To the extent that the public recognizes this 

ownership pattern, they understand that forest landowners 

make economic decisions about harvesting and forest 

management. Pine plantations are common along the 

coastal plain and pulp mills convert these trees to boxes, 

fabrics, and other products.

The public may react quite differently, however, to 

a proposal to use wood for energy. Because woody 

biomass facilities are being suggested for communities 

with significant wildland-urban interface development in 

order to reduce transportation costs, we can assume that 

a sizable population of the public (and primarily urban 

dwellers) will be affected by the proposal. A number of 

studies (Hargreaves 1996, Upreti 2004, van der Horst and 

others 2002) cite public perception as playing a pivotal 

role in the success or failure of proposed biomass energy 

plants. According to a series of polls conducted by utilities 

companies across the United States, individuals have favored 

renewable sources of electricity for twenty years, with the 

majority of residential customers showing a willingness to 

pay more per month on their electric bills for power from a 

renewable source (Bang and others 2000, Farhar 1999). The 

public, however, is focusing on the zero-emission energies 

of wind and solar, not wood (Farhar 1999, Upreti 2004). 

Concerns about air quality, health and safety, aesthetics, 

noise, and traffic are important to citizens near proposed 

biomass energy facilities and parallel those regarding 

any other industrial development (Khan 2004, Rosch and 

Kaltschmitt 1999). 

Even those who will not be affected by a plant directly 

express concern that forests will be poorly managed or 

destroyed to supply a continued quantity of fuel. Several 

national environmental advocacy groups (Environmental 

Defense Fund 2005, Greenpeace 2005, Natural Resource 

Defense Council 2003) express support for biomass 

energy, but emphasize that such support is contingent upon 

sustainable sources of biomass. National Sierra Club policy 

opposes harvesting federally owned forests for electricity 

generation (Sierra Club 2007).
75

The concern about forest management and the tendency to 

value preserved forests more than working forests may be 

an outgrowth of demographic change across the Southeast. 

The human population of the South is rapidly increasing 

with northern migrants often bringing greater wealth and 

education to their new communities (Macie and Hermansen 

2002). Quite apart from the regional demographics, however, 

is the notion that our culture promotes and maintains a set of 

values about nature that favor preservation.

In some areas of the South, however, non-industrial private 

forest owners’ attitudes are undistinguishable from their 

urban counterparts (Bliss and others 1997, Tarrant and 

others 2002). A 2001 telephone survey of 1,423 urban, 

near-urban, and rural residents of the thirteen Southern states 

revealed that the majority believe the most important value 

of forests is clean air, while the least important was wood 

production (Tarrant and others 2002). This shift over the last 

twenty years away from an economic approach to timber 

management is likely due to the migration between rural and 

urban areas, an increase in economic growth, and greater 

technological innovations (Tarrant and others 2002). 

A number of researchers suggest that public acceptance 

of information about forest management, air quality, and 

source sustainability is contingent upon the level of trust 

citizens have in the developer and management of the 

proposed facility (Kunreuther and others 1996, Rosch and 

Kaltschmitt 1999, Sinclair and Lofstedt 2001). A report on 

several case studies of biomass energy plant proposals in 

the U.K. attributes the failure of attempts to site a biomass 

energy plant to “a mistrust of the validity of the statements 

about environmental impacts which the developers have 

prepared as part of the planning application” (van der Horst 

and others 2002, 123-124). But the level of trust placed 

in various stakeholders can vary. For example, trust in the 

government or large institutions may be different from the 

more specific and personal trust in a particular developer 

or manager. Some degree of distrust can be overcome by a 

developer who is able to gain citizens’ trust on a personal 

level (Ibiatayo 2002). Including the public early in the 

decision-making process is perhaps the most effective way 

to establish trust and address public concerns (Ibiatayo 2002, 

Sandman 1987).

Wood to Energy Outreach Program is a community 

education program about woody biomass, funded through 

the USDOE/USDA and developed through a partnership 

between the Southern Research Station of the Forest Service, 

the University of Florida’s School of Forest Resources and 

Conservation, the Southern Region Cooperative Extension 

Service, and the Southern States Biobased Alliance of the 

Southern States Energy Board. Prior to developing outreach 

materials about using wood for electricity production, it 

is essential to better understand public perceptions in the 

South. This project has used several techniques for assessing 

public opinion and will use this information to develop an 

outreach process and outreach materials.

METHODS

To assess public perceptions we first selected counties in the 

thirteen southern states that were likely candidates for using 

woody biomass: those with a rapidly growing wildlandurban interface area and a forest cover. Eight different 

variables (e.g., population density, forest cover, population 

growth rate) were added together in a formula that ranked 

all 1300 counties. Phone calls to regional foresters, energy 

specialists, and community leaders in the top communities 

in each state confirmed that our selection process identified 

likely counties. We then conducted interviews in two 

communities (Oconee County, South Carolina and Clay 

County, Florida) by asking the County Extension Agent to 

identify from five to ten community members who could 

represent various perspectives: business, environment, 

homeowner, and development. The interview results (n=11) 

allowed us to better understand the types of perceptions and 

concerns the public might have about using wood for energy. 

In addition, interviews with three City Commissioners in 

Alachua County Florida provided insights to their concerns.

The interview responses led to the development of a survey 

which was pilot tested with community residents. The final 

version contained nine demographic questions, 22 closed 

biomass questions and three open-ended questions. The 

biomass questions include the following sections: three 

questions on general awareness of the topic, four questions 

about trust, five on attitudes about using wood for fuel, four 

on beliefs about advantages and disadvantages of wood, 

three questions on sources of wood, and two questions 

that cover public participations in decisions about woody 

biomass (appendix A). 

The survey was posted on the web using SurveyMonkey, an 

online survey host that organizes data. We contracted with 

a marketing company to send an introductory request by 

email to 218,000 addresses of people who live in 11 selected 

counties (each in a different southern state) asking them to 

complete the web-based survey. The sample was stratified by 

income to match the census data to avoid contacting only the 

wealthier members of the community. Unfortunately, very 

few of the 450 respondents were actually from the selected 

counties. Email responses from disgruntled respondents 

indicated that the sample did not have 218,000 different 

email addresses and at least some people received the 

request more than once. A second attempt was authorized 

using city residence rather than county, adding more 

communities, and not stratifying the sample by income. 

Unfortunately we again experienced an extraordinarily low 
76

response rate (less than 1 percent) and a number of these 

were from another continent, suggesting the firm’s selection 

mechanism was not as refined as they believe. 

We believe it may be possible to obtain a reasonable 

response rate by using a more reliable list. To that end, we 

launched a comparison study, using the County Extension 

email list of people interested in home horticulture in one 

county and a mailed survey to a random sample drawn 

from the tax assessor list of that county. After one reminder 

postcard to the mailing list we received 302 responses 

(20 percent). A comparison of early respondents to late 

respondents to understand whatever bias the low response 

rate causes suggests the only significant difference is that 

non-responders probably believe they know less about the 

topic than respondents.

Interviews were reviewed for themes and similar ideas 

were clustered. Frequencies were obtained from the survey 

results. The results from both the web-based survey and 

the mailed survey paralleled those from the interviews. 

Consequently, only the results from the mailed survey will 

be reported in detail.

RESULTS

Interview data suggest that attitudes in the South mirror 

those expressed in the literature. The public is concerned 

with the environmental impact of biomass burning on 

air quality and forest harvesting on forest sustainability. 

In addition, residents and city commissioners question 

implementation details and source sustainability: increased 

truck traffic near the facility, increased entry-level job 

opportunities, and long-term forecasts of forestry in an area 

that is rapidly converting farms and forests to developments. 

Several interviewees believe that even at present levels, local 

forests do not produce enough wood to sustainably fuel a 

power plant. Nevertheless, interviewees are open to the idea 

in general and willing to believe that woody biomass could 

be an economically smart resource for energy and recognize 

the growing need for energy in a rapidly developing region 

if the environmental concerns are addressed. 

The mailed survey suggests there are significant 

misconceptions about energy resources in general and 

woody biomass in particular. Respondents believe wood is 

worse than fossil fuels regarding environmental impact, even 

climate change. Over 50 percent of the respondents admit 

to not knowing about wood fuels, and only 18 percent are 

aware of local discussions to build a wood-burning facility, 

despite public discussions for several years. A minority of 

respondents are very fearful of woody biomass (23 percent) 

and express negative attitudes toward having a wood to 

energy power facility in their neighborhood (32 percent). 

For all respondents, the loss of local forests is rated as their 

most important concern, followed closely by concerns about 

air quality. Respondents believe woody biomass use is less 

feasible in their community than large-scale use of solar 

power. They would find local foresters and environmental 

groups more trustworthy sources of information about 

woody biomass than government, utilities, industry, or 

media sources.

DISCUSSION

The disappointing results from the web-based survey 

suggest that purchasing lists of email addresses may not be a 

reasonable way to obtain reliable responses from the public 

in a specific geographic area. Using existing lists from 

organizations and government agencies to contact people, 

despite the non-random nature of the list, may be preferred. 

The results indicate there may be a significant gap between 

public knowledge and expert opinion about the value and 

promise of using woody biomass for electrical power 

generation in the South. Basic misconceptions about air 

emissions and carbon-neutrality could easily prompt citizens 

to discount and ignore information that conflicts with their 

understanding (Monroe 2005). A lack of trust in the typical 

messengers of information about energy—government, 

utilities, and industry—will not help the process of public 

education. Forestry agencies, extension agents, and 

environmental organizations are perceived as trustworthy, 

however, and therefore may have the greatest chance to 

successfully share information.

Concerns about forest sustainability in the wildland-urban 

interface may be more difficult to mitigate. Most residents 

have direct evidence that forests are not sustainable in 

the face of expanding development. In Florida, even the 

development potential of publicly owned conservation 

lands has been debated (Ponte Vedra High School Coalition 

2006). In parts of the South, controversy over chip mills has 

strained public tolerance for large scale wood harvesting, 

particularly scenarios that take both large and small diameter 

trees (Appalachian Voices 2002; Rembert 1999); a woody 

biomass facility may be construed as a similar endeavor. 

Our supply curves were generated with existing harvest 

data and residue material from logging, enabling concerned 

individuals to understand the quantity of biomass currently 

extracted (Langholtz and others 2007). Of course if the 

public does not trust managers to limit harvest to existing 

rates, even this explanation is not helpful.

It is difficult to protect nearby forests in a rapidly developing 

region where private forest landowners balance an unstable 

timber market with the long-term need for wood products. 
77

The most realistic solution may be the development 

of guidelines, policies, and contracts that are managed 

by municipal foresters to guarantee sustainable forest 

management and a sustainable supply of wood. If these 

guidelines are negotiated by all stakeholders, the process 

to create them and the documents themselves may create 

trust.

The development of outreach materials and outreach 

activities should lean heavily on data about public 

perceptions. Both the materials and activities will be 

pilot tested in several southern communities to determine 

how well they communicate information, build trust, and 

generate a common understanding about using woody 

biomass. A group of regional experts will be invited to 

review draft materials and to participate in pilot testing. 

The materials and outreach activities will be designed to 

achieve these goals:

•	Seek citizen engagement

•	Dispel common misconceptions about woody biomass

•	Answer common questions about using woody biomass

•	Build or renew trust in responsible utility or agency

•	Invite citizens to define their fears and concerns

•	Jointly develop managementstrategiesthat could mitigate

citizen concerns

•	Jointly develop indicators of a successful woody biomass

project

Materials will be revised and produced after the pilot 

process and distributed to a group of woody biomass 

ambassadors to use in their states and communities 

(Monroe and others 2007).

CONCLUSIONS

Public perceptions of an issue are important to understand 

before creating education and outreach materials. 

Misconceptions must be addressed carefully to help 

citizens listen to and understand the new information 

even though it conflicts with what they already believe. 

An outreach program may help to build trust if it does not 

advocate a particular outcome, but creates an opportunity 

to ask questions and explore current technology. 

The ultimate expression of a utility’s trust in the public 

would be accepting the negotiated recommendations for 

forest management, noise and traffic control, air quality 

protection, and other concerns. Extension agents and forest 

managers could be among the most trustworthy sources of 

information and could play a key role in the exploration of 

whether woody biomass energy is appropriate in southern 

communities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge the assistance of Melissa Palmer 

with the literature review and members of the entire 

Wood to Energy team: Phil Badger, Doug Carter, Annie 

Hermansen-Báez, Alan Hodges, Matt Langhotlz, Edward 

Macie, Pratap Pullammanappallil, Richard Schroeder, 

Christina Staudhammer. This work was funded by a 

cooperative agreement with the Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station and the School of Forest Resources and 

Conservation at the University of Florida.

REFERENCES 

Appalachian Voices. 2002. Big timber influenced USDA southern forest 

study. Appalachian Voices Archive. March 2002. 

http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/site/voice_stories/big_timber_

influenced_usda_southern_forest_study/issue/542. [Date accessed 

February 3, 2008].

Bang, H.; Ellinger, A.E.; Hadjimarcou, J.; Traichal, P.A. 2000. Consumer 

concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an 

application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology and Marketing. 

17(6): 449-468.

Bliss, J.C.; Nepal, S.K.; Brooks, R.T.; Larsen, M.D. 1997. Forestry 

community or granfaloon? Journal of Forestry. 92: 6-10.

Dwyer, J.F.; Nowak, D.J.; Noble, M.H.; Sisinni, S.M. 2000. Connecting 

people with ecosystems in the 21st century: an assessment of our 

Nation’s urban forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNY-GTR-490. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 483 p.

Environmental Defense Fund. 2005. Environmental defense fun Web site. 

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/issue.cfm?subnav=8&linkID=15. 

[Date accessed July 28, 2006].

Farhar, B. 1999. Willingness to pay for electricity from renewable 

resources: a review of utility market research. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.

Greenpeace. 2006. Greenpeace Web site. http://www.greenpeace.org/

international/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/bioenergy. [Date 

accessed July 28, 2006].

Hargreaves, D. 1996. An investigation into risk communication issues 

surrounding a proposal to site a 20MW straw-burning electricity 

generating plant at Calne, Wiltshire in 1994. University of Surrey, 

Guildford.

Ibiatayo, O. 2002. Public-private partnerships in the siting of hazardous 

waste facilities: the importance of trust. Waste Management and 

Research. 20: 212-222.
78

Khan, J. 2004. Local politics of renewable energy: project planning, siting 

conflicts, and citizen participation. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Lund, 

Sweden: Lund University.

Kunreuther, H.; Slovic, P.; MacGregor, D. 1996. Risk perception and trust: 

challenges for facility siting. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment. 7: 

109-118. 

Langholtz, M.; Carter, D.R.; Schroeder, R. 2007. Assessing the economic 

availability of woody biomass. Wood to energy biomass ambassador 

guide. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. http://www.interfacesouth.

org/woodybiomass/resource_appendix/App_Assessing.pdf (Date 

accessed February 6, 2008].

Macie, E.A.; Hermansen, L.A., eds. 2002 Human influences on forest 

ecosystems: the southern wildland-urban interface assessment. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS-55. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 160 p.

Monroe, M.C. 2005. Addressing misconceptions about wildland-urban 

interface issues. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Fact 

Sheets FOR 108, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 5 p.

Monroe, M.C.; McDonell, L.; Oxarart, A. 2007. Wood to energy: biomass 

ambassador guide. Gainesville FL: IFAS. 350 p.

Natural Resources Defense Council. 2006. Clean air and energy: energy: in 

brief: fact sheet, biomass energy, wind, solar and biomass energy today. 

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/renewables/biomass.asp. [Date accessed 

July 28, 2006].

Ponte Vedra High School Coalition. 2006. Problem-solving. http://pvhsc.

com/problem_solving.htm. [Date accessed July 27, 2006].

Rembert, T. 1999. Whittlin’ dixie: chip mills supplying the paper 

industry are clearcutting the South. Earth Action Network. http://www.

encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-55909756.html. [Date accessed February 

2, 2008].

Rosch, C.; Kaltschmitt, M. 1999. Energy from biomass—do non-technical 

barriers prevent an increase use? Biomass and Bioenergy. 16: 347-356.

Sandman, P. 1987. Risk communication: facing public outrage. U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Journal, 13: 21-22.

Sierra Club. 2007. http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/biomass.

asp. [Date accessed: January 17, 2007].

Sinclair, P.; Lofstedt, R. 2001. The influence of trust in a biomass plant 

application: the case study of Sutton, UK. Biomass and Bioenergy. 21: 

177-184.

Tarrant, M.A.; Porter, R.; Cordell, H.K. 2002. Sociodemographics, values, 

and attitudes. In Wear, D. N.; Greis, J. G.., eds. Southern forest resource 

assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. pp. 175-187. 

Chapter 7.

Upreti, B.R. 2004. Conflict over biomass energy development in the 

United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and 

Wales. Energy Policy. 32: 785-800.

van der Horst, D.; Sinclair, P.; Lofstedt, R. 2002. Public participation 

in decision support for regional biomass energy planning. Options 

Mediterraneennes, Serie A; no. 48. pp. 123-130.
79

Appendix A: Survey questions to assess public perceptions of using woody biomass for 

power generation 

A recent study indicates that North Central Florida has a sufficient supply of wood to generate some electricity from wood. 

We would like to know your initial reaction to this information. How strongly do you feel each of the possible emotions? 

(Please answer for each row.) 

Not at all Somewhat Very much 

Curious � � � 

Skeptical � � � 

Fearful � � � 

Interested � � � 

Are you aware of any local discussions about using wood for producing electricity? 

� Yes 

� No 

How knowledgeable do you consider yourself regarding the use of wood to generate electricity? 

� Very knowledgeable 

� Fairly knowledgeable 

� Slightly knowledgeable 

� Not at all knowledgeable 

Which of the following characterizes your level of confidence in local government's ability to regulate a power plant that uses 

wood? 

� Very confident � Fairly confident 

� Slightly confident � Not at all confident 

Which of the following characterizes your level of confidence in your local utility company’s ability to effectively manage the 

daily operations of a power plant that uses wood? 

� Very confident � Fairly confident 

� Slightly confident � Not at all confident 

Sometimes, an institution other than the utility company (e.g. hospital, school, factory) will develop their own power plant that 

uses wood to produce electricity. Which of the following characterizes your level of confidence in letting an institution other 

than the utility company manage a power plant that uses wood? 

� Very confident � Fairly confident 

� Slightly confident � Not at all confident 

How much would you trust the following sources to provide you with accurate information about a proposed power plant that 

uses wood? (Please answer for each row.) 

Not at all Somewhat Very much 

Chamber of commerce � � �

Local newspaper � � �

City mayor/commissioner � � �

County commissioner � � �

Local Utility Company � � �

Local extension agent � � �

Local forester � � �

Environmental group � � �

Private industry � � �
80

How influential do you feel local citizens would be in the decisions regarding a proposed power plant that uses wood in your 

area? 

� Not at all influential 

� Slightly influential 

� Fairly influential 

� Highly influential 

How interested would you be in being involved in the decision-making process regarding a proposed power plant that uses 

wood in your area? 

� Not at all influential 

� Slightly influential 

� Fairly influential 

� Highly influential 

About how far is it from your house to the Deerhaven power facility at the intersection of Route 441 and NW 43rd Street? 

� 0-3 miles � 4-10 miles 

� 11-20 miles � Don’t know 

Which of the following characterizes your feelings about having a power plant that uses wood developed 0-3 miles away from 

your home? 

� Highly negative 

� Negative 

� Neutral 

� Positive 

� Highly positive 

Which of the following characterizes your feelings about having a power plant that uses wood developed anywhere in 

Alachua County, FL? 

� Highly negative 

� Negative 

� Neutral 

� Positive 

� Highly positive 

Some of the wood to fuel the power plant could be waste wood from land clearing already occurring for development. How 

supportive are you of using this wood source to produce electricity? 

� Not at all supportive 

� Slightly supportive 

� Fairly supportive 

� Highly supportive 

� I really don’t care 

Some of the wood to fuel the power plant could be waste wood from forest thinning to reduce the risk of wildfire or to improve 

forest health and productivity. How supportive are you of using this type of wood source to produce electricity? 

� Not at all supportive 

� Slightly supportive 

� Fairly supportive 

� Highly supportive 

� I really don’t care 

Some landowners may decide to grow wood for biomass power plants instead of wood for the paper industry. How 

supportive are you of using this wood source to produce electricity? 

� Not at all supportive 

� Slightly supportive 
81

� Fairly supportive 

� Highly supportive 

� I really don’t care 

How do you think wood compares to coal as a source of energy in terms of the following characteristics? 

Wood is worse About the same Wood is better I have no idea 

Price � � � �

Air pollution � � � �

Climate change � � � �

Worker safety � � � �

Entry level jobs � � � �

Other local economic benefits � � � �

National security � � � �

How do you think wood compares to natural gas as a source of energy in terms of the following characteristics? 

Wood is worse About the same Wood is better I have no idea 

Price � � � �

Air pollution � � � �

Climate change � � � �

Worker safety � � � �

Entry level jobs � � � �

Other local economic benefits � � � �

National security � � � �

Some people believe the following concerns are associated with power plants that use wood. How important are each of 

these concerns to you? 

Not at all A little Somewhat Fairly Extremely 

Increased air pollution � � � � �

Increased truck traffic for wood delivery � � � � �

Higher cost of electricity � � � � �

Increased noise from plant operations � � � � �

Increased competition for wood � � � � �

Loss of local forests � � � � �

What other concerns do you have? 

Some people believe the following benefits are associated with power plants that use wood. How important are each of these 

benefits to you? 

Not at all A little Somewhat Fairly Extremely 

Addition of entry level jobs to the area � � � � �

Keep dollars in the community � � � � �

Reduce dependence on foreign energy � � � � �

Provide better markets for wood � � � � �

Not contribute to global climate change � � � � �

Renewable energy source � � � � �

Use wood that would otherwise go to waste � � � � �

Maintain local forests � � � � �
82

What other benefits do you see?

If Alachua County, FL needs additional power, how COMFORTABLE are you with the following solutions? 

Not at all Slightly Fairly Very 

Use more fossil fuels � � � �

Use wood � � � �

Use solar � � � �

Use wind � � � �

Conserve energy � � � �

Look at new technologies � � � �

If Alachua County, FL needs additional electric power, how FEASIBLE do you think the following solutions are in your 

community? 

Not at all Slightly Fairly Very 

Use more fossil fuels � � � �

Use wood � � � �

Use solar � � � �

Use wind � � � �

Conserve energy � � � �

Look at new technologies � � � �

Please indicate if you agree or disagree with each statement: 

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree 

As long as waste wood is being burned, we 

should collect it and use the energy. � � � �

We should not remove waste wood from forestry 

operations because that requires the input of 

more fertilizer. � � � �

Planted pine trees, like corn, are grown in rows 

for human consumption. It doesn’t matter what 

we do with them. � � � �

If we are going to use wood for energy it is most 

important that we manage the forest sustainably 

for wildlife, water quality, and wood production. � � � �

Without a viable market for pine trees, forest 

owners will sell their land for development and 

urban sprawl will eventually cover north and 

central Florida. 

� � � �

Healthy forests are precious ecosystems and 

should be left to nature. � � � �

Now we'll close with a few easy questions, which are included to ensure that the survey respondents represent the diversity 

of people that live in Alachua County. 

What is your residential zip code? ____________ 

How old are you? 

� < 18 years 

� 19-24 years 

� 25-34 years 
83

� 35-49 years 

� 50-64 years 

� 65-79 years 

� > 80 years 

How long have you lived in Alachua County? 

� 0-5 years 

� 6-10 years 

� 11-15 years 

� More than 15 years 

� I don’t live in Alachua County. 

What is your gender? 

� Male 

� Female 

What is your race or ethnicity? 

� White � Black/African American 

� Asian � Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 

� Native American � Latino/Hispanic (of any race) 

� Other (please specify) _____________________ 

What is your household income? 

� $0-$24,999 � $25,000-49,999 

� $50,000-$99,999 � $100,000-$149,999 

� More than $150,000 

Please check the highest level of education you have attained. 

� Less than a high school diploma 

� High school diploma or equivalent 

� Some college credit 

� Associate degree 

� Bachelor’s degree 

� Master’s degree 

� Professional degree 

� Doctorate 

Please complete the following sentence: Where I live is mostly: 

� Rural 

� Suburban 

� Metropolitan 

If you answered “Rural” above, do you see your neighborhood as distinct from Gainesville, or as an extension of that area? 

� Distinct 

� Extension 

Is there anything else you would like to add? 

Thank you for participating in this survey. Please return it in the envelope provided by September 15.

OUTREACH AND TECHNOLOGY 

TRANSFER TOOLS

1

Research Scientist, Forestry Technician, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Blacksburg, VA 24060; and Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University, College of Natural Resources, Blacksburg, VA 24061.

87

Connecting Non-Timber Forest Products Stakeholders to 

Information and Knowledge: A Case Study of an Internet Web site

James Chamberlain, Matt Winn, and A.L. (Tom) Hammett1

Abstract—Many products are harvested from forests that are not timber-based but are based on plant materials. These 

non-timber forest products (NTFPs) have not been fully incorporated into economic development programs, yet they 

provide significant monetary benefits for rural entrepreneurs. Interest in NTFPs as alternative forest enterprises and 

sources of additional income has increased tremendously over the last decade. Unfortunately, information on their 

potential is not readily available when and where it is needed. With the use of the Internet, people have greater and easier 

access to information and those in remote rural areas may benefit tremendously from this access. People living in rural 

communities near forests are particularly attracted by the potential for growing and processing NTFPs for added income. 

The products in which they are interested range from herbal medicines, culinary items, crafts, as well as components 

to floral arrangements. The Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Southern Research Station and Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute established one of the first Web sites dedicated to getting timely information to entrepreneurs 

interested in the market potential of NTFPs. The Web site provides a multitude of resources to help stakeholders learn 

more about NTFPs. This case study examines and analyzes various aspects of use to the Web site to better understand 

which product areas are of most interest to NTFP entrepreneurs, how much attention different knowledge formats get, as 

well as trends in accessing various media that indicates changes in topic interests. The presentation discusses challenges 

and opportunities of connecting stakeholders to information and knowledge about NTFPs that will affect their efforts to 

integrate these important products into livelihood and forest management strategies.

INTRODUCTION

Forests provide plant-based resources that are gathered 

from the canopy, the understory, the forest floor, and even 

below ground. Interest in these non-timber forest products 

(NTFPs) has increased to the point where they are being 

promoted as alternatives to timber. Astute landowners, 

willing to make the effort, may improve their forest-based 

incomes by gathering and marketing these products. 

Although, the markets for many NTFPs are well established 

and have formal channels through which the products 

flow, they remain unknown and mysterious to many forest 

landowners. Some segments of the NTFP industry have 

grown rapidly over the last decade, and some have great 

potential for continued growth. To realize the full benefits 

from harvesting NTFPs, forest landowners need high-quality 

and timely information such as marketing opportunities and 

production matters.

Chamberlain and others (1998) defined NTFPs as products 

originating from plants, parts of plants, fungi, and other 

biological material harvested from within and on the edges 

of natural, manipulated or disturbed forests. These may 

include fungi, moss, lichen, herbs, vines, shrubs, or trees. 

Plant parts harvested include the roots, tubers, leaves, bark, 

twigs and branches, fruit, sap and resin, as well as unique 

shaped wood.

Products made from these resources are classified into 

four major categories: culinary, wood-based crafts, floral 

and decorative, and medicinal and dietary supplements 

(Chamberlain and Predny 2005). Culinary forest products 

include sap, mushrooms, fruits, ferns, greens, as well as 

roots and tubers. Wood-based crafts are produced from trees 

or parts of trees, but exclude those made from wood which 

is cut from timber. Forest plants and parts of plants that are 

used in decorative arrangements complement and furnish 

the backdrop for flowers, as well as for the main component 

of dried ornaments. The end uses for many forest harvested 

floral greens include fresh/dried flowers, aromatic oils, 

greenery, basket filler, wreaths, and roping. Plants that have 

been tested for safety and efficacy and meet strict U.S. Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) standards are marketed as 

medicines or drugs. Plants and plant products that do not 

meet the strictest FDA standards are marketed as dietary 

supplements in the United States.

In late 1997 colleagues in the Department of Wood Science 

and Forest Products of Virginia Tech and the Missouri 

Department of Conservation became acutely aware that there 

was a significant shortage of information on NTFPs and 

their markets. Working together, the collaborators developed 

and presented a prototype for a Web site (Hammett Jones 

and Araman 1997). Working through the Top of the Ozarks 

Resource Conservation and Development (RC and D), the 

collaborators secured support from the Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture State and Private Forestry to 

prepare a series of fact sheets, which formed the foundation 

for the Web site. The Web site’s original intent was to 

provide materials in user friendly formats for the general 
88

public and to link buyers and sellers. The Web site was 

launched to serve as a clearinghouse of information 

for NTFP harvester, growers, marketers, processors and 

end-users.

SITUATIOn

To visitors, the Web site http://www.sfp.forprod.vt.edu “is 

your place to learn more about the use and markets for nontimber forest products” (Hammett and others 2001). These 

introductory words greet the visitor to this collaborative 

site and set the stage for what they will find behind the 

cover page. They rest under a banner of images depicting 

various NTFPs. Introduction to the Web site recognizes that 

there “are numerous efforts to increase awareness of these 

products, their management and market potential.” But, the 

justification for this site is in the statement: “. . . there is a 

shortage of information available and there are few means 

effective in disseminating the information necessary for the 

sustainable management and marketing of these resources 

and products.” To that end, visitors enter and explore a 

Web site dedicated to providing pertinent NTFP-related 

information and materials.

Figure 1 presents an overall layout of the Web site, with 

directories, sub-directories and possible paths visitors can 

follow through the site. Examination of the Web site’s 

home page reveals a list of directories down the left side 

of the home page. These directories cover a variety of 

technical matters including: product areas, buyers, sellers, 

publications, fact sheets, tutorials, links, and workshops. 

Also along the left-hand border is a window that scrolls time 

sensitive items and noteworthy information past the visitor.

Clicking on one of the directories takes the visitor into that 

area of interest and subsequent directories. For example, 

entering the “product area” the visitor must choose from 

several product categories to explore. There are “hotbuttons” for medicinal and herbal products, decorative 

products, specialty wood products and edible products. The 

visitor also can choose from several searchable databases 

on specific species (i.e., bloodroot, goldenseal, and galax). 

Exploring deeper into this product area, visitors can enter 

the particular product area where they will find brief 

explanations of the product area (e.g., definition of edible 

products, common products, harvesting and marketing) and 

links to technical information.

Visitors interested in buying or selling products can click on 

the master “hot button” and go to these pages. There they are 

asked to enter pertinent data to make it possible for others to 

find their products. They can enter a brief description (up to 

50 characters), which will be the initial display on the page. 

Web

search

Product

areas

Medicinal

and herbal Decorative

Specialty

wood Edible

Publications Buyers Sellers

Fact

Tutorials Coordinators sheets Links Workshops

Production

Marketing

Natural

resource

Priority

plants

Cultivation

Annotated

bibliographies

Annotated

bibliographies

Products

Marketing

Sustainable

management

Fruits &

berries

Harvesting

Marketing

Production

Opportunity

Common

types

Nuts

Natural

resource

Marketing

Production

Opportunity

Common

types

Mushrooms

Harvesting

Harvesting

Marketing

Production

Opportunity

Common

types

Post View Post View

Medicinal

& herbal

fact sheets

Decorative

fact sheets

Specialty

wood

fact sheets

Edible

fact sheets

Other

fact sheets

General

Medicinal

Edible

Decorative/

floral 

Specialty

wood

Landscaping

Upcoming

Previous

Wild

harvest

Other

Wild

harvest

Other

Nontimber Forest Products Website

Figure 1— Web site structure with directories and sub-directories.
89

They are then encouraged to enter a more detailed (up to 250 

characters) explanation of what they are buying or selling. 

The visitor can either search the database by product, or 

browse the entire list. The visitor who chooses to browse the 

list is taken to a page with “hot buttons” for each product.

Visitors can get technical information directly through the 

publications or fact sheet sections of the Web site. The 

publication section provides documents produced by the site 

coordinators as well as colleagues working with NTFPs. 

Documents are presented as portable document format 

(PDF) files that can be directly downloaded to a visitor’s 

computer. Web site organizers have summarized pertinent 

information on species and products into easy-to-read 

useful documents, which are accessible through the fact 

sheet section. Within this section documents are organized 

by product category. Again, documents are presented as 

PDF files for direct downloading. Visitors are encouraged 

to communicate to the Web site coordinators ideas and 

suggestions for new fact sheets.

To help landowners and entrepreneurs assess NTFP 

production or marketing opportunities, the Web site 

coordinators installed tutorials to provide simple economic, 

production and conservation information about important 

NTFPs and related issues. Tutorials provide sources 

of information to assist in the development of NTFP 

enterprises. Two tutorials are available: “Writing Business 

Plans for Wild Harvest Sector” and “Growing Slippery 

Elm.” Visitors are encouraged to comment on the tutorials 

and to suggest topics for other tutorials.

Visitors to the NTFP Web site have several other portals to 

explore. The Links section of the Web site provides visitors 

access to other useful Web sites. This section is organized 

by different groupings: Associations/Organizations working 

with NTFPs; Universities and Government Agencies; 

markets and vendors; reference materials, and; media and 

legislation. Another portal takes visitors to a listing of 

workshops, conferences, and trainings. 

RESULTS

To provide a sense of the Web site and its role in technology 

transfer, we analyzed its usage with the software package 

“WebLog Expert” (WebLog Expert 2006). This software is a 

powerful log analyzer that provides information on Web site 

usage. This software presents statistics on Web site activity, 

accessed files, paths traveled through the site, information 

about referring pages, search engines, and more. The 

software generates reports on general activity usage: by day, 

by hour of day, by day of week, and by month. It provides 

access statistics (i.e., pages, files, images, directories, entry 

and exit pages), as well. The flexible and dynamic software 

also provides statistics on visitors: hosts, domains, and 

countries, States, and cities of origin. The software was 

selected because of its versatility and flexibility.

Although “number of hits” seems to be the most often 

quoted statistic as an indicator of usage, we find it is a 

deceptive statistic which does not adequately portray usage. 

The number of hits reflects the total number of requests for 

any file, image, or page (WebLog Expert 2006) and will 

fluctuate with the number of images found on a page. “Page 

View” provides a better representation of site usage as it 

is an actual request for a page file. The software used to 

analyze site usage determines the number of “visitors” by 

the Internet Protocol (IP) address. A request from the same 

IP address is received after a “timeout” period of 30 minutes 

is considered to be a new visitor. 

Page views are a measure of the overall traffic to the Web 

site. Trends in page views can be used to show increases 

or decreases in total site usage over time. Web designers 

can use page views as a measure of interest in the Web site 

content. A steady decrease in interest may indicate that Web 

site content needs to be updated. Conversely, a positive trend 

indicates continuing interest in a piece of the Web site. 

The number of visitors to a Web site can be used to 

determine the size of the client base. Low or decreasing 

visitor numbers can indicate that more outreach needs to be 

done to promote the Web site. It may also indicate that the 

Web site needs to be modified to attract a broader audience.

Combining the number of visitors with page views gives a 

measure of the length of stay for a visitor to the Web site. If 

the ratio of page views to number visitors is low, it indicates 

that visitors are leaving the Web site shortly after entering. 

This may alert the web designer to update the content or to 

change the navigational structure of the site.

Table 1 presents general usage statistics for the Web site 

covering the 5-year period from June 2001 through May 

2006. The total page views increased every year, except 

in 2004, and suggest steady growth in usage. On the other 

hand, the marginal annual growth in page views indicates 

fluctuation in usage. From 2001 to 2002, total page views 

increased 139 percent. The percentage change for the next 

year (2002–03) was about 32 percent. The following year, 

usage decreased almost 20 percent. Proportional page views 

increased 87 percent from 2004 through 2005. And so far 

in 2006, the site has experienced 74 percent growth in page 

views.

The average page views per day also indicate steady 

growth, yet an examination of the marginal changes (i.e., 

incremental changes between years as a proportion) in 

page views per day suggest otherwise. From 2001 through 

2002, page views per day increased almost 41 percent. The 

following period (2002–03), proportional page views per 

day declined to about 32 percent. From 2003 through 2004, 

proportional page views declined 20 percent. Proportional 

page views per day rebounded during the period of 2004 
90

through 2005, increasing 87 percent. From 2005 through 

May 2006, the site has experienced proportional growth in 

excess of 320 percent.

The average page views per visitor decline or remained 

steady for the first 3 years. From 2001 through 2002, the 

page views per visitor declined 22 percent. Page views per 

visitor were steady over the next annual period. From 2003 

through 2004, page views per visitor declined 19 percent. 

This trend changed over the next period (2004–05), as the 

site realized a 21-percent increase in page views per visitor. 

The positive trend continued through May 2006, with a 40 

percent increase in page views per visitor.

Except for the period 2003–04, the total number of visitors 

has increased each year. Between 2001 and 2002, the total 

number of visitors to the site increased 207 percent. The 

following period saw an increase of almost 32 percent. Total 

number of visitors declined during the period 2003–04 by 

about 0.06 percent. The site realized a 54 percent increase 

in total number of visitors during 2004–05, and almost 24 

percent growth through May 2006.

Figure 2 presents the average Web site activity by hour of 

the day. While the horizontal axis tracks hourly usage, the 

vertical axis shows the percentage of total visitors during 

the time periods. By presenting the usage as a percentage of 

total visitors we are able to stabilize the figures to alleviate 

partial year differences. The site is least visited during 

the very early hours of the day. Visitation declines from 

midnight to about 0600 when visitation begins a steady 

and significant increase. Visitation climbs until about 1500 

(3 p.m. eastern standard time), when it starts a slow and 

slight decrease until 1900. There is a slight increase in site 

visitation during the evening hours, until around 2200. 

An examination of daily visitation provides insight into 

when people are visiting the site, as well. Approximately, 

45 percent of visitation occurs Monday through Wednesday. 

Visitation starts to decline on Thursday and reaches the low 

point on Saturday. On Sunday, visitation begins increasing, 

yet not significantly more than Saturday. About 12 percent 

of total visitation occurs on Saturday, while Sunday realizes 

just 13 percent of total visitors. These trends were consistent 

throughout all years. 

Figure 3 presents monthly Web site activities over the 

5-year period. The Web site attracted a steady stream of 

visitors over the last 5 years. The number of monthly visitors 

doubled during the first 4 years. An increase in visitation 

occurred during the period of August through November 

2003, which coincided with our involvement in organizing 

the NTFPs side event to the World Forestry Congress. 

Visitation dropped after this event, but continued at a slow 

and steady growth. A drastic spike in monthly visitation 

occurred in September of 2005. From August to September 

2005, the number of visitors per month increased 40 percent. 

Over the next month, visitation increased another 50 percent. 

From October 2005 through May 2006, monthly visitation 

to the site increased 123 percent.

The software used to analyze the site had the capability 

to track visitation to each page within the Web site. This 

information allowed for identification of those pages that 

visitors preferred. Next to the default page (i.e., the site 

home page), the most popular page, overall, was the page 

that introduced product areas. The pages that introduced 

visitors to publications and fact sheets ranked third and 

fourth, respectively. Within the product area, the page 

dealing with specialty wood products was the fifth most 

popular page, while the page presenting information on 

ramps (Allium tricoccum) was the sixth most popular page. 

The page introducing visitors to medicinal forest products 

ranked as the seventh most popular page. The edible forest 

products page ranked seventh in 2001, but dropped in 

visitation each year. In 2006, this page did not rank in the 

top 10 pages. The pages dedicated for buyers and sellers of 

NTFPs ranked in the top 10 every year. In fact, the buyers’ 

page ranked third and fourth as most visited pages in 4 of 

the 5 years. 

Another way of assessing the Web site is to examine the 

most downloaded files. This differs from the most popular 

pages, as these are files that people actually transfer from 

the Web site to their computers. Whereas the “most popular 

pages” are those that people visit, the “most downloaded 

Description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total hits 198,824 580,022 713,249 720,960 823,756 498,236

Average hits per day 929 1,589 1,954 1,969 2,256 3,299

Average hits per visitor 9.99 9.48 8.86 8.96 6.63 3.24

Total page views 31,568 75,599 99,877 80,207 150,274 261,968

Average page views per day 147 207 273 219 411 1,734

Average page views per visitor 1.59 1.24 1.24 1 1.21 1.7

Total visitors 19,906 61,187 80,478 80,433 124,283 153,827

Average visitors per day 93 167 220 219 340 1,018

Table 1—General use statistics for NTFP Web site (June 2001—May 2006)
91

files” indicate what people take away from the site. 

Interestingly, the fact sheet on walnut (Juglans nigra) was 

the most popular downloaded file, overall. Ranked 12th in 

most downloaded files in 2001, the walnut fact sheet jumped 

to number 1 and remained the most downloaded file for 

the rest of the 5-year period. The fact sheet on sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua) ranked eighth in 2001, and 

climbed to third the following year. It ranked second or 

third every year since, and overall it was the second most 

downloaded file from the Web site. The fact sheet dealing 

with goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis), a popular medicinal 

plant, ranked 25th in 2001, but for the 5 years it ranked 3rd

overall. The fact sheet presenting information on vines and 

their use in making crafts was the fourth most downloaded 

file, overall. It ranked sixth in 2001 and second most popular 

in 2002. In subsequent years, the vines fact sheet ranked 

fifth for most downloaded file. Other favorite downloaded 

files include fact sheets on persimmon (5th overall), 

Echinacea (6th overall), catnip (7th), pecan (8th), and beeswax 

(10th). Interestingly, a publication from a Canadian colleague 

on NTFPs was the ninth most downloaded file, overall.

The most requested directories indicate which areas of 

the Web site visitors are most interested. It provides an 

indication of those areas that people consider important. 

Awareness of this can help to provide focus on which aspect 

of the site should be enhanced. Obviously, the root directory 

(i.e., Web site home page) is the most requested directory as 

00:00–00:59

01:00–01:59

02:00–02:59

03:00–03:59

04:00–04:59

05:00–05:59

06:00–06:59

07:00–07:59

08:00–08:59

09:00–09:59

10:00–10:59

11:00–11:59

12:00–12:59

13:00–13:59

14:00–14:59

15:00–15:59

16:00–16:59

17:00–17:59

18:00–18:59

19:00–19:59

20:00–20:59

21:00–21:59

22:00–22:59

23:00–23:59

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Percent of visitors

Time of day (EST)

June

'01

Nov.

'01

Apr.

'02

Sep.

'02

Feb.

'03

July

'03

Dec.

'03

May

'04

Oct.

'04

Mar.

'05

Aug.

'05

Jan.

'06

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Month and year

Number of visitors (thousand)

Figure 2— Average Web site activity by hour of day (June 2001—May 2006).

Figure 3— Web site activity by month (June 2001—May 2006).
92

this contains the main page by which people enter the site. It 

is similar to the cover of a book, which most people examine 

first. But, beyond that, the most requested directory allows 

us to better understand what areas visitors feel are important. 

Fact sheets ranked second, overall, to the home page as the 

most requested directory. The directory for “product area” 

was the third most requested directory every year except 

2006. At the same time, the directory for publications ranked 

fourth, overall for the most requested directories. Other 

much requested directories include: Links (5th overall), 

Workshops (6th), Buyers (7th), Tutorials (8th), Regions (8th), 

and Sellers (10th).

The pages from which visitors entered and exited the Web 

site provide insight into the amount of exploring that people 

do of the site. For example, the product area dealing with 

ramps was the most frequently entered and exited page, next 

to the Web site’s home page. The product area dealing with 

wood was the fourth most frequently entered page, and the 

fifth most frequently exited page. The publications page was 

the sixth most frequently entered page, but the fourth most 

exited page, suggesting that visitors explored the site further. 

Interestingly, the fact sheets page was the 17th most entered 

page and the 6th most frequently exited page, which suggests 

people entered the site from another page, found the fact 

sheets, explored them and then exited the Web site.

Visitors from all regions of the world have accessed the 

Web site during the last 5 years (fig. 4). As expected most 

visitors have come from North America (N.A.), accounting 

for 59 percent of the total visitation. For the first 3-1/2 

years (2001–04), N.A. accounted for 82 percent of the total 

visitors. This proportion dropped in 2005 to 63 percent, with 

a major increase in visitation from Asia. So far, in 2006, 

N.A. accounts for only 20 percent of the total visitation. 

Africa and the Middle East account for approximately 

1 percent of the total visitation. Over the 5-year period, 

Asia accounts for about 31 percent of the visitation, even 

though visitation from this region in 2006 is 74 percent of 

the total. For the years 2001 through 2004, visitation from 

Asia accounted for 6 percent of the total visitors. In 2005, 

visitation from this region increased to 28 percent, and 

topped 74 percent in 2006.

In all, people from 194 countries have visited the Web site. 

People from 60 African and Middle Eastern countries visited 

the Web site over the 5 years. Inquiries from Israel ranked 

number 1 from this region, yet visitation also came from 

South Africa, Turkey, as well as Iran. Visitors to the Web 

site came from 29 Asian countries, including China (number 

1), India (number 2), Japan (number 3) and the Philippines 

(number 4). People from 47 European countries visited 

the Web site. Within this region, the Web site had the most 

visitors from the United Kingdom, followed by Germany, 

France, and the Netherlands. Visitors from 39 Latin 

American countries explored the Web site over the 5 years. 

Brazil ranked number one, followed by Argentina, Chile, 

and Bolivia. Unquestionably, the Web site had more visitors 

from the United States than any other North American 

country, but Canada was well represented. Australia and 

New Zealand were the two leading countries from the 

Oceania region, although the Web site had visitors from 15 

Oceanic countries. 

DISCUSSION

The number of pages viewed by visitors appears to have 

grown at a steady rate, over the past 5 years, although 

looking at the marginal change from year to year, indicates 

significant annual fluctuations. The tremendous growth 

from 2001 through 2002 was followed by less growth the 

next year. There was an actual decrease in pages viewed 

from 2003 through 2004. Since then annual page views has 

increased significantly. Overall, the average number of page 

views per annum has increased through the 5 years.

Average Web site activity by hour of the day shows how 

visitation changes throughout the day. The trend indicates 

an increase in usage during business hours in the United 

States. After a brief decline, visitation increases during 

the evening, suggesting that people are “surfing” the 

web after work hours. As the Web site has a great deal of 

international visitation the increased evening activities could 

be visitors from other regions. For example, some of the 

evening activities may be explained by visitors from China, 

Philippines, and Japan who have approximately a 12-hour 

time difference from the server location.

The days of the week, as well as the hours of the day 

when visitations occur can indicate the best timing for the 

introduction of new materials. For example, introducing new 

information on Monday morning would attract more visitors 

than Friday afternoon. As more site traffic is taking place on 

Mondays through Wednesday, during office hours, launching 

new materials during these hours would receive greater 

immediate attention.

Monthly visitation rates increase steadily over the first 4 

years. During the period of August through December 2003 

monthly visitation increased and then dropped back to a 

steady growth state, which was caused by our involvement 

in the World Forestry Congress. During that period, we 

hosted an Internet-based discussion on critical issues 

that affect management of non-timber forest resources in 

preparation for the side event to the Congress, which we 

co-hosted. In August 2005 another spike occurred in the 

monthly visitation, which has been sustained over the last 

year. Although it is not possible to determine the exact 

reasons for this tremendous growth in monthly visitation, 

the increase could be due to more effort to publicize the 

site, and/or the recent introduction to the Web site of 
93

three searchable annotated bibliographic databases. Site 

coordinators routinely distribute promotional materials 

describing the Web site and its contents.

Examining which pages visitors go to can tell a great deal 

about what users want. By far, visitors to the Web site are 

looking for technical information about products. Their first 

choice is the fact sheets, followed by research publications. 

Visitors to the Web site have been most interested in nontimber wood products, as evidenced by requests for walnut 

and sweet gum. Product areas dealing with ramps and 

medicinal forest products also have received a great deal of 

attention. In general, interest in ramps and medicinal plants 

has increased over the last 5 years, which is reflected in the 

visitation to respective Web pages. People also have been 

interested in procuring or selling products. A continued 

effort to provide this type of information and materials 

would enhance the Web site.

The pages by which people enter and exit the Web site 

indicate if visitors travel through and explore the Web site. 

A visitor that enters and exits by the same page is less 

exposed to information and materials than a visitor who 

explores different pages. The fact that someone explores 

the Web site suggests that there is more information of 

interest. Conversely, if the entry and exit pages are the same, 

suggests that the visitor either found what they were looking 

for, or did not and exited without looking further. Web 

designers would want visitors to explore the Web site to 

find new and different information. Browsing may indicate 

that the site has piqued the interest of visitors beyond their 

original intent. Clearly, people interested in ramps found this 

Web site of particular use, as they entered and exited by the 

same portal. Conversely, many users browed the Web site 

until they came upon the fact sheets.

People from all regions and more than 190 countries have 

visited the Web site. The proportion of international visitors 

continues to increase, suggesting that interest in NTFPs 

continues to grow around the world. Interest from Asia, 

appears to be growing the fastest. Continued efforts to 

provide information and materials relevant to international 

visitors are paramount to keeping the Web site attractive to 

this clientele. Active participation in international NTFP 

efforts by the coordinators is crucial to achieve this. There 

are many useful lessons for domestic stakeholders in the 

international materials presented.

Web site visitors have provided a steady stream of requests 

for information and suggestions, which indicate that they are 

interested in other matters not included on the site. Visitors, 

who can not find what they are looking for on the Web site, 

often send requests to site coordinators. Often questions 

posed relate to products or species not included on the site, 

or for cultivation or management information unavailable 

elsewhere. The Web site also generates a significant amount 

of telephone inquiries directly to the site coordinators. 

Spam, the abuse of electronic mailing systems that 

sends unsolicited, bulk messages affects the Web site, as 

well (Wikipedia 2006). It has created serious problems, 

particularly in Web sites that have discussion forum or 

message posting. Spamming an Internet forum occurs 

61,342

940

1,767

5,439

32,563

1,645

Figure 4— Web site usage by region of the World (June 2001—May 2006).
94

when a user posts a message that is off topic or has little 

relevance to the subject being discussed. The usual intent 

is to provide a direct link to the spammer’s Web site. Many 

spam messages are posted using spam robots (or spam 

bots) that automatically search for vulnerable sites and 

submit information. On the NTFPs Web site, spamming has 

been problematic in the buyers and sellers forums. In the 

postings by buyers and sellers, some are nothing more than 

scrambled letters with embedded links to spammers’ Web 

sites. Periodic inspection and maintenance of the forums is 

necessary to control unwanted posts. 

conclusions

Visitors to the NTFP Web site are looking for technical 

information that will help them realize opportunities to 

use NTFPs. Visitation increased over the 5 years, although 

this growth was not smooth, nor steady. The proportion of 

international visitors is increasing at a tremendous rate, 

demonstrating a need to keep adding information for a wider 

audience. Changes in visitation rates throughout the day and 

week indicate that the best time to introduce information and 

materials would be early in the work day and early in the 

week. There is clear evidence that major events in which the 

coordinators are involved effect visitation to the Web site. 

Clearly, more efforts are needed to keep adding new, fresh, 

and useful information and materials to the Web site. 

This type of analysis is crucial to making a Web site relevant 

and interesting to users. It provides critical insight into 

when new materials should be introduced. New information 

introduced early in the week received more exposure than 

that which was put on the Web site later. The analysis 

confirmed that a major focus of the Web site should be 

on fact sheets and market information. Downloaded files 

indicate to the Webmaster which information users find 

most interesting and suggests that more emphasis should be 

placed on trees that produce wood and non-wood products. 

The analysis also exposed that there are many international 

visitors to this Web site and care should be taken to make the 

Web site interesting and relevant to that audience.

When the Web site was launched the set of stakeholders was 

fairly limited. With time, the community of stakeholders 

has grown as knowledge and awareness of different 

constituencies has increased. Getting the word out to new 

and different stakeholders takes constant attention by the 

coordinators and results in an increase in the number of 

visitors. At the same time, regular and diligent monitoring of 

all aspects of the Web site is essential to deal with the ever 

increasing problem of spam.

The data provides quantitative analysis of the Web site, 

although more user feedback would offer greater insight into 

what visitors want. The Web site could be further improved 

by including an online user survey that would allow for realtime assessment of the Web site. This would provide timely 

and useful suggestions on what users would like to have on 

the Web site.

ackno wledgments

We wish to acknowledge the vision and assistance of Shelby 

Jones, Forest Resource Advisory Services, for help in 

organizing the Web site. Lisa Ruller of the Top of the Ozarks 

Resource Conservation and Development helped guide 

and support establishment of the site. The Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture State and Private Forestry 

provided much needed resources for start-up of the site. 

Special acknowledgment goes to the suggestions and input 

provided by the many visitors to the Web site, for whom the 

site was established and maintained.

REFERENCES 

Chamberlain, J.; Bush, R.; Hammett, A.L. 1998. Non-timber forest 

products: the other forest products. Forest Products Journal. 48(10): 2-12.

Chamberlain, J.; Predny, M. 2005. Non-timber forest products. 

Encyclopedia of Southern Appalachian Forest Ecosystems. Rauscher, 

M., ed. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. http://www.forestencyclopedia.net. [Date accessed: 

July 11, 2006].

Hammett, A.L.; Jones, S.  1998.  The World Wide Web: An emerging 

technology for marketing special forest products. Presented at the North 

American conference on enterprise development through agroforestry:  

farming the agroforest for specialty products. University of Minnesota, 

Center for Integrated Natural Resources and Agricultural Management. 

St. Paul, MN and The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, School of Natural 

Resource Sciences, Lincoln, NE. 

Hammett, A.L., Winn, M.; Chamberlain, J. 2001. Non-timber forest 

products. http://www.sfp.forprod.vt.edu. [Date accessed: July 11, 2006].

WebLog Expert. 2006. WebLog expert – powerful log analyzer. 

http://www.weblogexpert.com/. [Date accessed: July 13, 2006].

Wikipedia. 2006. Spam (electronic). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. July 

17, 2006, 00:33 UTC. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Spam_%28electronic%29&oldid=64202162. [Date accessed: July 

17, 2006].
1

Assistant Professor, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 71272.

95

A LOOK AT GIS DISTANCE LEARNING

David W. Long1

Abstract—GIS (Geographic Information System) is a relatively new technology that has quickly become important in 

today’s computer-based environment. There has been a rapid adoption of it in many fields of work, resulting in a great 

need for trained GIS technicians. Colleges and universities are not currently training enough new technicians to meet 

the demand. With the shortage of trained workforce, many working professionals feel the need to get trained in GIS to 

augment their work skills. Distance learning has become a popular way to do this. Many government agencies and private 

companies offer tuition reimbursement for employees that wish to train in GIS. This has encouraged many employees 

to search for continuing education possibilities. However, existing programs vary significantly in content and method of 

teaching. How does someone who knows nothing about GIS evaluate these methods, let alone find out about the myriad 

of possibilities? This paper is an attempt to address this issue by presenting an overview of GIS distance education 

possibilities with reference to issues in learning that affect the quality of education for working professionals seeking 

training in GIS. Characteristics of the GIS distance learning student, student needs in education style and format, and 

rational for a GIS distance learning pedagogy (the art and science of teaching) that is student-centered are discussed. A 

case study is presented featuring the student centered pedagogy of the Louisiana Tech University GIS Distance Learning 

Program. The Louisiana Tech program is compared to other university GIS distance learning programs with the hope that 

perspective students can determine which form of training is best for them and where to look to find appropriate training 

programs in GIS.

INTRODUCTION

In the 80s and 90s, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

were used by highly specialized technicians working in a 

limited number of fields of application. Today, however, 

with increased functionality of the software, a greatly 

simplified user interface, and an increasing awareness of 

the value of GIS, professionals from almost all fields are 

beginning to use GIS on a regular basis. A GIS consists 

of tools and services necessary to allow one to collect, 

organize, manipulate, interpret, and display geographic 

information (Bettinger and Wing 2004). Some people think 

of it as mapping software, others as software for geographic 

analysis, and some people regard it as a geographic database 

system. Actually, it is all of these and can be used in many 

ways. GIS can be used as a cartographic tool to produce 

maps such as subdivision maps, school district maps, sales 

area maps, or utility distribution maps. It can also be used as 

a database and analysis tool for managing timber reserves, 

designing highways, analyzing server networks, determining 

optimal placement of services such as restaurants and 

medical centers, visualizing the distribution of population 

over an area, analyzing surface runoff patterns, and studying 

the landscape in 3D view. In fact, any data that has a 

geographic component can be placed in a GIS for analysis. 

The National Academy of Science estimates that 80percent 

of the world’s data on the internet has a spatial component 

and can be used in a GIS (Committee on Beyond Mapping 

2006).

With the volume of geographic data and extremely broad 

range of uses of GIS, interest in learning to use the tool is 

increasing. In fact, the demand for GIS technicians is so 

high that universities can not graduate enough students to 

fulfill the need (Committee on Beyond Mapping 2006). 

But there are many ways to learn GIS without attending a 

college class: Attending seminars and workshops, obtaining 

onsite training by a consultant, signing up for continuing 

education programs, and even working on GIS tutorials on 

the web. 

Office personnel have often learned GIS “on the fly” as they 

worked at their desks since attending class was unrealistic. 

But with the advent of the internet with its ease of 

information transfer, distance learning has become a viable 

solution to education needs for the working professional. 

It has become a popular way for professionals to learn GIS 

or increase their skills in the tool (Smith 2004). However, 

there are so many programs of study for GIS that a person 

can easily get frustrated over the variety of course formats, 

costs, time scheduling, requirements, and pre-requisites 

involved. Finding the best course of study can be very 

difficult. Internet searches can be time-consuming with high 

probability of missing good sites.

The intent of this paper is to: 

1. List the various ways of training people in GIS 

technology outside the traditional classroom

2. Present a case study of a GIS distance learning program 

that has been successfully implemented at 

Louisiana Tech University 
96

3. Compare several existing GIS distance learning programs

in an effort to aid potential students in selecting an 

institution and appropriate educational format for learning

THE SITUATION

The introduction of internet technology has dramatically 

changed distance learning from a correspondence course 

format to computer-based online instruction. Online 

education programs have become common for adult 

continuing education. These programs differ greatly in class 

format and method of teaching.

Class format is the heart of any online program. The format 

of classes ranges from synchronous, two-way video classes 

to asynchronous, self-paced online classes where you can 

work at your own pace. The vast majority of the GIS internet 

courses, though, are asynchronous (Wright and DiBiase 

2005). Courses vary in the amount of involvement required 

by the student. Some classes require students to log in on 

certain days and times. Others require conference calls or 

net discussions, implying that students must plan their time 

so they can participate in the activities. Never the less, online 

classes have potential for tremendous freedom and flexibility 

for the student to arrange coursework around busy home and 

business schedules. This requires a pedagogy (the art and 

science of teaching) that is less rigid than the one used for a 

classroom.

An active pedagogy, one that is suited for GIS distance 

learning, is student-centered, involving students actively in 

their learning (Wright and others 2004). It teaches skills for 

problem-solving rather than simply providing information to 

be remembered for a test. Data sets used for study should be 

relevant to the student’s world. A distance learning student 

will be much more motivated and retain more if exercises or 

projects involve data sets that relate directly to their jobs or 

personal interests. This implies that the instructor needs to 

know the students and prepare lessons appropriate to their 

experiences. This is of course an extremely challenging task. 

However, there are some generalizations that can be made 

about distance learning students.

In general, continuing education students are older and 

have jobs and families. They must coordinate different 

areas of their lives that influence each other such as jobs, 

families, spare time, and studies (Gottschalk 2006). Their 

motivation is different than in-class students. They may 

want to work for a job promotion, or add new technology to 

their business. They have well defined goals and are highly 

motivated (DiBiase 2000). They do not, or should not need 

the motivation factors of competing students or a teacher 

present in the room. Teaching techniques for adults are 

very different than for younger students. The older distance 

learning student probably has been away from formal school 

for many years. It can be intimidating going back to school. 

Besides the anxiety that this may cause, adults have more at 

stake, particularly at their jobs if they are taking the course 

for work-centered technical training. The results of their 

study may influence their position in the institution. Their 

success or failure in the class can effect their relations with 

coworkers, adding more motivation to excel. Thus they will 

more likely take errors personally and allow them to affect 

their self-esteem (Potter and Heineke 2006).

CASE STUDY

The Louisiana Tech University GIS certificate program 

has moved toward an adult education model in its teaching 

philosophy following the work of Malcolm Knowles. 

Malcolm Knowles, a recognized professor of adult 

education, pioneered the theory of andragogy (the art and 

science of helping adults learn) (Potter and Heineke 2006). 

His model centered on four assumptions. Adult learners 

have:

1. A trend toward self-motivation

We have found that distance learning students have a 

higher desire to learn due to the immediacy of their GIS 

instruction needs. They put more time on map products and 

prepare much larger term papers and projects than in-house 

university students. They have problems in their work life 

to solve that can be addressed by GIS. They also have 

experience on the topic and often have access to necessary 

data sets. The results of the class translate directly to their 

working environment.

2. A growing reservoir of experience

Most likely, the working professional knows more about 

his or her job than the GIS professor. After the initial GIS 

training, exercises should allow students to build on their 

existing knowledge rather than simply providing them with 

“the facts”. This is extremely difficult when students from 

many different disciplines come online. We emphasize 

individual projects in the classes where each student 

proposes and works on a project of personal interest. Most 

students propose projects related to their work. Thus, they 

receive the added benefit of a useful product for their job 

when the project is completed.

3. A developmental readiness to learn

Many of our students are looking for job promotion or a 

transfer into a GIS position. They want to see results of 

their study that can be directly related to their situation. 

That is why there are no assigned topics for projects in the 

curriculum. All projects are proposed by the student. The 
97

professor’s main job is to make sure the projects are doable 

with the student’s current knowledge of GIS and its tools.

4. A problem-centered and performance-motivated desire 

to learn

Since the students are motivated to learn for the utilization 

of GIS in their jobs, there is low probability of cheating or 

plagiarism. Emphasis is taken away from tests and placed on 

exercises and project work.

The Louisiana Tech GIS Distance Learning Program is just 

one of many offered in the United States. The thing that sets 

it off from the other programs is its high flexibility in course 

schedule. All of our courses are self-paced. This means a 

student can work as fast or slow as their situation allows. 

Feedback from the instructor is fast (usually within 1 or 2 

days), so the student can accelerate the courses if there is a 

need for rapid completion of the program. If a student has to 

go over-seas for several months on a business trip, then the 

student simply starts up again with the next assignment after 

returning from the trip. 

The self-paced program at Louisiana Tech University 

resembles an electronic form of a correspondence school. 

The difference is in speed of transfer of the assignments 

over the internet instead of through slow mail and in that the 

whole course is posted online with all lessons available for 

the student from the date of registration.

This last point is useful for the student not only for getting a 

“feel” for what is ahead in the course, but it allows a student 

to work ahead on the next assignment if there is a problem 

to work out on the current one. For example, if an internet 

site that has needed data sets for an assignment is down, 

the student can work ahead on the next assignment while 

waiting for that internet site to come back up. Also, at times 

the professor must be out of town (especially during the 

summer for research and on holiday breaks). Students can 

keep working through these periods turning in two or three 

assignments before receiving a reply from the professor.

Of course, this means that the professor can not make 

comments between these lessons. This can create a problem, 

if the student is making a mistake that is continued into 

each following lesson. However, this flexibility is important 

to the student who needs to complete the courses as fast as 

possible. Most students are not in this much of a hurry and 

wait for the instructor’s comments before going ahead on the 

next lesson.

This freedom in class format has its drawbacks, though. 

Many students are not self-disciplined enough to keep up 

with the course work. Without due dates, they let work 

schedules slide by leading to inactivity in the course and 

eventually dropping out. For many distance learning 

programs the attrition rate is 25 to 35 percent. The Louisiana 

Tech University GIS distance learning GIS program 

with its open class schedule experienced closer to 40 

percent attrition rate. However, comments from the course 

evaluations showed that many students preferred this class 

format. One distance learning student allowed his name to 

be given to a perspective student who wanted to interview 

a current student about the program. The following is an 

excerpt from the interview. 

1. Have you finished the course?

I have three more lessons to go to finish.

2. If so, how long did it take?

I can give you some very exact data on this.

Intro to GIS took 75.25 hours of time to complete; I started 

the course on 16 March and completed on 27 May 2004. 

Data Integration took 73.25 hours of time to complete; I 

started the course on 7 June and completed on 11 Aug 2004.

ESRI Course on Spatial Analysis of Geohazards took 27.75 

hours to complete; I started on 12 Aug and completed on 3 

Sep 2004. 

Advanced GIS has taken me 84.25 hours so far; I started on 

30 Sep 2004 and am still working on it (I’ve been swamped 

at work for the past two years!)

3. Did you have previous GIS experience?

I had no previous GIS experience.

4. Have you used your education in your current career?

Yes. My company integrates ESRI ArcObjects into our 

software; it really helped me by taking these courses!

5. Have you listed this certification in a resume?

I list my course work on my CV online. When completed, I 

will list on my printed resume also.

6. Any comments or response from interviewers?

Yes. When I interviewed at ESRI for a position, the 

gentleman asked me a lot about the coursework and how 

I felt about it. I told him it was extremely valuable and I’d 

recommend the course to anyone.

7. Did you find working an on-line course difficult?

Yes. I think you have to be motivated and dedicated and 

self-starting to get the work done. I liked the way it was 

originally scheduled to start courses during the LaTech 

regular school year. We had 10 weeks to complete the 

course. This gave me a hard deadline, which I find easier to 

work toward. When they went to a had-to-be-completed in 

9 months, I lost the drive. But, to be honest, my workload 

really took a toll on my time in 2005. 
98

The response to the above questions is consistent with 

course evaluation comments received over the years. Most 

people who comment on the course schedule mention 

that they like the self-paced format because it allows for 

flexibility needed due to their work schedules.

In any online course there are positive and negative 

elements. A prospective student must weigh these according 

to his or her situation and learning styles. The following 

program descriptions show the variability of training formats 

available. 

Penn State World Campus GIS

Penn State’s World Campus GIS (www.worldcampus.psu.

edu/GISCertificate.shtml) is one of the nation’s oldest online 

GIS programs. The GIS certificate program courses are 

the same as the first year courses in the Penn State Online 

Masters Program in GIS, so a certificate student can apply 

for the masters program and skip the first year of study. 

Course format is semi-asynchronous: instructor led with 

weekly assignments and tests but students can work any 

time they wish during the week. E-mail, group discussions, 

and one on one discussion with the instructor are part of the 

course. Entrance requirements are a baccalaureate degree. 

Classes start four times a year and last 10 weeks. They cost 

about $1700 per course. Each course is about 100 hours of 

student activity, or roughly the same as a regular college 

course.

A typical class is 50-60 students from all over the US 

and North America. Due to the English only classes, few 

international students apply. Students are encouraged to get 

to know each other and interact in discussion groups. They 

create e-portfolios and publish them on the web to describe 

themselves. Students are encouraged to work together and 

help each other as a team. Due to time zone differences no 

“real time” communications are required. Students take 

four courses over a period of a year. Three are required, the 

fourth can be chosen from three optional courses.

University of California, Riverside

In contrast, the University of California, Riverside, 

Extension GIS program (http://www.extension.ucr.edu/

certificates/gis/index.html) has a few online GIS classes, 

but for most classes, people must come to the campus for 

the hands-on courses. There are three focus tracks available: 

GIS Management, GIS Data Collection/Data Generation, 

and GIS Data Analysis and Presentation. The only 

prerequisite course is Introduction to ArcGIS. In order to 

graduate with the certificate, a student must take 24 credits 

of courses. Classes cost about $400 per course. A student 

will pay between $2000 and $3600 in registration fees 

depending on the courses taken and the track selected.

A GIS Summer School is offered which is an intensive two 

month study of GIS. It is the full 24 units required for the 

GIS certificate. All classes are on campus for this summer 

school option.

University of North Dakota (UND)

The UND Online Graduate Certificate in Geographic 

Information Science (http://www.conted.und.edu/ddp/

gis/index.html) fits somewhere in between the above two 

programs. It is designed for the working professional. All 

work can be done at home or the office and the program can 

be completed in 1 year. It consists of four courses taken one 

per semester totaling 12 hours of university credit (about 

$5,700 in tuition and fees for out of state students). Webbased tools are used to access course materials, submit 

assignments, take tests, communicate with the instructor, 

and participate in class discussions. A Bachelor’s degree 

with a GPA of at least 2.75 is required for admission.

University of Melbourne

The University of Melbourne has developed a self-study GIS 

tutorial and placed in on the web to enhance the teaching 

of GIS at the university. This is not designed to substitute 

for a GIS course, rather to aid a student’s understanding of 

the topics learned in class. The modules do not allow hands 

on use of a GIS software package, but through text and 

interactive modules, present GIS concepts for beginning 

through advanced topics. This is a great way for a person 

to get a feeling about what GIS is before taking any formal 

courses. People who are managers, or who talk with GIS 

technicians, but do not actually do the GIS work themselves 

can greatly benefit from working on GIS modules such as 

these from the University of Melbourne. 

DISCUSSION

The GIS programs described above are different in format, 

content, cost, and teaching methodology. Each is preferred 

by different students depending on their working situation 

and educational needs. In most cases, travel time and cost 

is not an issue because the courses are delivered over the 

internet. Thus, a student has every school on the internet to 

choose from. How then, does someone find the best program 

for their situation? This daunting task can be simplified 

by reducing the list of GIS programs to those that match 

the student’s specific needs. The following are some of the 

criteria to look for:

Class Format 

Check if the classes are synchronous or asynchronous. If 

you have an irregular work schedules or have to be out to 

town for extended periods. Then you will want to make 
99

sure the classes are asynchronous, that you will have some 

flexibility on when you have to turn in assignments. Also, 

check the class length and the amount of your involvement 

that will be required (are conference calls required, group 

discussions, live video, etc.). 

Admissions Requirements 

Some programs require a bachelors degree, others require 

some previous GIS knowledge. Most are English only, so a 

TOEFL (Test Of English as a Foreign Language) score may 

be required.

Technical Requirements

You will need your own PC with internet connections, a 

certain amount of RAM, and perhaps, peripheral devices. 

Software is a major concern. GIS software is expensive 

and most universities will not allow students to use their 

software off campus. Some universities provide highly 

stripped down GIS software for beginning classes, others 

require you to buy your own software. It is often possible 

to purchase a student license for GIS software at a reduced 

cost. The trend now seems to be for universities to provide 

a student license as a part of the GIS courses. If you use 

GIS at work, then it is logical to make sure the university 

program that you choose uses the same software as 

your office.

Tuition/Financial Aid

Tuition is highly variable (less than $100 to $2,000 or more 

per course). Much depends on whither you will be receiving 

university credit for the courses or not. Financial aid may be 

available, but for non-degree programs it is very unlikely.

Transfer Credits

It is always a plus if the credits earned can be transferred 

to other programs. Continuing education credits do not 

transfer to university credits. Even if the course you take 

has university credits, they may or may not be accepted for 

a degree program. The Penn State program is an excellent 

example of credits being able to be transferred to another 

program.

Reputation/Quality of Instruction

Big name schools should have excellent quality of 

instruction, but will cost more. Try to find out if regular 

tenured professors are teaching the courses or if nonprofessor instructors are used. See how long the program has 

been running. Ask for information on the attrition rate. For 

many programs it is between 25 and 35 percent. A higher 

rate may indicate a problem with the program.

The following tabulation of institutions offering online GIS 

courses is just a sampling of the institutions available. New 

programs are created every year and existing programs 

change, so the student must contact each institution of 

interest in order to receive up to date information. Table 1 is 

intended simply to give a perspective student a starting point 

in the search.
100

Table 1—Partial list of institutions offering online GIS courses

Institution URL Credit 

Approximate cost 

per course

Penn State http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/

GISCertificate.shtml

College Credit $1,700

University of California 

Riverside

http://www.extension.ucr.edu/

certificates/gis/index.html

College Credit $1,700 

Louisiana Tech University http://www.latech.edu/ans/gisccertification/No College Credit $500

University of North Dakota http://www.conted.und.edu/ddp/gis/index.

html

College Credit $1,000-$2,000 

Saint Mary’s University

 of Minnesota

http://www.smumn.edu/sitepages/pid2572.

php

No College Credit $1,800

North West Missouri State 

University

http://cite.nwmissouri.edu/nwonline/viewbook/programs.aspxCollege Credit $1,200 

University of Montana http://www.cfc.umt.edu/academics/

giscertificate/default.htm

College Credit $1,200

University of Southern 

California

http://college.usc.edu/gist/home/ College Credit $1,200

Antelope Valley 

College

http://avconline.avc.edu/faculty/swelsh/ College Credit $600

University of West Florida http://uwf.edu/gis/GISonline/ College Credit $700

Elmhurst College http://public.elmhurst.edu/adult/2730436.

html

College Credit or No Contact the 

school for costs

University of Northern 

Alabama

http://www.una.edu/conted/gis.htm College Credit $532 

Mountain Empire 

Community College

http://www.me.vccs.edu/programs/gis/

index.html

College Credit $1,000 

University of Colorado 

Denver

http://www.cuonline.edu/acad_htm/

program_gis.shtml

College Credit $1,500 

Eastern Michigan 

University

http://www.ce.emich.edu/gis/ College Credit $1,900 
101

The following net sites may be of value in your evaluation 

and decision making process.

Lists of schools:

•	GeoCommunity: http://spatialnews.geocomm.com/	 	

education/distance_edu/

•	World Wide Learn: http://www.worldwidelearn.com/	

science-degree/geographic-information-systems.htm 

•	Urban and Regional Information Systems 	 	 	

Association(URISA): http://www.urisa.org/prev/Career_

center/college_certif_programs.htm

•	ESRI database query shows 83 GIS distance learning

programs, 57 of which give GIS Certificates: http://gis2.

esri.com/university/onlinedb.cfm

•	ESRI Training: http://training.esri.com/gateway/index.cfm

GIS Tutorial Lists:

•	http://www.skidmore.edu/help/gis/tutorials.htm

•	http://gislounge.com/tutorials-in-gis/

•	http://www.acadweb.wwu.edu/gis/links/gis.htm

CONCLUSION

There is a great need for GIS education especially with 

the distance education environment. Many universities and 

colleges have developed GIS distance education programs 

in an effort to address this need. However, due to the large 

variety of programs with varying costs and class formats, 

it can be frustrating finding the best GIS training for an 

individual’s needs. The net sites provided in this paper are 

good places to start the hunt. 

A prospective distance learning GIS student should consider 

his or her learning style before signing up for a program. 

Distance learning takes a certain amount of self discipline to 

keep up with the course work. The case study of Louisiana 

Tech University GIS distance learning program showed 

that often the more freedom you have in class structure, the 

harder it is to keep up with the work. But for those who can 

maintain the discipline of the distance learning environment, 

GIS education opportunities are plentiful.

references

Bettinger, P.; Wing, M.G. 2004. Geographic Information Systems, 

applications in forestry and natural resources management. McGraw 

Hill, Boston. 

Committee on Beyond Mapping, 2006. Beyond mapping. The National 

Academies Press, Washington, DC.

DiBiase, D. 2000. Is distance education a faustian bargain? Journal of 

Geography in Higher Education. 24:1, p130-135.

Gottschalk, T. Distance education at a glance. Guide 8: Strategies for 

Learning at a Distance. University of Idaho Engineering Outreach. 

Available at: http://www.uidaho.edu/eo/dist8.html [Date accessed: 

July 10, 2006].

Korte, G.B. 2001. The GIS book. 5th ed. Onward Press. 387 p.

Potter, T.; Heinekee, N. 2006. Professional training, adult learning theory 

meets GIS. GeoWorld, July 2006. P34-36.

Smith, S. 2004. University distance learning GIS programs. GIS 

Weekly. http://www10.giscafe.com/nbc/articles/view_weekly.

php?articleid=208801 [Date accessed: July 10, 2006].

Wright, D.J.; DiBiase, D. 2005. Distance education in geographic 

information science: symposium and an informal survey. Journal of 

Geography in Higher Education. 29:1, 91-100.

Wright, D.J.; DiBiase, D.; Pancake, C. [and others]. 2004. Challenges 

and opportunities in distance education for geographic information 

science. University Consortium for Geographic Information Science, 

White Paper.
1

Research Scientist, Research Scientist, Research Scientist, Research Scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC 28804; Dean, 

Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 3B3; and Director of Technology, Computer Programmer, Extension Forester, Southern Regional 

Extension Forestry, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, respectively.

102

THE FOREST ENCYCLOPEDIA NETWORK: DELIVERING 

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE TO FOREST PRACTITIONERS

H. Michael Rauscher, John M. Pye, Kenneth Outcalt, Kier Klepzig, 

Tattersall C. Smith, J. Bryan Jordin, Matthew Howell, and William G. Hubbard1

Abstract—Forest science, like any science, is a continuous process of discovering new knowledge, re-evaluating existing 

knowledge, and revising our theories and management practices in light of these changes. The forest science community is 

still struggling to find better solutions to the problem of efficiently and effectively sharing continuously changing science 

with forest practitioners. The Forest Encyclopedia Network (FEN) www.forestencyclopedia.net represents a new approach 

to the synthesis and delivery of forest science knowledge. The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculutre Southern 

Research Station, the Southern Regional Extension Forestry system, the Forest Service State and Private Cooperative 

Forestry Program and the Southern Forestry University community are all engaged in building and testing this new science 

delivery concept. The network currently has six encyclopedias in various stages of completion: The Encyclopedia of 

Southern Appalachian Forest Ecosystems, the Encyclopedia of Southern Fire Science, the Encyclopedia of Southwide 

Forest Science, the Encyclopedia of Southern Bioenergy, the Encyclopedia of Southern Pine Bark Beetle Impacts, and 

the Encyclopedia of Forest Environmental Threat Assessment. This paper presents the overall concepts of knowledge 

management, how one form of knowledge management—scientific synthesis—is being developed and used, and some 

details on how science information has been incorporated into the FEN.

INTRODUCTION

Delivering scientific knowledge to a diverse audience 

has always been a challenge. New knowledge is typically 

produced by forest scientists using the time-honored 

scientific method. It is the nature of the scientific process 

that progress is made in small increments that add to, 

corroborate, or dispute existing knowledge at the margins 

of the field. These incremental results are then reported 

in scientific journals as primary research papers that seek 

to explain the methods used and justify the conclusions 

reached. The focus of these primary science contributions 

is typically very narrow in scope and quite detailed because 

the objective is to convince a scientific peer group of the 

validity of the new conclusions. In other words, the audience 

for journal articles in the primary scientific literature is 

other scientists familiar with a particular field of study—the 

scientific peer group. Attempting to use such published 

scientific journal articles to deliver scientific knowledge 

to a nonscientist audience composed of management 

practitioners, policymakers, and even the lay public is 

clearly to be avoided.

The process of science delivery is defined as the need to (1) 

synthesize scientific knowledge into larger, more meaningful 

units; (2) translate this knowledge into the language and 

style that appeals to a nonscientist audience; and (3) connect 

scientific results, conclusions, and forecasts of impacts in a 

timely manner with the needs and issues of a nonscientist 

audience. In the past, the forest science community relied 

primarily on conventional, print-based vehicles such as 

managers’ handbooks, technology transfer bulletins, how-to 

leaflets, and articles in journals that address natural resource 

managers and the lay public to deliver scientific knowledge. 

Lectures, workshops, videos, and field trips are examples 

of conventional nonprint-based science delivery methods 

that have also been successfully used. With the recent 

widespread availability of extremely capable computer 

hardware and software and the Internet, electronic methods 

to supplement the conventional methods of science delivery 

have become practical.

Until recently, many people did not think in terms of 

systematically “managing knowledge.” They felt that 

knowledge was a personal asset accumulated from 

experiences, education, and trusted colleagues (Plunkett 

2001). As computer technology improved and became 

cheaper in the early 1990s, researchers began to explore 

the gains that could be made by organizing knowledge, 

codifying it, and sharing it more widely. The field of 

knowledge management (KM) slowly emerged. KM can be 

defined as the systematic strategy of creating, conserving, 

and sharing knowledge to increase performance (Plunkett 

2001, Heinrichs and others 2003). As the Internet became 

more popular, it was obvious to some that KM systems 

using web-based hypertext had an enormous competitive 

advantage over other science delivery methods. Universally 

available access and inexpensive updating appear to be the 

critical elements for making web-based KM an attractive 

alternative to traditional, paper-based methods. This 

realization led to a proliferation of web-based knowledge 

management services for science delivery of many different 
103

kinds. Table 1 provides a partial listing of groups of methods 

that are currently being used for KM and science delivery in 

the natural resource field.

Scientific content management sites (table 1) attempt to 

improve the communication of research results to user 

audiences (Kennard and others 2005, Rauscher and others 

2007). The cornerstone for high-quality scientific content 

management is the scientific literature, which contains 

published, peer-reviewed, primary research results. Sites 

that provide access to this literature in electronic format are 

called library service sites (table 1). Many of these research 

papers are primarily useful to the scientist audience itself. 

A good example is the Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s TreeSearch system www.treesearch.fs.fed.

us. The next step toward a scientific content management 

system is to offer audience-specific versions of the published 

scientific articles. For example, the Waldwissen project, 

a consortium of forest research institutes from Germany, 

Austria, and Switzerland, offers a collection of scientific 

research articles grouped by themes www.waldwissen.

net. Each of these articles has a summary written for a 

nonscientist audience by a professional science editor to 

make the article more interesting and more understandable. 

These summaries are often available in five languages: 

German, English, French, Italian, and Slovenian. In 

Waldwissen, the granularity of the basic science article is 

maintained, meaning that several articles on the same topic 

such as “forest fire” are not synthesized by the site. Finally, 

there are the encyclopedia sites that provide a seamless 

synthesis of the fragmented scientific literature (table 1). 

There are two versions of encyclopedia sites: (1) those that 

are not peer reviewed and open to anyone to author new 

material such as www.wikipedia.org, and (2) those that 

are peer reviewed and open only to accredited and vetted 

authors such as www.forestencyclopedia.net.

The objectives of this paper are to describe the Forest 

Encyclopedia Network (FEN) project, provide a brief 

overview of the six encyclopedias it currently contains, 

explain the software infrastructure and authoring workflow, 

and discuss the role of FEN in a comprehensive science 

delivery process.

THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS

FEN currently contains six ongoing encyclopedia projects 

in various stages of development www.forestencyclopedia.

net (table 2). The selection of encyclopedia topics has 

been strictly based on the availability of funding. This 

tends to focus development time and energy around 

current important topics and issues. The FEN system 

contains approximately 5,236 encyclopedia pages, 2,302 

images, 3,912 tables, and 10,903 citations. FEN attracts 

approximately 2.5 million requests per year which equates 

to an average of 6,800 requests per day. 

The Encyclopedia of Southern Appalachian Ecosystems was 

the first and is the most mature. It has been peer reviewed, 

published, and moved into the continuous updating 

mode. The Encyclopedia of Southern Fire Science has 

been published and is accepting continuous updates. The 

Encyclopedia of South-wide Forest Science is currently 

being written from two publications offering a combined 

one thousand pages of peer reviewed content (Rauscher 

and Johnsen 2004, Wear and Greis 2002). Content has been 

written for the Encyclopedia of Southern Bioenergy; it has 

been peer reviewed and is accepting continuous updates. 

The content for the Encyclopedia of Forest Environmental 

Threats has been written and peer reviewed with publication 

expected in July 2008. The Encyclopedia of Southern Pine 

Beetle is the most recent FEN project. Content is currently 

being written with publication sometime in 2009.

THE APPROACH

The FEN project began in 2000 with funding from a 

U.S. Department of Agriculture National Research 

Initiative Competitive grant to facilitate the transfer of 

usable knowledge from scientific experts to managers, 

policymakers, and other natural resource professionals. 

Users of the site are offered what adult educators call a 

self-directed learning tool where individuals can obtain 

information on an as-needed basis. 

A typical encyclopedia project begins with the development 

of the overall outline, which becomes the navigational 

structure of the encyclopedia. The development of the 

content is directed by one or more subject matter experts 

who act as managing editors. These editors are responsible 

for creating the outline and structure, identifying the 

content that is needed and engaging authors to write needed 

synthesis pages. They are also responsible for guiding the 

peer-review process for each section. Assistant editors work 

with the managing editors to ensure that the content material 

gets properly placed into the hypertext encyclopedia 

and that the figures, tables, and citations are all properly 

linked. Finally, technical specialists are responsible for 

maintaining the common computing infrastructure and 

making improvements in page design, workflow, and system 

function. 

Providing scientific synthesis for a broad audience of 

readers ranging from the general public with only a basic 

interest or level of understanding of forestry, through 

private landowners who have a greater degree of interest 

and understanding, to professional practitioners of forestry 

is indeed a challenge. To meet this challenge, the pages in 

FEN are written differently depending upon the level of 

the hierarchy in which they appear. Very high-level pages, 

that introduce major sections or subsections, are written so 

that the general public and many private forest landowners 

can readily understand the material. As readers dig deeper 
104

Table 1—A classification of types of knowledge management tools

Class of 

KM Tool Description Links

Knowledge maps Establish a classification scheme called a taxonomy of knowledge, 

provide a frame of reference for many knowledge management products, 

and serve as a critical first step for identifying available knowledge.

forest.cse.ogi.edu/portal

cmap.ihmc.us

Electronic 

yellow-page 

directories

Aid in finding hard-to-access tacit knowledge resources by providing 

access to experts. They also organize existing web sites and serve up 

a variety of explicit knowledge assets in understandable ways.

sref.info/ 

www.forestryguide.de/ www.

srs.fs.usda.gov/

Apprenticeship 

programs

Are typically one-on-one type relationships where an expert coaches a 

less experienced person in various ways. 

www.treeguide.com/forum/

Communities of 

practice

Support groups of individuals with similar work responsibilities but who 

are not part of a formally designated work team. Many communities of 

practice communicate through a web-based system.

groups.yahoo.com/group/

dead_wood/ 

dss.boku.ac.at/

Best practices 

and lessons 

learned

Typically present the situation, the options, choices taken, and the results 

for a typical decision problem. They are widely used in natural resource 

management and can be extensively found on the internet.

www.kyphilom.com/www/

wood/bmp.html

www.forestrybmp.net

Lectures and 

story telling

Allow people to gain more understanding and have greater recall then 

they do from written reports. Stories can be used to capture lectures on a 

particular topic, to capture after action reports, to record difficult to codify 

tacit knowledge, and for many other purposes. Web-based software 

systems exist that support this knowledge management tool.

www.fsl.orst.edu/geowater/

morphology/

Frequently asked 

questions

In the course of performing a job, people naturally identify questions that 

their coworkers or their clients ask repeatedly. It is worthwhile to document 

and develop useful and standardized answers for these types of repetitive 

questions. Web-based systems also exist that specialize in the 

management of these questions.

www.answerlink.info

Web-based 

learning

Allows translations of a typical classroom experience to an online media 

to offer students the opportunity to learn codified knowledge in a 

structured way at their own pace. 

www.forestandrange.org

waldbau.boku.ac.at/lehre/

Scientific 

content 

management sites

Collects knowledge in some kind of web-based content management 

system. First, the knowledge has to be found, organized, synthesized, 

reviewed for quality, and uploaded for availability. Second, the knowledge 

content has to be updated and maintained so it keeps its currency. 

Software systems exist that support both of these functions.

forestencyclopedia.net

www.waterontheweb.org

www.cabi.org.compendia.

asp

continued
105

into the FEN hierarchy, the pages contain more and more 

technically challenging content that is aimed at helping 

inform professional practitioners.

All of the various encyclopedia projects share the same 

computing infrastructure to reduce implementation costs. 

Once the “core material” for an encyclopedia is in place and 

reviewed, it moves to a “continuous update mode” where 

volunteer authors submit new or revised material to keep 

the content current and expanding. These volunteer authors 

can be any qualified author and are typically not the same 

authors as those developing the original core content. This 

continuous contribution of new content functions much 

like a scientific journal system in that authors are rewarded 

by their employing agencies for getting content published 

in FEN much the same way that they are rewarded for 

publishing in a scientific journal. The main difference is 

that FEN is interested in results, conclusions, and expected 

impacts of new science knowledge rather than methods with 

their supporting analyses and statistics. The FEN peerreview process also focuses more on utility and clarity to 

nonscientific audiences than do most scientific journals.

Table 1—A classification of types of knowledge management tools (continued)

Class of 

KM Tool Description Links

Simulation 

models

Popular method to organize specific problem solving knowledge and 

provide precise, quantitative answers to guide natural resource 

managers. Most such models have not yet been converted to execute 

over the internet, however, many simulation models can be downloaded 

from the internet and then executed on a stand-alone computer.

www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/

www.cnr.usu.edu/online/

simulation/

Free-content 

information 

collaboratories

Create and distribute free information content, e.g., encyclopedia. Articles 

are edited by volunteers and are subject to change by nearly anyone. 

They cover a wide range of topics, but lack the authority of traditional 

materials and lack the chance of a quality control regarding the content.

wikipedia.org

Timemaps A visual-matrix index of the events, research topics, people, and 

publications, organized by time, for a specific area. An electronic 

zoomable canvas allows embedding a large amount of information in 

a single plane.

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/geowater/timemaps/lter/

Databases A common way to organize original source material in a database 

structure. It is irrelevant whether the data is numeric or graphic or 

computer files. Web-based methods have been developed to manage 

database online.

www.archives.gov/aad/

Library services Managing and making accessible published books and scientific journal 

articles has long been the province of science libraries. These services 

are now available on the internet often free of charge.

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us

www.waldwissen.net

Online scientific 

journals

More and more scientific journals have placed all or part of the content of 

their original research articles online. Search engines allow users to find 

relevant articles and the number of citations referring to them.

www.fbmis.info/

www.scirus.com

Web portals Provide links to many other sites that can either be accessed directly or 

can be found by following an organized sequence of related categories. 

The provider of a web portal is responsible for structuring and filtering of 

web-addresses relating to a special theme.

frames.nbii.gov

KM = Knowledge management.
106

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT

FEN offers concise, authoritative syntheses of knowledge 

tied to the scientific literature on which it is based 

and organized to meet user needs. The content for the 

encyclopedia “core material” is usually developed in one of 

three ways:

• Content already exists in peer-reviewed form. A recent

scientific synthesis may be available in peer-reviewed 

and printed format, for example, Ware and Greis (2002). 

One or several editors then convert the print style to the 

encyclopedia style of presentation. They make sure that 

similar content is synthesized in the same pages of the 

encyclopedia and check the result with the original authors 

who receive authorship credit for their own content. The 

result is published in FEN.

• Content is obtained from authors that have been

specifically engaged to perform literature reviews and write 

encyclopedia-style pages. Editors work with the authors to 

help them learn how to write for FEN and conform to FEN 

style requirements.

• Content is obtained from a scientific conference

specifically planned to synthesize an area of science. It 

is often the case that both a printed publication and an 

encyclopedia results from the same content. One or several 

editors then convert the print style to the encyclopedia 

style of presentation, making sure that similar content is 

synthesized in the same pages of the encyclopedia. The 

result is then checked with the original authors who receive 

authorship credit for their own content, and the result is 

published in FEN.

Content can be in several forms, including narrative text 

pages, citations, data tables, and figures. Content is arranged 

as a set of narrowly focused Web pages, each linked to a 

set of related information. Arranging content into a large 

set of tightly focused Web pages makes it easier for users 

to find specific content relevant to their needs. A search for 

the term of interest brings the user to a particular page, and 

the navigation pane places the page in context and identifies 

pages with related content. Arranging content in this way 

also makes it easier to delegate authoring and revision 

processes, speeds downloading of content by the user, 

and makes it easier to reuse the same content in different 

contexts. 

Quality of content is ensured through the same means 

used in more traditional scientific publications. All content 

includes author attribution and full citations. All content 

must also pass anonymous peer review before being 

published on the Internet. Updates to the content must 

undergo the same peer and editorial review as original 

content.

A hierarchical information architecture organizes this 

wealth of information. Every page clearly displays to the 

user where the current page resides in that hierarchy and 

offers navigation options to other portions of the hierarchy. 

These supplement the hyperlinks provided in the body of 

the content. The hierarchy is easily extended and modified 

to adapt to evolving content and user needs. Although not 

yet implemented, the system will eventually permit users to 

select alternative architectures, rearranging the navigation 

structure to better suit particular needs. Alternative 

Table 2—The six encyclopedia projects within the Forest Encyclopedia Network

Project Started Published Status

Southern Appalachian 

Forest Ecosystem

January 

2000

November 

2004

Continuous 

updating

Southern Fire 

Science

March 

2002

November 

2005

Continuous 

updating

South-wide Forest 

Science

June 

2003

Pending Core content 

development

Southern Bioenergy September 

2004

September 

2006

Continuous 

updating

Forest Environmental 

Threats

October 

2005

July 2008 Peer review 

completed

Southern Pine Beetle September 

2006

Pending Core content 

development
107

architectures could be offered to facilitate reuse of the same 

content for specific workshops or courses, for specialpurpose collections, or to highlight specific topics.

THE CONTRIBUTORS

Creating and maintaining encyclopedias takes a great 

deal of effort and thus requires contributions from a wide 

array of institutions and individuals. FEN was created as 

a collaboration of the Forest Service Southern Research 

Station and the Southern Regional Extension Forestry 

System. As FEN expanded, the Southern Forestry University 

community and the Forest Service State and Private 

Cooperative Forest Program also became active participants. 

This multi-agency collaboration draws on the strengths of all 

parties to improve how scientific information is summarized 

and delivered to the broader forestry community.

Funding from these sponsoring organizations has been 

augmented by grants from U.S. Department of Agricutlure’s 

National Research Initiative and Bioenergy Program, the 

National Fire Plan, the Joint Fire Science Program, and the 

National Forest Threat Assessment Centers of the Forest 

Service.

THE CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Specialized software tools and efficient project organization 

are needed to coordinate the efforts of numerous editors and 

authors across diverse organizations and locations. FEN uses 

a customized content management system (CMS) based on 

the content management framework of Zope, an open source 

Web development environment. Jordin and others (2003) 

provide technical details.

Customized CMS software simplifies Web authorship and 

citation management, standardizes page design and display, 

enforces role-based security, and manages the flow of work 

from content creation through peer review, editing, and 

publishing.

FEN leverages Web technology and the Internet not only 

for distributing its content but also for managing it. Editors, 

authors, and peer reviewers can all perform their tasks 

from anywhere on the Internet using commonly available 

browsers. This capability makes it easier to recruit talent 

regardless of their location.

Role-based permissions allow editors to perform tasks 

different from those of authors or peer reviewers. They 

also control access to information. For example, to ensure 

the anonymity of the peer-review process, editors can 

see the identity of peer reviewers but authors cannot. 

Each individual can be assigned authority over portions 

of content. Identities are confirmed by ID and password 

combinations.

The CMS manages content as an object-oriented database, 

assembling Web pages dynamically when requested. This 

allows the navigation options to dynamically reflect existing 

content and makes it much easier to change the information 

architecture. The system automatically generates a table of 

contents and lists of figures and tables, as well as, a search 

index. Improvements to the user interface are applied easily 

and consistently across the site.

Predefined workflows ensure that content moves from 

authoring through peer review and editing, with editorial 

approval prior to publishing on the public Web site. Task 

lists are generated for each individual with email notification 

of newly added tasks. Published pages that are undergoing 

revision remain visible to the public until the revised content 

is approved for publication.

Hyperlinks are automatically adjusted when content is 

moved in the information hierarchy to prevent dead links. 

Advanced portal tools permit construction of alternative 

displays and functions for different user groups or 

preferences.

EVALUATION

The FEN site provides a feedback option that is available 

to readers at all times. In addition, the FEN team looks for 

every opportunity to proactively elicit critical review and 

evaluation. Since 2003, we have obtained feedback from 

121 natural resource management practitioners from the 

Southern United States. This group included State service 

foresters, forestry consultants, extension and outreach 

specialists, and educators. They were asked to rate the FEN 

system according to the frequency with which they expect 

to use FEN, the relevance of the topics covered as related 

to their work, and the usefulness of the content covered as 

related to their work:

•	Expected frequency of use: 50 percent daily, 35 percent 

monthly, 15 percent rarely

•	Relevance of topics covered in FEN: 45 percent very 

relevant, 55 percent moderately relevant

•	Utility of content covered: 45 percent very high, 31 percent 

high, 17 percent moderately high, 7 percent low

On February 1, 2006 in College Station, TX, the FEN 

encyclopedia team organized a formal review of the 

Southern Bioenergy Encyclopedia. Fourteen forestry 

Extension and outreach professionals from throughout 

the Southern United States attended. This group spent 1 

1/2 days discussing the navigation and content of the 
108

Bioenergy Encyclopedia. A representative sampling of 

their concluding comments best reflects the group thinking 

of the individuals in the group:

•	The subject matter covered is timely and important. Its 

about time we put it all in an organized fashion in one 

place.

•	Some pages are clearly at the landowner level and some 

are at the professional level. The project needs to work 

hard to reconcile how FEN is intending to meet the needs 

of different audiences.

•	The scope and depth of the coverage on Bioenergy is 

terrific.

•	FEN is important from an information point-of-view but 

also as a public relations tool.

•	There is a lot of useful information in FEN but most of it 

is static. There is a need to achieve more reader 

involvement through interactive tools.

•	The navigation system takes some getting used to. It is too 

easy to get lost in the depth of this system.

On May 25, 2006, the Bioenergy Resources Encyclopedia 

of FEN received a formal program review from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, the funding Agency of the 

competitive grant program for developing this encyclopedia. 

Dr. David Brune, Department of Agricultural and Biological 

Engineering at Clemson University, who headed up this 

review team, summarized his opinion of this project in his 

final report as follows:

“The reviewers feel the potential contributions of this 

extension and outreach development activity may extend 

far beyond the immediate goal of biomass utilization. The 

internet based modules represent the future direction of 

outreach education in general. The discussions among the 

group to develop “templates” to allow for “on demand” 

construction and printing of fact sheets by cooperating 

field agents represents, in our opinion, the next generation 

of extension activity. Further discussions to add links to 

detailed scientific papers would potentially offer a technical 

depth to the website, not typically available to the public in 

conventional outreach programs and activities.” 

DISCUSSION

FEN is a new approach to the delivery of scientific 

knowledge to users. Project members have successfully 

launched six encyclopedias on various topics and guided 

the software infrastructure through three major revisions. 

Many challenges have been overcome to prove that 

the encyclopedia approach is indeed a viable scientific 

knowledge management and delivery mechanism. Some 

challenges remain.

One continuing challenge is motivating scientific experts 

to synthesize scientific information and provide it in 

appropriate form to the editors. FEN must find ways to 

demonstrate the worth of the contributions of authors and 

editors in a way that is recognizable and valued by their 

peers. Writing style is another challenge. Most scientists 

are more familiar with writing in the lengthy, linear 

style common to traditional journals than the “punchy”, 

conclusion-first style needed in the hypertext world of the 

Internet. Just as writing styles need to change, so too must 

content. Procedures must be developed to identify obsolete 

content, enlist authors to update it, and provide proper 

attribution to what in some cases may be minor revisions. 

One option FEN is exploring is an archiving system that 

would allow visitors to “peel back” current contents to 

reveal previous versions, showing what previous authors 

wrote on the subject. This could show visitors how scientific 

understanding and its expression in the encyclopedia have 

changed over time. Most Web sites focus on delivering 

current information. Designing an interface that shows 

change in content over time without confusing the audience 

would be a substantial achievement.

The use of the Internet as a source of knowledge has been 

increasing rapidly in the United States. This may be termed 

a “high tech” science delivery approach. A recent survey 

concluded that 63 percent of American adults overall, and 59 

percent of rural people, used the Internet (Pew Internet and 

American Life Project 2005). On any given day, 70 million 

Americans are online. The Pew report indicated that Internet 

use was highest among younger people, with rates declining 

with each advancing age category. This data suggests that 

future generations of landowners will be increasingly likely 

to look for and use Internet-based knowledge. People 

want the freedom of access to knowledge whenever and 

wherever they wish. Web-based science delivery, such as 

FEN, can thus be expected to reach an increasing number of 

landowners in the future.

There is likely to always be a substantial proportion of 

consumers of scientific knowledge that prefer traditional 

science delivery methods rather than Internet-based 

methods. Howell and Habron (2004) indicated that 57 

percent of agricultural landowners who responded to their 

survey preferred face-to-face personal communication 

about important topics. A study in Connecticut found that 

workshops ranked second, behind printed publications, as 

the preferred method of receiving information related to 

land use planning and sustainable economic development 

(Westa and others 2005). Unfortunately, such “high 

touch” programs are typically expensive and reach a small 

percentage of the potential audience.

A multi-faceted science delivery program is likely to be 

more effective than one that relies exclusively or primarily 

on either a “high tech” or a “high touch” approach. 

Multifaceted science delivery programs offer similar content 
109

in a wide range of products: (1) printed publications, such 

as fact sheets, brochures, and posters; (2) face-to-face 

workshops and multiday training sessions; (3) satellite 

distributed learning workshops and training sessions; (4) 

computer-based structured learning courses available both 

on CD-ROM’s, DVD, and on the Internet; and finally, (5) 

Web-based syntheses of science such as FEN. Two examples 

of recently developed multifaceted science delivery 

programs in the Southern United States exist. One is the 

science delivery program of the Forest Service Southern 

Research Station (Whitlock and others, in press) and the 

other is the Forest Bioenergy Systems program of the 

Southern Forest Research Partnership (Gan and others, in 

press).

FEN is intended to be an ongoing scientific synthesis 

project. Imagine how broad and deep in scientific knowledge 

the FEN system could be if we were to gradually expand its 

coverage over 10, 20, or 30 years. FEN could evolve into the 

premier source of natural resource science knowledge in the 

World with millions of users accessing it from all parts of 

the globe every day.

REFERENCES 

Gan, J.; Biles, L.; Cassidy, D. 2009. Developing new knowledge and 

education systems for development of forest bioenergy systems. In: 

Proceedings, a southern region conference on technology transfer and 

extension in natural resources. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–116. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 

Heinrichs, J.H.; Hudspeth, L.J.; Lim, J.S. 2003. Knowledge management. 

In: Bidgoli, H., ed. Encyclopedia of Information Systems, Amsterdam, 

Netherlands: Academic Press: 13-31. Vol. 3.

Howell, J.L.; Habron, G.B. 2004. Agricultural landowners’ lack of 

preference for Internet extension. Journal of Extension. 42(6). http://

www.joe.org/joe/2004december/a7.shtml. [Date accessed: June 20, 

2006].

Jordin, J.B., Jr.; Hubbard, W.G.; Kennard, D. 2003. Using the Zope Web 

application framework to build and manage a large encyclopedia of 

scientific knowledge. In: Innes, I., ed. Natural Resources Information 

Management forum: putting knowledge to work. FORREX Series No. 

8. Kamloops, B.C. FOOREX—Forest Research Extension Partnership: 

135-145.

Kennard, D.K.; Rauscher, H.M.; Flebbe, P.A. 2005. Using hyperdocuments 

to manage scientific knowledge: the prototype Encyclopedia of Southern 

Appalachian Forest Ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management. 207: 

201-213.

Pew Internet and American Life Project. 2005. The mainstreaming of online 

life. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Internet_Status_2005.pdf. [Date 

accessed: June 20, 2006].

Plunkett, P.T. 2001. Managing knowledge @ work: An overview of 

knowledge management, knowledge management working group of the 

Federal Chief Information Officers Council, August 2001. U.S General 

Services Administration, Office of Information Technology. 36 p. http://

www.km.gov/documents/gsa/KM@Work.doc [Date Accessed: June 20, 

2006].

Rauscher, H.M.; Johnsen, K., eds. 2004. Southern forest science: past, 

present, and future. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–75. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

394 p.

Rauscher, H.M.; Schmoldt, D.L.; Vacik, H. 2007. Information and 

knowledge management in support of sustainable forestry: a review. In: 

Sustainable forestry: from monitoring and modelling to knowledge 

management and policy science. New York: Springer Verlag: 439-460.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS–53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 633 p.

Westa, S.P.; Broderick, S.H.; Tyson, C.B. 2005. Getting the word out in the 

Last Green Valley: Integrating digital video, direct mail, and Web-based 

information for specific target audiences. Journal of Extension. 43(1). 

[Date accessed: June 20, 2006].

Whitlock, C.; Hoyle, Z.; Kindlund, R.; and others. 2009. Science delivery 

at the Southern Research Station. In: Proceedings, a southern region 

conference on technology transfer and extension in natural resources. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–116. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 
1

Associate Professor, Department of Wood Science and Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

110

Using The Web To Facilitate Extension Program 

Delivery And Management

Scott Leavengood1

Abstract—Needs Assessment; Program Development/ Delivery/ Evaluation; Documenting Impact – These phrases are 

well-known to Extension professionals. Successful Extension professionals must conduct all these activities in a time 

of shrinking resources and increasing demand. Maintaining a website can be seen by Extension professionals as ‘just 

one more chore’ on top of already busy schedules. But busy schedules are only part of the ‘technology challenge’ facing 

Extension faculty. Recent research has shown a lack of preference for computer-based communication (Howell and 

Habron, 2004; Radhakrishna and others, 2003) among some traditional Extension clientele. At the same time, the Web is 

a good way to reach new, and perhaps younger, audiences. Increasing pressures for accountability further complicate the 

matter - how can the impact of Web-based educational materials be assessed when often the only information available is 

the number of website visits or ‘hits’ for materials? This paper highlights uses of the Web to ‘lighten the load’, broaden the 

reach, and improve the effectiveness of Extension faculty. The development of an automated ‘user registration and material 

delivery’ system is discussed. A case example is presented to give an overview of the development and evolution of the 

system and the results of a user survey. The system is applicable to any Extension or Technology Transfer professional 

wanting to track and survey users of Web-based materials. 

Introduction

Extension professionals must balance a multitude of 

responsibilities including periodically assessing the needs 

of clientele; finding resources to develop and maintain 

programs; developing, delivering, and evaluating educational 

programs; and documenting impact. Successful Extension 

professionals must conduct all these activities in a time of 

shrinking resources and increasing demand. Maintaining a 

website can be seen by Extension professionals as ‘just one 

more chore’ on top of already busy schedules.

But busy schedules are only part of the reason that many 

Extension faculty members seem reluctant to devote 

significant energy to using the Web for delivering programs 

and materials. Other challenges include the preferences 

of how Extension clientele want to receive information, 

demands to reach new audiences, familiarity with the 

technology itself, pressures to document impacts, and how 

to reward Extension professionals. 

Extension professionals know that they must tailor their 

approaches to program delivery based on the needs and 

preferences of the target audience. Recent research has 

shown that many Extension clientele still prefer ‘traditional’ 

modes of communication (face-to-face or telephone) over 

email or websites (Howell and Habron, 2004; Radhakrishna 

and others, 2003). This is certainly not surprising to anyone 

that has worked in Extension – long-term clientele value 

Extension as the place they can come and talk to a ‘real live 

person.’ At the same time, however, there are pressures to 

broaden the reach and ensure Extension is relevant to the 

next generation. While Howell and Habron (2004) found 

a general lack of preference for receiving information via 

the Internet, the preference was much higher for younger 

audiences than for older audiences.

This preference among younger audiences likely coincides 

with their experience and comfort level using computers. 

Extension faculty are no exception in this regard; faculty 

that have not grown up using computers cannot be expected 

to be as familiar, or as comfortable, with using the Web for 

educational programming as younger, more computer-savvy 

faculty. And even for those that invest time and energy 

in learning the technology, frustration soon sets in when 

rapidly changing technology makes their newfound skills 

obsolete.

Another challenge is the increasing pressure for Extension 

faculty to document the impact of their educational 

programs and materials. In traditional face-to-face settings 

such as workshops, gathering participant information and 

conducting post-session evaluations to assess behavior 

change are pretty straightforward. However, the Web 

presents unique challenges – website visitors are typically 

anonymous, and it is easy to speculate that they prefer 

to remain so given constant reminders not to divulge 

personal information over the Internet. Without knowing 

who the clientele are it is nearly impossible to assess how 

educational materials impact their lives.

A final challenge is related to the well-established 

rewards systems for faculty. Traditional performance 

evaluation systems focus on publications, presentations, 

and workshops. Thus, the old axiom holds true, “tell me 

how you’ll measure me and I’ll tell you how I’m going 

to behave.” It is difficult for an Extension professional 

to justify devoting significant energy to Web-based 
111

programming knowing that their supervisor may not 

perceive such outputs as being as valuable as traditional 

outputs.

Given these challenges, one might conclude that the 

underlying message here is that the challenges to using 

the Web and other technology outweigh the benefits for 

Extension professionals. This is not the intent. Rather, 

the intent is to consider ways to use technology while 

taking into account the challenges that face Extension 

professionals. 

Therefore, the goal of this paper is to demonstrate how 

Extension faculty can use the Web to not only lighten their 

workload and broaden their reach but also as a means to be 

able to document impact. A case example is used to describe 

how to achieve these objectives.

Methods

Case Example - Background 

The case example presented here describes the development, 

delivery, and evaluation of a software program for 

estimating shrink and swell in wood products. The most 

common challenges faced by anyone that works with 

wood – from the home hobbyist to personnel at large-scale 

industrial sawmills – are related to wood’s tendency to 

shrink and swell with changes in ambient relative humidity. 

The calculations for estimating shrink and swell in wood 

can be intimidating for some users as they must take into 

account variables including wood species, wood grain 

orientation, size of the piece, and magnitude of change in 

ambient conditions. The software was developed in response 

to clientele expressing the need for a simple tool to do these 

calculations. 

The first version of the software was distributed by Oregon 

State University’s (OSU) Extension and Experiment Station 

Communications office in a binder containing a hard-copy 

user’s manual and diskette at a cost of $15. While the 

publication looked very professional, the packaging greatly 

increased the cost and likely limited distribution and usage. 

After three years and a major revision of the software (from 

MS DOS® to MS Excel®), the author decided to ‘embed’ the 

user manual in the software (i.e., as one of the tabs in the 

spreadsheet) and distribute it free-of-charge via the Web. 

Tracking Usage and Users of Web-Based Materials 

When the OSU Extension Communications office 

distributed the software it was relatively simple to determine 

who was using (or at least purchasing) the material; one 

simply needed to contact the office and request how many 

copies had been sold and to whom. However, distributing 

the software on the Web resulted in the loss of the ability to 

easily track users and hence the ability to contact them for 

impact assessment.

The ability to track website hits and usage of materials has 

improved greatly in recent years. Web statistics services 

such as Urchin® (now Google Analytics®) provide a wealth 

of data on website traffic. Data provided include number 

of hits (in total and by individual page), number of unique 

visitors, search phrases entered by users to find your site, 

downloads of individual files, and dozens of other statistics. 

The author was able to use Web statistics to determine 

how many visitors had downloaded the wood shrink/swell 

software each month. 

‘Webstats’ are useful data for documenting usage of 

materials; however they do not provide information on users. 

Thus, they do not provide sufficient detail for assessing 

impact. To assess impact, user contact information is 

needed. This presents a challenge for Web-based materials 

– How can contact information be obtained from website 

visitors? Further, will requesting such information lead to 

steering website visitors away, i.e., will they seek another 

source rather than provide personal information? 

The author developed a simple user registration system for 

the wood shrink/swell software. The system used a standard 

Web form to collect user data. When website visitors 

completed the form and clicked ‘Submit’, an email message 

was sent to the author. User information was then copiedand-pasted into a spreadsheet and the software was emailed, 

or a diskette was snail mailed to the user in the event an 

email address was not provided. 

It didn’t take long before the disadvantages of this approach 

became apparent. Even moderately popular materials result 

in quite a bit of additional email messages; and it is fairly 

time-consuming to copy-and-paste user data and email/mail 

materials. 

To lessen the time commitment involved, a simple change 

was made to the system - when visitors filled in the form 

and clicked ‘Submit’, the auto-generated response message 

they received provided a direct link to the software. This 

eliminated one step in the process (i.e., emailing or snail 

mailing the software to users); however tracking user 

information was still time-consuming. Further, providing 

a direct link to the software resulted in two distinct 

disadvantages:

1. Shortly following the change to the system, Web statistics 

showed far more downloads than user registrations. Thus, 

it seemed users were simply finding (or being provided – 

perhaps by another user) the direct link to the software 

and bypassing the registration form; and 

2. Several users provided incorrect contact information. 

This fact became clear by the number of undeliverable 

email messages in follow-up surveys and/ or by users 

providing email addresses (sometimes quite humorous) 

such as u_cant_have_my_email@no_way.com!
112

It seemed the optimal solution to these problems was an 

automated system for collecting user information and 

delivering the software. Web-based databases such as 

MySQL® allow for storing user information without 

requiring the additional step of transferring data to a 

program like Microsoft Excel® or Access®. There are 

computer scripts (short blocks of programming code) in the 

PHP programming language available to accomplish tasks 

such as sending emails with attachments. The author used 

the book PHP and MySQL for Dummies (2002) to develop 

an automated ‘user registration and educational material 

delivery’ system. The system works as follows:

1.Website visitors fill in a standard Web-based form to 

request the wood shrink/swell software (email address is a 

required field)

2. Upon clicking submit, a computer script is executed that 

automatically sends a copy of the software as an 

attachment to the email address provided;

3.The user information is automatically entered into a 

Web-based database

The entire system is ‘hands-off’; user contact information 

is entered into a database and the software is sent via email 

attachment 24 hours a day, seven days a week without any 

involvement by the faculty member. Conducting a survey 

to assess impact merely involves visiting the Web-based 

database and copying-and-pasting user email addresses into 

an email message.

To address the question of potential reduction in usage due 

to requiring user contact information, visitors were told that 

they would be contacted only once by email to evaluate the 

software. An anonymous download system was also created 

realizing that the ‘only one contact’ assurance would likely 

alleviate concerns for some, but not all visitors. An option 

was added for users to click a button to ‘Skip this Form’ and 

be taken directly to a link to the software without providing 

their contact information. Clicking the button results in 

incrementing a counter so that the author can compare the 

number of users that skipped the form to those that provided 

contact information. 

Users were surveyed in 2002, 2003 and 20042

 and asked 

if they had used the software; if so, the specific situation 

where the software was used and the outcome; whether or 

not the instructions were clear and the examples provided 

were helpful; and suggestions for improvement. Requests to 

complete the survey were sent by email and the survey itself 

was a Web-based form (see Appendix). Responses to the 

survey were received by email and were copied-and-pasted 

into the Web-based database and linked to the respondent’s 

contact information. 

2

As promised, users were only surveyed once - the 2002 survey was addressed only to those that downloaded the program in that year and similarly 

for the 2003 and 2004 surveys. Further, no follow-up messages were sent to non-respondents.

Results

Since January of 2002, over 1,270 users have downloaded 

the software, although this figure does not include visitors 

that bypass the registration form. Users have come 

from nearly every U.S. state and 60 countries. In total, 

approximately 11 percent (n=144) of the users responded to 

the survey. 

Information useful for impact documentation include the 

fact that all but one of the respondents that had used the 

software to solve a problem (many simply downloaded the 

software out of curiosity) said it had helped them to solve a 

particular problem. Useful quotes included descriptions of 

how the software had been used such as: 

•	 “When designing furniture and cabinets I use it to 

calculate wood movement and design accordingly. It’s a 

very good program and very useful to me.”

•	 “Possible shrinkage to allow for in oak floor”

•	 “I was curious how much wood shrinks in our hot dry 

climate. Some drywallers had stated that lumber shrinkage 

was causing drywall cracking in newly built homes. 

It was our conclusion that the lumber shrinkage was 

not the probable cause. The most likely cause was that 

the drywallers were not following their own guidelines 

for drywall installation (No expansion joints installed, not 

curing the mud before finishing, not heating the buildings 

in winter, not cooling them in summer.) We have also 

learned that drywall is not always dried to proper moisture 

content prior to installation.”

•	 “Change in width of lumber and timbers cut on portable 

sawmill for use before dry”

•	 “Determine amount of shrinkage I could expect in a 

Maple table top that I was building”

With respect to the potential reduction in usage due to 

requiring user contact information, surprisingly, 60 

percent provided contact information (i.e., 40 percent 

clicked ‘Skip this Form’ and downloaded the software 

anonymously). It was expected that this figure would be 

much higher given frequent warnings about providing 

personal information on the Internet, particularly 

considering that visitors had the option not to provide 

information.
113

Discussion

Given the very full schedules of Extension professionals, 

creating and maintaining a website can be seen as just one 

more chore. Alternatively, Extension professionals can 

see the Web as one of many useful tools for delivering 

educational materials and assisting with program 

management tasks of tracking users of educational materials 

and assessing impact. The automated ‘user registration and 

educational material delivery’ system described in this paper 

is working well to lighten the burden on one Extension 

professional and is applicable to anyone wanting to track 

and survey users of Web-based materials. 

For the approach to be more widely used however, the 

system must be standardized and streamlined in some way 

that it can be used by those without computer programming 

experience (or the inclination to become programmers). 

There have been discussions at Oregon State University 

regarding developing a Web-based template that would 

allow any Extension faculty member to simply complete 

an on-line form to upload the material they wish to track, 

specify the information they want to obtain from users, 

and write the survey questions they plan to ask. A software 

program would then function behind-the-scenes to develop 

the user registration form, email script to deliver the material 

to users, Web-based database, and the user survey. 

Future improvements planned for the system described here 

include automating the survey response process. That is, 

instead of having survey responses come to the author, they 

would be automatically inserted into the user database for 

the appropriate user. Another valuable improvement would 

be to automate the survey process itself. That is, based on 

the date a user downloads the material, a message would be 

sent to them within a specified time frame (e.g., 3 months, 6 

months, etc.) requesting that they visit a website and respond 

to a survey. 

REFERENCES 

Howell, J.L.; Habron, G.B. 2004. Agricultural landowners’ lack of 

preference for internet extension. Journal of Extension. December; 42(6). 

Radhakrishna, R.B.; Nelson, L.; Franklin, R.; Kessler, G. 2003. Information 

sources and extension delivery methods used by private longleaf pine 

landowners. Journal of Extension. August; 41(4).

Valade, J. 2002. PHP and MySQL for dummies. New York: John Wiley. 

390 p.
114

Appendix A: User Survey

Our records show that you downloaded the wood.xls program for estimating shrink and swell in wood. We would 

greatly appreciate if you would take a few minutes to provide us with feedback so that we can assess how you are 

using the program and how we might improve the program. 

We will not contact you again unless you specifically ask us to do so. Thank you.

Name: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Company Name: ___________________________________________________________________ 

E-mail address: ____________________________________________________________________ 

1. Have you used wood.xls since downloading the file?

 Yes  No

If no, skip to question 7. 

2. Please describe the specific question or problem you were hoping to address.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Did wood.xls help you to answer your question or solve the problem? 

 Yes  No

4. Was the Instructions worksheet understandable and helpful? 

 Yes  No  Not applicable/can’t remember

5. Was the Introduction and Example worksheet helpful? 

 Yes  No  Not applicable/can’t remember

6. Please provide any suggestions or comments you have for how the program might be improved. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. If you downloaded the file but did not use it, was there some problem with the program?

 

 Yes  No 

If yes, please describe the problem (for example, were there compatibility issues with your software?)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
1

Jianbang Gan, Darwin Foster, Chyrel Mayfield, and Eric Taylor, Professor, Texas A&M University, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, 

College Station, TX 77843; Larry Biles, Southern Forest Research Partnership, Inc., Athens, GA 30604; Daniel Cassidy and Ben Jackson, The University of 

Georgia, Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, Athens, GA 30602; William G. Hubbard, The University of Georgia, Southern Regional 

Extension Forestry, Athens, GA 30602; J. Bryan Jordin and H. Michael Rauscher, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 200 W.T. Weaver Boulevard, 

Asheville, NC 28804; C.T. Smith, University of Toronto, Faculty of Forestry, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3B3, Canada, respectively.

115

New Knowledge and Education Systems for Development 

of Forest Bioenergy Systems

Jianbang Gan, Larry Biles, Daniel Cassidy, 

Darwin Foster, William G. Hubbard, Ben Jackson, J. Bryan Jordin, 

Chyrel Mayfield, H. Michael Rauscher, C.T. Smith, and Eric Taylor1

Abstract—Among the current challenges facing outreach and extension forest professionals in North America include 

high diversity among clients, rapid advances in knowledge, and changes in markets associated with new products, new 

buyers and sellers. These factors create an urgent need for a versatile, yet responsive and effective technology transfer 

system. Meanwhile, advances in information technology have enhanced our ability to meet such a challenge. This paper 

describes the development of a knowledge base and a delivery system for forest biomass and bioenergy development. 

Under the framework of the Forest Encyclopedia Network (www.forestencyclopedia.net), the knowledge base, the 

Encyclopedia of Southern Bioenergy, is developed into seven interrelated modules representing the key components in the 

forest biomass and bioenergy supply chain. These modules can be further rescaled, integrated, and tailored to meet various 

educational needs. A variety of tools/means ranging from the Internet to printed materials and to workshops will be 

employed to disseminate the knowledge to different groups of audiences. Building on the strengths of the Southern Forest 

Research Partnership and the Southern Regional Extension Forestry office, we expect to effectively integrate research and 

outreach to help meet the educational needs for forest biomass and bioenergy development in the South.

Introduction

Current and emerging changes in clients, markets, and 

technology present both opportunities and challenges for 

technology transfer in the forestry and related professions. 

The major clients for forestry outreach/extension programs 

have traditionally been private forest landowners. These 

landowners are very diverse (Butler and Leatherberry 2004), 

and such diversity has evolved and will continue to evolve 

with demographic and socioeconomic conditions. Driven 

by globalization, increasing environmental concerns, rises 

in energy prices, and other factors, society’s demand for 

forest products and services has changed dramatically in 

recent years. This has been reflected by recent alterations 

to the forest products industry and markets, including 

divesture of industrial timberlands and increasing global 

linkages of forest products markets. These changes call for 

a versatile, yet responsive and effective technology transfer 

system. Fortunately, advances in information technology 

have tremendously improved our ability to gather, organize, 

and disseminate educational materials and information. As 

a result, it is now possible to develop such a technology 

transfer system.

This paper describes a systematic approach to the 

development, synthesis, and dissemination of forest 

biomass and bioenergy knowledge (fig. 1). The system 

consists of four interrelated components: information and 

technology producers, education and training products, 

extension and education professional, and information and 

technology consumers. The system is developed and utilized 

via a partnership among the Southern Forest Research 

Partnership, Texas A&M University, the University of 

Georgia, Forest Service, and Southern Regional Extension 

Forestry office. Such a partnership between the forestry 

research and outreach communities ensures the effective 

integration of research and technology transfer.

The focal area of this system is forest biomass and 

bioenergy. Biomass offers America a tremendous 

opportunity to use sustainable, domestic plant resources to 

enhance its fuel, power, and chemical needs. The Biomass 

Research and Development Act of 2000, the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act of 2003, and the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 all point to the importance that Congress and the 

American people place on the national bioenergy resource. 

We need to capitalize on domestic bioenergy resources to 

(1) improve our national strategic energy security, (2) create 

new jobs and new higher-valued products and technology 

for export, (3) significantly decrease annual trade deficits, 

and (4) maintain the health and productivity of our forests. 

To accomplish these objectives in a way that is economically 

viable, environmentally sustainable, and socially acceptable, 

there is an urgent need to both create new knowledge and 

make the best use possible of what we already know. In 

other words, it is essential for us to get the best scientific and 

technical knowledge into the hands of those people who can 

make a difference (e.g. the forestry community and rural and 

economic development practitioners).

The Southern US is in a unique position for forest 

biomass and bioenergy development. It is one of the most 
116

productive forest regions in the country and the world 

(Wear and Greis 2002). This region provides 60 percent of 

the nation’s timber supply and by association a very high 

percentage of the nation’s timber harvesting and processing 

wood waste residues. The Appalachian Hardwood forests 

of the mountains, the abundant Bottomland Hardwood 

forests of the many large river floodplains including the 

Mississippi River system, the mixed Pine-Hardwood forests 

and the southern pine plantations of the Coastal Plain all 

provide abundant potential biomass products that could be 

economically utilized. The development of forest biofuels 

and other bio-based products is particularly timely because 

the forest products industry, especially the pulp and paper 

products sector, in the Southern region has been negatively 

impacted in the last decade by global shifts in supply and 

demand. The impact to private forest owners, forestry rural 

communities, and the health of the nation’s forests has been 

severe. The South’s forestlands now predominately produce 

small diameter, low quality trees with weak market potential 

from the traditional wood products perspective. In addition, 

improvements in tree genetics and better competition control 

in pine plantations have allowed for planting more trees per 

acre. These have led to overstocked forests, increasing the 

threats of fire, pest, and disease outbreaks (US Congress 

2003). As a result, forest managers and rural communities 

in forested areas are facing new challenges in providing 

treatments for forests to achieve improved ecosystem health 

and to create jobs and income for these communities. 

Better utilization of small diameter trees, logging residues, 

and wood processing residues is a key component to a 

sustainable forest-based economic and environmental 

system in the South. Converting timber harvest residues 

and dedicated energy crops into biofuels and other biobased products offers outstanding benefits to the region and 

to contemporary national interest. These benefits include 

improved strategic energy and economic security, healthier 

rural economies, improved environmental quality, and 

greenhouse emission mitigation. To realize this potential, it 

is important to immediately concentrate our efforts towards 

organizing what we already know and disseminating 

resultant knowledge products to rural community business 

leaders, and persons involved in growing, harvesting, 

transporting, and processing woody biomass. With this in 

mind, we developed a knowledge and education system 

to facilitate the educational needs for forest biomass and 

bioenergy development in the South. The rest of this paper 

focuses on the description of the two key elements of the 

system--the development and delivery of the knowledge 

products.

The knowledge base

The Forest Encyclopedia Network

The Forest Encyclopedia Network (FEN) project began 

in 2000 with funding from a USDA National Research 

Initiative Competitive Grant to facilitate the transfer of 

usable knowledge from scientific experts to managers, 

policymakers, and other natural resource professionals. 

Figure 1—The integrated system of knowledge production, synthesis, delivery, and use in forest bioenergy.
117

Users of FEN are offered what adult educators call a 

self-directed learning tool where individuals can obtain 

information on an as-needed basis.

FEN currently contains six ongoing encyclopedia projects 

in various stages of development (www.forestencyclopedia.

net) (table 1). As of the summer of 2006, the FEN system 

contained 3,260 encyclopedia pages, 2,457 images, 450 

tables, and 13,444 citations. FEN attracts approximately 

300,000 page views per year.

The Encyclopedia of Southern Appalachian Ecosystems was 

the first and is the most mature. It has been peer reviewed, 

published, and has moved into the continuous updating 

mode. The Encyclopedia of Southern Fire Science has been 

published for general viewing but is still undergoing the 

final peer review for many of its sections. The Encyclopedia 

of South-wide Forest Science is being written from two 

publications offering a combined one thousand pages of peer 

reviewed content (Rauscher and Johnsen 2004; Wear and 

Greis 2002). Content has been written for the Encyclopedia 

of Southern Bioenergy. It was published for public viewing 

in September 2006. The content for the Encyclopedia of 

Forest Environmental Threats has been written and peer 

reviewed and is currently being edited, with publication 

expected in July 2008. The Encyclopedia of Southern Pine 

Beetle is the most recent FEN project. Content is currently 

being written with publication sometime in 2009.

A typical encyclopedia project begins with the development 

of the “core material” and is directed by one or more 

subject matter experts who act as the managing editors. 

These editors are responsible for creating an information 

architecture, identifying the content and engaging authors to 

write needed synthesis pages. They are also responsible for 

guiding the peer review process for each section. Assistant 

editors work with the managing editors to ensure that the 

content material gets properly placed into the hypertext 

encyclopedia and that the figures, tables, and citations are all 

properly linked. Finally, technical specialists are responsible 

for maintaining the common computing infrastructure and 

making improvements in page design, workflow and system 

function. 

All of the various encyclopedia projects share the same 

computing infrastructure to reduce implementation costs. 

Once the “core material” for an encyclopedia is in place, 

it moves to a “continuous update mode” where volunteer 

authors submit new or revised material to keep the content 

current and expanding. This continuous contribution of 

new content functions much like a scientific journal system 

in that authors are rewarded by their employing agencies 

for getting content published in FEN much the same 

way that they are rewarded for publishing in a scientific 

journal. The main difference is that FEN is interested in 

results, conclusions, and expected impacts of new science 

knowledge rather than methods and detailed mathematics. 

The FEN peer review process also focuses more on utility 

and understandability to management and lay audiences than 

do most scientific journals.

Creating and maintaining encyclopedias takes a great 

deal of effort and thus requires contributions from a wide 

array of institutions and individuals. FEN was created as 

a collaboration of the Forest Service Southern Research 

Station (srs.fs.usda.gov) and the Southern Regional 

Extension Forestry Office (www.sref.info). As FEN 

expanded, the Southern forestry university community 

Table 1—Summary of existing Forest Encyclopedia Network (FEN) projects

Project Started Published Status

Southern Appalachian 

Forest Ecosystem

January 

2000

November 

2004

Continuous 

updating

Southern Fire 

Science

March 

2002

November 

2005

Final peer 

review ongoing

South-Wide Forest 

Science

June 

2003

Pending Core content 

development

Southern Bioenergy September 

2004

September 

2006

Continuous 

updating

Forest Environmental 

Threats

October 

2005

Pending Core content 

development

Southern Pine Beetle September 

2006

Pending Project 

organizing
118

(Southern section of the National Association of University 

Forest Resources Programs or NAUFRP) and the Forest 

Service State and Private Cooperative Forestry Program also 

became active participants. This multi-agency collaboration 

draws on the strengths of all parties to improve how 

scientific information is summarized and delivered to the 

broader forestry community. Funding from these sponsoring 

organizations has been augmented by grants from USDA’s 

National Research Initiative and Bioenergy program, the 

National Fire Plan, the Joint Fire Science Program, and the 

National Forest Threat Assessment Centers of the Forest 

Service.

Bioenergy Module Contents

The Encyclopedia of Southern Bioenergy contains seven 

interrelated modules: Understanding Bioenergy Resources, 

the Southern Bioenergy Resource, Forest Management, 

Introduction to Harvesting and Transportation, Utilization, 

Economic, and Environmental Sustainability. These modules 

are organized based upon the value chain of forest biomass 

and bioenergy production (Richardson and others 2002). 

This section summarizes the contents in each module.

Module 1—Understanding Bioenergy Resources

The purpose of this introductory module is to provide a 

background on the global bioenergy situation. Specific 

objectives include: (1) defining forest biomass and 

bioenergy, and (2) describing the role of forest biomass as a 

sustainable, renewable energy source in the Southern United 

States and worldwide.

In this first module, “Understanding Bioenergy Resources,” 

the opportunities and challenges related to bioenergy 

development are discussed. The discussion is not limited 

to forestry biomass and bioenergy, but focuses on the 

bioenergy industry as a whole. Special attention is given to 

international experiences, including supply and utilization 

of biomass worldwide. In the European Union, 46 percent 

of the harvested timber was used for fuelwood in 1990 

according to Hakkila and Parikka (2002). Biomass is 

also considered one of the most important renewable 

energy sources, comprising 10.4 percent of the total use of 

renewable energy globally (Silveira 2005). The promotion 

of bioenergy and discussion of the challenges facing 

bioenergy industry development are addressed separately 

within the module. Challenges include market formation, 

creating synergies with agriculture and the energy sector, 

and managing competition (Silveira 2005). The purpose 

of this section is to acquaint the audience with bioenergy 

and its use around the globe. The status of biomass in the 

United States is discussed with special consideration given 

to environmental, social, economic, and energy issues. For 

example, 46 percent of the renewable energy used in the 

United States is attributed to biomass.

Module 2—The Southern Bioenergy Resource 

The purpose of the second module, “The Southern 

Bioenergy Resource,” is to introduce the audience to the 

characteristics of the Southern United States, the Southern 

forest, and its potential for bioenergy production. This 

module provides background information on the Southern 

United States and the Southern forest. In addition to 

describing the economic and social conditions of the South, 

the Southern forest ecosystem is also described. Topics 

include forest types, physiographic regions, climate, soils, 

and forest health. The bioenergy potential of the Southern 

forest is portrayed by describing the classes of biomass, 

including residues, small diameter woody biomass, shortrotation woody crops, and low value species, available 

from the Southern forest and the potential supply of readily 

available biomass.

Module 3—Forest Management

The purpose of the “Forest Management” module is 

to provide an understanding of the forest management 

practices utilized in the production of biomass for 

bioenergy. Specifically, the module discusses how natural 

resource professionals and landowners can successfully 

integrate biomass production for bioenergy into the forest 

management plan. To accomplish this goal, the module 

content is arranged around four topics: (1) deciding to 

produce bio-based products, (2) forest management and 

silviculture, (3) biomass production by forest type, and (4) 

best management practices (BMPs).

The first section discusses factors to consider and questions 

to ask before deciding to produce biomass for bio-based 

products. These factors include landowner objectives, site 

characteristics, and the profitability of producing bioenergy 

feedstocks on a site. For example, if wildlife management is 

a long-term landowner objective, biodiversity and wildlife 

habitat should be considered before removing biomass from 

the site.

The “Forest Management and Silviculture” section describes 

the concept of sustainable forest ecosystem management. 

Sustainable production, or sustained yield, is the amount a 

forest resource that can be produced while maintaining the 

viability of the specific forest ecosystem. It is important that 

biomass for bioenergy be produced at a sustainable rate to 

be considered a renewable natural energy source. 

Best management practices are designed to mitigate the 

effects of harvesting and other management techniques on 

the forest. BMPs are mentioned in this section since they are 

an important component of forest management, but they are 

covered in more detail in the “Environmental Sustainability” 

module.
119

The primary emphasis of the Forest Management module 

is the discussion of biomass production by forest type. 

Each of the five identified forest types, along with shortrotation woody crops, are described in detail. These forest 

types include planted pine, natural pine, mixed oak-pine, 

upland hardwoods, and lowland hardwoods. Information 

on biomass potential and biomass production is provided 

for each forest type. For example, planted pines have a high 

biomass potential because silvicultural strategies for these 

forests tend to produce large volumes of harvest residues. 

Hardwoods may not be as desirable for biomass production 

because of limiting site characteristics [i.e. topography for 

(upland hardwoods) and wet sites (lowland hardwoods)] and 

forest management techniques.

The Forest Management module is designed with the natural 

resource professional and the forest landowner in mind. 

Material is presented to allow individuals to decide if the 

production of biomass for bioenergy production fits their 

forest management objectives. Information is presented 

related to the biomass potential of each forest type. The 

primary purpose of this module is to provide information 

about how the production of biomass for bioenergy 

production can be incorporated into the forest management 

plan.

Module 4—Introduction to Harvesting and 

Transportation

The objectives of the module about harvesting and 

transportation of woody biomass from the forest for use as 

energy are to demonstrate how to cut and collect biomass 

according to demand, prepare it and then transfer it in a 

cost-effective manner to the end-users according to their 

needs. All biomass harvesting and delivery systems consist 

of collecting the material, off-road hauling, on-road hauling, 

and storage prior to ultimate use. 

Featured in this module are woody biomass coming from the 

forest that includes logging residues, non-merchantable trees 

from thinning operations, wood from short-rotation woody 

crops or energy plantations, dead and dying wood from 

mature stands, excess small-diameter trees from overstocked 

stands, insect or disease-damaged trees, and trees damaged 

by hurricanes and tornados. Of these, recovered residues 

from logging operations have the greatest potential for 

providing biomass for bioenergy production. This wood can 

be processed for delivery and storage either as composite 

residue logs (CRL) or reduced to small pieces (comminuted) 

by chippers or other similar machines. Almost exclusively, 

trucks equipped with chip vans, containers, or conventional 

log trailers transport the material from the woods to the end 

use site.

Probably the most common harvesting configurations are 

integrated one-pass systems where all recoverable material 

is harvested in a single operation. This system can take 

on many forms as can the less commonly used two—pass 

system where the biomass is harvested separately from the 

conventional products like pulpwood, sawlogs, and veneer. 

There are two components considered in establishing a 

woody biomass for energy production or energy harvesting 

and transportation system. The first explores the technical 

aspects of the gathering, processing, storage and delivery 

systems, while the latter explore the economic, regulatory 

and environmental issues pertinent to harvesting woody 

biomass for energy. Included throughout are the costs 

associated with harvesting woody biomass.

Module 5—Utilizing Biomass for Bioenergy, 

Biofuels, and Bio-based Products

This module centers on the concepts of utilizing and 

processing woody waste from harvesting practices, 

industrial by-products such as sawdust and black liquor, and 

secondary products such as chips and pallets into energy, 

fuels, and chemical products. The module introduces 

the user to the components of wood, such as lignin and 

cellulose, as well as factors that hinder utilization such as 

moisture and ash content. Processes for creating bio-based 

products and energy are divided into thermochemical 

and biochemical conversion systems and presented so 

that users can evaluate and choose the best technological 

alternative for their particular situation. Process schematics 

and links to sites where the processes are being utilized 

are also provided. The module presents information on 

energy production via various processes as well as in-depth 

discussion of the creation and use of ethanol, methanol, and 

bio-diesel while incorporating successful case studies and 

research. Chemical extracts, their uses, and the research 

that is currently underway are also covered in this module. 

The concept of an integrated, multi-product biorefinery is 

presented as an example of the potential for utilizing woody 

biomass. The processing and utilization module houses 

comparisons between the use of bio-based energy and 

products in the United States versus nations in Europe, Asia, 

Africa, and South America with case studies.

The module was constructed by researching the expansive 

literature in the fields of chemistry, physics, engineering, 

wood products, and biology. On-site visits to a multitude 

of conversion facilities and discussions with leading 

researchers and project managers have helped build the 

complex and confusing material into a form that can be 

understood by the Forest Encyclopedia’s target audience—

natural resource professionals. 

Module 6—Economics

This module addresses the socio-economic issues associated 

with forest biomass and bioenergy development. The 

information presented in this module is intended to aid 

forestland owners and practitioners in understanding 
120

economic potential and barriers for forest biomass and 

bioenergy production and relevant policies. It contains four 

sections: supply of forest biomass, cost competitiveness, 

community impacts, and policy factors and incentive 

programs. 

The supply section describes factors affecting supply, 

sources and quantify of supply, location of supply, and 

uncertainty and the long-term supply. An array of factors 

could be attributable to forest biomass supply. These 

factors include the availability of forest resources, recovery 

limitations imposed by accessibility and environmental 

concerns, and economic considerations. Forest biomass 

can be derived from a variety of sources including logging 

residues, mill residues, thinnings (traditional forest 

management and fuel treatments), stands damaged by 

natural disturbances (fire, windstorm, pest outbreaks, etc.), 

energy plantations, and urban wood wastes. Trees that are 

traditionally harvested for pulpwood can also become a 

potential source for bioenergy if the price is right. Among 

these supply sources, logging residues are perhaps one of 

the most economical sources of forest biomass that have 

not been extensively used. There are approximately 40 

million dry tons of logging residues that can be recovered in 

the U.S. About 50 percent of the nation’s logging residues 

are located in the South. The long-term supply of logging 

residues would be relatively stable for the South and the 

nation as a whole whereas slight variations would exist 

across regions. Though biomass resources in the South are 

promising, biomass production costs, competing uses of 

forest resource, and environmental concerns may influence 

biomass supply. In addition, large buyers of forest biomass 

have not emerged region-wide.

The ability for forest biomass and bioenergy to realize a 

greater share of energy and other products markets will 

largely depend on their cost competitiveness relative to 

their substitutes. The second section of this module delves 

into the production costs of forest biomass and bioenergy 

and their cost competitiveness with similar products on 

the market. In terms of feedstock, the production costs of 

delivered logging residues are about $30 per dry ton with 

a transportation distance of less than 62 miles (100 km), 

compared to about $50 per dry ton for short rotation woody 

crops and $30-50 per dry ton for fuel treatment thinning. 

Because of data limitations and the maturity of energy 

conversion technology, the production costs of secondary 

energy are analyzed and compared using electricity as an 

example. The cost of electricity generated from logging 

residues is estimated at about $50/MWh, significantly (about 

40 percent) higher than that of coal-generated electricity. 

Yet, electricity generation using logging residues represents 

an economically viable option for CO2 emission mitigation 

(Gan and Smith 2006).

The third section of this module examines the community 

impacts of forest biomass and bioenergy development. 

Bioenergy development can generate a variety of 

socioeconomic impacts ranging from income and job 

creation to tax revenue and to community coherence. Of 

these impacts, the creation of jobs and income is probably 

most significant. In addition, bioenergy has the greatest 

potential for employment creation among alternative energy 

sources. This section also contains several case studies 

to illustrate the impacts of forest biomass and bioenergy 

development on local communities. These case studies 

cover different bioenergy production systems in several 

states in the United States, with emphasis on the U.S. 

South. The case studies reiterate the potential role that 

forest bioenergy can play in rural economic development. 

While the impact varies from case to case, forest bioenergy 

development demonstrates strong ripple effects on income 

and employment.

The last section of this module discusses relevant policy 

issues. It explains (a) existing incentive programs for 

biomass and bioenergy production and consumption, (b) 

incentives needed for making forest biomass and bioenergy 

competitive, and (c) experience in other countries as 

compared to the U.S. Website links to existing incentive 

programs are provided. It appears that existing incentive 

programs focus more on energy producers (processors) and 

consumers than on forest landowners. For forest bioenergy 

to become competitive with fossil fuels, some incentives 

are necessary. There is also a need for a better integration 

and coordination of different incentives programs. The 

experience in other developed countries offers useful 

implications for bioenergy development in the U.S.

Module 7—Environmental Sustainability

The purpose of the “Environmental Sustainability” module 

is to provide an understanding of the environmental and 

sustainability issues related to biomass and bioenergy 

production in the Southern United States. The module 

content was developed around five central themes: 

sustainable forest management, soil values, hydrologic 

values, biodiversity values, and designing low-impact 

operations. The goal is to provide a background on 

environmental sustainability issues while providing the 

information necessary to put practices into operation that 

ensure environmental sustainability.

The section on sustainable forest management provides 

an overview of adaptive forest management along with 

international agreements and various certification systems. 

Details are provided about certification systems relevant 

to the South including the Forest Stewardship Council, 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative, the American Tree Farm 

System, ISO 14001, and the American Logger Council 

Certification.

The next portion of the module focuses on issues related to 

sustainability of forest soils. Organic matter disturbance, 
121

nutrient management, and soil displacement and compaction 

are all key practices related to biomass harvesting that can 

affect the sustainability of the forest soil. 

The hydrologic values section of the module discusses water 

quantity and water quality issues. Special attention is given 

to the discussion of streamside management zones and their 

impact on hydrologic processes.

The section on biodiversity provides information related 

to conservation tools used in maintaining the diversity of 

species located in a forested area. These tools and concepts 

include landscape management, “umbrella species” 

management, complex stand management, and buffer zones 

(Angelstam and others 2002). Of particular importance for 

biomass production is the management of deadwood. While 

this wood is attractive for bioenergy production, it should be 

maintained as species habitat.

The final section of the Environmental Sustainability 

module is titled “Designing Low Impact Operations”. Using 

tools and information from the previous sections, natural 

resource professionals are provided with information on 

how to plan a low-impact operation. One of the key aspects 

of this discussion is focused on Best Management Practices 

(BMPs). The concept of BMPs is summarized and links are 

provided to each state’s specific BMPs. Creating streamside 

management zones, conserving soil organic matter, 

managing nutrients, habitat creation, and complex stand 

management are discussed in greater detail. The use of these 

practices and their effect on environmental sustainability are 

presented to educate individuals about the proper application 

of these practices in order to conserve and protect the 

environmental sustainability of the forest while maintaining 

productivity as well.

The delivery system

Once completed, the Encyclopedia of Southern Bioenergy 

will be used as the primary resource in the development 

of all other outreach tools. A concomitant website (http://

forestbioenergy.net) also serves as the data distribution 

center for related images, video, presentations, and 

templates. Extension specialists and other natural resource 

educators are able to pull from the encyclopedia, the data 

distribution center, and other related resources all of the 

materials required to prepare traditional printed and webbased publications. As a result, the widest audience possible 

is reached through our efforts.

Tools

Traditional delivery methods include fact sheets, brochures, 

and posters. These methods have been found to be the 

preferred method of delivery for some Extension educators 

(Westa and others 2005; Howell and Habron 2004; 

Rodewald 2001) within the project. To maintain a level 

of quality and recognition, attractive templates have been 

developed for each of the standard delivery methods. 

Natural resource professionals are encouraged to use these 

templates and simply substitute their specific state, region, 

or county information. Printed publications are easy to 

produce and distribute and reach a large target audience. 

By providing basic information in this format, we are 

able to reach a large audience of not only natural resource 

professionals, but landowners, community developers, and 

energy professionals as well.

Workshops will also be utilized throughout the project. 

This traditional delivery method has been shown to also be 

a preferred method of receiving information (Howell and 

Habron 2004). This research indicated that 57 percent of 

respondents preferred face-to-face personal communication 

to learn about watershed issues. A study in Connecticut 

found that workshops ranked second, behind publications, as 

the preferred method of receiving information related to land 

use planning and sustainable economic development (Westa 

and others 2005).

Workshops will be primarily conducted to train natural 

resource educators and outreach professions in important 

bio-based products concepts and the proper use of the 

educational materials, and online tools developed by the 

project team. These educators will then further disseminate 

the bioenergy materials to other audiences. 

The newest educational technology to be incorporated into 

the project is E-Learning. E-Learning includes web and 

computer-based learning, CD-ROMs, DVD, interactive 

video, and other multimedia tools (Williamson and Smoak 

2005). The project uses several adaptations of E-Learning. 

The most visible is the use of web-based learning modules 

for the National Learning Center for Private Forest and 

Range Landowners (www.forestandrange.org). These 

learning modules are designed after the seven modules in the 

Encyclopedia of Southern Bioenergy, yet are quite different 

from those modules. The web-based learning modules are 

designed with the private forest landowner as the audience. 

These modules use on-screen text, narrated PowerPoint 

presentations, links, short audio and video clips, animations, 

and short quizzes to provide the forest landowner with 

the information necessary to understand the situation 

surrounding forest biomass and bioenergy development in 

the Southern United States. Audio, video, and animations 

are kept to a level that compliments the content of the 

modules while not overwhelming the learner. Key points 

and concepts are stressed through the use of these tools. The 

quizzes test participants knowledge of the topic area once a 

lesson has been completed. After completing a module, the 

landowner will walk away not only having been engaged 

and entertained, but also more knowledgeable about 

bioenergy development in the South.
122

Several of the tools developed for the web-based 

learning modules will also be used independently of the 

learning modules. This includes the narrated PowerPoint 

presentations and the audio and video clips. These tools can 

be used as supplementary materials for the printed materials 

and used by natural resource professionals and Extension 

personnel.

The overall goal of the project is to provide a comprehensive 

bioenergy education program to natural resource 

professionals, Extension personnel, community developers, 

energy professionals, and private forest landowners. 

Using a combination of traditional and new delivery tools 

to comprise one delivery system, we hope to provide 

information to educate all interested parties about forest 

biomass and its role in the development of a bioenergy 

industry in the Southern United States.

Partnership with Southern Regional Extension 

Forestry

The Southern Regional Extension Forestry Office (SREF) 

was established in 1979 to serve as a liaison role between 

the Forest Service and the Extension Forest Resources 

units in the Southern 1862 Land-Grant institutions. Its 

central mission is to identify, prescribe, and implement a 

mix of education and technical services that increase the 

efficiency of forestry programs in the southern United 

States. Its position has evolved into a regional programming, 

representation, promotion, and communication role within 

the forestry and natural resource communities regionally and 

nationally. Our technology transfer mechanism builds on the 

extensive and well-established linkages to the end-users of 

our knowledge products under the Land-Grant universities 

and SREF. Coupled with the powerful knowledge base and 

Internet system, this partnership with SREF may generate 

synergetic impacts on the technology transfer.

CONcluding Remarks

This paper describes a unique and novel system for 

developing and disseminating educational materials on 

forest biomass and bioenergy. The system integrates 

forestry research with outreach via strong partnerships 

among Land-Grant Universities, Southern Forest Research 

Partnership, Inc., Southern Region Extension Forestry, and 

Forest Service. The hypertext Encyclopedia of Southern 

Bioenergy is a powerful tool to receive, organize, update, 

and deliver scientific and technical knowledge on biomass/

bioenergy. Building on this web-based Encyclopedia, we 

will be able to develop a versatile and responsive technology 

transfer system. It will make it possible to develop templates 

to allow for on-demand construction of education materials 

to meet the needs of various audiences/learners. Coupled 

with traditional outreach materials and means, this system 

is likely to generate a profound impact in forest bioenergy 

technology transfer.

Though the system is developed primarily for the outreach 

purposes in forest biomass and bioenergy, it can be extended 

to other subject areas and educational activities. By 

extending cooperation with existing and new partners and 

linking it to other systems, this system could become a new 

paradigm for forestry technology transfer.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the USDA and DOE Biomass 

Development and Research Initiatives program (grant no.: 

68-3A75-4-143) with additional financial support provided 

by the institutions and organizations the authors are 

associated with.
123

REFERENCES 

Angelstam, P.; Mikusinski, G.; Breuss, M. 2002. Biodiversity and forest 

habitats. In: Bioenergy from sustainable forestry: Guiding principles 

and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 

216-243.

Butler, B.J.; Leatherberry, E.C. 2004. America’s family forest owners. 

Journal of Forestry. 102(7): 4-9.

Gan, J.; Smith, C.T. 2006. A comparative analysis of woody biomass and 

coal for electricity generation under various CO2 emissions reductions 

and taxes. Biomass and Bioenergy. 30: 296-303.

Hakkila, P.; Parikka, M. 2002. Fuel resources from the forest. In: Bioenergy 

from sustainable forestry: Guiding principles and practice. Dordrecht, 

The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 19-48.

Howell, J.L.; Habron, G.B. 2004. Agricultural landowners’ lack of 

preference for Internet extension. Journal of Extension. 42(6). Available 

at http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/a7.shtml. Accessed 25 

May 2006.

Rauscher, H.M.; Johnsen, K. 2004. Southern forest science: past, present, 

and future. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-75. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest 

Service Southern Research Station. 394 p.

Richardson, J.; Bjorheden, R.; Hakkila, P. [and others]. 2002. Bioenergy 

from sustainable forestry: guiding principles and practice. Dordrecht, 

The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 344 p.

Rodewald, A.D. 2001. Delivery systems – is the “latest” technology the 

greatest? Journal of Extension. 39(4). Available at http://www.joe.org/

joe/2001august/tt2.html. Accessed on 25 May 2006.

Silveira, S. 2005. Bioenergy: realizing the potential. The Netherlands: 

Elsevier. 300 p.

U.S. Congress. 2003. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. 

Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment: 

summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-54. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest 

Service Southern Research Station. 103 p.

Westa, S.P.; Broderick, S.H.; Tyson, C.B. 2005. Getting the word out in the 

Last Green Valley: integrating digital video, direct mail, and Web-based 

information for specific target audiences. Journal of Extension. 43(1). 

Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/a7.shtml. Accessed 25 

May 2006.

Williamson, R.D.; Smoak, E.P. 2005. Embracing edutainment with 

interactive e-learning tools. Journal of Extension. 43(5). Available at 

http://www.joe.org/joe/2005october/iw2.shtml. Accessed 25 May 2006.

NEEDS ASSESSMENT, 

AUDIENCE RESEARCH, 

PLANNING, AND EVALUATION

1

Professor and Professor, Mississippi State University, Department of Forestry, Mississippi State, MS 39762; Professor, Mississippi State University, 

Department of Forestry, Grenada, MS 38901; Professor, Mississippi State University, Department of Forestry, Verona, MS 38879; Professor, Mississippi State 

University, Department of Forestry, Raymond, MS 39154, respectively.

127

INTERACTIVE VIDEO AS A SHORT COURSE DELIVERY METHOD IN 

MISSISSIPPI: PARTICIPANT ACCEPTANCE AND LESSONS LEARNED

Andrew J. Londo, Debbie A. Gaddis, 

Timothy A. Traugott, John D. Kushla, and Stephen G. Dicke1

Abstract—The Extension Forestry program at Mississippi State University has conducted hundreds of forest landowner 

short courses over the last 20 years. These short courses have been the staple of the extension forestry program. The 

advent of interactive video is allowing us to conduct these short courses to more counties at a time, while providing 

significant savings in travel time and costs. At the same time, interactive video are increasing advertising costs while 

straining the logistical ability of extension forestry to supply the materials needed for the interactive programs, as well all 

other programs being conducted state wide. This paper describes the county forest landowner short courses, as well as the 

response to our use of interactive video with clientele. Benefits, drawbacks, and future directions for the use of interactive 

video for forestry extension in Mississippi are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

County forest landowner short courses have been the main 

stay of extension forestry programs at Mississippi State 

University for over twenty years (Londo and Monaghan 

2002). The short courses are offered on a variety of topics 

and consist of 6-10 hours of instruction each. These 

short courses are typically offered on a county by county 

basis in a classroom setting. MSU Extension forestry is 

moving towards conducting more programs via an in-state 

interactive video network.

METHODS

Short courses have historically been conducted in 

individual counties. The county extension director, along 

with the county forestry association (CFA) would request 

a particular short course of the area extension forestry 

specialist. The specialist would schedule the short course, 

arrange for speakers and publicity. Faculty members from 

the Department of Forestry typically serve as instructors; 

however, volunteer instructors (professional foresters from 

industry, consulting firms, and government agencies) are 

often used. Each short course has a standardized schedule 

of sessions. The standardization allows for efficient 

development and duplication of notebook material as well 

as scheduling volunteer instructors (Londo and Monaghan 

2002).

Short courses are publicized in a number of ways. The 

county extension office will send a direct mailing to the CFA 

members, as well as those that have previously attended 

extension forestry programs in that county. A mail out will 

also be conducted from campus, utilizing the county tax 

rolls. In this way, several hundred additional direct mail 

pieces advertising the program to forest landowners in the 

county are mailed (Londo and others 2006). Posters, radio 

programs, newspaper and television ads, as well as posting 

on the internet are additional ways in which extension 

forestry programs are advertised (Londo and Monaghan 

2002).

From this point on, the short course is a “turn key” operation 

for the county extension staff. Teaching objectives have 

been developed for each session and are provided to 

all instructors to assist with presentations and to avoid 

duplication of subject matter covered in other sessions by 

other instructors. Consistency and similarity have proven to 

be very important in the development of our short courses. 

All short course offerings of the same title are virtually 

identical. This enables us to produce the notebooks in bulk 

and schedule guest instructors up to a year in advance.

Budget reductions have led to the use of alternative means 

for conducting short courses. Interactive video is one such 

method. Interactive video allows participants in a number 

of different locations the ability to participate in a program 

live and in person with the ability to ask questions. Our first 

attempt at interactive video was in 2001 with a timber tax 

fundamentals short course (Londo and Gaddis 2003). While 

this program was successfully broadcast to 17 locations 

around Mississippi, there were many technical difficulties 

because we were using non-MSU sites. This reduced our use 

of the technology until recently. Now we are able MSU sites 

with compatible equipment and technical support.

RESULTS

Evaluations from the first interactive video short course 

conducted showed that even though there were ample 
128

technical problems with the broadcast, 95 percent said they 

would attend another interactive video broadcast. When 

asked what they would like to see in an interactive format, 

80 percent listed programs already conducted by extension 

forestry, while 20 percent indicated other programs not 

currently covered (Londo and Gaddis 2003). Reasons for 

not liking the interactive video program all revolved around 

technical difficulties experienced. 

The results of this survey lead us to believe that there is 

an unfelt or unmet educational need among our clientele 

across the state for new subject areas/topics. These topics 

can be covered through traditional educational programs, 

or through interactive video. Also, interactive video may 

allow us to do more and varied programming, increasing our 

potential client base across the state.

Since 2004, the MSU-Extension Service has been 

working to establish interactive video capabilities in all 82 

Mississippi counties. When this is completed, Mississippi 

will be the first state in the nation with this capability in all 

counties. This network has been utilized by all extension 

programs, and proved to be especially useful following 

Hurricane Katrina. 

During this time of Interactive Video capability expansion, 

extension forestry has conducted 7 interactive video 

programs, with an addition program scheduled for October 

of 2006. These programs have covered a variety of topics 

including timber harvesting and marketing and wildlife 

and forest management. The Interactive Video network 

also allows us the flexibility to conduct programs to a large 

audience on short notice. An example is the Farm Services 

Agency Emergency CRP Program. 

The Emergency CRP program came about as a way to 

help forest landowners of the Gulf Coast states with 

their recovery efforts following the hurricanes of 2005. 

We used the interactive video network to broadcast a 

program describing the Emergency CRP program, its 

requirements, and sign up procedures. This was broadcast 

to 182 participants in 30 counties. In addition, the program 

was recorded to DVDs, which were made available to all 

participating counties, as well as other heavily hurricanedamaged counties in south Mississippi that were unable to 

participate in the program. 

Benefits of Interactive Video

The most significant benefits of interactive video are 

savings in terms of travel time and costs. The forest 

and wildlife management for recreation and profit short 

course was conducted through the interactive video 

network in the spring of 2006. Conducting this program 

through the network to 17 counties resulted in a savings 

of approximately 21,000 miles traveled, $9,200 in 

mileage costs, and 460 hours of travel time, compared to 

conducting the short course through traditional face to 

face presentations. In addition to these cost savings, more 

clientele are reached at one time, further reducing the cost 

per individual contact. Lastly, interactive video can provide 

a comprehensive outreach Program with the flexibility to 

provide educational programs on short notice (Emergency 

CRP program) or on topics traditionally not covered in our 

traditional programs. The ability to reach multiple counties 

at the same time allows us to get information out in a 

timelier, cost effective manner. 

In spite of being at remote locations, participants are able 

to interact with the presenters through use of an intercom 

system. With the push of a button, the interactive system 

switches from the camera on the speaker, to the camera on 

where the intercom button was pushed. A question can be 

asked, with all participants hearing the question, as well as 

seeing who is asking. This allows for more direct interaction 

with the presenters, as one would find in a more traditional 

short course presentation. 

Clemson University has led the way in this arena with the 

Master Tree Farmer and Wildlifer programs in recent years. 

This technology may allow different states to collaborate on 

programs, thus further increasing the efficiencies of scale 

associated with interactive video.

Drawbacks of Interactive Video

There are some drawbacks to using interactive video. 

First and foremost, it shouldn’t be used exclusively for 

conducting all programs. While interactive video provides 

some flexibility, some topics can not be taught effectively 

in this format. Field based exercises, site visits, and other 

similar programs would be difficult to conduct through 

interactive video. Also, while most clientele like interactive 

video, many do not. There is the risk of losing some of the 

traditional clientele base.

We are currently using interactive video technology at 

sites controlled by MSU. This is necessary since not all 

equipment is compatible with each other. Also, MSU will 

provide technical support for MSU controlled sites. This 

could be a hindrance to using this technology across state 

boundaries.

While interactive video has saved on travel costs and 

time, it has increased costs in other areas. MSU Extension 

Forestry uses county tax rolls for producing mailing lists to 

advertise programs (Londo and others 2006). The hardwood 

management short course being offered interactively in 

October of 2006 had approximately 29,000 direct mailings 

sent to landowners in the 42 participating counties. That 

accounts for approximately 75 percent of our annual mailing 

output and budget. While we have some soft money funds to 

help defray the costs, this may reduce our ability to advertise 

other programs in the future. 
129

Interactive video programming places a strain on the overall 

logistics associated with putting on the short courses and 

other extension forestry programs. The assembling and 

shipping of notebooks to the counties from campus is 

performed by student workers, whose availability is limited 

under the best of circumstances. The pressure of needing 

so many notebooks for one program has been difficult, 

especially since there are other programs and activities 

going on at the same time, which also need materials and 

supplies provided from main campus. We have discussed 

placing the notebooks onto CDs, to reduce handling and 

shipping costs. However, to do this would increase specialist 

preparation time. This idea is still being looked at as a viable 

alternative to using the traditional notebooks.

In addition, mail costs increase significantly as more 

counties are added to a program. All mail charges are 

covered in part by state appropriated and extramural funds. 

We also charge a nominal fee ($35 per person) for our short 

courses. This fee could be used to help offset mail costs as 

well.

Interactive video does offer the opportunity for personal 

contact with presenters through the use of the intercom 

button. The system can slow down if too many sites are 

using the intercom buttons at one time. Also, it takes 

participants a while to relax with the technology. There is a 

“fear” of pushing the button.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

We expect to conduct 4 interactive video short courses a 

year statewide. This amounts to one a quarter. In addition, 

these programs will be limited to 20 counties. There are 

a number of reasons for limiting the number of counties. 

First, it will ease the logistical pressure on providing mailing 

lists and other needed materials from campus. Second, the 

interactive network can get ‘bogged down” with too many 

sites online at one time. We hope to be able to limit these 

kinds of unnecessary technical difficulties. Lastly, we are 

concerned about market saturation with our clientele. We 

don’t want to conduct so many interactive programs, that it 

reduces the overall demand for our short courses and other 

programs.

In between the short courses, we plan on conducting shorter 

duration (1-2 hour) programs on assorted topics. These 

topics could be on virtually any forestry-related topic, and 

will provide us with new flexibility and opportunity to 

create new programs. We could do seasonal topics (tree 

planting tips, why do leaves change color, how to prune your 

trees, etc...), topics of immediate importance (Emergency 

CRP, Pine beetles, etc) or topics that are of interest to our 

clientele.

CONCLUSIONS

County forest landowner short courses have been the bread 

and butter of MSU Extension Forestry for over 20 years. In 

recent years, we’ve made a shift from conducting all short 

courses in a traditional “class room” setting in individual 

counties, to using interactive video in multiple counties at 

one time. This has been met favorably by our clientele state 

wide. Future plans include conducting one short course per 

quarter through the network, as well shorter programs in 

between those short courses.

The use of Interactive video provides greater flexibility in 

conducting programs while reducing travel time and costs 

and increasing the number of clientele reached at one time, 

as compared to conducting these programs in the traditional 

format. However, there is increased postage costs associated 

with the significant increase in mailings for advertising. 

There are also logistical issues associated with assembling 

short course notebooks for multiple counties associated with 

one program, with other programs needed support from 

campus occurring at the same time. Improved scheduling for 

all programs may be the best way to resolve some of these 

issues.

Interactive video may allow us to collaborate on programs 

with other states in the southern region. This could further 

enhance the economies of scale associated with using 

interactive video, while raising the profile of MSU in the 

process. 

REFERENCES

Londo, A.J.; Gaddis, D.A. 2003. Evaluating Mississippi non-industrial 

private forest landowners’ acceptance of an interactive video short 

course. Journal of Extension. 41(5). Available online at: www.joe.org/

joe/2003october/rb4.shtml.

Londo, A.J.; Kushla, J.D.; Smallidge, J.P. 2006. Using county tax rolls for 

advertising extension forestry program. In Review: Journal of Extension.

Londo, A.J.; Monaghan, T.A. 2002. Forest landowner short courses at 

Mississippi State University. Journal of Extension. 40(5). Available 

online at: www.joe.org/joe/2002october/rb5.shtml.
1

Research Associate, Professor, and Associate Professor and Extension Forestry Coordinator, Mississippi State University, Department of Forestry, Mississippi 

State, MS 39762, respectively.

130

 Improving Educational Programming by 

Understanding the Clientele

Lance D. Stewart, Laura A. Grace, and Andrew J. Londo1

Abstract—During the 2002 restructuring of the Mississippi State University Extension Service, several county extension 

agents were reclassified as regional forestry specialists within their particular geographical area without regard to their 

experience or educational background. In an attempt to prepare the new regional forestry specialists for the upcoming 

task, the Mississippi State University Extension Forestry Program randomly surveyed 4,000 non-industrial private forest 

landowners in five geographically diverse counties in 2004. The survey had a 19 percent return rate with 69 percent of 

respondents indicating an interest in forestry-related issues. The purpose of the study was to identify educational needs of 

non-industrial private forest landowners and their preference of educational delivery methods. During the analysis, three 

barriers impeding educational programming of forest landowners were identified. Awareness of Educational Programs - 49 

percent of respondents were unaware of extension educational opportunities. Scheduling of Educational Programs - 47 

percent of surveyed landowners reported lack of time as the main reason for not attending programs. Reluctance to Use 

Technology - less than 10 percent of respondents chose the Internet as either an educational delivery method or a repository 

of information. To overcome the identified barriers, extension professionals must heighten awareness of education programs 

through client preferred marketing, schedule programs during client preferred times, and plan each program to integrate 

practical uses of technology. This study was important because it revealed barriers impeding successful educational 

programs of forest landowners. As extension professionals we must be aware of clientele needs, attitudes and preferences to 

successfully reach our constituents. Because forestry landowner needs and preferences change over time forestry programs 

must be proactive in our educational offerings, and responsive to landowner needs and request.

INTRODUCTION

The State of Mississippi has a diverse landscape considering 

the relative small size of the state, only 46,907 square 

miles. Approximately two-thirds of the State of Mississippi 

is forested with 66 percent of the land owned by over 

314,000 non-industrial private forest landowners (NIPF). 

Forestry ranks second, in terms of Agricultural production, 

within the state. This large number of NIPF landowners 

provides a diverse constituent base with wide ranging needs. 

During the 2002 restructuring of the Mississippi State 

University Extension Service, several county extension 

agents were reclassified as regional forestry specialists 

within their particular geographical area without regard to 

their experience or educational background. In an attempt 

to prepare the new regional forestry specialists for the 

upcoming task, a survey instrument identifying constituent 

needs and desires was constructed, implemented and results 

analyzed in 2004. The purpose of the study was to identify 

short and long range educational needs of non-industrial 

private forest landowners and their preference of educational 

delivery methods.

METHODS

The counties of Greene, Lincoln, Tishomingo, Wayne and 

Yalobusha were sampled (fig. 1).

2

3

1

4

Figure 1—Counties involved in needs assessment survey.

A twenty-four question instrument was created and mailed 

to 4,000 individuals in five counties. Stakeholders were 

chosen at random from county tax records and were mailed 

a survey with instructions to return the completed survey 

within a two week time period. After the initial two week 

deadline elapsed, a follow up reminder was mailed to 

individuals who had not returned surveys and a secondary 
131

survey was mailed to incorrect addresses. Following 

the second deadline, responses were then entered into a 

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for analysis. After adjusting for 

incorrect addresses, the total number of mailed instruments 

was 2,339. Data were summarized based on the five hundred 

and seven (n=507) individual responses to the survey, 

resulting in a 19 percent return rate for the questionnaire. 

The number of responses varied for each question, with 

some questions receiving multiple answers and other 

questions left completely unanswered. A comprehensive 

analysis of all participant responses was calculated. 

Each participant was grouped by county of origin, total 

ownership size of forested land, total household income, and 

respondent age group. 

RESULTS

Before educational improvements occur, factors hindering 

the education process among clients were identified. 

During the analysis, three barriers impeding educational 

programming of forest landowners were identified. Those 

three barriers were awareness of educational programs, 

scheduling of educational programs and reluctance to use 

technology.

In the educational topics portion of the needs assessment, 

participants were asked to identify any and all forestryrelated educational programs attended. Eighteen different 

programs were listed from Best Management Practices 

to Wildlife Management including a space for non-listed 

programs to be penciled in. Forty-nine percent of survey 

participants indicated they had not attended any educational 

program (fig. 2).

The non-attendance category was anticipated to be high, but 

we were surprised to find that almost half of all participants 

had never attended any extension educational programming. 

The subsequent questions inquired as to the reasons why 

participants had not attended forestry programs. Forty-five 

percent indicated they were simply unaware of educational 

opportunities (fig. 3). 

Scheduling educational programs was also found to be a 

barrier for NIPF. Thirteen percent of participants indicated 

inconvenient timing of programming (fig. 3) as a reason for 

not attending forestry educational programs. Thirty four 

percent identified lack of time as a reason for not attended 

programs (fig. 3). Anticipating program logistics as an 

obstacle, question 11 requested participants to identify the 

day of week and time of day best suitable for educational 

programs. Survey respondents identified Thursday evenings, 

from 6pm-till, as the most convenient day and time for 

educational programs (fig. 4).

The third barrier impeding educational programming was 

identified as landowner reluctance to use technology. While 

64 percent of participants owned a personal computer, only 

40 percent reported access to the Internet. Twenty nine 

percent of landowners reported the Internet as a useful 

delivery method for information, ranking last on the survey. 

Only 7 percent of participants chose the Internet as a 

preferred way to be informed about future forestry-related 

educational programs.

Participants preferred to receive newsletters for both 

delivering information and program notification. Findings 

also reveal that only 3 percent visited the Mississippi State 

University Extension Service website, only 2 percent visited 

the Mississippi State University College of Forest Resources 

website, while just 2 people visited the Forestry Wildlife 

Research Center website. 

DISCUSSION

The barriers identified are significant obstacles in educating 

the clientele. There are inherent obstacles associated with 

all adult programs, but these complications can be reduced 

to mere inconveniences if appropriate and thoughtful 

educational programming is implemented. The limitations 

of this study include a small survey of participants in 

a localized area. The researchers suggest that surveys 

be implemented by each extension agent within his/her 

local community to develop ways to improve educational 

programming within his/her region.

To overcome the barrier of awareness, extension agents 

should advertise education programs through client centered 

marketing strategies. Program marketing strategies should 

be developed during the program planning phase to increase 

awareness among constituents. The participants of this 

study preferred newsletter methods of marketing. Increased 

awareness of educational programming leads to more 

constituent participation and superior levels of education.

Program scheduling also proved a barrier for busy 

landowners. Landowners in this study reported little time 

to attend educational programming. Also, landowners 

reported educational opportunities to be offered during 

inconvenient times. To overcome the barrier of scheduling, 

extension agents should survey their constituents and offer 

programs during client preferred times. Also, technology 

related programming should be introduced as a time efficient 

method for educational opportunities. 

Results of this study repeatedly indicated client resistance 

to technology. Extension agents may have an uphill battle 

in convincing clients to use this method of education. 
132

49%

15%

12% 12% 11% 10% 10%

None

Wildlife

management

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Harvesting &

marketing

Best

management

practices

Pine

thinning

Timber

harvesting

safety

Forest

taxation

Number of program participants

Percentage attending

Figure 2—Attendance of forestry education programming.

1%

34%

13%

4% 5%

45%

Unaware of

programs

Lack of

interest

Little

perceived

value

Inconvenient

time

Lack of

time

Lack of

trust

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Number of respondents

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Percentage of responses

Figure 3—Reasons for nonattendance of forestry educational programs.
133

To overcome the barrier of technology, extension agents 

should plan each program to integrate practical technology 

uses with positive experiences. Extension agents should 

demonstrate technology uses as time-saving, client centered 

and diverse opportunities for educational advancement.

This study was important because it revealed barriers 

impeding successful educational programs of forest 

landowners. As extension professionals we must be aware 

of clientele needs, attitudes and preferences to successfully 

reach our constituents. 

11% 11%

13%

20%

22%

26%

Thursday

6 pm-till

Tuesday

6 pm-till

Monday

6 pm-till

Friday

6 pm-till

Saturday

8 am-12 pm

Wednesday

6 pm-till

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Number of responses

Percentage of responses

Figure 4—Program day and time preference.
1

Professor, University of Tennessee Extension, Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, Knoxville, TN 37996.

134

Natural Resource Programming Through the 

County Extension Network in Tennessee: 

Successes, Problems, and Potential Solutions

Wayne K. Clatterbuck1

Abstract—A statewide extension program with emphasis on natural resources was implemented in Tennessee during 

1995. All levels of the extension service had to be convinced that natural resource programming was relevant to our 

client’s needs. Administration and district program leaders responded by giving natural resources “priority status” within 

the training schedule. However, county extension leaders remained skeptical because (1) most are trained in traditional 

agriculture, not natural resources, (2) overloaded county agents found it easier to transfer natural resource questions and 

educational programs to state agency personnel in forestry or wildlife, (3) the natural resource audience is broader than 

the typical farmer audience, and (4) justification for natural resource programming was lacking. Once county extension 

leaders learned that forests are a major land use in many counties that needed their educational attention, that forests and 

forest industry are an important industry to their county’s economy, and farm income could be supplemented by forestry 

and wildlife activities, county leaders became more inclined to initiate natural resource programming. Acceptance of 

natural resource programming was extended by incorporating training in best management practices (BMPs), particularly 

water quality management, with other disciplines such as alternative watering systems for livestock and engineered stream 

crossings. County leaders were more comfortable using cross-program training in traditional program areas with natural 

resources. A county leader with strong interests in natural resources was chosen from each extension district to represent 

the district in state programming meetings. This person was also looked upon internally as a source of information and 

an instigator for natural resource programming in each district. Presently, 43 county or multi-county forest landowner 

associations have formed and are operating in Tennessee. These associations are conduits for natural resources landowner 

education extension programs. 

Introduction

Tennessee Extension has traditionally been farm-related and 

commodity-based. Little attention has been given to natural 

resources within Extension until recently. With traditional 

farm incomes declining and the number of farms decreasing, 

managing land for natural resources is looked upon as an 

additional source to enhance or supplement farm incomes. 

The purpose of this article is to show how natural resource 

education programming and training have been implemented 

within extension in Tennessee. The training within the 

organization is then extended to private non-industrial 

landowners.

Tennessee is a diverse state that is 800 km from east to west 

and 230 km from north to south. The state is composed of 

eight physiographic provinces ranging from the Appalachian 

Mountains (average elevations of 1250-m) across the 

Cumberland Plateau (elevation 550-m) to the Mississippi 

Alluvial Plain. The state has three main river drainages: the 

Cumberland, Tennessee, and Mississippi Rivers. More than 

50 percent of the state is forested (5.4 million ha) with 4.2 

million ha (80 percent) owned by some 250,000 landowners. 

Because of the wide diversity of landforms and vegetation 

statewide, educational programs should be tailored to local 

conditions.

The University of Tennessee Extension (UTE) is composed 

of four levels: administration, resource specialists in each 

program discipline (e.g., forestry, soybeans, dairy, forage, 

poultry, etc.), three districts, and 95 counties. To implement 

a statewide program for a particular resource subject, the 

specialist must have support from UTE administration in 

order to provide guidance to the district program leaders and 

then to the county leaders. The county extension network 

is the heart and soul for local program dissemination 

of resource information. Specialists can assist county 

personnel, but can not deliver every program in each county.

Obstacles

Within the natural resources field, several obstacles must be 

overcome to have a successful statewide program.

Cows, Plows and Sows 

Most county leaders are trained or have degrees in the 

traditional agricultural fields of crop or animal science. Most 

do not have experience or specific knowledge on natural 

resources and are uncomfortable giving programs in these 

areas. The clientele for natural resources in many cases is 

different from the traditional farm audience including many 

absentee and suburban landowners. Marketing of timber 

products is also a different process than marketing farm 

products at the local agricultural cooperative.

Little Training or Experience in Natural Resources 

The position description for a county extension leader 

includes an agricultural degree and agricultural education 
135

background. Graduates in natural resources could not 

become county extension leaders without “special 

consideration” and appropriate coursework in agricultural 

education. Only three Extension county leaders of the 95 

counties in Tennessee have a natural resources (forestry or 

wildlife) degree, but they also have a dual degree in crop 

science. Thus, the county extension faculty do not have the 

background to promote natural resource education. Although 

the county leader position specifications have been changed 

recently to include those with natural resource degrees with 

appropriate agricultural education background, the majority 

of our county personnel are uncomfortable with natural 

resource programming.

State Division of Forestry and County Extension 

Workloads

Often, forestry or natural resource questions were easier to 

refer to professional field foresters employed by the State 

Division of Forestry than for extension leaders to handle. 

Every extension specialist in the various commodities tries 

to get their program implemented on a county level resulting 

in the county leaders being overloaded with more programs 

to implement than time allows. 

Uncertainty of Forest Landowner Audience

The clientele of most county extension programs is farmrelated and agriculturally based. The forest landowner 

audience is much broader with varying objectives and values 

which creates uncertainty in preparing county programs and 

networking.

Long-Term Nature of Forest Management and 

Investment

Most farm incomes are on an annual basis. Timber crops 

are much longer, sometimes beyond the life expectancy of 

the landowner. The impacts of natural resource educational 

programs are difficult to assess on annual accomplishment 

reports used to evaluate programs and personnel.

Forest Product Markets

Most markets for forest products are limited in local areas. 

These markets are most often single commodity (sawlogs, 

pallets, crossties, or pulpwood) and are not integrated 

across different products. Forest products must be marketed 

multi-county, statewide, regionally, and even globally to 

obtain best prices. Marketing of agricultural products is 

well-known and established in many counties without 

fluctuations in price. Wood products markets and prices will 

vary from location to location due to supply and demand, 

grades (quality) of logs, species, and the ultimate product 

use. These varied marketing strategies are difficult to assess 

within a small county area without substantial experience.

Present Condition of the Forest

Because of limited markets and the long-term nature 

of growing timber, little management has occurred in 

NIPF lands. Most timber has been extracted with little 

provision for improving the forest or providing conditions 

for regeneration. Thus, most NIPF land has poor quality, 

low value, and limited desirable growing stock with few 

economic options making timber an unprofitable enterprise 

in the short run.

Justification for Natural Resources

Programming

Why should UTE have natural resource programming 

considering the inherent obstacles? Most counties in 

Tennessee are 50 percent or more forested. With dwindling 

farm incomes, forests provide an opportunity for increased 

incomes. Generally, no agricultural land use exceeds the 

amount of forest land in these counties and recent increases 

in timber prices and markets are competitive with most other 

farm incomes. Forest-related industries generate more than 

$20 billion in output annually for Tennessee’s economy and 

compose 6.5 percent of the state’s total economy. 

The State Division of Forestry and the Wildlife Agency 

personnel are not educators, but are partners and 

cooperators. Their role is technical assistance and giving 

management recommendations. Extension personnel are the 

trained educators (most have advanced degrees in education) 

in these counties and should be provided with the training 

and materials to teach natural resources principles and 

management options.

Many landowners have a vested interest in viewing or 

hunting wildlife. Hunting leases are another opportunity for 

income and a justification to invest in forest management. 

Forest and wildlife management in many cases are 

compatible and integrated with each other. 

How to Get Natural Resource

Programming Started with an Action Plan

The UTE administration had to be convinced to have 

natural resource programming as a priority and to endorse 

training of personnel. In 1995, the establishment of four 

priority teams was used to re-emphasize certain programs 

especially considering the declining farm incomes at that 

time. The four teams were forages, natural resources, 

environmental stewardship with emphasis on water quality, 

and management and marketing strategies. Natural resources 

were recognized as an important subject area where 

programs would make a difference to our clientele.
136

With administration support, the priority was communicated 

among district program supervisors and to county personnel. 

Funds were provided to have statewide inservice training 

of county personnel in the fundamentals of natural resource 

management. A person from each county extension office 

was required to attend the inservice. County extension 

personnel were given the tools to provide natural resource 

education in their county programs. A natural resources 

priority team was formed composed of specialists and at 

least one county extension leader from each district to 

represent issues and needs as well as be the representative 

that other leaders in that district could call upon to discuss 

natural resource programs.

Even the most skeptical agents enjoyed the inservice. The 

design of the inservice was to limit the indoor discussions 

and provide hands-on outdoor activities to convey natural 

resource principles and information. Training emphases 

were on (1) improving profitability (marketing) of forest 

ownership, (2) improving management of forest resources, 

and (3) understanding ecology of forest development and 

succession (planning) through forest health and maintaining 

water quality. Evaluations indicated that 92 percent of the 

material presented was relevant to their needs and that they 

could lead natural resource programs in the county. Some 

of the programs initiated include how to conduct a timber 

sale, timber sale contracts, forest products marketing, 

best management practices, insect and disease control, 

stewardship plans, measuring trees and inventorying your 

property. Part of the inservice was to tour a wood processing 

facility. County personnel learned that touring these 

facilities could be a program in itself.

We also found that cross-training in some of the traditional 

agricultural practices could enhance the receptiveness of 

county personnel to the inservice training. Acceptance of 

natural resources programming was improved by integrating 

training in best management practices, particularly water 

quality management with alternative watering systems for 

livestock and engineered stream crossings. 

 Lastly, extension personnel realized that there were many 

resources from which to draw in their local area that would 

help in their educational programming. Partnerships were 

formed with forest industry representatives, state and federal 

resource agency personnel (forestry and wildlife), private 

organizations (both profit and non-profit) and other forest 

landowners to provide additional sources of information and 

expertise. They also found that landowner testimonies were 

an effective method of conveying educational messages in 

natural resource management. 

Results

The proof of whether the inservice training had an impact 

with the county personnel is the natural resource programs 

that were implemented on the county level. We suggested at 

the inservice that the extension leader develop and conduct 

a countywide meeting on any natural resource topic of 

interest, then poll the audience for future meetings and 

subjects. A good subsequent meeting would be an outside 

field day where certain forest practices or activities could be 

demonstrated. The field days could occur on private land, 

government land or forest industry land, again partnering 

with other organizations. Several statewide field days were 

also developed by extension specialists to supplement 

programs and forest landowner education activities.

The results of this process are that 43 county forest 

landowner associations in 48 counties (some associations 

are multi-county) have been formed and are functioning 

as of the end of 2005. The county forest landowner 

associations are led by member landowners with Extension 

and other organizations providing program support. 

Tennessee contains 95 counties though it is not expected 

that all counties will conduct natural resource programming, 

especially those where forests compose less than 20 percent 

of the county area. Several more counties have scheduled 

natural resource programming in the extension work plans. 

The county leader led most of the programs with little help 

from extension specialists. One extension district program 

leader directed that natural resources education would be 

a top priority program in that district for the next three years. 

Future Programs—Non-Traditional

Audiences and Absentee Landowners

The forestry community does not have good access to or 

contact with absentee landowners or those who reside in 

the rural/urban interface. Two reasons are postulated: (1) 

Most natural resource programs for landowners take place in 

rural areas, and (2) Most natural resources personnel (state, 

federal, extension) are located in rural areas, i.e., landowners 

are accessible because they live on the land, or at least that is 

the assumption.

However, an increasing number of landowners are absentee. 

We find that these “urban” landowners:

•	Are highly educated

•	Have access to PCs and internet

•	Own larger acreages

•	Have resources to invest in forest management
137

•	Are more likely to follow through with sound, sensible 

advice, especially if larger acreages are owned and income 

is an objective

•	Have limited information about forestry and limited access 

to forestry professionals

Some of this forest land was the family farm, parents have 

passed on, children now live in urban areas, but wish to keep 

and maintain the farm in the family. A major consideration 

for parents is what will happen to the land once they pass 

on. They want to keep the property within the family, but the 

family is living elsewhere. Because most natural resource 

education programs take place in rural areas, absentee 

landowners who live in urban settings do not have access to 

educational programs.

So how do we reach these people with our message and 

programs? State forestry agencies and the federal Forest 

Service do not have landowner education and assistance 

programs in metropolitan areas, but Extension does. 

Natural resource extension specialists and county extension 

personnel in Tennessee are planning workshops for absentee 

and interface landowners in 2007 and 2008 at several 

locations. A major task is identifying absentee landowners in 

metro areas. Since these people own forest land elsewhere, 

the metro county property tax roles are rather useless. Some 

type of paid advertising (radio and newspaper) would be 

needed as well as other means of advertising the program.

A few possible subject areas for these more non-traditional 

landowners include: estate planning, forest taxes, 

easements/trusts, use of consultants, timber sales, costshare programs, and wildlife habitat management. Much 

of this programming is already available and could easily 

be delivered by state extension specialists and trained 

county personnel. Partnerships with the state forestry 

agencies and the private sector are essential. Ultimately, 

we hope that enough synergism would be generated by 

absentee landowner workshops that a self-supporting metro/

county forest landowner association would be formed and 

would meet on a regular basis. Our objective is to provide 

educational and management information about forest 

resources such that these landowners will be more informed 

about the management options for their property and they 

know who to ask when they have questions or seek advice.

Internet

The University of Tennessee Extension is also considering 

the use of the worldwide web as a potential avenue for 

natural resource education. The internet provides content 

through information retrieval from different sources, but 

we are striving more toward a learning and educational 

environment with internet programming. Since most internet 

users learn in different ways, different techniques should be 

used to enforce the learning objectives and the principles 

applied, i.e., a structured learning environment rather than 

just information retrieval.

Assessment and evaluation are problematic with internet 

sites. How are impacts measured and are recommended 

practices implemented? However, with the increased 

availability of the internet and the increased use of the 

internet by younger generations, we must adjust our natural 

resource programming toward those non-traditional users.

Several natural resource internet sites are now available 

with varying objectives. The National Web-Based Learning 

Center for Natural Resources (http://www.forestandrange.

org) is an educational website with different subject modules 

providing activities with learning activities. The Forest 

Encyclopedia (http://www.forestencyclopedia.net), About 

Forestry (http://forestry.about.com) and Southern Regional 

Extension Forestry (http://sref.info) are a few of the 

information retrieval websites. The nationwide eXtension 

website (http://extension.org) is developing and may 

have some natural resource information in the future. The 

internet has great potential as an educational tool and to be 

accessible to many clients in the convenience of their home. 

However, the capability to evaluate program impacts has 

lagged behind.

Summary

Even though we are pleased with the interest in the natural 

resource initiative and the support within all levels of UTE, 

we will be most interested whether these programs continue 

to be self-sustaining from year to year. A few years of a 

meeting or two annually does not demonstrate an on-going, 

sustainable program. However, we believe a new excitement 

has been cultured with the county extension faculty who are 

conducting their own programs. More landowner contacts 

are being made and resource management information 

conveyed. The county landowner associations are vibrant 

and continuously want more materials and information for 

management of woodlands for different objectives 

and values. 
1

Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 

27695-8008, respectively.

138

Increased population pressure and forest loss led a 

consortium of public and private forestry and environmental 

groups to organize a series of Working Forests Summits to 

protect North Carolina’s working forests through landowner 

education. Six regional Summits were held in the winter 

of 2005 and spring of 2006. The daylong sessions included 

information about tax strategies for timber income, property 

taxes and estate taxes; and financial opportunities related to 

wildlife leasing, nontimber forest products, and wood-based 

energy. Landowner interest guided the program and featured 

peer success stories. The conference format, with ample 

time for interaction with peers, has proven to be an effective 

technology transfer approach (Decker and others 1988), 

and a preferred format by adult learners (Miller 2006). The 

Working Forest Summits offered a cost-effective way to 

reach hundreds of landowners.

A dire sense of urgency brought many Summit cooperators 

to the table to strategically address landowners’ needs 

and their roles in sustaining the future of forests in 

North Carolina. Over 25 forestry, resource, and industry 

organizations contributed to the Summit’s success. The 

Cooperative Extension Service, a key sponsor of the 

Working Forests Summit, took this special opportunity to 

canvas the forestry stake holders to ascertain education and 

assistance needs and to determine priorities that may focus 

on forest land retention. The use of a formative evaluation 

system allowed for refinement of conference content tailored 

Introduction

Nonindustrial private forest owners (NIPFs) control 78 

percent of North Carolina’s forested resource, an estimated 

13.8 million acres (Brown 2002). However, only a minority 

of North Carolina’s NIPFs actively manages their land for 

forest products in the market place (Megalos 1999). The 

sustained flow of privately grown forest products to regional, 

national, and international markets helps fuels an annual 

forestry economy valued at $28.2 billion dollars (Personal 

communication. 2006. D. Ashcraft, College of Natural 

Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 

27695). 

North Carolina faces rapid residential growth; an estimated 

2,800 new citizens arrive each week (North Carolina State 

Data Center 2006) mostly to bulging urban centers. Land 

conversion from unprecedented vacation- and secondhome development increase land value in rural areas and 

threaten economic feasibility of forestry and farming. 

The most recent Southern Forest Resources Assessment 

(Wear and Greis 2002) (SFRA) identified urbanization as 

a critical threat to forest sustainability in the Southeast. 

North Carolina led the nation in loss of commercial forest to 

urban uses from 1982 to 1997, losing 1,001,000 acres or 5.9 

percent of total forest area (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

2002). The SFRA predicts an additional loss of 5.5 million 

forested acres in the state by 2040. 

UNDERSTANDING WORKING FOREST LANDOWNERS 

IN NORTH CAROLINA: INTEGRATING PARTICIPANT 

SURVEY RESULTS IN PROGRAMMING AND DELIVERY

Robert E. Bardon and Mark Megalos1

Abstract—Nonindustrial private forest owners (NIPFs) control 78 percent of North Carolina’s forested resource, an 

estimated 13.8 million acres. The sustained flow of privately grown forest products to regional, national, and international 

markets fuels an annual forestry economy valued at $28.8 billion dollars. North Carolina forests are rapidly diminishing, 

losing over 1 million commercial forest acres to residential development and other uses from 1991 to 2001. Understanding 

the needs and pressures facing the owners of North Carolina’s private forests is critical to their economic and ecologic 

sustainability. To better understand NIPFs who actively manage their holdings, the authors surveyed 1,200 attendees at 6 

regional Working Forest Summits held in North Carolina during 2005 and 2006. Participants were questioned about their 

educational, technical assistance, and financial incentive needs. Landowners were asked to rate the effectiveness of various 

public policy solutions designed to thwart the loss of forestlands. Within the scope of this paper, the authors will discuss 

the survey results with an eye towards increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of technology transfer and diffusion of 

information via the N.C. Cooperative Extension county agent network. The authors detail how working forest landowner 

defined education and technical assistance needs are being used to improve extension programming. The North Carolina 

Cooperative Extension Service strategic plan emphasizes regional, targeted, mutli-disciplinary delivery of issue-based 

programs. The Working Forest Summits provided a unique opportunity to institute a comprehensive environmental scan to 

ascertain target audience needs, prior to future program development. 
139

to the most important landowner topics. The goals of the 

research were fourfold:

• Establish a profile of working forest landowners and why

they own their land

• Identify factors that working forest landowners felt help

them retain their land in forest

• Identify education, technical, and financial assistance

priority needs of landowners

• Develop and disseminate target audience summary reports

and profiles to policy makers, partners, and extension field 

agents to diffuse the information needed to retain working 

forest in North Carolina. 

Methods

Survey data was collected from North Carolina NIPF 

participants of six regional Working Forests Summits held 

during December 2005 and May 2006. Data were separated 

into sub-regions based on Extension Districts (fig. 1). 

Summit participants were mailed invitations or solicited to 

attend through partner newsletters, local press coverage, 

and advertisement when available. Because the recruitment 

focused on Forest Stewards, Tree Farmers, and forest 

landowners recently served by the North Carolina Division 

of Forest Resources, timber-commodity interested owners 

tended to be over-represented in our audience. 

All Summit participants received surveys in their registration 

materials. A raffle drawing of forestry related items was 

offered as an incentive to those who returned a completed 

survey. The survey queried respondents on reasons for forest 

ownership, retention strategies, socio-demographic, and 

educational, technical, and financial assistance needs. Nine 

ownership reasons were listed; choices were not mutually 

exclusive (fig. 2). Forest land retention survey options 

included eight factors to potentially help stem forest loss. 

The factors were not mutually exclusive and respondents 

were asked to rank them on a continuum between “minimal 

help” and “great help” (fig. 3). The socio-demographic 

portion of the survey included forced-choice, self-disclosure 

questions relating to: urban-rural background of the owner, 

gender, age, acreage owned, residence status, primary 

location of forestland, education level, employment status, 

and annual income level. Survey respondents were also 

queried on their educational, technical, and financial 

assistance needs for 10 forced-choice options which were 

not mutually exclusive (figs. 4, 5, and 6). Only those surveys 

that indicated forest land ownership in North Carolina 

(with County of ownership identified) were included in the 

statistical analysis.

All responses were analyzed based on the location of their 

forest land using sub-regional groups that correspond to 

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Districts (fig. 1). 

Contingency tables analysis (SAS 9.1.3) further identified 

sub-regional differences in reasons for owning forest 

land; retention strategies for active forest management; 

educational, technical, and financial assistance needs; 

and socio-demographic factors. Means comparison tests 

were conducted using the GLM procedure of SAS and the 

Bonferroni multi-comparison test (SAS 9.1.3) to determine 

regional differences.

Results

The survey was provided to 1,200 participants in the 

Summits in which 590 surveys were returned. Of the 

returned surveys, 114 were unusable for the analysis because 

they were either incomplete or indicated that the participant 

did not own forest land in North Carolina. This resulted 

in only 476 of the returned surveys being used in the final 

analysis.

Modal results suggest that a “typical” Summit participant 

was male (73 percent), had a rural upbringing (63 percent), 

and resided on his/her land (51 percent). Socio-demographic 

characteristics of the “typical” respondent include: age 

55 years or older (67 percent), retired (51 percent) or 

fully employed (34 percent), and having at least a college 

education (college graduates 55 percent, post-graduate 22 

percent). 

A majority (60.2 percent) of Summit participants indicated 

that timber income was the top reason for owning forest land 

(fig. 2). Other ownership reasons suggest that they: own land 

because of inheritance (43.9 percent), want to leave a legacy 

(43.4 percent), enjoy owning green space (40.5 percent), 

own forests as a part of a farm (34.5 percent), reside or 

have a second home on their forest (34.4 percent), enjoy 

rural living (34.2 percent), desire wildlife/recreation income 

(24.7 percent), or are maintaining the land for speculation or 

investment purposes (14.3 percent).

Results indicate that five out of the nine reasons forest 

landowners gave for owning their forest land were 

statistically different (p < .05) across the seven sub-regions 

of North Carolina (table 1). Significant sub-regional 

differences were noted:

• Landowners in the West were less likely to own their forest

land for timber income than landowners in the Northeast, 

South Central and Southwest sub-regions

• Landowners in the Northeast are more likely than

landowners in the North Central, Northwest and the West 

to have inherited their forest land
140

Transylvania Cherokee Clay Macon

Graham

Swain

Jackson

Haywood

Madison

Buncombe

Henderson

Yancey

Mitchell Avery

Watauga

McDowell

Burke

Caldwell

Polk

Rutherford

Cleveland Gaston

Catawba

Lincoln

Alexander Iredell

Mecklenburg

Union

Cabarrus

Wilkes

Ashe

Alleghany

Rowan

Surry

Yadkin

Davie

Stokes

Forsyth

Davidson

Rockingham

Guilford

Randolph

Alamance

Beaufort

Hyde Pitt

Hertford

Bertie

Martin Washington Tyrrell Dare

Chowan

Gates

Perquimans Pasquotank Camden Currituck Northampton Caswell

Orange

Durham

Person

Granville Vance

Warren

Franklin

Wake

Nash

Wilson

Edgecombe

Halifax

Johnston

Stanly

Anson

Montgomery

Chatham

Richmond

Scotland

Moore

Lee

Hoke

Harnett

Cumberland

Robeson Bladen

Columbus

Carteret

Craven

Pamlico

Wayne

Sampson

Greene

Lenoir

Duplin

Jones

Brunswick

 New Hanover

Pender

Onslow

Figure 1—Sub-regions used for landowner comparison: the seven North Carolina Cooperative Extension Districts.
141

• Northeast landowners are more likely than Southwest

landowners to have forest land as part of the farm

• Northeast and Southeast landowners are less likely to

reside on their land than owners in South Central and West.

• South Central landowners are more likely to own land

for wildlife/recreational income than landowners in the 

Northwest.

Landowners’ ratings of factors that promote retention 

of lands in active forest management are presented in 

figure 3. The top five retention factors are: favorable tax 

consideration; more favorable policies, laws and regulations; 

better and more diverse markets; technical assistance; 

and education about forest resources. Numerical ratings 

approaching 5 are deemed to be of great help, while a rating 

of 1 would likely provide minimal help in retaining land in 

active forest management. Retention factors that were scored 

below 4 were: cost-share dollars and alternative income 

opportunities. The sale or transfer of development rights 

(conservation easements) was the only retention factor rated 

below 3.

The 10 educational assistance needs of working forest 

landowners are presented in figure 4. The top five 

educational needs were: wildlife management (53 percent), 

timber marketing (46 percent), taxes and estate planning (43 

percent), non-traditional forest products (41 percent), and 

forest management and economics (41 percent). 

The 10 technical assistance needs indicated by forest 

landowners attending the Summits are presented in figure 5. 

The top five technical assistance needs were: reforestation/

productivity (56 percent), non-traditional forest products 

(49 percent), conservation easements (44 percent), timber 

marketing (35 percent), and wildlife management (28 

percent). 

The 10 financial incentive needs identified by working 

forest landowners are presented in figure 6. Financial 

incentives relating to visual appeal/recreation was the top 

need indicated by a majority of the landowners (62 percent). 

Landowners also expressed needs for financial incentives 

related to taxes and estate planning (48 percent); policies, 

laws, and regulations (39 percent); non-traditional forest 

products (38 percent); and reforestation productivity (35 

percent).

Forest landowners’ financial incentives assistance needs 

varied across sub-regions for 3 out of 10 forced-choice 

incentives (table 2). The following sub-regional differences 

were identified: 

• Landowners in the Northeast and West were significantly

more likely than their counterparts in the Southwest to 

indicate a need for financial incentives related to visual 

appeal/recreational opportunities

• The majority of landowners in the South Central district

stated the greatest need for financial incentives to cope 

with forestry-related policy, law and regulations at nearly 

54 percent. Percentages differed significantly across 

regions, yet paired sub-regional differences were not 

discernable with the statistical methods employed

• Landowners in the Southwest are significantly more likely

than their counterparts in Southeast and West to identify 

a need for financial incentives related to reforestation and 

productivity.

Discussion

Ownership Objectives

Previous research has detailed the national ownership 

objectives of forest landowners (Butler and Leatherberry 

2004, Birch 1996) and regional differences among forest 

landowners within North Carolina (Megalos 1999). Regional 

landowner differences in ownership reasons exist in this 

subsample of forest landowners specifically in timber, 

inheritance, farm, residence and wildlife, and recreation 

income. Owning land to grow timber and receive timber 

income is the primary reason identified for owning land 

by 60 percent of survey respondents, roughly twice the 

percentage found by Butler and Leatherberry (2004) and 

Megalos (1999). The high percentage of landowners owning 

land to grow timber and receive timber income is not 

surprising since recruitment of the audience was weighted 

towards forest stewards, tree farmers, and forest landowners 

recently served by the North Carolina Division of Forest 

Resources. Summit participants were a fairly homogenous 

group except in the western sections of the State where 

landowners were increasingly likely to have purchased their 

land as opposed to inheriting their land. 

In the Southwest portion of the State, landowners were less 

likely to own forest land that is part of a farm compared 

to landowners in the Northeast, in which 1 out of every 

2 landowners own forest land that is part of a farm. This 

finding is consistent with the land use differences found 

in the two regions; the Southwest region is dominated by 

large metropolitan communities and urban land uses, while 

the Northeast landscape is dominated by rural communities 

and agricultural land use (North Carolina Rural Economic 

Development Center, Inc. 2006). While growing timber and 

income from timber sales motivate this study group, 4 out 

of 10 landowners also identified leaving a legacy for heir, 

and enjoyment (green space and recreation) as reasons for 

owning forest land. Butler and Leatherberry (2004) noted 
142

0 20 40 60 80 100

Timber income

Inherited the land

Leaving a legacy

Green space

Part of farm

Reside/2nd home

Rural living

Wildlife/recreation

Land investment

Percent

Ownership reasons

Figure 2—Forest land ownership reasons of North Carolina Working Forest Summits attendees by percent. Error bars represent the standard 

error of the mean.

Figure 3—Working Forest Summits’ forest landowners ranking of the factor’s helpfulness in retaining their land in active forest 

management. Value is mean response on a scale of 1= minimal help, to 5 = great help. Error bar represents the standard error of 

the mean.

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Sell or transfer

development rights

Alternative income

opportunities

Cost-share

dollars

Education about

forest resources

Technical

assistance

Better and more

diverse markets

More favorable policy,

laws, and regulations

Favorable

tax considerations

Minimal help Great help

Retention factors
143

0 20 40 60 80 100

Policies, laws,

regulations

Conservation

easements

Reforestation/

productivity

Visual appeal/

Recreation

Forest health/

water quality

Non-traditional

forest products

Forest mgmt

& economics

Taxes & estate

planning

Timber

marketing

Wildlife

management

Percent

Education assistance needs

Figure 4—The 10 educational assistance needs indicated by forest landowner participants in North Carolina Working Forests Summit, in 

percent. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

Figure 5—The 10 technical assistance needs indicated by forest landowners who attended Working Forests Summits in North Carolina. Values 

are represented as a percent responding yes for technical assistance need. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Policies, laws,

regulations

Visual appeal/

recreation

Forest mgmt &

economics

Taxes & estate

planning

Forest health/

water quality

Wildlife

management

Timber

marketing

Conservation

easements

Non-traditional

forest products

Reforestation/

productivity

Percent

Technical assistance needs
144

0 20 40 60 80 100

Forest mgmt &

economics

Timber

marketing

Conservation

easements

Wildlife

management

Forest health/water

quality

Reforestation/

productivity

Non-traditional forest

products

Policies, laws,

regulations

Taxes & estate

planning

Visual appeal/

recreation

Percent

Financial incentive needs

Figure 6—The 10 financial incentive needs indicated by forest landowners who participated in North Carolina‘s Working Forests Summits, in 

percent. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

Table 1—Forest land ownership reasons of North Carolina Working Forests Summit attendees, exhibiting 

statistical difference by sub-regions in percent. (p < .05). Sub-region responses labeled with the same letter 

are not signifi cantly different for the respective ownership reason

Sub-regions

Northeast

n=84

Southeast

n=66

North

Central

n=57

South

Central

n=43

Northwest

n=105

Southwest

n=62

West 

n=59 p-value a

Ownership

Reasons

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Timber 

income 71.4ab 59.1abc 59.6abc 79.1a 50.5bc 66.1ab 35.6c 0.001

Inherited 

the land 63.1a 56.1ab 35.1bc 46.5abc 27.6c 41.9abc 37.3bc 0.001

Part of farm 51.2a 36.4ab 36.8ab 37.2ab 35.2ab 17.7b 27.1ab 0.01

Reside/

2nd Home 21.4a 16.7a 38.6ab 51.2b 38.1ab 29.0ab 45.8b 0.001

Wildlife/

recreation 29.8ab 28.8ab 22.8ab 39.5a 14.3b 22.6ab 15.3ab 0.05

a p-value for differences across sub-regions. 
145

the importance of aesthetics (nearly 65 percent) and family 

legacy (58 percent) to the majority of landowners within 

their national survey. Leaving a legacy was important to 

77 percent of limited-resource, traditionally underserved, 

landowners surveyed in North Carolina and Virginia (Warren 

and Sills 2005)

The Western sub-region led all landowners in ownership of 

their forest land for residential use at 45.8 percent. Whether 

their land represents a primary or secondary residence is 

not possible to ascertain from the survey instrument. The 

residential ownership objective in the west starkly contrasts 

the low timber income ownership interest (35.6 percent) 

noted by that group. The importance of residential use by 

Western landowners may have ramifications for the extent 

and likelihood of active management as it relates to future 

retention of “traditional” working forest. 

Holding the land for land speculation and investment was 

identified by the fewest Working Forest Summits survey 

respondents. A scant 14 percent identified it as a reason 

for owning their forest land. The 2003 National Woodland 

Owner Survey (NWOS) identified more than 45 percent 

of landowners naming investment as a reason for owning 

forest land, while the 1996 N.C. Landowner survey found 

less than 30 percent of landowners with that intention. This 

inverse relationship between growing timber and the desire 

to develop or sell the land appears strong and clearly has 

potentially positive implications for future forest retention 

among working forest owners.

Table 2—Financial Incentive needs indicated by forest landowners that are statistically different across 

sub-regions of North Carolina. Values are represented by percent responding yes for reason of ownership. 

Sub-region responses labeled with the same letter are not signifi cantly different for the respective fi nancial 

incentive need

Sub-regions

Financial

incentive

need

Northeast

n=84

Southeast

n=66

North

Central

n=57

South

Central

n=43

Northwest

n=105

Southwest

n=62

West 

n=59 p-value a

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Visual appeal/

recreation 66.7a 66.7ab 59.6ab 69.8ab 58.1ab 41.9b 71.2a 0.05

Policies, law, 

regulations 38.1 45.5 31.6 53.5 45.7 27.4 30.5 0.05b

Reforestation/

productivity 32.1ab 27.3b 35.1ab 44.2ab 32.4ab 53.2a 25.4b 0.05

a p-value for differences across sub-regions where p < 0.05.

b

 Statistical analysis indicates signifi cant differences across sub-regions, but Bonferroni multi-comparison test could not discern 

differences among sub-regional means.

Retention

Economic motivations were clearly important to landowners 

as evidenced by their top two assistance choices: favorable 

tax considerations, and more favorable policy, laws, 

and regulations which received ratings of 4.4 and 4.2, 

respectively, out of a possible 5. The need for better, diverse 

markets, technical assistance, and education were solidly 

judged to be helpful in spurring forest retention with nearly 

equal landowner ratings of 4 out of 5. Technical assistance 

has been found conclusively to increase timber harvesting 

rates, revenues, and the productivity of residual stands 

(Alig and others 1990). The strong ranking of education 

and technical assistance, and the positive response to 

cost share programs, lends credence to the importance of 

comprehensive, coordinated landowner assistance from 

public and private sectors. The relationship between 

awareness of cost share programs and reforestation of 

private land has previously been documented (Royer 

1987, Cubbage and others 1996). Education is a crucial 

element in addressing the top three retention strategies 

because landowners need to be aware and knowledgeable 

about marketing and tax saving options, as well as the 

policies, laws, and regulations which impact their ability 

to practice forestry. The North Carolina Landowner 

survey (Megalos 1999) indicated that only 34 percent of 

landowners were enrolled in the present-use tax valuation 

program, a favorable tax treatment for forestry, horticulture, 

and agriculture lands. To be successful, forest retention 

assistance must be targeted and developed with the needs of 

the landowners in mind.
146

Landowner Needs 

Developing effective educational and outreach efforts 

requires a thorough understanding of NIPF landowner 

characteristics and needs (Measells and others 2005). The 

Working Forest Summits were designed to be responsive 

to participant input and strive for constant improvement. 

Programming with an eye toward landowner needs has been 

a constant outreach effort to the more than 2,000 landowner 

participants reached through the Working Forest Summits 

held to date. Initial feedback from Saving the Family 

Forest Summits in 2004 was used to develop the agenda 

of the 2005-2006 Summit series. The educational content 

delivered to 2005-2006 Summit participants largely reflected 

the monetary aspects of forest ownership where timber 

marketing, taxes and estate planning, alternative forest 

products, and management and economics were identified as 

needs for more than 40 percent of respondents. As surveys 

reflected the need for wildlife management education, this 

topic was added to the agenda. The positive response to 

more diverse forest product markets led to the inclusion 

of a biomass and energy education to the 2006 Summit 

offerings. Since no significant sub-regional differences 

were noted in the education assistance needs of Summit 

participants, a similar format was maintained throughout the 

six workshops. 

Summit participants’ technical assistance needs (fig. 5) 

reflect ownership goals and educational needs, specifically 

the monetary aspects of forest land ownership and the desire 

to leave the land as a legacy to their heirs. The fact that 

reforestation/productivity is the top choice for technical 

assistance for more than 50 percent of the respondents 

indicates the importance of the need to seek professional 

assistance to ensure future productivity and investment 

returns leading to future enterprise viability. No significant 

sub-regional differences were noted in the technical 

assistance needs suggesting a near universal interest in these 

topic areas across the landowner sample. 

It is worth noting that 17 percent of Summit participants 

indicated a need for educational or financial help as it relates 

to conservation easements, while 44 percent identified the 

need for technical assistance in conservation easements. 

Participant awareness of conservation easement benefits 

may be strong, but the implementation of such easements 

may be constrained by the availability of professionals who 

can provide technical assistance. However, working forest 

landowners rated conservation easements as the least helpful 

of all forest retention strategies, suggesting, perhaps, that 

conservation easements may not be a “silver bullet” solution 

to the loss of North Carolina forests.

Financial assistance needs identified by Summit landowners 

can yield insights into potentially imperfect markets, or 

examples of where the costs of desirable practices are 

currently beyond landowners’ means. The majority of 

landowners identified the need for financial assistance 

relating to visual appeal and recreation (fig. 6). More than 

7 out of 10 western district landowners indicated such a 

need, suggesting that there may be a positive relationship 

between residence or second home ownership, and the 

desire for recreation or aesthetics to be subsidized by the 

public. The desire for compensation or relief from taxes; 

estate costs; and policy, laws and regulations related to 

forestry were identified by a third of Summit participants. 

The need for financial help with non-traditional forest 

products and reforestation are consistent with the technical 

and educational needs identified previously by more than 

one third of landowners surveyed. Sub-regional differences 

related to reforestation and productivity exist; a majority 

of landowners in the Southwest identified this need (53.5 

percent) compared to the other regions (table 2). Recent 

infestations of southern pine beetle, a land-use shift away 

from agriculture, or a desire to maintain favorable tax 

status for forestry may be behind that trend (Personal 

communication. 2006. D. Brandon, North Carolina Division 

of Forest Resources, 1933 Mountain Island Highway, Mount 

Holly, NC 28120.)

Implications for Addressing Working Forest 

Landowner Sustainability

The ability to survey and educate working forest landowners 

via a series of Summits has yielded great insights into 

the ownership reasons and forest land retention strategies 

for North Carolina. Reaching active forest owners with 

the information they need in order to make sustainability 

decisions starts with knowing the type of assistance they 

need. Coupled with this heightened insight is a responsibility 

to see that adequate resources are allocated, and delivered, 

to ensure that the working landscapes are retained and that 

the viability of rural- and urban- interface economies are 

sustained (Hubbard 1999). It is imperative that coordinated 

public/private sector outreach to the landowners is made via 

a partnership of dedicated resource consultants, industry, 

and governmental entities. This effort would include, but not 

be limited to, traditional resource services such as technical 

assistance related to management planning and management 

practices, educational programming, and financial incentives 

in the form of cost-share programs and tax benefits.

The Working Forest Summit approach has yielded multiple 

benefits and strategic partnerships with agencies, landowner 

groups, and environmental non-governmental organizations. 

The potential for a comprehensive strategy to address 

landowner education and outreach efforts exists. To further 
147

retain and promote forest sustainability the following needs 

have surfaced from the 2005-2006 Working Forest Summits:

• Reiterate the importance of the present-use valuation

property tax program to lower taxes and retain working 

lands (details for sign-up and program requirements).

• Address the gap between identified needs and the delivery

of educational programs to address those needs.

• Focus outreach toward absentee landowners, and address

these interests at the appropriate educational level.

• Capitalize on the cooperative partnership that delivered the

recent Summits’ key landowner audiences.

• Update and expand current education, technical, and

financial assistance offerings to reflect needs identified by 

working forest landowners.

• Evaluate new programs that can address current needs and

issues.

• Build upon Summit momentum to organize or revitalize

organizations that can influence policymakers to sustain 

North Carolina’s forests and the industries they support, 

the associated “green” jobs, and overall community 

economic well-being.

North Carolina Cooperative Extension has benefited greatly 

from the association with partners and landowners involved 

in the Working Forest Summits. The opportunity to survey 

participants, analyze their education needs, generate 

summary reports for internal and external (partners’) use, 

demonstrate the utility of formative evaluation procedures, 

and develop regional landowner profiles for future 

programming are substantial outcomes. Several scholarly 

presentations and peer-reviewed research publications 

have resulted from the effort. Perhaps most importantly, 

the seven regional working forest landowner profiles are 

currently being disseminated throughout the State to serve 

as an environmental scan of the major issues facing forest 

landowners. The profiles are meant to form the basis for 

educational programming designed to meet Extension’s 

strategic priorities:

• “To strengthen the economy through the profitable,

sustainable, and safe food, forest and green industry 

systems.”

• “To protect the environment and natural resources.”

Survey analysis by North Carolina Cooperative Extension 

yielded a baseline profile of working forest landowners 

across North Carolina, their educational, technical, and 

financial assistance needs, and programming priorities for 

forest sustainability. The ultimate success of the 2005-

2006 Summit will depend on coordinated public/private 

outreach efforts to deliver on identified landowner needs. 

The formative evaluation approach modeled in this study 

has set the stage for forest and natural resource needs-based 

impact programming. The threats to the resource are real 

and unrelenting. The need to succeed with sustainable forest 

retention is greater than ever. Future North Carolinians will 

judge us on our success or failure. 

REFERENCES

Alig, R.J.; Lee, K.J.; Moulton, R.J. 1990. Likelihood of timber management 

on nonindustrial private forests: evidence from research studies. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SE-60. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 17 p.

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994. 

Res. Bull. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station. 195 p.

Brown, M.J. 2002. Forest statistics for North Carolina, 2002. Res. Bul. 

SRS-88. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 78 p.

Butler, B.J.; Leatherberry, E.C. 2004. America’s family forest owners. 

Journal of Forestry. 102(7): 4-9.

Cubbage, F.W.; New, B.D.; Moulton, R.J. 1996. Evaluations of technical 

assistance programs for non-industrial private forest landowners. In: 

Baughman, M.J., ed. Proceedings of the symposium on nonindustrial 

private forests: learning from the past, prospects for the future. 

Washington, DC: St. Paul, Minnesota Extension Service: 367-376.

Decker, D.J.; Lassoie, J.P.; Goff, G.R.; Parrish, K. 1988. Do workshops 

work? Journal of Extension. 26(4). http://www.joe.org/joe/1988winter/

a5.html. [Date accessed: August 28, 2006].

Hubbard, W.G. 1999. Economic impact of forestry and forest products in 

the rural South. The Southern Perspective. Southern Rural Development 

Center, Mississippi State University, Miss. State, MS. 3(2): 2-5.

Measells,M.K.; Grado, S.C.; Hughes, H.G.; Dunn, M.A.; Idassi, 

J.; Zielinske, B. 2005. Non-industrial private forest landowners 

characteristics and use of forestry services in four Southern States: results 

from a 2002–2003 mail survey. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

29(4): 194-199.

Megalos, M.A. 1999. North Carolina landowner responsiveness to forestry 

Incentives. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 119 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation.

Miller, K.T. 2006. Reaching non-industrial private forestland owners with 

their preferred methods of information delivery. Raleigh, NC: North 

Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Environmental 

Resources. 37 p. M.S. thesis.
148

North Carolina State Data Center. 2006. North Carolina growth 

highlights—State to State Comparison. http://demog.state.nc.us/. [Date 

accessed: August 28, 2006].

Royer, J.P. 1987. Determinants of reforestation behavior among southern 

forest landowners. Forest Science. 33(3): 654-667.

SAS 9.1.3. SAS Online Documentation. Cary, NC: SAS institute, Inc. 

http://support.sas.com/onlinedoc/913/docMainpage.jsp. [Date accessed: 

August 28, 2006].

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2000. Summary report: 1997 national 

resources inventory (revised December 2000). Washington, DC: Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, and Ames, IA: Statistical Laboratory, 

Iowa State University. 89 p. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/

NRI/1997/summary_report/]. [Date accessed: August 28, 2006].

Warren, S.; Sills, E.O. 2005. Sustainable woodlands survey 2004–2005 

summary of results. Raleigh, NC: Department of Forestry and 

Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University. http://www.

ncsu.edu/woodlands/research_pubs/surveysummary.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 28, 2006].

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. 2002. Southern forest resources assessment. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p.
1

Associate Professor, Extension Specialist, and Research Assistant, North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, 

Raleigh, NC 27695.

149

they were older, wealthier, better educated, and more rural 

than expected but were generally unaware of management 

opportunities and forest laws. Because these landowners are 

different, it may be more difficult to reach them using the 

same methods that work for traditional landowners. Webster 

and Stoltenberg (1959) tried to determine which ownership 

characteristics are useful for predicting response to forestry 

programs and found that “acreage owned” and “assessed 

value of the owner’s property” were the only statistically 

significant characteristics, although their sample sizes were 

very small. In their conclusions, they called for additional 

ownership studies to test the relationship between easily 

recognizable ownership characteristics and response to 

various types of forestry programs (Webster and Stoltenberg 

1959). Knowledge of such relationships would help identify 

ways to reach landowners who are new or different from 

Extension’s traditional audience. 

Dynamic ownership patterns and increased demands for 

forest products together emphasize the need to deliver 

relevant forestry information to a growing and changing 

NIPF population. In addition, after comparing studies from 

the 1960s (Pomeroy and Yoho, 1964; Muench, 1965 ) and 

today (Megalos, 1999; Butler, 2006), it seems that Extension 

Forestry’s impact may be less than it once was. Giving oneon-one attention to each forestland owner would best satisfy 

their diverse needs, but would be impossible to accomplish. 

Landowners must be reached with information delivery 

methods that are effective. 

Many researchers (Egan, Welch, Page, and Sebastian, 1992; 

Rodewald, 2001; Londo and Gaddis, 2003; Radhakrishna, 

Nelson, Franklin, and Kessler, 2003; Cartmell II, Orr, and 

Kelemen, 2006) suggest using a diversity of information 

delivery methods to reach clientele, but particular 

Introduction

Forestland covers approximately 18.3 million acres in North 

Carolina, or 59 percent of the total area of the state (Brown 

2002). Non-industrial private forestland owners (NIPFs) 

control 13.8 million acres of this forestland, a little more 

than three-fourths of the forested area in North Carolina 

(Brown 2002). According to the Forest Service, there were 

an estimated 704,900 private forestland owners in North 

Carolina in 1994 (Birch 1996). More recently, Butler (2006) 

determined that there are approximately 480,000 family 

forest ownerships in the state; however, this figure does not 

include private businesses, corporations, or other non-family 

ownerships. Thus, the majority of the forest resources of 

the state of North Carolina are privately controlled, and 

these lands contribute significantly to the overall health and 

economic well-being of the state. It is critically important 

that this diverse group of people is supplied with researchbased information and education to ensure the sustainable 

management of North Carolina’s natural resources. 

Nationwide, NIPF ownership statistics increased from 1978 

to 1994 for white collar workers and retirees, but decreased 

for blue collar workers with respect to number of tracts 

and acreage owned (Birch 1996). The greatest increase in 

ownership, both in number of tracts and acreage owned, was 

found in retirees (Sampson and DeCoster 1997). Sampson 

and DeCoster (1997) state that a “significant proportion (35 

percent) of the forestland owned by individuals is likely to 

change ownership within the next decade or so.” Getting 

information to private landowners is more challenging 

when there is a high turnover rate among landowners 

(Sampson and DeCoster 1997). Newman, Aronow, Harris, 

and Macheski (1996) found that in Georgia, new timberland 

owners differed markedly from traditional landowners in that 

Preferred Methods for Delivering Education

Information to Forest Landowners

Robert E. Bardon, Dennis Hazel, and Kevin Miller1

Abstract—Researchers have evaluated the efficacy of information exchange methods and have determined overall 

preferences for these methods, but have focused less on connecting particular information delivery preferences with other 

characteristics of audiences. The objective of this study was to seek out and describe groups within the population of North 

Carolina’s non-industrial private forestland owners with particular information delivery method preferences and to link 

these preferences to easily identifiable variables of socio-demographics, land ownership characteristics, and management 

experiences. A questionnaire was mailed to 2600 non-industrial private forestland owners asking for information regarding 

socio-demographics, land characteristics, management experience, and preference for methods of information delivery. 

Five distinct groups were identified using K-Means Cluster analysis and their preference for information delivery methods 

were linked using Contingency Table analysis with socio-demographic, land, or management characteristics of individuals. 

Identification of these groups will allow educational efforts to be more directed, making outreach efforts more efficient and 

cost-effective.
150

information delivery methods must be matched with target 

audiences to insure their efficacy. The choice of information 

delivery method used by an educator may have serious 

consequences for program effectiveness. Some fear that 

using one information delivery method may alienate 

those who prefer another, and particularly that “high-tech 

approaches may intimidate certain groups of clientele 

(e.g., older clientele)” (Rodewald, 2001). Because so many 

delivery methods are available today, the preference of the 

clientele for a particular method may be difficult to predict. 

Objectives

The objective of this study was to identify preferences 

for information delivery methods among groups of 

North Carolina’s non-industrial private forest (NIPF) 

landowners and to investigate these groups for descriptive 

socio-demographic, land, or management experience 

characteristics. If information delivery method preferences 

can be linked with socio-demographic, land ownership, 

or management characteristics, educational efforts can be 

directed at specific groups of landowners using the methods 

they prefer.

Methods

Data for this analysis came from a 2005 mail survey of 

2600 NIPF landowners in 13 randomly selected North 

Carolina counties distributed across North Carolina’s seven 

Cooperative Extension districts, thus ensuring that all 

regions of the state were represented (fig. 1). Within each 

county, 200 landowners were randomly selected from the 

2004 present use-value tax records. Surveys were mailed 

to all 2600 landowners with a reminder postcard sent to the 

recipients three weeks after the original mailing, thanking 

those who had responded and offering three methods 

for participating to those who had yet to respond. Late 

respondents were given the option to send in the original 

survey, request an additional survey by mail or telephone, 

or use a web address on the postcard to access an identical 

copy of the survey that could be completed online. Before 

another reminder was sent to increase the response rate of 

the survey, the number of responses surpassed the target 

sample size (n=384), which is statistically representative of 

populations up to 1 million individuals (Krejcie and Morgan, 

1970).

The survey instrument was designed based on previous 

studies of NIPF owners (Birch, 1996) and using Surveying 

the Social World: Principles and Practice in Survey 

Research (Aldridge and Levine, 2001). Before being mailed 

the content and face validity of the survey was established 

by six people of various backgrounds (local landowners, 

graduate students, and natural resource professionals who 

work with the public) and reviewed by four North Carolina 

State University faculty members.

The survey requested information on preferences for 

information delivery methods, socio-demographics, land 

ownership factors, and forest management experience. The 

six information delivery methods included: 

•	Mail-based material—defined as “newsletters, brochures, 

compact discs, extension publications, magazine articles, 

etc.” 

•	Web-based material—defined as “Web-site reading, 

downloadable publications, or streaming video” 

•	Short programs—defined as “evening or less than half-day 

seminars or workshops at county facilities” 

•	Long programs—defined as “full day/multiple day field 

site visits or demonstrations” 

•	Landowner association—defined as “participation in a 

landowner association” 

•	Distance education—defined as “Web-based landowner 

courses, video-based landowner courses, or textbook-based 

correspondence courses” 

The options were not mutually exclusive. Respondents 

were asked to rank each information delivery method on 

a continuum somewhere between “Would never use” and 

“Would often use”. Socio-demographics factors included: 

“gender, age, marital status, occupation, number of 

children below the age of 18, income, and education.” Land 

ownership factors included: “acreage owned, land ownership 

tenure, resident or absentee landowner, and primary 

residence location.” Forest management factors included: 

“past forest management experience, future plans for forest 

management, sources from which forestry information is 

obtained, and income needs from their forestland.” The 

definition of “past experience” refers to forest management 

practices previously undertaken and the definition of “future 

plans” refers to the likelihood that a landowner will practice 

forest management on their land in the future. Both “past 

experience” and ‘future plans” were ranked on continuums 

with “past experience” ranked some where between “not 

at all experienced” and “very experienced” and “future 

plans” ranked some where between “not at all likely” 

and “very likely”. Nearly all survey questions inherently 

had categorical responses; the few that did not, age, land 

ownership tenure, and acreage owned, were categorized 

using Birch’s (1996) classifications.

A K-means cluster analysis (SAS, 1999) was performed 

using only respondents’ preference for information delivery 

methods. To investigate differences among clusters with 

regard to socio-demographics, land ownership factors, and 

management experience, Contingency Tables analysis (SAS, 

1999) was used. To determine whether or not clusters were 

statistically significantly different with respect to a given 

question, Pearson’s Chi-Square was used. A p-value of less 

than 0.05 was considered significant. 
151

Transylvania Cherokee Clay Macon

Graham

Swain

Jackson

Haywood

Madison

Buncombe

Henderson

Yancey

Mitchell Avery

Watauga

McDowell

Burke

Caldwell

Polk

Rutherford

Cleveland Gaston

Catawba

Lincoln

Alexander Iredell

Mecklenburg

Union

Cabarrus

Wilkes

Ashe

Alleghany

Rowan

Surry

Yadkin

Davie

Stokes

Forsyth

Davidson

Rockingham

Guilford

Randolph

Alamance

Beaufort

Hyde Pitt

Hertford

Bertie

Martin Washington Tyrrell Dare

Chowan

Gates

Perquimans Pasquotank Camden Currituck Northampton Caswell

Orange

Durham

Person Granville Vance Warren

Franklin

Wake

Nash

Wilson

Edgecombe

Halifax

Johnston

Stanly

Anson

Montgomery

Chatham

Richmond

Scotland

Moore

Lee

Hoke

Harnett

Cumberland

Robeson Bladen

Columbus

Carteret

Craven

Pamlico

Wayne

Sampson

Greene

Lenoir

Duplin

Jones

Brunswick

 New Hanover

Pender

Onslow

Figure 1—Distribution of 13 randomly selected North Carolina counties (shaded counties) stratified across 7 cooperative extension districts.
152

reached, thus, information delivery methods targeted at other 

groups will reach this group (fig. 2).

The three remaining clusters, “Snail-mailers,” “Shortmailers,” and “Web-mailers,” which represent 21 percent, 24 

percent, and 25 percent of the respondents respectively, have 

particular preferences for methods of information delivery 

(fig. 2) and each has characteristics that allow for the 

identification of these target audiences (table 1). By being 

able to identify specific audiences among these three clusters 

and targeting them with their preferred delivery method 

educators will be most effective in delivering forestry 

education. 

Snail-Mailers

“Snail-mailers” prefer mail-based information over all 

other delivery methods. Nearly two-thirds of this cluster is 

over 66 years old. More than two-thirds of this cluster is 

retired. Compared with “Short-mailers” and “Web-mailers”, 

the “Snail-mailers” cluster has a smaller percentage of 

respondents (47 percent) who earned more than $40,000 

in 2004, likely because many members of this cluster are 

retired (69 percent). “Snail-mailers” are less likely to have 

past management experience (30 percent) or plans for future 

management (53 percent). To characterize this cluster, 

respondents are elderly, receive lower income, retired and 

are less experienced in managing their forest. 

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Fan club

Web-mailers

Short-mailers

Snail-mailers

Don't bother me

Mean response

Mailed materials Web materials Short programs

Long programs Landowner association Distance education

Clusters

Figure 2—Preferred method of information delivery of North Carolina forest landowners by clusters.

Results and Discussion

The final data set contained 460 landowner observations 

from a total response of 508 returned surveys. Valid surveys 

were those in which respondents answered all questions 

about information delivery methods and claimed at least one 

acre of forestland. 

This study isolated five clusters of landowners with 

respect to information delivery method preferences in 

North Carolina (fig. 2). Each cluster has been given a 

memorable name that helps describe the preferred method of 

information delivery. One of the clusters, the “Don’t Bother 

Me” cluster, expressed very little interest in any information 

delivery method (fig. 2) or in managing their forestland 

(table 1). Because of this, the “Don’t Bother Me” cluster 

is likely to be very difficult to reach. They only constitute 

7 percent of the respondents, so expending effort to direct 

educational efforts at this group of people will be costly for 

the amount of impact that could be expected. 

A second cluster, the “Fan Club” cluster, represents 23 

percent of respondents. A majority of respondents in this 

cluster have past management experience, express interest in 

future management, and have received forestry information 

from Cooperative Extension, State Forest Service, 

consulting foresters, and loggers/timber buyers (table 1). 

These landowners will not require educators to target them 

with a specific information delivery method in order to be 
153

To reach this cluster most effectively, educators should 

specifically target retirees. Educational information should 

be developed that can be direct mailed, such as newsletters 

and information pamphlets. Mailing list can be developed 

from technical service providers such as state forest service. 

Other possibilities for getting information out on forest 

management could include newspapers, magazines, or 

journals. With more than two-thirds of cluster respondents 

lacking past forest management experience and a majority 

expressing plans for future management targeting cluster 

respondents with information related to beginning forest 

management, such as sources of assistance, developing 

a management plan, and managing your forest financial 

matters, will likely be well received. Using mail as the 

preferred delivery method to provide forestry information 

and teaming with organizations that target retirees 

may result in the greater impact on delivery of forestry 

information to this audience.

Short-Mailers

“Short-mailers” are most likely to use mail-based 

information and short programs such as half-day seminars 

or workshops. They constitute approximately 24 percent 

Table 1—Percent respondents within clusters for key sociodemographic, land ownership, and forest management characteristics

 Clusters

Key 

characteristics

Don’t

bother me

(n = 31)

Snail

mailers

(n = 95)

Short

mailers

(n = 111)

Web

mailers

(n = 114)

Fan

club

(n = 109)

Overall

average p < f

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Socio-demographics

Age (% ≥ 66 yrs) 61 64 51 26 26 42 0.0001

Gender (% Male) 58 66 78 75 76 73 0.12

Income (% ≥ $40,000/yr) 55 47 60 79 77 75 0.001

Education (% ≥ college) 45 45 45 66 57 55 0.0001

(%) White collar 10 12 16 39 34 25 0.05

(%) Retirees 58 69 58 41 35 51 0.0001

(%) Married 68 65 79 90 87 81 0.0001

(%) With children 3 7 9 24 22 15 0.001

Land ownership

Land (% ≥ 100 acres) 6 25 47 35 48 37 0.01

Tenure (% ≤ 5 yrs) 6 6 6 12 14 9 0.05

(%) Reside on land 39 45 51 44 59 50 0.13

(%) Rural background 58 54 67 58 65 67 0.37

Forest management

Management experience 23 30 48 40 56 43 0.01

Future plans 39 53 79 90 96 79 0.0001

Require income 23 28 38 33 46 35 0.05

Information source

State forest service 39 55 71 57 66 57 0.01

Logger/timber buyer 45 44 49 42 51 46 0.74

Extension 29 33 57 37 68 45 0.0001

Consulting forester 26 33 52 47 58 43 0.001
154

Conclusions

Results of this study revealed five distinct groups of 

landowners with particular preferences for information 

delivery methods. These groups include landowners who 

have little desire to receive forestry information, those who 

prefer to receive their forestry information through the 

mail only, those who prefer to receive forestry information 

through short educational programs lasting less than half a 

day, those who prefer obtaining their forestry information 

through internet-based resources, and those who are likely to 

use all forms of information delivery.

This study identified associations between delivery method 

preferences and other characteristics of landowners, 

including socio-demographics, land ownership, and 

management experience. Connecting easily identifiable 

landowner characteristics with landowner preferences for 

information delivery methods allows educators to identify 

delivery methods that are most likely to be effective in 

reaching their target audience. 

Educators can have a greater impact on their audience 

by delivering information to the audience the way they 

prefer. By relying upon associations between landowner 

characteristics and delivery method preferences educators 

can meet the changing needs of a dynamic NIPF population 

by matching their audiences with delivery methods most 

likely to be effective. Educators can save money and time by 

targeting specific groups of people with specific information 

delivery methods. 

of respondents. They are somewhat similar sociodemographically to the “Snail-mailers,” but slightly younger 

and with a lower percentage of retirees. Aside from their 

willingness to attend short programs, “Short-mailers” have 

experience with managing their forestland, have future plans 

for forest management, and many require income from their 

forestland. Nearly half of this cluster’s respondents own 

100 acres or more of forestland. Since many of the “shortmailers” require income from their forest and almost half 

of this group own large tracts of land, it is likely they are 

interested in educational programs related to the monetary 

aspect of forestland ownership. Education programs focused 

on timber marketing, selling timber, property taxes and 

estate planning, recreational income opportunities, and nontimber forest products should be considered for this group. 

Over 70 percent of “Short-mailers” have received 

information from the State Forest Service, who traditionally 

is a technical service provider. Working with the State Forest 

Service, educators can deliver educational information and 

market short programs to this cluster through the technical 

service providers. By collaborating with the State Forest 

Service educators should be able to increase their visibility 

with this cluster, resulting in greater program impact. 

Web-Mailers

The final focus cluster is the “Web-mailers.” This cluster 

constitutes 25 percent of respondents and prefers mail-based 

and web-based information delivery. They are significantly 

younger, more likely to be married, more likely to have 

children, and less likely to be retired than members of the 

other focus clusters. Sixty percent of this cluster makes more 

than $70,000 per year and two-thirds of “Web-mailers” 

have at least a four-year college degree. Ninety percent of 

this group expressed that they are likely to manage their 

forestland in the future. Many “Web-mailers” have job or 

family responsibilities that can limit their ability to attend 

programs. However, cost-effective, non-traditional methods 

such as internet-based information delivery may be effective 

in increasing their knowledge about forestry and forest 

management. For educators these landowners may be the 

hardest with which to connect since there is no existing 

agency or organization with which this group of landowners 

may be associated. To reach this cluster, areas of high 

income and high levels of education should be targeted; this 

would include urban centers, universities, and community 

colleges. Advertising of internet-based resources through 

newspapers and professional journals may also increase the 

chance of reaching this audience.
155

REFERENCES 

Aldridge, A.; Levine, K. 2001. Surveying the social world, principles and 

practice in survey research. Buckingham: Open University Press. 196 p.

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994. 

Res. Bul. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station. 195 p.

Brown, M.J. 2002. Forest statistics for North Carolina, 2002. Res. Bul. 

SRS-88. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 78 p.

Butler, B.; Leatherberry, E.C. 2006. National woodland owner survey, 2006 

North Carolina preliminary results. Unpublished. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis.

Cartmell, D.D., II; Orr, C.L.; Kelemen, D.B. 2006. Effectively 

disseminating information to limited-scale landowners in the urban/

rural interface. Journal of Extension. 44(1). http://www.joe.org/

joe/2006february/a5.shtml. [Date accessed: September 16, 2007]

Egan, M.W.; Welch, M.; Page, B.; Sebastian, J. 1992. Learners’ 

perceptions of instructional delivery systems: conventional and 

television. The American Journal of Distance Education. 6(2): 47-55.

Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. 1970. Determining sample size for research 

activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 30: 607-610.

Londo, A.J.; Gaddis, D.A. 2003. Evaluating Mississippi non-industrial 

private forest landowners acceptance of an interactive video short course. 

Journal of Extension. 41(5). http://www.joe.org/joe/2003october/rb4.

shtml. [Date accessed: September 16, 2007]

Megalos, M.A. 1999. North Carolina landowner responsiveness to forestry 

incentives. Raleigh, NC.: North Carolina State University, Department of 

Forestry. 119 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Muench, J. 1965. Private forests and public programs in North Carolina. 

American Forestry Assoc., Washington, D.C. 91 p.

Newman, D.H.; Aronow, M.E.; Harris, T.G., Jr.; Macheski, G. 1996. 

Changes in landowner characteristics in Georgia. In: M.J. Baughman, 

ed. Proceedings of the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: 

Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future. Washington, D.C.: St. 

Paul, Minnesota Extension Service: 214-221.

Pomeroy, K.B.; Yoho, J.G. 1964. North Carolina lands: ownership, use, 

and management of forest and related lands. American Forestry Assoc., 

Washington, D.C. 372 p.

Radhakrishna, R.B.; Nelson, L.; Franklin, R.; Kessler, G. 2003. Information 

sources and extension delivery methods used by private longleaf 

pine landowners. Journal of Extension. 41(4). http://www.joe.org/

joe/2003august/rb3.shtml. [Date accessed: September 16, 2007]

Rodewald, A.D. 2001. Delivery systems – is the “latest” technology the 

greatest? Journal of Extension. 39(4). http://joe.org/joe/2001august/tt2.

html. [Date accessed: September 16, 2007]

Sampson, R.N.; DeCoster, L.A. 1997. Public programs for private forestry: 

a reader on programs and options. American Forests. Washington, D.C. 

100 p.

SAS. 1999. SAS online doc. Ver. 8. Cary, NC: SAS institute, Inc. http://

v8doc.sas.com/sashtml/. [Date accessed: September 16, 2007]

Webster, H.; Stoltenberg, C. 1959. What ownership characteristics are 

useful in predicting response to forestry programs? Land Economics. 35: 

292-295.

CASE STUDIES AND 

SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS

1

Principal Entomologist, Texas Forest Service, College Station, TX 77840.

159

DELIVERING SCIENCE-BASED INFORMATION TO 

FOREST LANDOWNERS: THE SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE 

PREVENTION PROJECT IN EAST TEXAS

Ronald F. Billings1

Abstract—In 2001, the Texas Forest Service (TFS) initiated the Southern Pine Beetle Prevention Project in east Texas. 

The goal is to increase public awareness and forest landowner involvement in the prevention of resource losses to the 

South’s most notorious forest pest, the southern pine beetle (SPB), Dendroctonus frontalis. A landscape-level hazard map 

was developed for east Texas and used to identify 25 counties where the next SPB outbreak is most likely to develop. 

With federal funds provided by the Forest Service, cost share incentives have been offered to private forest landowners 

in east Texas since 2003 to encourage the thinning of high hazard pine stands, based on recommendations of a technical 

advisory board. News articles, publications, fact sheets, posters, a demonstration area, and frequent presentations to 

various forestry- and county landowner groups are being used to promote the program and transfer science-based 

information. Cost share incentives include up to 70 percent reimbursement of precommercial thinning costs, $50- $100 

per acre for the first thinning of pulpwood stands, and up to 50 percent of fees for a private consulting forester. Based on 

a prediction system developed by TFS, annual predictions of SPB activity to expect at the local, state, and regional levels 

are generated each spring using a network of pheromone traps, with results delivered in a timely manner via the Internet. 

As of September 30, 2007, some 52,700 acres of high-hazard pine stands in 25 beetle-prone counties had been targeted 

for thinning, involving more than $3 million in federal cost shares. By this same date, 67 percent of these cases (35,338 

acres) had been completed and nearly $1.8 million in cost shares paid to 475 small private landowners. The on-going 

SPB Prevention Project in Texas is serving as a model for SPB prevention projects in other southern states. Results of a 

customer satisfaction survey and lessons learned concerning information transfer in this project are summarized.

INTRODUCTION

The southern pine beetle (SPB), Dendroctonus frontalis, is 

a bark beetle native to the southern United States, southern 

Arizona, Mexico and several countries in Central America 

(Thatcher and others 1980). It is a major threat to southern 

pine forests with populations attaining outbreak levels 

almost every year somewhere within its range (Price and 

others 1998). For example, in 2001 and 2002, the worst 

outbreak on record was recorded in the southeastern U.S. 

More than 150,000 infestations (commonly called “spots”) 

were reported on federal, state, and private ownerships in 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. For 

reasons that remain unclear, however, no SPB infestations 

have been reported in states west of the Mississippi River 

since 1998 (USDA Forest Service 2004). Due to periodic 

outbreaks and the impact they may have on commercial 

pine forests, the SPB has been the target of more extensive 

suppression efforts than any other bark beetle species in 

the world (Billings 1980). Nevertheless, foresters have 

long recognized that prevention by means of silvicultural 

treatment of beetle-prone stands is the preferred, long-term 

approach to coping with this bark beetle pest (Bennett 1968, 

Coster 1977, Hedden 1978). The Texas Forest Service (TFS) 

initiated the Southern Pine Beetle Prevention Project in 

east Texas in 2001, with financial support provided by the 

Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. The development 

of the Project and accomplishments for the first six years are 

summarized herein.

SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE HOST PREFERENCES 

AND SEASONAL BEHAVIOR

The southern pine beetle may complete up to seven 

generations per year in east Texas and beetles may fly and 

attack trees whenever ambient temperatures exceed 59° F., 

the beetle’s flight threshold (Thatcher and others 1980). 

Preferred hosts in the southern U.S. are loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata), although all pine 

species may serve as hosts during outbreaks. SPB dispersal 

patterns, reproductive capacity, attack behavior, and ability 

to initiate multiple-tree infestations differ from those of 

other Dendroctonus species (Fettig and others 2007) and 

are known to vary with the season (Thatcher and Pickard 

1964, Hedden and Billings 1979). Most large, expanding 

infestations (fig. 1) are initiated in the spring following 

emergence and dispersal of overwintering broods. 

During summer months, newly-established infestations 

may expand rapidly as multiple generations of SPB attack 

additional trees on the periphery of the same infestation 

from which they emerged in response to aggregation 

pheromones (Gara 1967, Hedden and Billings 1979). If 

these expanding spots are not controlled, beetle populations 

may kill even healthy pines and devastate entire forests 

(Clarke and Billings 2003) as a result of this unique “spot 

growth” phenomenon (Cameron and Billings 1988). 
160

A portion of the SPB population may leave established 

infestations as temperatures cool in the fall to infest 

scattered host trees or initiate new spots nearby. This 

seasonal behavior serves to redistribute the beetle population 

in pine-forested landscapes prior to winter (Thatcher and 

Pickard 1964). 

SITE, STAND, AND HOST CHARACTERISTICS 

OF SPB

In the western Gulf states, unmanaged and overcrowded 

stands of loblolly or shortleaf pines, particularly those on 

poorly-drained, bottomland sites, are most susceptible to 

SPB (Coster and Searcy 1979). Longleaf pine (P. palustris) 

is considered more resistant to SPB infestation, due to 

abundant production of oleoresins which may ward off 

attacking beetles (Hodges and others 1979). Recognizing 

those tree, stand, and landscape factors that predispose pines 

to beetle infestations is the first step in a prevention program 

(Billings and others 2006). 

The susceptibility (hazard) of pine stands in east Texas to 

SPB infestation can be identified as high, medium or low, 

based on average height (or diameter at breast height), 

pine basal area per acre (a measure of stand density), and 

landform (ridge, side slope, or bottomland). In general, 

pine stands with basal areas exceeding 120 square feet per 

acre, particularly those on bottomland sites (clay soils), are 

considered high hazard for SPB infestation (Billings and 

Bryant 1982, Mason and others 1985). 

The likelihood of resource losses during a SPB outbreak will 

vary depending on the abundance and spatial distribution 

of high hazard stands within a county or other geographical 

area (Hedden 1978). For example, certain TFS grid blocks 

(18,000 acre units) historically have supported more SPB 

infestations than others. Using historical SPB detection 

records and aerial photographs, the Texas Forest Service 

developed a system to rate grid blocks in east Texas for 

hazard to SPB, based on the abundance and distribution of 

susceptible pine forests (Billings, Bryant and Wilson 1985). 

The 1996 distribution of very low, low, moderate, high, and 

extreme hazard TFS grid blocks is shown in figure 2. 

Forest management is the preferred method for preventing 

losses to SPB (Bennett 1968, Coster 1977). Thinning of 

overly dense, slow-growing pine stands will stimulate 

growth and vigor in young stands and reduce the likelihood 

of SPB infestation (Brown and others 1987, Nebeker and 

others 1985). If an infestation does occur, as a result of 

lightning (Hodges and Pickard 1971) or other predisposing 

factor(s), the infestation is less likely to grow to a large size 

in stands of low density (e.g., those with basal areas of less 

than 100 square feet per acre) (Cameron and Billings 1988, 

Gara 1967, Hedden and Billings 1979). 

SPB PREVENTION PROJECT IN TEXAS

In 2001, the USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, 

Region 8 initiated the Southern Pine Beetle Prevention 

Program. Federal monies are being offered to southern state 

forestry agencies to promote SPB prevention projects at the 

state level. As part of this cooperative effort, federal cost 

shares are being made available to private non-industrial 

forest landowners in participating states for various SPB 

prevention and restoration practices. This paper describes 

the SPB Prevention Project established in east Texas and 

efforts to identify SPB-prone pine stands and promote 

thinning as the recommended prevention measure. The longterm goal is to reduce the susceptibility of east Texas forests 

to future SPB outbreaks.

Development of the SPB Prevention Project involved several 

steps. The SPB grid block hazard map, first developed in the 

mid-1980s (Billings and others 1985), was updated using 

current aerial photography (fig. 2). Initially, a technical 

advisory board was formed to develop the guidelines for the 

cost-share project. Members included representatives of state 

and federal forestry agencies, consulting foresters, county 

landowner organizations, and other stakeholders. Once 

the technical guidelines were developed and agreed upon, 

fliers and posters describing the SPB cost share project 

and advertising the availability of cost share funds for SPB 

prevention were prepared and distributed to all TFS District 

forestry offices and other forestry-related outlets. To assure 

effective record keeping, a computerized information system 

was developed for recording each submitted prevention case, 

client names and contact information, funds encumbered, 

acres approved and treated, and cost-share payments made. 

This system has proven useful for generating frequent and 

Figure 1—Example of a large, expanding SPB infestation on Turkey Hill 

Wilderness, Sabine National Forest in east Texas, 1993. (Photo by R. 

Billings.)
161

Legend

1996 SPB hazard rating

Extreme

High

Moderate

Low

Very low

Southern pine beetle

hazard rating–1996

Location of rated counties

Figure 2—Southern pine beetle area-wide hazard map for east Texas, based on 1996 aerial photography (Billings and others 1985). Each rectangle (grid 

block) represents 18,000 acres.
162

timely accomplishment and status reports for state and 

federal administrators and field foresters involved in the 

Project.

Private forest landowners are encouraged to work with a 

Texas Forest Service forester or private consulting forester to 

develop a management plan for their property. If dense pine 

stands are present, this plan should incorporate SPB hazard 

rating and stand management practices to protect forests 

from future SPB outbreaks. In the case of bark beetles, good 

forest management is good pest management (Fettig and 

others 2007, Hedden 1978, Nebeker and others 1985). 

Recommended forestry practices to recognize and reduce 

susceptibility to SPB include the following:

•	Hazard rate existing pine stands to determine their 

susceptibility to SPB (Billings and Bryant 1982, Mason 

and others 1985).

•	In young (6-12 year old) stands with > 700 stems per acre, 

consider precommercial thinning to reduce stand density 

to equal or less than approximately 400 trees per acre 

(optimal density will vary with site conditions) (Billings 

and others 2006).

•	Thin moderate or high hazard pine plantations or natural 

stands to reduce the basal area to ≤ 80 square feet per acre 

(Hedden 1978, Nebeker and others 1985) as a means to 

increase tree vigor and radial growth (Coulson and others 

1974).

•	Harvest pine stands at maturity and reforest (Bennett 1968, 

Fettig and others 2007).

•	Where feasible, give priority for thinning or harvesting 

to those stands located within TFS grid blocks rated as 

moderate, high or extreme hazard to SPB (see figure 2).

•	Reforest or plant containerized seedlings of longleaf pine, 

known to be more resistant to SPB (Hodges and others 

1979), on suitable sites.

•	Favor mixed stands of pines and hardwoods on suitable 

sites if compatible with forest management goals 

(Schowalter and Turchin 1993).

•	Promptly remove lightning-stuck trees (Hodges and 

Pickard 1971) or other damaged trees from the stand.

•	Minimize damage to residual trees during road building 

and thinning operations (Nebeker and others 1985).

•	Monitor pine stands for SPB activity with pheromone traps 

(Billings 1988) and/or periodic aerial surveys (Billings and 

Ward 1984).

•	Upon detection, groups of dead or dying pines should be 

evaluated on the ground to identify the causal agent and to 

set control priorities (Billings and Pase 1979).

•	Promptly treat expanding SPB infestations when they 

occur (Billings 1980, Swain and Remion 1981).

REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL COST SHARES

Beginning in 2003, federal funds were made available to 

help reduce the susceptibility of pine stands to SPB in east 

Texas and several other southern states. In Texas, these cost 

share funds, administered by the Texas Forest Service, are 

allocated to qualified private landowners as reimbursement 

for specific silvicultural practices designed to reduce SPB 

hazard (Billings and others 2006). The cost-shares are 

provided to private landowners as an incentive to thin dense 

pine stands and as a means to offset current low pulpwood 

prices (Texas Forest Service 2006).

Landowner Qualifications

The cost shares are offered only to small private landowners 

and are not available to forest industry, State or Federal 

agencies, or landowners owning more than 5,000 

acres of forestlands. The cost shares are available for 

landowners within 25 beetle-prone counties in east Texas 

(Anderson, Angelina, Cass, Cherokee, Gregg, Hardin, 

Harrison, Houston, Jasper, Liberty, Marion, Montgomery, 

Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Panola, Polk, Rusk, 

Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Shelby, Trinity, Tyler, 

and Walker), based on abundance of susceptible host type 

(Billings and others 2006). 

Stand Qualifications and Cost Share Rates

To qualify for federal cost shares for SPB prevention, the 

pine stand must be located within one of the 25 counties 

listed above, contain > 70 percent pine (loblolly, shortleaf, 

or slash pine (P. elliotii) and rate as moderate or high 

hazard to SPB. Pine stands located outside these counties 

may qualify only if the stand ranks as high hazard to SPB 

(Billings and Bryant 1982). 

Stands must be 6-20 years of age, unthinned, and be at least 

10 acres in size. Then, to participate in the SPB prevention 

program, the landowner must submit a 2-page SPB 

application form prepared by a TFS- or consulting forester 

for his/her property. 
163

Practices that qualify for these cost share funds are 

defined below.

Precommercial Thinning: To qualify for 50:50 cost shares 

for precommercial thinning, existing loblolly or shortleaf 

pine stands must be more than 6 years of age and have 

an average of more than 700 stems per acre at the time of 

thinning. Cost shares will be reimbursed to the landowner to 

cover up to 50 percent of the thinning costs, not to exceed 

$75 per acre. In August 2007, cost shares for precommercial 

thinning were increased to 60 percent of actual costs, not 

to exceed $90 per acre, in 10 counties in southeast Texas 

(Hardin, Jasper, Liberty, Montgomery, Newton, Orange, 

Polk, San Jacinto, Tyler, and Walker) that have historically 

supported SPB outbreaks. 

Due to longer rotations, an abundance of overmature pine 

forests, and presence of wilderness areas where direct 

control of SPB infestations is constrained, National Forests 

in Texas have supported major SPB outbreaks in the 1980s 

and 1990s and are likely to do so in the future (Clarke and 

Billings 2003). This situation greatly increases the likelihood 

that SPB populations will spread to unthinned pine stands 

on nearby private lands during outbreaks. Accordingly, cost 

shares for precommercial thinning were increased in August, 

2007 to 70 percent of actual costs, not to exceed $105 per 

acre, for pine stands on private, non-industrial lands located 

within five miles of a National Forest.

First Thinning of Pulpwood Stands: To encourage first 

thinning of loblolly, shortleaf or slash pine stands having 

trees of marginal market value (pulpwood), landowners were 

initially given cost shares of $50 per acre if the pine stand 

rated as moderate or high hazard within the 25 counties 

described above. Pine stands outside this area qualified only 

if they rated as high hazard to SPB (Billings and Bryant 

1982). In May, 2007, cost-share rates for the first thinning 

of pulpwood stands were increased to $80 per acre in the 

ten counties of southeast Texas listed above and to $100 per 

acre for pine stands within five miles of a National Forest. 

For cases that qualify, cost shares are provided in addition to 

any profit the landowner may make on the sale of pulpwood 

from the treated stand. The cost share match in the case 

of pulpwood stands is covered by the average state-wide 

cut-and-haul rate for pulpwood in Texas (e.g., $18 per ton, 

equivalent to $100 - $600 per acre). This cut-and-haul rate 

reflects the average cost to hire a logger to thin the tract.

Consulting Forester Fees: In addition to the cost shares 

described above, participating landowners also may claim 50 

percent of costs, up to $10 per acre, to employ a consulting 

forester to hazard rate the stand and oversee the thinning 

operation.

Cost-share Maximums: In any federal fiscal year 

(October 1 – September 30), cost shares are available up 

to a maximum of $8,500-$10,000 for single landowners or 

$17,000-$20,000 for partnerships and trusts having two or 

more partners. The higher maximum amounts correspond 

to those counties or properties that qualify for the higher 

cost share rates (e.g., those stands located in one of the ten 

counties of southeast Texas listed above or in proximity to a 

National Forest).

SPB PREDICTION SYSTEM

As part of the SPB Prevention Project in Texas, TFS pest 

management specialists administer the South-wide SPB 

Prediction System. This system provides annual predictions 

of SPB infestation trends (increasing, static, declining) 

and levels (high, moderate, low) for specific counties and 

National Forest Ranger Districts in 16 states (OK, AR, TX, 

LA, MS, TN, KY, AL, GA, VA, FL, SC, NC, DE, MD, 

and NJ). The system utilizes funnel traps baited with SPB 

aggregation pheromones and pine turpentine placed in pine 

forests for 4 weeks in the spring (Billings 1988). 

Data on numbers of adult SPB per trap as well as those of 

a major predator (the clerid, Thanasimus dubius) from 170 

-180 locations in 16 states are compiled by the author and 

used to make predictions for the current year. SPB outbreaks 

are likely when mean numbers of SPB per trap per day 

exceed ca. 25 and the ratio of SPB to the total catch of SPB 

and clerids (defined as percent SPB) exceeds ca. 30 percent. 

Trap catch data from all localities surveyed within a state 

are averaged to determine SPB infestation forecasts for 

the entire state. These data and predictions are then made 

available to cooperators and the general public via the TFS 

web page at http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu. State-level 

predictions of SPB infestation trends and levels have proven 

accurate 75-80 percent of the time since the prediction 

system was implemented in 1987 (Billings and Upton in 

press). When SPB populations are forecasted to remain low, 

as they have since 1998 in those southern states located 

west of the Mississippi River (AR, LA, OK, TX), forest 

landowners are encouraged to focus on prevention measures, 

before the beetle populations return to high levels.

INFORMATION TRANSFER EFFORTS IN TEXAS

To increase public awareness and transfer SPB prevention 

information to small, private landowners in east Texas, TFS 

foresters and entomologists are using a variety of methods. 

Frequent articles describing SPB prevention practices 

and the availability of federal cost shares for thinning are 

prepared and published in the Texas Forestry Association 

newsletter Texas Forestry, as well as in local newspapers 

and in county landowner and forest stewardship newsletters 

throughout east Texas. In turn, the publication entitled How 

to Prevent Southern Pine Beetle Infestations: A Guide to 

Cost Sharing Thinning Operations in East Texas (Billings 
164

and others 2006) was published and distributed to TFS and 

private consulting foresters. This publication describes in 

detail how to recognize SPB-prone pine stands and how 

to thin stands to reduce their susceptibility to SPB. Simple 

procedures for applying for federal cost share funds, 

including the required application forms, are included.

To further promote the Project, two SPB prevention foresters 

were hired, one to cover counties in northeast Texas and 

the other for counties in southeast Texas. These foresters 

increase public awareness by giving presentations on the 

Project to county forest landowner groups, forestry groups, 

civic groups, and other potential stakeholders throughout 

east Texas and in the larger metropolitan areas (where many 

absentee landowners reside). To remind forest landowners 

of the destructive potential of SPB during outbreaks, color 

photos of large, expanding infestations taken from the air are 

used. In the early 1990s, ample opportunities were available 

to photograph uncontrolled SPB infestations on federal 

wildernesses in east Texas (see figure 1), when 40 percent 

of the host type was destroyed as a result of no control 

(Clarke and Billings 2003). The impact of uncontrolled SPB 

infestations on federal wildernesses and how to prevent 

similar losses through suppression and prevention programs 

have become routine topics of discussion in frequent “Forest 

Awareness” tours and “Walks in the Woods” for school 

children.

In 2006, a five-acre tract of dense loblolly pine on the 

Jones State Forest near Houston was established as a 

demonstration area. Four acres were thinned, while one acre 

was left untreated. To promote SPB prevention awareness, 

a display was set up adjacent to the thinned and unthinned 

stands to describe SPB biology and impact and explain how 

thinning can be used to reduce the susceptibility of pine 

stands.

COST SHARE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Since the SPB Prevention Project began offering cost shares 

to small private landowners in 2003, accomplishments have 

been substantial. As of September 30, 2007, a total of 731 

cases for thinning had been approved, involving 52,733 

acres and $3,123,362 in federal cost shares. Of these, 3,742 

acres and $255,099 in cost shares had been approved for 

precommercial thinning while 49,009 acres and $2,868,263 

in cost shares had been approved for the first thinning of 

pulpwood stands (fig. 3A). Eighteen months are allowed 

to complete the thinning, once a case is approved. In 

federal FY 2006, thinning operations in southeast Texas 

were hampered by poor markets, wet ground conditions, 

and a temporary lack of loggers, due to Hurricane Rita in 

September, 2005. Despite these adverse factors, 475 cases 

(65 percent of total) had been completed covering 35,338 

acres (fig. 3B) and $1,793,484 in federal cost shares had 

been distributed to participating landowners by the end of 

federal FY 2007. 

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

A questionnaire was developed to monitor customer 

satisfaction with the program. The two-page survey form, 

with return postage paid, is sent to each participating 

landowner upon completion of his/her cost-share case. As of 

September 30, 2007, 163 of 475 survey forms (34 percent) 

had been returned. Comments have been overwhelmingly 

positive. Most landowners heard of the program via their 

consulting forester (50 percent), a TFS District or SPB 

Prevention Forester (26 percent) or the Texas Forestry 

Association newsletter (14 percent). Sixty-seven percent 

of respondents used a consulting forester, and 26 percent 

Figure 3—Unthinned (A) and thinned (B) stands of loblolly pine in east Texas. Thinned stands are less susceptible to SPB infestation occurrence and subsequent 

expansion. (Photos by R. Billings.)
165

decided to employ a consulting forester because their fees 

were cost sharable. Ninety-two percent of responding 

participants found that SPB cost shares were simple and 

easy to apply for and many appreciated the prompt payment. 

Sixty-five percent rated the project as better than other 

cost-share projects in which they had participated, while 

only 5 percent rated it as worse. When asked whether they 

would have thinned their pine stand at this time if federal 

cost shares were not available, 42 percent said they would 

not have. Presumably, the other participants at least have 

learned that SPB prevention is one of the many benefits 

of maintaining a vigorously growing pine stand through 

periodic thinning.

LESSONS LEARNED

Several lessons about successful information transfer have 

been learned as a result of the SPB Prevention Project and 

similar efforts in forest pest management over the years. 

These include the following:

•	You must have information, a product or service to transfer 

that meets a landowner’s specific need.

•	The information/technology must be simple, practical, and 

“user-friendly.”

•	Word of the new information must reach stakeholders 

(private landowners, TFS and consulting foresters). In 

recent years, increasing use of the Internet has facilitated 

public awareness efforts.

•	Involving private consulting foresters spreads word of the 

program and increases accomplishments.

•	Cost-shares need to be paid promptly, following 

satisfactory completion of an approved practice. Satisfied 

customers tend to spread the word and help to generate 

more clients.

•	Selectively increasing cost share rates is an effective 

method to boost interest and accomplishments in highpriority areas.

The Southern Pine Beetle Prevention Project has been 

deemed a success because it meets the criteria stated 

above. Nine southern states (TX, AR, LA, AL, GA, TN, 

FL, NC, VA) offer federal cost shares for SPB prevention. 

While all nine states subsidize pre-commercial thinning 

for prevention purposes, Texas was the first state in the 

nation to offer federal cost shares for thinning pulpwood 

stands. This practice has now been adopted by at least four 

other southern states – Florida, Arkansas, Alabama, and 

Mississippi. Clearly, the Texas SPB Prevention Project is 

serving as an example for other state forestry agencies of 

how to successfully transfer science-based information to 

private forest landowners. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author extends appreciation to the following: to the 

Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Region 8 for 

providing funding and support for the SPB Prevention 

Project; to L. Allen Smith and Michael Murphrey for their 

many contributions as SPB Prevention Foresters; to the 

many TFS District Foresters, TFS technicians, and private 

consulting foresters in east Texas responsible for delivering 

technical assistance and SPB cost shares; and to the 

multitude of small private landowners who have participated 

in the Project to date.

REFERENCES

Bennett, W.H. 1968. Timber management and southern pine beetle research. 

Forest Farmer 27(9): 12-13.

Billings, R.F. 1980. Direct control. In: Thatcher, R.C.; Hertel, G.D. ; Searcy, 

J.L., eds. The southern pine beetle. Technical Bulletin No. 1631, USDA 

Forest Service, Science and Education Administration, Washington, D.C. 

179-192. 

Billings, R.F. 1988. Forecasting southern pine beetle infestation trends with 

pheromone traps. In: Payne, T.L.; Saarenmaa, H., eds. Integrated Control 

of Scolytid Bark Beetles, Vancouver, B. C., Canada. Proceedings XVII 

International Congress of Entomology. 295-305.

Billings, R.F.; Bryant, C.M. 1982. Southern pine beetle: field guide for 

hazard rating, prevention, and control. Texas Forest Service Circular. No. 

259. 22 p.

Billings, R.F.; Bryant, C.M.; Wilson, K.H. 1985. Development, 

implementation, and validation of a large area hazard- and risk-rating 

system for southern pine beetle. In: Branham, S.J.; Thatcher, R.C., eds. 

Integrated Pest Management Research Symposium: The Proceedings, 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. SO-56: 226-232.

Billings, R.F.; Pase, H.A., III. 1979. A field guide for ground checking 

southern pine beetle spots. Agriculture Handbook No. 558, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Combined Forest Pest Research and 

Development Program, Washington, D.C. 19 p.

Billings, R.F.; Smith, L.A.; Murphrey, M. 2006. How to prevent southern 

pine beetle infestations: a guide to cost sharing thinning operations in 

east Texas. Texas Forest Service Publication. 3/06/5000. 19 p.

Billings, R.F.; Upton, W.W. [In press]. A methodology for assessing annual 

risk of southern pine beetle outbreaks across the southern region using 

pheromone traps. In: Pye, J.M.; Rauscher, H. Michael; Sands, Y.; Lee, 

D.C.; Beatty, J.S., eds. [In press]. Advances in threat assessment and 

their application to forest and rangeland management. General Technical 

Report. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station and Southern Research Station.

Billings, R.F.; Ward, J.D. 1984. How to conduct a southern pine beetle 

aerial detection survey. Texas Forest Service Circular. 267. 19 p.

Brown, M.W.; Nebeker, T.E.; Honea, C.R. 1987. Thinning increases 

loblolly pine vigor and resistance to bark beetles. Southern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 11: 28-31.

Cameron, R.S.; Billings, R.F. 1988. Southern pine beetle: factors associated 

with spot occurrence and spread in young plantations. Southern Journal 

of Applied Forestry. 12: 208-214.
166

Clarke, S.R.; Billings, R.F. 2003. Analysis of the southern pine beetle 

suppression program on the National Forests in Texas in the 1990s. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 27(2): 122-129.

Coster, J.E. 1977. Towards integrated protection from the southern pine 

beetle. Journal of Forestry. 75: 481-484.

Coster, J.E.; Searcy, J.L., eds. 1979. Site, stand, and host characteristics of 

southern pine beetle infestations. Technical Bulletin No. 1612. USDA 

Forest Service, Pineville, LA. 115 p.

Coulson, R.N.; Hain, F.P.; Payne, T.L. 1974. Radial growth characteristics 

and stand density of loblolly pine in relation to the occurrence of the 

southern pine beetle. Environmental Entomology. 3: 425-428.

Fettig, C.J.; Klepzig, K.D.; Billings, R.F. [and others]. 2007. The 

effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and 

control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the Western 

and Southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 238: 

24-53.

Gara, R.I. 1967. Studies on the attack behavior of the southern pine beetle. 

I. The spreading and collapse of outbreaks. Contributions of the Boyce 

Thompson Institute. 24: 77-86.

Hedden, R.L. 1978. The need for intensive forest management to reduce 

southern pine beetle activity in east Texas. Southern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 2: 19-22.

Hedden, R.L.; Billings, R.F. 1979. Southern pine beetle: factors influencing 

the growth and decline of summer infestations in east Texas. Forest 

Science. 25(4): 547-556. 

Hicks, R.R.; Howard, J.E.; Watterston, K.G.; Coster, J.E. 1980. Rating 

forest stand susceptibility to southern pine beetle in east Texas. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 2: 269-283. 

Hodges, J.D.; Elam, W.W.; Watson, W.F.; Nebeker, T.E. 1979. Oleoresin 

characteristics and susceptibility of four southern pines to southern pine 

beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) attacks. Canadian Entomologist. 111: 

889-896.

Hodges, J.D.; Pickard, L.S. 1971. Lightning in the ecology of the southern 

pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian 

Entomologist. 103: 44-51.

Leushner, W.A.; Burkhart, H.E.; Spittle, G.D. [and others]. 1976. A 

descriptive study of host site variables associated with occurrence of 

Dendroctonus frontalis Zimm. in east Texas. Southwestern Entomologist.

1(3): 141-149.

Mason, G.N.; Lorio, P.L.; Belanger, R.P.; Nettleton, W.A. 1985. Rating 

the susceptibility of stands to southern pine beetle attack. Agriculture 

Handbook No. 645. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 31 p.

Nebeker, T.E.; Hodges, J.D.; Carr, B.K.; Moehring, D.M. 1985. Thinning 

practices in southern pines – with pest management recommendations. 

Technical Bulletin No. 1703. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 

36 p.

Price, T.S.; Doggett, C.; Pye, J.M.; Smith, B. 1998. A history of southern 

pine beetle outbreaks in the Southeastern United States. Georgia Forestry 

Commission. Macon, GA. 70 p.

Schowalter, T.D.; Turchin, P. 1993. Southern pine beetle infestation 

development: interaction between pine and hardwood basal areas. Forest 

Science. 30: 201-210.

Swain, K.M.; Remion, M.C.1981. Direct control of the southern pine 

beetle. Agriculture Handbook No. 575. USDA Combined Forest Pest 

Research and Development Program, Pineville, LA. 19 p.

Texas Forest Service. 2006. Texas timber price trends. Bimonthly Market 

Report. 24(6): 1-8.

Thatcher, R.C.; Pickard, L.S. 1964. Seasonal variations in activity of the 

southern pine beetle in Texas. Journal of Economic Entomology. 57: 

840-842. 

Thatcher, R.C.; Searcy, J.L.; Coster, J.E.; Hertel, G.D. 1980. The 

southern pine beetle. Technical Bulletin No. 1631. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 266 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2004. Forest insect and 

disease conditions in the United States 2002. Forest Health Protection, 

Washington, D.C. 136 p.
1

Agroforester, Grazing Specialist, Director NAC, Lead Agroforester, and Soil Survey Database Manager, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Central National Technology Support Center, Fort Worth, TX 76115; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, State Office, Lexington, KY 40503; U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agroforestry Center, Normal, AL 35762; and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE 68583, respectively.

167

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR 

SILVOPASTURE IN THE SOUTHEAST—OUR PERSPECTIVE

Jim Robinson, Sid Brantly, Greg Ruark, Bruce Wright, and Richard Straight1

Abstract—Research indicates that silvopasture, growing of forage and trees in an intensive management system for 

the production of livestock and timber products, is a viable option for landowners in the Southern Pine Belt. However, 

limited adoption of silvopasture technology suggests there is a need to develop a technology transfer program to provide 

training and field support for delivering technical assistance in planning and application of silvopasture systems. In 2000 

the USDA National Agroforestry Center, a partnership between the USFS and NRCS dedicated the primary staff time of 

one technology transfer specialist to solicit support from its conservation partners to identify barriers to implementation 

and to develop a technology transfer program targeted principally for Georgia, Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, and 

Mississippi. The resulting targeted technology transfer program provided: training to over 500 agency personnel and about 

50 consultants, support for landowner workshops or field days, silvopasture demonstration plantings in 4 states, increased 

silvopasture application, increased emphasis at universities in silvopasture. Not all the progress made in the targeted states 

is a direct result of the emphasis provided by the National Agroforestry Center. However, the multi-agency cooperation 

stimulated by NAC’s focused efforts, while often difficult to fully achieve, has resulted in additional dividends of 

subsequent independent program implementation. Many barriers continue to exist. Some are real and others are perceived. 

Nevertheless, conservation stakeholders, working together, can make an impact in overcoming these barriers. The real 

proof will be on the land.

INTRODUCTION

In 1995 the Forest Service (USFS) and USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) formed a 

partnership through the National Agroforestry Center 

(NAC) in Lincoln, Nebraska. The Center staffed with 

six researchers, eight technology transfer specialists and 

five support staff consists of a research component and a 

technology transfer component. The USFS provides the 

Director, the support staff, researchers and four technology 

transfer specialist while the NRCS provides three 

technology transfer specialists. 

The technology transfer arm of the National Agroforestry 

Center was charged with the promotion and technical 

support for five identified agroforestry practices. The 

five primary agroforestry practices were forest farming, 

alley cropping, riparian forest buffers, windbreaks and 

silvopasture. This paper focuses on the NAC’s silvopasture 

technology transfer initiative.

BACKGROUND

Early silvopasture research in the 1980’s by Dr. Cliff Lewis, 

USFS, and later research by Dr. Henry Pearson, USFS, 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Dr. Terry Clason, 

Louisiana State University, indicated that silvopasture, the 

growing of forage and trees in an intensive management 

system for production of livestock and timber products, 

was a viable option for landowners in the Southern Pine 

Belt. Silvopasture promotion by conservation agencies and 

implementation by landowners was, however, lacking. 

In August 1997, NRCS Grazing Lands Technology Institute 

and the National Agroforestry Center partnered with the 

Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Louisiana 

Agricultural Experiment Station, Hill Farm Research 

Station and Dr. Terry Clason to develop grazing and timber 

yield demonstrations and to support additional silvopasture 

research. That same year, Dr. Catalino Blanche, ARS, 

formed a multi-agency team to investigate silvopasture and 

its economic potential for the South/Southeastern United 

States. Members of the team were Dr. Catalino Blanche, 

ARS, Dr. Clarke Baldwin, USFS, and Jim Robinson, NRCS/

NAC. 

This team visited New Zealand in 1998 to look at their 

technology transfer program for silvopasture and the 

successful implementation of silvopasture on the ground. 

Dr. Leif Knowles, the team’s host, had traveled extensively 

throughout the US investigating some of the research on 

silvopasture in the US but observed very little on the ground. 

He took that knowledge back to New Zealand, refined it, 

and proceeded to increase their knowledge of the benefits 

of silvopasture promoting it to farmers through research, 

education and technical assistance. This trip energized the 

NAC and its partners to believe silvopasture had a future in 

America.
168

In 1998 the National Association of Resource Council and 

Development Councils with assistance from NAC did an 

assessment of the potential for agroforestry practices across 

the United States. This assessment, published in 2000, 

showed that silvopasture had very good potential in the 

South and Southeast. 

About this same time Sid Brantly, NRCS regional grazing 

specialist for the Southeast, and Jerry Johnson, NRCS State 

Staff Forester for Alabama, requested a long-term technical 

assistance commitment from Jim Robinson, an NAC 

silvopasture technical transfer specialist. They submitted 

a technical assistance proposal that included training 

program funding for the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, 

Mississippi and South Carolina. The training program 

would target– state forestry agencies, university experiment 

stations, state cooperative extension services, 1890 

Universities, NRCS state offices, soil and water conservation 

district offices, private consultants and landowners. 

In March of 2000 a “Dixie Trip” to the South was conducted 

to allow NAC personnel a first hand opportunity to assess 

the value and potential of a multi-year technology transfer 

initiative and to meet some of the important the players 

in the potential development of a silvopasture technology 

transfer program. During this Dixie Trip, the group met 

with Dr. Cliff Lewis, a retired researcher and the father of 

silvopasture as we know it, and George Owens, a rancher 

and owner of probably the oldest silvopasture system in 

the Southeast. Their enthusiasm, combined research and 

practical knowledge of working silvopasture systems were 

a key factor in convincing NAC to move ahead with a 

significant commitment to promote silvopasture systems. A 

key contact was made during this trip with Rhett Johnson, 

Director of Auburn University’s Solon Dixon Center and 

Co-Chairman of the Longleaf Alliance. Although this stop 

in the agenda was originally viewed as “while we are in the 

area we should stop”, it turned out to be the beginning of 

an important long-term relationship with Auburn University 

and the Longleaf Alliance.

In the fall of 2000, Jim Robinson submitted a silvopasture 

technology transfer initiative proposal to the NAC 

recommending that the priority of his time and information 

assistance go to this effort. This plan targeted the states 

identified in the proposal submitted by Jerry Johnson and 

Sid Brantly.

PLAN

•	Solicit support from conservation partners, principally state

foresters, state conservationist and extension leaders as 

well as consultants and non-government organizations.

•	Develop tools and technical notes, to assist field staff, in 

applying silvopasture technologies.

•	Develop technical workshops and a workbook on 

silvopasture for technical personnel.

•	Fund demonstrations and provide research support.

•	Encourage and support landowner field days through state 

activities.

•	Direct technical assistance to state and local offices.

•	Work with Sustainable Agriculture Research and 

Education (SARE) to fund agroforestry proposals.

•	Work with 1890 Universities to conduct studies and 

research in silvopasture. 

•	Provide training to 1890 University professors on 

agroforestry including silvopasture applications.

IMPLEMENTATION

In March of 2001, NAC met with Region 8 USFS staff 

in Atlanta, GA to explain the proposal and solicit their 

support. It was agreed upon to hold an initial workshop for 

conservation partner representatives from each targeted 

state. Region 8 USFS agreed to fund the training for 

state forestry and extension representatives, and NRCS 

agreed to fund, through the NAC, the representatives from 

NRCS and other conservation partners. Prior to the initial 

workshop, NAC staff contacted State Foresters and State 

Conservationists in the targeted states to explain what was 

being proposed. The pre-workshop communication was 

intended to warm up key decision makers to the potential 

of silvopasture fitting into their agency goals and to garner 

support for their agency’s appropriate staff to attend the 

workshop. This first workshop was held in Chipley, Florida 

and was attended by staff from each agency in each targeted 

state. George Owens, silvopasture landowner, hosted the 

group on a tour of his farm. 

Over the next two and a half years an additional twelve 

workshops, sponsored by the NAC, were held in Florida, 

Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Alabama with 

approximately 700 people in attendance that included state 

and federal conservation agencies, universities, extension, 

and consultants. Workshop participants received training 

in forage and livestock management, forest management 

and wildlife issues as they pertain to silvopasture systems. 

The NAC also produced a workbook containing research 

references, technical notes, and management guides for 

the application and management of silvopasture systems. 

Four technical notes were produced by the NAC which 

included: “From Pine Forest to A Silvopasture System”, 

“From A Pasture to A Silvopasture System”, Silvopasture 

Tree Pruning and “Silvopasture And Eastern Wild Turkey”, 

“Silvopasture Water And Fencing Systems For Cattle”. 

A guide was created for “Estimating canopy relationship 

to trees per acre and basal area” for loblolly pine, as well 

as how to use a spherical densiometer for estimating tree 
169

canopy in the field. One “Inside Agroforestry” newsletter 

was principally dedicated to silvopasture along with a large 

10’X 8’ floor display poster. All of this as well as other 

informational materials and posters were made available 

for free access and use by anyone who wanted to promote 

silvopasture technology.

Four demonstration projects were established in the targeted 

states. One is located at the Solon Dixon Center of Auburn 

University, Alabama. Another is located at the Jimmy Carter 

Plant Materials Center, and the other two are located on 

private lands in Mississippi. These projects are:

• Used to demonstrate to technical people and landowners

the establishment and management of silvopasture systems 

• Used as study areas to collect data for research proposals

• Used in conjunction with a university’s education program

Dr. Mary Goodman, Auburn University, used the 

demonstration areas as focal points for her silvopasture 

project research proposal which was funded by the Southern 

SARE Research and Education Grant Program. The 

purpose of this project is to better understand the ecological 

interactions which are the foundation of sustainability in 

Southern-pine silvopasture systems. Research will focus 

on how changes over time in the plant community structure 

of grazed silvopastures modify belowground pasture 

productivity, the resulting impacts on pasture soil quality 

(i.e. soil health or the capacity of the soil to function), 

and components related to water infiltration and retention. 

This understanding will be achieved by monitoring 

the interactions of plant, soil and livestock responses 

to management strategies designed to sustain forage 

productivity and soil quality through enhanced soil organic 

matter capital. 

Many of the 1890 Universities have engaged agroforestry 

technologies within the last six years. The interest has gone 

so far as to establish the 1890 Agroforestry Consortium to 

stimulate and promote research, education, and outreach 

on agroforestry practices. Because silvopasture systems 

transition well into small land management operations the 

Consortium has focused attentions in this area. In particular, 

the member universities have focused their attention on 

silvopasturing goats for meat production. Successful 

research grant proposals and outreach efforts are seeking 

to advance the understanding of the unique aspects of goat 

management in silvopasture systems in the south.

Grazing management schools in the southeast have been 

extremely popular for well over ten years. NRCS, university 

specialists, extension agents, and grazing land coalitions 

have teamed up to prepare and host these one to three 

day schools. They often deliver “hands-on” education in 

plant physiology, livestock physiology and needs, forage 

management, facilitating practices, and grazing systems. 

Schools have been sprinkled across Mississippi, Alabama, 

Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, training well 

over a thousand land users in some of the more detailed 

aspects of grazing management. Since the beginning of 

the silvopasture program, these schools have incorporated 

silvopasture into their curricula whenever trained presenters 

are available. This has served to increase the awareness level 

or silvopastoral knowledge of grazing land professionals 

in these states, as well as introducing landowners across 

the south to this viable, and under represented technology. 

Landowner workshops have now been held in each of the 

original five targeted states sponsored by the partnering 

federal and state agencies and NGO’s as well as some of the 

bordering states in the Southeast.

BARRIERS AND PITFALLS

•	According to Lewis, his research did not initially receive a

lot of attention in the United States. However, it was more 

readily accepted overseas, usually in the tropical and semitropical areas of developing nations. Lewis believes the 

major barrier to acceptance in the U.S. is “the fear of the 

unknown.” “People are afraid that they don’t have enough 

expertise in the new discipline.”

•	Lewis said, “Cattle producers do not want to become

foresters, and forest managers do not wish to learn about 

livestock production and the interactions of mixing these 

disciplines.” (Inside Agroforestry-Summer 1998)

•	Cattle verses Trees - Everybody “knows” cows and trees

and especially cows and wildlife don’t mix. The discussion 

had to be centered on “how does management provide the 

desired results.”

•	Tree quality verses forage quality. There are all kinds of

concerns about quality. In almost all cases management 

changes can take care of these concerns. 

•	Trust and miscommunication: While every effort was made

to be open and to get input from everyone, we heard that 

we were not advocating some things that were important 

to another’s interest. For example it was reported that one 

agency did not support the silvopasture technology training 

because we only wanted to use introduced forages in our 

silvopasture training and were not interested in using 

native warm season grasses. At this same time we had a 

demonstration system using warm season grass and were 

providing guidelines for warm season grass management. 

Of course not everyone wants to work with all government 

agencies. Some trust Extension but not NRCS or USFS 

and visa versa in any combination you can imagine. These 

problems are best solved with partnerships.

•	Agency and personnel changes can have a profound impact

on the continuity of a technology transfer program. During 

this time we have had priority changes at Louisiana State 

University Agricultural Center, Louisiana Agricultural 
170

Experiment Station, Hill Farm Research Station and the 

ARS Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center in 

Booneville, Arkansas that created a redirection of the 

research focus and changes in personnel. NRCS had a 

reorganization that also reassigned some of the principle 

individuals to different areas of responsibility and for a 

time severe impaired its relationship with the National 

Agroforestry Center thus effectively slowing, progress of 

the Center’s silvopasture technology transfer effort. Jerry 

Johnson, forester, a supporter of silvopasture technology, 

and friend and one of the original authors of the 

silvopasture proposal passed away. Each time one of the 

lead agencies makes a change that impacts key personnel, 

the glue that holds the program together is weakened and it 

takes time to rebuild the same level of commitment. 

•	Fear of change and the impacts on the status quo.

Questions like “you are going to convert all of our pasture 

back to trees and we have been fighting brush all our 

lives.” Or “You are going to be converting all our woods 

to pasture when we are already losing forests to land use 

conversion, this will only accelerate it.” 

•	In our experience, landowners seem to be very receptive,

but it is more difficult to get the agencies to present a 

coordinated response. Perhaps it is because agencies or 

organizations are bureaucracies and it takes them much 

longer to make policy changes. The university extension 

system, seemed, to be much more receptive to change than 

were the other agencies. Perhaps it is because it is fruitful 

ground for continued study, research and education.

RESULTS

Probably one of the significant outcomes is that most of 

the universities in the south now have research activity 

related to some aspect of silvopasture systems. When this 

project began there was very little activity. While it would 

be foolish to say the technology transfer project was wholly 

responsible for this increased activity, it is safe to say 

that the project played an important part in the growing 

awareness of silvopasture potential.

Research isn’t the only area of increased attention to 

silvopasture systems. Several of the original states now have 

included silvopasture in their state and federal cost share 

programs. Efforts are being made to associate silvopastures 

with other agency and program goals in order to utilize 

other program dollars to support silvopasture establishment. 

Programs that promote fire hazard reduction, forest health 

and insect management are discussing the role silvopasture 

technology may play in managing these concerns.

It is difficult to provide exact statistics of on the ground 

implementation because none of the agencies we have 

worked with have a land use accounting system that 

captures silvopasture activities. However, our best estimate 

of acres established in silvopasture since the start of the 

silvopasture activities is approximately 10,000 acres. Interest 

in silvopasture is also spreading into several of the other 

Southern states and throughout the Pacific Northwest and 

Midwest. 

WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED

•	Communication. You can not communicate too much

with your conservation partners. In a few instances 

misinformation about silvopasture activities caused an 

agency or discipline to be less than enthusiastic supporters. 

Frequent discussions may have averted misinformation.

•	Don’t miss a major player. Wildlife development people

should have brought in on the ground floor. Many 

landowners select silvopasture as part of their wildlife 

management program but the discipline leaders are often 

hesitant to promote silvopastures.

•	Committed funding is extremely helpful in organizing

training and landowner workshops. It can be very counter 

productive to stimulate new ideas and then not follow 

through with additional information and assistance as a 

result of limited funds.

•	There are many discipline leaders and landowners who are

risk takers and are not afraid of getting behind something 

new. Find Them!

•	You must have local leadership and advocacy. It matters

less which agency or organization is the advocate or leader 

for silvopasture. It just matters that there is somebody 

willing to invest the time and staff. However, it is best 

when many agencies and organizations are involved.

•	Follow up assistance and mentoring is just as important

as the initial training. NAC’s strength was that we would 

work with all agencies and organizations and often 

provided follow-up assistance for implementation. 

•	Strong organizational support is a must. If support wanes

the infrastructure begins to crumble. It is extremely 

difficult to get support without solid top leadership 

commitment.

•	If it is new be willing to take the heat.
171

CONCLUSION

It takes key people to begin a technology transfer program. 

There were many people who were instrumental in working 

with the NAC to carry out the program from state forestry 

agencies, NRCS and university and extension offices. There 

were a few, however, that put forth an extra dedication to the 

effort often without just recognition or compensation. They 

were, Dr. Mary Goodman and Dr. David South from Auburn 

University who were instrumental in helping us with almost 

all of the training sessions and George and Pat Owens of 

Chipley Florida who so graciously allowed us to use their 

farm as a field training location and spoke to agency leaders, 

farm groups, forestry groups and anyone else who would 

listen about the benefits of silvopasture systems.

Will the agencies continue to work together and invest in 

training and technical assistance to support this activity or 

will barriers and fear of change retard the further expansion 

of what is a sound conservation program? Only time will 

tell.

REFERENCES 

Brantly, S. 2005. Silvopasture water and fencing systems for cattle. 

Agroforestry Note – 29. USDA National Agroforestry Center.

Byrd, Nathan A.; Lewis, Clifford E. 1983. Managing pine trees and 

bahiagrass for timber and cattle production. USDA Forest Service, 

General Report R8-GR 2.

Clason, T.R. 1995. Economic implications of silvipastures on southern pine 

plantations. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, in Agroforestry 

Systems 29:227-238.

Clason, T.R. 1996a. Development of silvopastoral systems in the northern 

temperate zone. Inside Agroforestry 10(2): 3-7. USDA National 

Agroforestry Center.

Clason, T.R. 1996b. Timber-pasture management enhances productivity of 

loblolly pine plantations. Louisiana Agriculture 39(2): 14-16.

Clason, T.R. 1998. An ongoing study to understand tree, forage, and 

livestock systems. Inside Agroforestry 12(2):1, 5. USDA National 

Agroforestry Center.

Clason, T.R. 1999. Silvopastoral practices sustain timber and forage 

production in commercial loblolly pine plantations of northwest 

Louisiana USA. Agroforestry Systems 44: 293-303.

Clason, T.R.; Robinson, J.L. 2000. From a pine forest to a silvopasture 

system. Agroforestry Note 18. USDA National Agroforestry Center.

Goodman, Mary S. Silvopasture project. Auburn University Department 

of Agronomy and Soils. Available at http://www.ag.auburn.edu/agrn/

silvopasture/silvopastureindex.htm [Accessed 25 September 2006].

Lewis, Clifford E. [and others]. 1983. Integration of pines, pastures, and 

cattle in south Georgia, USA. Agroforestry Systems. Vol 1: 277-297.

Lewis, Clifford E. [and others]. 1985. Double vs. single-row pine 

plantations for wood and forage production. Southern Journal of Applied 

Forestry, Vol 9, No.1. 55-60.

The Longleaf Alliance. http://web8.duc.auburn.edu/longleaf/ubbthreads/

ubbthreads.php?Cat= [Accessed 9 September 2006]. 

National Association of RC and D Councils Report. 2000. RC and D survey 

of agroforestry practices. 22-23.

Pearson, Henry A.1984. Agroforestry. Proceedings Southeastern Regional 

Conference Grazing Lands and People. 72-79. Editors Merkle, Dan; 

Carter, Roy; Artz, John L.; December 10-12; Atlanta, GA. 

South, D.B. 2003. “Correct” planting density for loblolly pine depends on 

your objectives and who you ask. Forest Landowner Manual: 34:46-51.
1

Extension Associate II and Professor, Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University, Raymond, MS 39154, respectively.

172

Decisions for Managing Storm Damaged Timber

Walter M. DeLoach and Stephen G. Dicke1

Abstract—In response to the devastation and need of forest landowners, Mississippi State University Extension Forestry 

Department developed the Timber Stand Salvage Decision Model, which is a timber management decision model that 

assists landowners with making difficult salvage vs. management decisions. The focus of the model is on the remaining 

undamaged timber. This timber is what is available to the landowners for future management and must be the primary 

focus. A decision tree for using the model was published using three questions landowners must address about their 

timber stands. The model was distributed using a variety of media sources and presentations. This model was published 

in printed form and also part of a PowerPoint presentation delivered in 33 affected Mississippi counties to approximately 

2,500 landowners. The Timber Stand Salvage Decision Model was also posted by the Mississippi Forestry Association on 

their Hurricane Katrina Recover blog site. The model was also the subject of radio shows and news articles. Additionally 

this information was sent to the LSU Agricenter and Texas Cooperative Extension Service for their use in the aftermath of 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Introduction

Hurricane Katrina launched her assault on the Mississippi 

Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, and when the day was 

over Katrina would be known as one of the worst natural 

disasters in United States history. Besides the billions of 

dollars of damage done to personal property, infrastructure 

and buildings, Katrina dealt the timber industry in 

Mississippi a severe blow. The estimated value of damaged 

timber was $1.3 billion. The commercial volumes of 

damaged timber were 14.6 million cords of pulpwood and 

3.2 billion board feet of sawtimber. This damage occurred 

on 1.3 million acres of timberland in 38 Mississippi 

counties. Non-Industrial Private Forest landowners (NIPF) 

own 68 percent of the timberland in Southeast Mississippi 

(Hartsell 1995). Following the storm landowners were left 

trying to determine whether to salvage or manage damaged 

timber and to decided if there was enough timber damage 

to warrant a salvage operation. In response to these needs, 

a Timber Stand Salvage Decision Model was developed to 

guide landowners through the decision process of managing 

their damaged timber stands.

The first phase in the recovery process for landowners was 

to develop a damage recovery plan for their timber stands. 

The first step in the recovery plan is a damage assessment. 

During the initial evaluation landowners should focus on 

two issues, the amount of undamaged timber in these stands 

and the different types of damage that occurred. The amount 

of undamaged timber provides the baseline for determining 

future management of that timber stand. The types of 

damage such as broken trunks, twisted trunks, root damage, 

and bent trees, will be important in deciding which trees 

need to be salvaged and which trees may recover. The types 

of damage will also indicate the product class for damaged 

timber. For example, twisted trees will only be suitable for 

pulpwood because of the internal separation of the wood 

fibers. The final phase of the recovery plan is to make 

management decisions and take actions. 

Situation

The Timber Stand Salvage Decision Model is a stand-based 

model that evaluates commercially manageable timber 

stands. A commercially manageable timber stand is defined 

as 10 acres of manageable land (MFC 2003). This model 

uses three questions about the timber stand to determine the 

management options available to the landowner. Standing 

undamaged timber is the focus of the model because this is 

the timber available for future management. Table 1 shows 

the three questions the Timber Stand Salvage Decision 

Model is based on and the information needed to answer 

these questions.

Table 1 —Questions facing landowners with salvage and 

management decisions

Questions Information needed for answer

Do I have a manageable 

stand of undamaged 

timber?

Basal area (density) of 

undamaged timber

Will I be able to make a 

timber sale in the future 

when prices are better?

Volume (tonnage) of standing 

undamaged timber

Do I need to conduct a 

salvage operation?

Volume (tonnage) of standing 

damaged timber
173

Question 1: Do I have a manageable stand of undamaged 

timber? This question can be answered by looking at the 

basal area of the residual stand. Basal area is defined as the 

cross-sectional area (in square feet) of the trunk at breast 

height (4 1⁄2 feet above the ground). For example, the basal

area of a 14-inch diameter tree is about 1 square foot. 

Basal area for a forest is the sum of the basal areas of the 

individual trees on the area. A well-stocked pine stand might 

contain 80 to 120 square feet of basal area per acre (Londo 

2005). The Timber Stand Salvage Decision Model uses three 

thresholds of basal area for decision-making (fig. 1). 

In the model 50 ft2 per acre or more is deemed to be 

acceptable for management. It can be assumed for these 

stands that there is enough undamaged timber to continue 

managing this stand. Existing management plans should be 

adapted to changes in stand condition. This could include 

delaying thinning or harvest operations. 

The threshold of 40 ft2 per acre is the area of concern. These 

stands are borderline stands on management of the residual 

trees. Baker and others (1996) suggest that the lower limit 

of acceptable basal area for managed uneven aged stands 

is 45 ft2 per acre. Stands with borderline residual basal 

area may be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation practices include 

but are not limited to, prescribed fire, fertilization, and 

herbicide release. All of these practices reduce the amount of 

competition that the residual trees face in nutrient and water 

acquisition. Existing stand conditions, projected recovery 

rates (based on site quality and timber growth rates), 

landowner characteristics, and economic considerations can 

be used to make the decision between rehabilitation and 

management. If trees are of good form and vigor, then the 

stand might be rehabilitated and managed at lower initial 

costs that starting over with a pine plantation (Baker and 

Shelton 1998).

The threshold of 30 ft2

 per acre or less is deemed as 

unmanageable. The residual timber on these stands is 

considerably below the 45 ft2 per acre basal area level that 

Baker and others (1996) recommends as the lower limit. The 

residual timber on these stands can be held for better prices 

or it could be harvested during a salvage operation.

Question 2: Will I be able to make a timber sale in the future 

when prices are better? This question can be answered by 

determining the volume (tonnage) of undamaged standing 

timber per acre. In order to have enough tonnage of 

undamaged standing timber there should be approximately 

one truckload to the acre. A truckload of timber/acre is 

approximately 15 tons of sawtimber or 25 tons of pulpwood. 

A minimum of one truckload per acre will make this a 

commercially feasible harvest operation.

What is the Basal Area of 

undamaged timber ?

Is there 15 tons/acre 

damaged sawtimber? 

(or 25 tons/acre pulpwood)?

* Insufficient tonnage to commercially harvest

Management decision

30 ft2

 /acre or less

50 ft2 /acre or more

40 ft2

 /acre

YES

YES

NO

Salvage damaged timber only, 

manageable stand

No salvage*

manageable stand

Salvage damaged timber only,

rehabilitate stand

No salvage*

rehabilitate stand

YES

NO

YES

Salvage damaged timber only,

hold good trees for better price

No salvage*

Salvage all timber,

site prep and replant

No salvage*

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

Is there 15 tons/acre 

undamaged sawtimber? 

hold good trees for better price

site prep and replant

(or 25 tons/acre pulpwood)?

Figure 1—Timber Management Decision Model.
174

Question 3: Do I need to conduct a salvage operation? The 

volume (tonnage) of damaged timber per acre needs to be 

approximately one truckload per acre (15-tons per acre 

sawtimber or 25 tons/acre pulpwood). Having at least this 

amount of damage will make a commercially feasible timber 

salvage operation. However due to many factors (limited 

logging force, limited time frame, increased logging costs, 

distance from mill, etc.) not all sites will be salvaged.

When evaluating timber stands, landowners should 

consider how residual trees are spread across the tract. 

One management option would be to create new stands in 

areas with low density of residual trees. New stands should 

be approximately 10 acres in size so that a commercially 

manageable stand is created. Healthy trees should be 

avoided during salvage operation, so that they can be sold 

later when prices have rebounded.

Results

This information was considered time sensitive due to the 

fact that salvage operations should be conducted as quickly 

as possible. The Timber Stand Salvage Decision Model 

was disseminated to landowners using as many different 

media forms as possible. Media outlets included printed 

publications, PowerPoint presentations, radio programs, 

Internet sites, and news articles. The goal was to reach as 

many people as quickly as possible. 

The first outlet of distribution was through a series of 

workshops that were conducted in 33 south Mississippi 

counties. Thirty-six workshops were held from midSeptember to November. Workshops were attended by 

2,245 landowners who owned 217,396 acres of timberland 

in Mississippi. Each person attending these workshops was 

shown a PowerPoint presentation detailing the model and 

given a printed copy. Landowners responded favorably to 

this model on workshop evaluations. 

In addition, 4,400 copies were mailed to landowners as part 

of Hurricane Damage Recovery packets. The difficulty with 

this type of dissemination was many people were without 

mailboxes or regular postal delivery. However further 

north and west of the coast, this was an effective way of 

disseminating the model to landowners.

Better Farming Radio shows aired on October 6 and 11, 

2005, which discussed the model and salvaging timber. 

Better Farming is a 5-minute radio program produced by the 

Mississippi State University Extension Service that is aired 

on 29 radio stations throughout Mississippi. These radio 

shows are also archived on the MSU-ES webpage.

In an effort to continue to reach landowners, Mississippi 

State University Extension Service published this 

information on their Disaster Recovery webpage. Another 

Internet source that used this model was the Mississippi 

Forestry Association’s Timber Recovery Blogspot. The 

weblog is an interactive message board that proved to be a 

very effective way to get timely information in the hands of 

landowners.

A news article was released on October 27, 2005; from 

the Mississippi State University Office of Agriculture 

Communications that discussed the steps landowner take 

in deciding what to do with their timber stands. This article 

was submitted to newspapers in Mississippi for their use.

Because Hurricane Katrina affected neighboring states 

and was closely followed by Hurricane Rita, this model 

was sent to the LSU Agricenter and the Texas Cooperative 

Experiment Station.

Conclusions

This model was developed to provide landowners with a 

guideline for making timber stand management decisions 

following a hurricane. The model was well accepted because 

of its simple process and ease of use. The other goal was to 

disseminate this information to as many people as quickly 

as possible. Using a wide variety of media sources and 

face-to-face meetings, needed information was quickly and 

effectively delivered to clientele in need.

References

 Baker, James B., Cain, M.D.; Guldin, J.M.; Murphy, P.A.; Shelton, M.G. 

1996. Uneven-aged silviculture for the loblolly and shortleaf pine forest 

cover types. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-118. Asheville, NC: U.S. Forest 

Service, Southern Forest Research Station.

Baker, James B.; Shelton, M.G. 1998. Rehabilitation of understocked 

loblolly-shortleaf pine stands – I. Recently cutover natural stands. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 22 (1) 35-40.

Hartsell, Andrew J.; London, J.D. 1995. Forest statistics for Mississippi 

counties. Res. Bull. SO-190. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station.

Londo, Andrew J. 2005. Forestry terms for Mississippi landowners. 

Mississippi State University Extension Service. Publication 1250. 

Mississippi Forestry Commission. 2003. The Forest Resource Development 

Program. MFC Publication 33. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Forestry 

Commission.
1 Extension Associate II, Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Senior Associate, and Extension Associate II, Mississippi State University, Department of 

Forestry, Raymond, MS 39762, Mississippi State, MS, Purvis, MS, respectively.

175

TIMELY RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTER

HAS HUGE IMPACT

Walter M. DeLoach, S.G. Dicke, D.G. Gaddis, 

G.H. Hughes, G.D. Bales, and A.S. Bailey1

Abstract—A “Timber Damage Recovery and Taxes” workshop was developed and delivered in response to one of the 

worst natural disasters in U.S. history, Hurricane Katrina. In Mississippi alone, this storm damaged $1.3 billion worth of 

timber. Thousands of forest landowners were left trying to salvage the damage and estimate their casualty loss. In order to 

be effective, informational programs following such disasters must be delivered locally. The workshop included two parts: 

“Timber Damage Recovery” and “Timber Casualty Losses”. Presentations and packets of information were developed 

quickly so that within 3 weeks, programs were being presented. Over the next 6 weeks, 36 workshops were held in 33 

counties throughout the hurricane-damaged area. Over 2,245 landowners, foresters, accountants, and other participants 

attended these programs. Landowners attending owned a total of 217,316 acres of forestland. Participants estimated that 

the information provided would help them earn an additional $6.6 million from their forestland. 

INTRODUCTION

Hurricane Katrina, the most expensive natural disaster in 

US history, landed on the Mississippi Gulf Coast on August 

29, 2005. In Mississippi alone, Hurricane Katrina damaged 

$1.3 billion worth of timber. The commercial volumes of 

damaged timber were 14.6 million cords of pulpwood and 

3.2 billion board feet of sawtimber. This damage occurred 

on 1.3 million acres of timberland in 38 Mississippi 

counties. Non-Industrial Private Forest landowners (NIPF) 

own 68 percent of the timberland in Southeast Mississippi 

(Hartsell 1995). These landowners were left trying to 

salvage the damage and determine their casualty loss. 

In response to the needs of clientele a “Timber Damage 

Recovery and Taxes” workshop was developed.

 The objectives of the “Timber Damage Recovery and 

Taxes” workshop were to present timely information to 

landowners in need, to be present in each county to show 

support, and meet landowners face to face giving them 

some hope of a better future. The workshop included two 

parts: “Timber Damage Recovery” and “Timber Casualty 

Losses”. Presentations and packets of information were 

developed quickly so that within 3 weeks, programs were 

being presented. A focused program that delivered the 

same message in each county allowed for a large number of 

workshops to be conducted in a short period of time. 

METHODS

The “Timber Damage Recovery and Taxes” workshop was 

developed as a two hour, two-part workshop. The first part 

of the workshop “Timber Damage Recovery” was focused 

around salvage decisions and management of damaged 

timber stands. The second part of the workshop “Timber 

Casualty Losses” was focused around timber taxes and 

casualty. The primary goal of this workshop was to provide 

clientele with as much information as quickly as possible 

following Hurricane Katrina. The second goal was to 

disseminate this information in as many different media 

sources and outlets as possible in South Mississippi.

Timber Damage Recovery

Landowners suffered a variety of types and amounts of 

timber damage in their forest stands. To begin the recovery 

process, landowners had to shift their attention from the 

damaged to the undamaged timber. The first major step in 

recovery was to develop a timber recovery plan. This plan 

challenged landowners to first and foremost evaluate the 

amount of undamaged timber on their stands, then assess 

the amount and types of damage, and finally develop their 

action plan.

While the destruction was the easiest things to see, 

landowners needed to focus their attention on undamaged 

timber in order to develop a recovery plan. The amount 

of standing timber was used to make future management 

decisions or determine if complete salvage operation was 

needed. Ultimately it was the undamaged timber that would 

dictate the future management options, and thus was the 

more important consideration. 

Accessing the types and amount of damaged timber was 

extremely difficult. Types of damage (broken, twisted 

trunks, uprooted, and bent trees) had to be determined to 

effectively merchandize the damaged trees. Conducting the 

damage assessment as quickly as possible was paramount in 

order to preserve the value of the damaged trees.

The Timber Management Decision Model (fig. 1) was used 

to determine the need for a salvage operation. Based on 
176

past experiences with storm damaged timber in this region, 

landowners were given an estimated six to nine month 

window to complete salvage operations before drying 

and blue stain fungus degraded wood merchantability. 

Various species of “blue stain” fungi (Chlorociboria spp.) 

cause the wood of southern yellow pines to have a bluish 

stain reducing the lumber grade because of appearance. 

Since there was a limited time window to conduct salvage 

operations, landowners were encouraged to harvest the 

highest valued products first, followed by the stands with 

easiest access. Landowners were encouraged not to harvest 

their undamaged timber at salvage prices unless it was 

absolutely necessary. During this time timber stumpage 

prices fell to approximately half their pre-Katrina value due 

to the amount of timber available, limited logging force, and 

higher fuel and insurance costs (Daniels 2005). 

Landowners were encouraged to revise existing 

management plans to incorporate rehabilitation practices 

for damaged stands. Prescribed fire, herbicide application, 

and fertilization were presented as possible options for 

landowners to increase growth on remaining timber stands. 

Creating new stands and lumping heavily damaged areas 

together was another option that landowners could use 

in continuing to manage these stands. Reforestation was 

encouraged on all areas that were completely harvested. Best 

management practices were recommended for all operations.

Timber Casualty Losses

Due to the incredible losses suffered by these landowners 

the second part of the workshop dealt with timber taxes 

and casualty losses. Casualty losses are defined as sudden, 

unexpected, or unusual losses resulting from natural or 

external events that leave the assets unfit for use (IRS 2005). 

Recovery of those losses is a three-part process that was 

covered during this part of the workshop.

The first step in determining the casualty loss is to determine 

the fair market value before the loss occurred. This can 

be accomplished by several methods. If the stand was 

completely salvaged the tons removed could be multiplied 

by the pre-Katrina price. An inventory of the damaged 

timber stands could be used with pre-Katrina prices. This 

will produce the fair market value of the timber before the 

storm.

The second step was to determine the fair market value of 

the timber after the loss occurred. This value is the stumpage 

What is the Basal Area of 

undamaged timber ?

Is there 15 tons/acre 

damaged sawtimber? 

(or 25 tons/acre pulpwood)?

* Insufficient tonnage to commercially harvest

Management decision

30 ft2

 /acre or less

50 ft2 /acre or more

40 ft2

 /acre

YES

YES

NO

Salvage damaged timber only, 

manageable stand

No salvage*

manageable stand

Salvage damaged timber only,

rehabilitate stand

No salvage*

rehabilitate stand

YES

NO

YES

Salvage damaged timber only,

hold good trees for better price

No salvage*

Salvage all timber,

site prep and replant

No salvage*

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

Is there 15 tons/acre 

undamaged sawtimber? 

hold good trees for better price

site prep and replant

(or 25 tons/acre pulpwood)?

Figure 1—Timber Management Decision Model.
177

price paid for salvaged wood plus the decrease in market 

value of the undamaged timber (IRS 2005). Due to the 

reduction in timber prices, standing timber suffered a loss 

by approximately half its original value. To calculate the fair 

market value loss, subtract fair market value after the loss 

from fair market value before. Fair market value loss is the 

actual amount of a landowner’s casualty loss. 

The final part that the landowners needed in order to claim 

a casualty loss was his or her timber basis. A basis is 

simply the amount a landowner has invested in timber, or 

the fair market value at time of acquisition. If landowners 

were unsure of the timber basis for their property it was 

recommended that they use a forestry consultant to assist 

them in determining their basis.

Once the basis and fair market value loss are determined, a 

landowner can claim their casualty loss. The casualty loss is 

the lesser of the basis or the fair market value. Landowners 

were also encouraged to treat any salvage income as 

involuntary conversion and defer taxes through purchasing 

replacement property.

At the conclusion of the workshops landowners were asked 

to complete a simple evaluation of the program. Evaluations 

asked landowners for the number of acres owned and if this 

workshop would help them to earn or save money from their 

timberland. Evaluations across the region were compiled to 

produce the overall impact of the programming.

Upon completion of developing the programs, meetings had 

to be scheduled to present this information to landowners. 

In order to assist as many landowners as possible, all 

affected counties were contacted as soon as the situation 

would allow and the program was offered through the 

Mississippi State Extension Service’s county offices. The 

local county personnel were responsible for providing 

a location and a team of Extension Foresters took turns 

conducting the workshops. All available media sources were 

used to advertise these programs. Scheduled programs were 

listed on the Mississippi State Extension Service website 

(msucares.com) and Mississippi Forestry Association’s 

blogspot (msforestry.blogspot.com).

Results

Hurricane Katrina caused significant timber damage 

(1 percent of county total timber inventory) in 38 of 

Mississippi’s 82 counties. The Timber Damage Recovery 

and Taxes workshop was conducted in 33 counties (87 

percent) that sustained significant timber damage. Table 1 

lists the dates, counties, number of attendees, acres owned, 

and estimated value of workshops to landowners. Beginning 

in mid-September, 36 workshops were conducted, with the 

last on occurring in late November. Over 2,245 landowners 

attended these workshops. Attendance per workshop ranged 

from 20-185 with a mean of 62. The landowners that 

attended the programs owned an average of 97 acres each. 

Total number of acres owned by all attendees was 217,396. 

The participants valued the information they received at 

these workshops at $6,651.040 or an average of $2,962.60 

per attendee.

Discussion

The Timber Damage Recovery and Taxes workshop was 

hugely successful for several reasons. The primary reason 

for the success of this program was the timeliness of the 

information that was delivered. Because most (68 percent) 

Mississippi timberland owners are non-industrial private 

landowners; they were particularly unprepared to deal 

with the most expensive natural disaster in US history and 

were left searching for answers on what their first step 

should be. The first workshop was held approximately three 

weeks after the storm. This delay was necessary because 

landowners’ initial priorities following the storm were life 

and homes rather than timber. 

Another reason that this workshop was successful was the 

personal, face-to-face method in which the meetings were 

conducted locally. During a time when technology enables 

distance learning and satellite classes, the importance of 

face-to-face programs cannot be measured. During and 

especially following the presentations, landowners asked 

many personal questions that could not have been addressed 

over a network system.

The landowners valued the information they gained from the 

workshop at $6.6 million. The vast extent of the disaster and 

the large losses these landowners faced greatly increased 

the value of this workshop. Because of the many timber 

management and casualty loss decisions landowners faced 

they placed a high value on this information that guided 

them through the difficult recovery process.
178

Table 1—Questions facing landowners with salvage and management 

decisions

Date County Participants

Acres 

owned

Workshop 

value

dollars

Sept. 15 Newton 30 NA NA

Sept. 20 Scott 32 4,768 66,000 

Sept. 27 Wayne 179 NA NA 

Oct. 4 Stone 30 NA NA 

Oct. 4 Greene 20 NA NA 

Oct. 4 Perry 35 NA NA 

Oct. 4 Jasper 110 NA NA 

Oct. 4 Lawrence 60 8,460 199,500 

Oct. 6 Forrest 109 NA NA 

Oct. 6 Smith 91 10,389 404,000 

Oct. 10 Simpson 68 6,942 362,500 

Oct. 11 Wilkinson 37 11,992 224,500 

Oct. 11 Jones 133 23,603 508,000 

Oct. 13 Jackson 52 13,199 117,040 

Oct. 13 Lincoln 185 18,217 576,500 

Oct. 17 Hancock 23 3,153 150,000 

Oct. 18 Pike 45 5,348 116,000 

Oct. 18 Marion 80 NA NA 

Oct. 18 Jeff Davis 32 8,880 225,000 

Oct. 18 Walthall 185 18,745 1,115,500 

Oct. 20 George 49 4,840 181,000 

Oct. 20 Covington 109 5,752 147,000 

Oct. 20 Franklin 12 1,615 42,500 

Oct. 24 Amite 20 3,600 94,500 

Oct. 24 Lauderdale 49 11,724 164,500 

Oct. 25 Pearl River 68 7,058 320,000 

Oct. 27 Lamar 55 3,784 181,000 

Oct. 27 Clark 48 5,705 388,000 

Nov. 1 Harrison 26 1,982 205,000 

Nov. 2 Neshoba 33 7,041 157,000 

Nov. 3 Lamar 24 958 100,000 

Nov. 7 Stone 62 5,633 57,000 

Nov. 10 Leake 23 NA NA

Nov. 15 Rankin 52 10,459 138,500 

Nov. 17 Lamar 39 5,757 278,500 

Nov. 29 Copiah 40 7,792 132,000 

 Total 2,245 217,396 6,651,040 
179

Conclusion

Timber Damage Recovery and Taxes workshops were 

extremely successful because they provided the information 

many landowners were searching for as they began to 

recovery from a disaster. This information was presented at a 

critical stage when many people were searching for answers, 

and it was presented locally across the effected area. The 

36 workshops helped over 2,245 landowners recover 

approximately $6.6 million from their devastated forestland. 

Natural disasters will at sometime impact every one of us. 

Being prepared and developing this information prior to 

the event would have allowed for a quicker response time. 

Disaster recovery information is something that each state 

should have prepared to allow for a quick response to the 

needs of clientele. 

references

Daniels, R.A. 2005. Timber markets after Katrina. Available at: http://

msucares.com/forestry/prices/commentary/2005_10.html. [Accessed 10 

July 2006].

Hartsell, Andrew J.; London, J.D. 1995. Forest statistics for Mississippi 

counties. Res. Bull. SO-190. New Orleans: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

Internal Revenue Service. 2005. Casualties, disasters, and thefts. Pub. 547: 

U.S. Department of Treasury.http://www.timbertax.org/publications/irs/

pubs/pub547.pdf. [Date accessed: July 27, 2006].
1

Extension Educator, Washington State University Extension, Spokane, WA 99202; Associate Dean and Professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 

97331; and National Program Leader, U.S. Forest Service, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Waterfront Centre, Washington, DC 

20024, respectively.

180

providing successful learning opportunities through

forestry extension: An international comparison

J.H. Creighton, J.E. Johnson, and E.R. Norland1

Abstract—In 1994 the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) created the Extension Working 

Party (EWP) uniting forestry extensionists from around the world. The IUFRO Extension Working Party hosted 

an international symposium in Troutdale, OR in 2003 entitled Building Capacity through Collaboration. As part of 

this symposium, 35 papers were presented from 11 countries, each focusing on a specific project or collection of 

methodologies that led to program success. In November 2004 a mail survey was sent to the 500 members of the IUFRO 

Extension Working Party, representing 70 countries, to determine the degree of use by working party members of the 45 

successful strategies identified from the symposium. Sixteen strategies were identified as being important with regards to 

learners, who are made up primarily of forest owners and farmers. Of these sixteen strategies, seven were found to differ 

significantly across regions. With regards to the seven strategies most of these differences were seen in the developing 

countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It is possible that socioeconomic conditions in this region demand a greater 

focus on programs in which learners are motivated towards meeting an immediate need for livelihood security. 

INTRODUCTION

Cooperative Extension in the United States is the primary 

provider of informal education programs, which are 

available to all citizens. Extension is unique in that it is a 

public agency administered at the state level through landgrant universities; so most extensionists in the U.S. are 

members of an academic community. In other countries, 

extension is administered through government agencies, 

such as a national forestry agency (Baumgartner and others 

2003). In the U.S. extension links education and research 

institutions with local communities through non-formal 

education (Seevers and others 1997). Much of extension’s 

success lies in the fact that its programs are based upon 

the needs and expressed desires of people, and that the 

experience of learning is an important component. Learnercentered experiential education is an essential precept of 

extension education (Green and others 1993, Seevers and 

others 1997). A meaningful learning experience must have a 

clear purpose with well-defined outcomes, emphasize realworld problem solving, allow for the linking of new with 

existing knowledge, and build critical thinking skills, all of 

which culminates in the demonstration of a new behavior or 

skill (Andrews 2004, Etllng 1993). For adult learners, such 

as those who participate in extension education programs, 

it is the opportunity for direct application of knowledge and 

the personal empowerment that follows that affords meaning 

to the experience. 

The theoretical framework of learner participation originates 

from Abraham Maslow’s classic model of human behavior, 

the “Hierarchy of Needs” (1970). Maslow posits that human 

beings are creatures of perpetual need, and once they have 

satisfied one need (i.e. food, water, personal safety) they 

become motivated to acquire another (i.e. social interaction). 

Within this framework, the desire to seek educational 

opportunities can be predicted. Extension education helps 

learners meet these needs in many ways such as teaching 

citizens to grow food or raise livestock, how to properly 

dispose of hazardous materials, or by providing volunteer 

opportunities that benefit the community (Seevers and others 

1997).

The Maslow model of need-seeking behavior is often used 

as a guide for predicting participation in extension programs 

by helping educators understand learner motivations (Houle 

1961, Seevers and others 1997). However, the foundations 

of human behavior and learning upon which extension is 

built does not always translate across cultures. Maslow’s 

Hierarchy of Need may be applicable in developed 

countries, but in developing countries the values and 

meanings associated with meeting these needs is often quite 

different (Youmans 2005). There are a number of extension 

systems throughout the world, and though they all share 

some basic educational tenets, such as the non-formal 

transferring of information to voluntary participants and the 

promotion of a behavioral change, philosophical differences 

exist. These differences are often based upon socioeconomic 

considerations such as natural resource exploitation, poverty, 

and food supply (Lele 2002, Seevers and others 1997).

Extension has traditionally had a strong agricultural focus 

worldwide (Warner and others 1996). However, with 

growing international markets in environmental services 

such as biodiversity, clean air and water, timber products, 

and carbon credits, the health and sustainability of the 

world’s forests has emerged as a significant international 

issue (Lele 2002). Growing out of the traditional agricultural 

focus (van den Ban and Hawkins 1996), forestry extension 
181

has emerged as a critical service to improve the management 

of forests and improve the livelihoods of forest owners and 

forest-dependent communities around the world (FAO 1986, 

Sim and Hilmi 1987). 

For many forest-rich industrialized nations, forests are both 

a source of biodiversity and revenue, equally cherished for 

their intrinsic values as well as their commodity potential 

(Lele 2002). In contrast the emphasis that developing 

countries give their forests are often seen through a lens 

of socioeconomic development, and the conservation 

objectives are dependent on many factors including the 

level of resource exploitation, pressure from increasing 

populations, and economic development (Lele 2002, Walker 

and Peters 2001). For example, in India an estimated 200 

million people are dependent upon forest resources for their 

livelihoods, yet severe poverty and an increasing population 

are resulting in rapid degradation of the nation’s forests 

(Kumar and Saxena 2002). In Malawi, rural communities 

rely heavily on forests and forest products to meet their 

basic needs. But like India, chronic poverty coupled with 

a high birth rate and expanding population, puts incredible 

pressures on the country’s forests (Walker and Peters 2001). 

The consequences of such socioeconomic conditions often 

lead to the use of unsustainable management practices, and 

ultimately to the loss of vital environmental services (Lele 

2002). Given the global importance of forests, it behooves 

extension educators around the world to share ideas and 

strategies that have yielded success with the intention of 

expanding natural resource programs (Josiah 2001).

In 1994 the International Union of Forest Research 

Organizations (IUFRO) created the Extension Working 

Party (EWP) uniting forestry extensionists from around 

the world. The primary goals of the EWP are to serve as a 

forum for information exchange, promote the concept of 

extension through the transfer of knowledge and technology 

to improve the lives of people, improve the quality, quantity, 

and effectiveness of extension programs worldwide, and 

advance the quality and impact of research on extension 

methodologies (Johnson 2003). The EWP is comprised 

of extensionists from all over the world, each with 

responsibilities for educational program development and 

delivery, and very few in administrative roles.

The IUFRO Extension Working Party hosted an international 

symposium in Troutdale Oregon in 2003 entitled Building 

Capacity through Collaboration. As part of this symposium, 

35 papers were presented from 11 countries, each focusing 

on a specific project or collection of methodologies that 

led to program success. From these papers 45 successful 

strategies were identified and placed into one of three 

categories: strategies associated with extensionists, with the 

educational approach, or with the learner. For discussions 

of those successful strategies associated with extensionists 

and with the educational approaches, see Johnson and 

others (2006) and Johnson and others (2007). This paper 

will discuss those strategies associated with learners as 

described in the symposium papers. The learners are made 

up primarily of forest owners and farmers. 

METHODS

Initially the intent of the Troutdale symposium was to 

develop a set of “best practices for forestry extension,” 

however, the concept of best practices implies that the 

practices have been tested with different audiences and 

replicated over time. Instead, the 35 papers presented at the 

2003 symposium were reviewed and a set of 119 “successful 

strategies” compiled. Through a process of combining 

similar themes the original set was reduced to 45 strategies 

in three categories: strategies associated with the learner 

(16), strategies associated with the extensionist (7), and 

strategies associated with the educational approach (22). 

The emphasis on successful strategies indicates that the 

strategy was featured in the paper, and in some way led to 

success of the program. Each category was then measured 

for reliability using a Cronbach’s alpha (SAS 2000). The 

grouped strategies proved to be reliable measurements of 

consistency in the responses (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.8273 

for strategies associated with learners; Cronbach’s alpha 

= 0.8024 for strategies associated with extensionists; 

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.8739 for strategies associated with 

educational approaches).

Following the symposium, in August of 2004, an advisory 

group of representatives from the following agencies 

convened in Washington, DC, to provide additional advice 

and guidance to the project: Inter-American Development 

Bank; US Agency for International Development; Peace 

Corps; USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service; USDA Forest Service – International 

Programs; Virginia Tech (1862 Land Grant University); and 

Tennessee State University (1890 Land Grant University). 

This advisory group was comprised of individuals with both 

outreach and international experience, and served to identify 

any potential cultural and social biases on the part of the 

researchers. Through this group the concept of successful 

strategies was developed. 

In November 2004 a mail survey was sent to the 500 

members of the IUFRO Extension Working Party, 

representing 70 countries, to determine the degree of 

use by working party members of the 45 successful 

strategies identified from the symposium. The survey 

was implemented through two timed mailings: an initial 

mail contact including a cover letter and the survey and a 

reminder letter sent to non-respondents three weeks later 

along with another copy of the survey instrument. 

Data were compiled into three regions: region 1 – United 

States and Canada; region 2 – Europe and Australia; and 

region 3 – Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The purpose 
182

for these groupings was to combine areas together, based 

on geography, socioeconomic status, culture, and extension 

approaches. Country by country responses were often too 

limited to allow for robust comparisons.

Respondents were provided with the list of 45 strategies 

and then asked to rank whether they use the strategy often 

or sometimes, do not use the strategy but would like to, do 

not use the strategy because it does not apply, or have no 

opinion on the use of the strategy. Likert scale response 

data were analyzed using the contingency Chi square, with 

a significance level set at 0.05 (SAS 2000). Respondents 

were also asked to indicate what barriers existed for those 

strategies that they didn’t use but would like to. Only those 

strategies and barriers associated with learners are discussed 

in this paper.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of the 500 survey questionnaires mailed, a total of 139 

completed questionnaires were returned, for an overall 

response rate (completes/sample size) of 28 percent. 

There are any number of reasons for this low response 

rate. Language barriers, English language reading skills, 

cultural differences in idioms and expressions, and problems 

associated with international mail delivery are all potential 

pitfalls. Ordinarily a telephone survey of non-respondents 

would be carried out to determine any existing bias within 

the survey instrument. However, this was beyond the 

capacity of this project, given the differences in time zones 

and the costs associated with making International telephone 

calls. In addition, the availability of email communications 

and computer technologies are not consistent among all 

members, especially in developing countries. Therefore 

no attempt was made to reach non-respondents beyond the 

3rd week follow-up letter. Nonetheless, we felt that enough 

responded to provide the foundation for a preliminary 

discussion of successful extension strategies used by those 

who responded. Certainly more research is warranted in 

order to make inferences beyond our respondent pool.

Demographics by Region

Region 1—North America 

Respondents from North America comprised 50 percent 

(n=69) of the respondents across all regions. The majority 

were male with a mean age of 47 years (table 1). Eightyeight (88) percent indicated that they were currently 

employed in extension forestry or a related field, and had 

been working in same for a median of 17.5 years. An 

overwhelming number of respondents had a Ph.D. (63 

percent), and only 19 percent indicated any formal training 

in extension.

Region 2—Europe and Australia 

Respondents in region 2 made up 26 percent (n=36) of 

all survey respondents. Eighty-six (86) percent were male 

with a mean age of 46 years (table 1). Approximately three 

quarters of the respondents in this region were employed in 

forestry extension or related field, for a median of 11 years. 

Thirty-six (36) percent indicated a M.S. as their highest 

level of education, and 39 percent had received a Ph.D. Of 

all respondents in region 2, 36 percent had formal training in 

extension.

Region 3—Asia, Africa, and Latin America 

Respondents from Asia, Africa, and Latin America 

accounted for 24 percent (n=34) of the respondents across 

all regions. Seventy-six (76) percent were male and 24 

percent female (table 1). Mean ages were similar to 

regions 1 and 2, at 47.5 years. Ninety-four (94) percent 

were currently working in forestry extension or a related 

field for a median of 15 years. Over 50 percent of region 3 

respondents had a Ph.D., and 29 percent indicated a M.S. 

as their highest level of education. Thirty-nine percent of 

respondents indicated they had received formal training in 

extension.

In North America, 74 percent of all respondents were 

employed at a College or University, as opposed to 25 

Table 1—Characteristics of survey respondents

U.S. and 

Canada

(n=69)

Europe 

and 

Australia 

(n=36)

Asia, 

Africa, Latin America 

(n=34)

Male (percent)

Female (percent)

90

9

86

14

76

24

Mean age (years) 47 46 47.5

Employed in forestry 

extension or related 

fi eld (percent) 88 78 94

Median years 

employed (years) 17.5 11 15 

Highest education 

degree (percent)

High school/secondary

Bachelors

Masters

Doctorate

2

9

25

63

3

22

36

39

3

9

29

59

Formal training in 

extension (percent) 19 36 39
183

percent and 39 percent from Regions 2 and 3, respectively 

(table 2). For Europe and Australia, 55 percent indicated 

employment with a research institution and 39 percent for a 

government agency. Region 3 was similar to region 2, with 

48 percent employed at a research institute and 27 percent 

with the government. Employment in a non-governmental 

organization (NGO), as a consultant or in industry made up 

less than 20 percent of respondents for all regions.

Successful Strategies

Sixteen strategies were identified as being associated 

with the learner and of these 16, responses did not differ 

significantly between regions for 9 of the strategies 

presented (table 3):

•	Partition a broad audience into distinct learners groups 

based upon education, experience, and need.

•	Involve learners as partners in the project.

•	Allow opportunities for feedback from learners to 

extensionists.

•	Engage learners in participatory objective-setting for 

programs.

•	Focus initial efforts on early adopters.

•	Engage learners in applied research.

•	Build capacity of learners leading towards self-sufficiency.

•	Empower learners to participate in policy developments.

•	Formalize responsibilities of partners through agreements.

To our knowledge, these strategies have not been replicated 

with different audiences by any of the respondents; therefore 

we can not infer that these specific nine are time-tested best 

management practices for which one can predict success 

for all extensionists within each region. We can only 

observe that the responses did not vary across regions to any 

significant degree. However, the Likert scale results suggest 

that these nine strategies were used often or sometimes by 

the majority of survey respondents. This assumes some 

consistency of success or the approach would not persist 

to the degree the data indicates. Conversely, seven of the 

strategies presented to survey participants appear to differ 

significantly by region (table 3). These strategies include:

•	Hiring learners to work on local projects

•	Making use of indigenous technical knowledge 

•	Emphasizing human welfare in educational programming 

•	Surveying target audiences to determine educational needs 

and barriers to adoption 

•	Facilitating peer-to-peer learning opportunities within 

target audience

•	Using land owner-to-land owner training approaches where 

trainers are paid a fee 

•	Fostering a community-level involvement in programs 

In order to facilitate discussion, and given that some 

strategies overlapped in their conceptual foundations, 

these seven were assigned to one of two categories that 

best described the relationship between extensionists 

and learners: 1) trust between learners and extensionists 

and, 2) facilitating learner adoption (table 4). Running 

a contingency analysis revealed the region that was 

contributing the most towards the calculated Pearson Chisquare, allowing for a more in-depth exploration of where 

the observed differences might lie. 

Trust Building

The strategies associated with building trust between 

extensionists and learners were used more often by 

respondents from region 3; Asia, Africa, and Latin America 

(table 3). Forestry extension programs in developing 

countries are often driven by socioeconomic factors 

associated with poverty (Polansky and Heermans 2004, 

Smith and others 2003) and livelihood security, defined 

as the ability of a farmer to meet their nutritional needs, 

provide educational opportunities to their children, have 

good housing, good health, and access to quality water 

and a livable environment (Kaudia and Omoro 2001). The 

emphasis of human welfare within an extension program 

would certainly be an important consideration for the user in 

this case. In Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, the drive to meet 

one’s basic physiological needs provides the foundation 

of the hierarchical pyramid. For someone in a developing 

country the assurance that a program will directly allow 

them to better meet this need is crucial. Building trust 

between educator and learner may encourage a willingness 

to participate in educational opportunities that lead towards 

self-sufficiency. 

Table 2—Employers of survey respondents

Percent of cases

North 

America

Europe/

Australia

Asia/Africa/

Latin Am

Government agency 12 39 27

Research institute 6 55 48

College/university 74 25 39

NGO/consultants/

industry 11 16 15

 Total cases by 

 region 72 51 47
184

Table 3—Relative frequencies of the use or nonuse of strategies by respondents for each region

Regiona

 - - - - - - - - - - percent response - - - - - - - - - - 

Pearson

χ	2 Strategy p

Use 

often or 

sometimes

Don’t use

but would

like to

Don’t 

use not 

applicable

No opinion

Hire learners to work on 

projects to build trust and 

spend funds locally.

1 23 26 41 10

23.31b 2 33 29 29 9 0.003

3 56 32 12 0

Partition a broad audience 

into distinct learner groups 

based on education, 

experience,and needs.

1 62 15 17 6

2 54 20 17 9 5.92 0.656

3 79 12 6 3

Involve learners as partners 

in the project, not just as 

receivers of information.

1 78 12 7 3

2 64 25 5.5 5.5 6.40 0.602

3 76 15 9 0

Allow opportunities for 

feedback from learners to 

extensionists.

1 96 3 0 1

2 89 8 0 3 9.15 0.165

3 82 18 0 0

Engage learners in 

participatory objective setting 

for educational programs.

1a 70 22 3 4

2 64 20 8 8 7.35 0.691

3 74 23 3 0

Make use of indigenous 

technical knowledge.

1c 58 12 23 6

23.80b 2 61 14 11 14 0.008

3 97 3 0 0

Emphasize human welfare 

in programs, such as 

improving the household 

standard of living.

1 54 9 28 9

24.35b 2 56 19 14 11 0.002

3 79 18 3 0

Focus initial efforts on 

early adopters.

1 84 6 6 4

8.031 0.430 2 75 19 3 3

3 73 18 9 0

 continued
185

Table 3—Relative frequencies of the use or nonuse of strategies by respondents for each region (continued)

Regiona

 - - - - - - - - - - percent response - - - - - - - - - - 

Pearson

χ	2 Strategy p

Use 

often or 

sometimes

Don’t use

but would

like to

Don’t 

use not 

applicable

No opinion

Survey target audience to 

determine their needs, wants, 

and desires, and barriers to 

adoption.

1 91 9 0 0

25.33b 2 92 5 3 0 0.001

3 94 0 3 3

Facilitate peer-to-peer 

learning opportunities within 

the target audience.

1 81 17.5 1.5 0

25.91b 2 61 17 0.001 3 19

3 82 15 3 0

Engage learners in 

applied research.

1 69 16 15 0

2 69 17 11 3 10.63 0.223

3 82 18 0 0

Use landowner-to-landowner 

training approaches in which 

the trainers are paid a fee.

1c 17 28 49 4

21.02b 2 39 17 27 17 0.020

3 41 23 30 6

Foster community-level 

involvement of the learners.

2 54 20 19 7

26.01b 3 47 14 17 22 0.020

3 82 15 0 3

Build capacity of learners to 

lead toward self-suffi ciency.

1 81 9 6 4

2 59 22 11 8 13.68 0.090

3 91 9 0 0

Empower learners, so that 

they may participate in the 

development of policies that 

affect them.

1 72 13 12 3

2 74 14 6 6 5.71 0.679

3 62 23 12 3

Formalize the 

responsibilities of partners 

through agreements.

1 53 16 25 6

2 47 8 39 9 13.50 0.095

3 70 3 18 9

a Region 1 = North America; Region 2 = Europe and Australia; Region 3 = Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

b Signifi cant at alpha = 0.05.

c Missing value due to nonresponse.
186

Leading towards the building of trust, the hiring of local 

learners to work on extension projects that benefit the 

local community, not only encourages local spending of 

funds, but also creates the potential for future collaboration 

between extensionist and learner. Although the data suggest 

this strategy was more important for respondents in the 

developing world, it has also been used successfully in 

reaching indigenous communities in the United States 

(Bardon 2003).

Closely related to targeting underserved indigenous 

communities with extension programming is the integration 

of indigenous knowledge into natural resource management. 

The use of indigenous knowledge in educational program 

development is quickly moving into the mainstream. 

Indigenous knowledge has emerged as a significant 

component in sustainable natural resource management, 

as well as increasing community capacity (Ball 2004, 

Nemarundwe 2004, Ross and Pickering 2002, Tarun-Acay 

2003), and designing indigenous community-focused 

research projects (Gibbs 2001, Menzies 2004). Over 90 

percent of all Asian, Africa, and Latin American respondents 

indicated the importance of using this strategy, while about 

60 percent of respondents in North America and Europe 

and Australia indicated the same (table 3). As a matter of 

fact, 23 percent of respondents in North America said that 

it was not an applicable strategy. This does not necessarily 

indicate that the strategy isn’t considered an important 

one, given the specific circumstances there may be little 

indigenous knowledge available in the areas served by 

these respondents. Nonetheless, this is an approach that has 

traditionally played more of a role in developing countries, 

given the nature of extension in these locations. But even 

in the developing world the use of indigenous knowledge 

has been overshadowed by a decidedly Western science 

paradigm. As the integration of indigenous knowledge into 

the domain of education and technology transfer continues, 

new practices and approaches will undoubtedly emerge, 

strengthening the relationship between the learner and the 

educator (Polansky and Heermans 2004, Ross and Pickering 

2002). 

Facilitating Learner Adoption

Over 90 percent of respondent in all regions indicated the 

use of surveying target audiences to identify needs, wants, 

and barriers to adoption (table 3). However, the statistical 

analysis suggests a significant difference between regions. A 

contingency analysis suggests that the U.S. and Canada are 

contributing most significantly (cell Chi-square = 15.69). All 

respondents in this region specified the importance of this 

strategy, although some did not use it, but indicated that they 

would like to. This strategy appears to be very important for 

the vast majority of respondents, suggesting that educational 

programs based upon learner needs and desires are the most 

effective across all regions. 

Peer-to-peer learning opportunities are generally successful 

under many socioeconomic conditions, especially in areas 

with rapidly dwindling resources (Muok and others 2001). 

Part of the success may be the integration of indigenous 

knowledge, its ability to directly address local needs, and the 

relevance to the local economy. A distinct advantage of peerto-peer approaches is that local landowner “trainers” can 

often provide necessary information to learners who may 

be reluctant to depend on “outsiders” as a reliable source of 

information (Muok and others 2001). 

The provision of peer-to-peer learning opportunities was a 

well-used strategy for respondents in the U.S. and Canada 

(81 percent) and Asia, Africa, and Latin America (82 

percent), and just over 60 percent in Europe and Australia. 

Yet 19 percent of respondents in Europe and Australia 

indicated they had no opinion regarding the use of this 

strategy. A relatively large percentage of respondents in 

this region were employed with a research institute (55 

percent) or a Government agency (39 percent). There is 

some research that suggests the attitudes of the scientific 

communities in Europe and Australia towards the validity 

of indigenous knowledge are not necessarily favorable, 

and that these attitudes are reinforced through government 

policies (Ross and Pickering 2002). This might result in 

the perspective that peer-to-peer learning might not be a 

successful or even an appropriate strategy. Indeed, many 

rural communities in the developing as well as developed 

countries are familiar with top-down approaches towards 

natural resource management, but as institutional structures 

and policies surrounding extension change, there may be a 

shift in the direction of programs towards more communitybased approaches (Gibbs 2001, Kaudia and Omoro 2001, 

Nemarundwe 2004). Participatory approaches to decisionmaking are thought to be the most effective in terms of the 

acceptance, ownership, and accountability of stakeholders 

(Singletary and others 2000, Weber 2000, Wondolleck and 

Table 4—Categories of strategies describing extensionist 

and learner relationship

Building trust 

between extensionists 

and learners Facilitating learner adoption

Hire learners to work on 

projects

Survey target audience for needs, 

wants, and barriers to adoption

Make use of indigenous 

knowledge

Facilitate peer-to-peer 

learning

Emphasize human 

welfare in programs

Use land owner-to-landowner 

training, in which 

trainers are paid a fee

Foster community 

level involvement
187

Yaffee 2000). The same has been shown for collaborative 

approaches to program planning in extension (Bardon 2003, 

Beck and Krafft 2003, Sisman and others 2003). Tarun-Acay 

(2003) suggests that “...local communities, when organized, 

trained, equipped, empowered and provided with security 

of tenure over public forests develop a stake in the forest 

resources and are motivated to protect and manage them.” 

Whether this shift from a top-down to a more grassroots 

approach to facilitate adoption will develop in Europe and 

Australia is unknown.

Fostering community-level involvement was an important 

strategy for 82 percent of the respondents from Asia, 

Africa, and Latin America (table 3). Again, it appeared to 

be the least successful approach for respondents in Europe 

and Australia (47 percent), for perhaps some of the same 

institutional reasons mentioned previously. For respondents 

in the U.S. and Canada, even though just over 50 percent 

designated this strategy as being one they practice regularly, 

20 percent indicated that they did not currently use it but 

would like to. There may be a number of obstacles to 

encouraging community-level involvement in developing 

extension programs. One constraint might be the availability 

of resources, both financial and human, to effectively 

organize and implement such an approach (Sisman and 

others 2003). Or it may be difficult for the extensionist 

to gain trust and develop a rapport with the community 

(Tarun-Acay 2003). Bardon (2003) experienced this with 

the Potawatomi Nation because of a negative experience the 

community had with a previous extensionist. It took some 

time, but eventually he was able to rebuild the trust and 

establish a successful collaboration with the tribe.

Barriers to Strategy Success

In the field of extension, barriers are often defined in terms 

of how they impact the adoption of new management 

practices. For example, barriers to adoption might include 

the perceptions of local communities to the superiority of 

a new technology, how easy it is to use, and how it fits in 

with local customs, values, and experiences (Josiah 2001). 

Through open-ended questions we asked survey respondents 

to indicate what barriers, if any, they had to using any of 

the strategies we presented. Responses were quite varied 

across all regions. Most of the barriers cited were situational 

in nature, involving time or money constraints. The most 

commonly mentioned strategies for which respondents 

experienced barriers centered around the hiring of learners 

to work on projects to build trust and spend funds locally. 

Barriers included the lack of funds to pay learners, the 

mistrust that funds would indeed be spent locally, and the 

lack of educated learners that could do the work. In fact, 

a lack of available resources and disagreements over how 

available funds should be spent were very common barriers 

identified for many strategies. Other general barriers include 

lack of trained personnel and time constraints. 

CONCLUSIONS

A primary goal of the IUFRO Extension Working Party is to 

improve the quality and effectiveness of extension programs 

world-wide, and to share those ideas and strategies that have 

yielded success. Using this goal as a foundation, this study 

sought to identify whether there exist a suite a successful 

strategies that might be applicable for extensionists worldwide. 

It appears that many strategies for engaging learners in 

extension programs derived from the IUFRO symposium 

held similar importance for many of the respondents, 

regardless of region. For nine out of the original sixteen, 

there were no observable differences. These strategies were 

strongly focused on program development and included 

the identification of different learner groups and learning 

styles, using participatory methods for developing program 

objectives, allowing opportunities for feedback from learners 

to extensionists, focusing programs on early adopters, and 

building capacity of learners towards self-sufficiency. These 

strategies are fundamental to nonformal adult education 

and are focused towards the learner. Revisiting Maslow’s 

Hierarchy of Need, these approaches might be associated 

with more learning oriented objectives of social affiliation 

and self-esteem. In contrast, with regards to the seven 

strategies for which there appeared significant differences, 

these were primarily program delivery methods that focused 

on facilitating adoption. Many of these differences were 

seen in the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin 

America, where the socioeconomic conditions may demand 

a greater focus on programs that help to meet an immediate 

need for livelihood security – approaches that more closely 

address the foundation of Maslow’s pyramid. Contrast 

this with the United States; where the classic model of 

innovation adoption provides the foundation for adoption 

strategies. This model, formally named innovation diffusion, 

describes the adoption process as starting with a small 

number of landowners who are quick to adopt innovative 

technologies or products. The innovation is then diffused 

from these initial users out to other landowners, especially 

neighbors. The model assumes a certain degree of equity 

among landowners and that the benefits stemming from the 

innovation spread out equally among all involved. This may 

be an invalid assumption for developing countries where the 

distribution of wealth may not be equitable. 

We must caution that the degree of success of these 

strategies is being determined by the perceptions of one 

set of actors (the extensionists) regarding the predicted 

behaviors of another (the learners). Without actually 
188

surveying the learner population, we can only make 

loose inferences regarding the actual effectiveness of the 

strategies. Nonetheless, we assume that the repeated use 

or non-use of a strategy is based upon its demonstrated 

effectiveness and/or situational appropriateness; and 

although we can identify successful strategies we cannot 

determine the way in which success is measured within 

each region, or within each individual country, or by each 

individual respondent. Measured success may depend upon 

the socioeconomic conditions, cultural norms and political 

institutions of the location, as well as the entity responsible 

for administering extension programs. 

REFERENCES 

Andrews, E. 2004. Essential best education practices. http://wateroutreach.

cfmxtest.uwex.edu/beps/essential.cfm Retrieved Nov. 17, 2005.

Ball, J. 2004. As if indigenous knowledge and communities mattered. 

American Indian Quarterly. 28(3/4):454-479.

Barden, C.J. 2003. Lessons learned from collaboration with the 

Potawatomi Nation. In Extension Forestry – Building Capacity Through 

Collaboration. Proceedings of the 6th IUFRO Extension Working Party. 

September 28 – October 3, 2003. Troutdale, Oregon.

http://www.iufro.org/science/divisions/division-6/ Retrieved 

Dec. 23, 2005.

Baumgartner, D.M.; Creighton, J.H.; Blatner, K.A. 2003. Use and 

effectiveness of Washington State’s extension forest stewardship 

program. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy. 

2(1): 49-61.

Beck, R.; Krafft, U. 2003. Participatory planning and implementation of 

local extension projects in Bavaria, Germany: results of a participatory 

research project. In Extension Forestry – Building Capacity Through 

Collaboration. Proceedings of the 6th IUFRO Extension Working Party. 

September 28 – October 3, 2003. Troutdale, Oregon. http://www.iufro.

org/science/divisions/division-6/ Retrieved Dec. 23, 2005.

Etllng, A. 1993. What is nonformal education? Journal of Agricultural 

Education. 34(4):72-75.

FAO. 1986. Forestry extension organization. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, FAO Forestry Paper 66. Rome, 

Italy. 167 pp.

Gibbs, M. 2001. Toward a strategy for undertaking cross-cultural 

collaborative research. Society and Natural Resources. 14:673-687.

Green, D.M.; Mills, E.L.; Decker, D.J. 1993. Participatory learning in 

natural resource education. Journal of Extension. 31(1).

Houle, C.O. 1961. The inquiring mind. University of Wisconsin. Madison, 

WI. 87 pp.

Johnson, J.E. 2003. Coordinating international extension efforts in forestry: 

the IUFRO extension working party. In Bridging the Gap Between 

Forestry Research and Practice – The Role of the Communicator, 

Proceedings of the Nordic Forum on Forestry Communication, E.J. 

Nielsen (Editor). June 1-4, 2003. Sigulda, Latvia. Danish Forest and 

Landscape Research Institute, Hoersholm, Denmark. Pp. 16-18.

Johnson, J.E.; Creighton, J.H.; Norland, E.R. 2006. Building a foundation 

for success in natural resource extension education: an international 

perspective. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension 

Education. 13(3):33-45.

Johnson, J.E.; Creighton, J.H.; Norland, E.R. 2007. An international 

perspective on successful strategies in forestry extension: a focus on 

extensionists. Journal of Extension. 45(2) article # 2FEA7. http://www.

joe.org/ Retrieved Feb. 22, 2008.

Josiah, J.H. 2001. Approaches to expand NGO national resource 

conservation program outreach. Society and Natural Resources 14:609-

618.

Kaudia, A.A.; Omoro, L.M.A. 2001. Is the “technical expert” role of farm 

forestry extension agents fading? Recent experiences from Africa and 

implications for future extension programs. In Forestry Extension: 

Assisting Forest owner, Farmer, and Stakeholder Decision-making, 

Proceedings of the IUFRO Extension Working Party Conference, D. 

Race and R. Reid (Editors). October 29 – November 2, 2001. Lorne, 

Australia. http://www.iufro.org/science/divisions/division-6/ Retrieved 

Dec. 16, 2005.

Kumar, N.; Saxena, N.C. 2002. India’s forests: potential for poverty 

alleviation. In Managing a Global Resource: Challenges of Forest 

Conservation and Development. U. Lele. (Editor). Transaction 

Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ. pp. 99-136.

Lele, U. 2002. Managing a global resource. In Managing a Global 

Resource: Challenges of Forest Conservation and Development. U. Lele. 

(Editor). Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ. pgs.1-44

Maslow, A.H. 1970. Motivation and personality. 2nd. Ed. Harper and Row. 

New York, NY. 368 pp.

Menzies, C.R. 2004. Putting words into action: negotiating collaborative 

research in Gitxaala. Canadian Journal of Native Education. 

28(1/2): 15-32.

Muok, B.; Kimondo, J.; Atsushi, I. 2001. Farmer to farmer experience in 

drylands Kenya. In Forestry Extension: Assisting Forest owner, Farmer, 

and Stakeholder Decision-making, Proceedings of the IUFRO Extension 

Working Party Conference, D. Race and R. Reid (Editors). October 

29 – November 2, 2001. Lorne, Australia. http://www.iufro.org/science/

divisions/division-6/ Retrieved Dec. 23, 2005.

Nemarundwe, N. 2004. Social charters and organization for access to 

woodlands: institutional implications for devolving responsibilities for 

resource management to the local level in Chivi District, Zimbabwe. 

Society and Natural Resources. 17:279-291. 

Polansky, C.; Heermans, J. 2004. Developing forest management plans with 

high-tech tools and traditional knowledge in Zambia. Journal of Forestry. 

July/August 2004. 102(5):46-51.

Ross, A.; Pickering, K. 2002. The politics of reintegrating Australian 

Aboriginal and American Indian indigenous knowledge into resource 

management: the dynamics of resource appropriation and cultural 

revival. Human Ecology. 30(2):187-214.

SAS Institute. 2002. JMP statistics and graphics guide. Version 4. SAS 

Institute, Inc. Cary, North Carolina. USA.

Seevers, B.; Graham, D.; Gamon, J.; Conklin, N. 1997. Education through 

cooperative extension. Delmar Publishers, Albany NY. 288 pp.

Sim, D.; Hilmi, H.A. 1987. Forestry extension methods. Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Forestry Paper 80. 

Rome, Italy. 155 pp.
189

Singletary, L.; Ball, A.; Rebori, M. 2000. Managing public disputes: a 

comprehensive guide to achieving collaborative agreements. EB-00-04. 

University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. Yerington, NV.

Sisman, M. Hijrafie; Taruc, K. 2003. Community-based sustainable 

forestry program Kabupaten Pasir, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. In 

Extension Forestry – Building Capacity Through Collaboration. 

Proceedings of the 6th IUFRO Extension Working Party. September 

28 – October 3, 2003. Troutdale, Oregon. http://www.iufro.org/science/

divisions/division-6/ Retrieved Dec. 23, 2005.

Smith, P.D.; Chhetri, B.B.K.; Regmi, B. 2003. Meeting the needs of 

Nepal’s poor: creating local criteria and indicators of community 

forestry. Journal of Forestry. 101(5):24-30. July/August 2003.

Stephenson, G. 2003. The somewhat flawed theoretical foundation of 

the extension service. Journal of Extension. 41(4). http://www.joe.org/ 

Retrieved Apr. 25, 2005.

Tarun-Acay, F.Z. 2003. Building capacity through extension practices: 

learning from the experiences of peoples organization in three 

community-based forest management projects in the Cagayan Valley 

region, Northern Philippines. In Extension Forestry – Building Capacity 

Through Collaboration. Proceedings of the 6th IUFRO Extension 

Working Party. September 28 – October 3, 2003. Troutdale, Oregon. 

http://www.iufro.org/science/divisions/division-6/ Retrieved 

Dec. 22, 2005.

van den Ban, A.W.; Hawkins, H.S. 1996. Agricultural extension. 2nd Ed. 

Blackwell Science Ltd. Oxford, England. 294 pp.

Walker, P.A.; Peters, P.E. 2001. Maps, metaphors, and meanings: 

boundary struggles and village forest use on private and State land in 

Malawi. Society and Natural Resources. 14:411-424.

Warner, P.D.; Rennekamp, R.; Nall, M. 1996. Structure and function of 

the cooperative extension service. Kentucky Cooperative Extension 

Service, University of Kentucky. January 1996.

Weber, E.P. 2000. A new vanguard for the environment: grass-roots 

ecosystem management as a new environmental movement. Society and 

Natural Resources. 13:237-259.

Wolford, M.; Cox, K.; Culp, K., III. 2001. Effective motivators for master 

volunteer program development. Journal of Extension. 39(2). http://

www.joe.org/ Retrieved Dec. 27, 2005.

Wondolleck, J.M.; Yaffee, S.J. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons 

from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, 

Washington D.C. 277 pp.

Youmans, D. 2005. Lessons learned abroad. Journal of Extension. 43(2). 

http://www.joe.org/ Retrieved Nov. 17, 2005.
1 Forestry Agent, Oregon State University Extension Service, Central Point, OR 97502; and Coordinator, Seven Basins Watershed Council, 

Gold Hill, OR 97525.

190

tHE SEVEN BASINS PROJECT: A CASE STUDY OF EXTENSION 

LEADERSHIP IN COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PLANNING

Max Bennett and Gail Perrotti1

Abstract—Extension plays an important role in reducing the threat of wildfire through design and delivery of 

educational programs targeting wildland-urban interface (WUI) residents. A complementary role, utilizing Extension’s 

expertise in community organizing, is to assist stakeholders in developing community wildfire protection plans. This 

paper presents a case study of community fire planning, the Seven Basins Fire Planning Project. The Seven Basins is 

a populous 250,000-acre watershed in southwestern Oregon with a long history of wildfire. The project was initiated 

and led by local Extension faculty. We began by convening a steering committee of key stakeholders, including federal 

and state agencies, fire protection districts, and a local watershed council. We secured funding for a half-time project 

coordinator. We held a series of community meetings, facilitated 85 neighborhood meetings, published five issues of a 

newspaper on wildfire-related topics, and developed a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Project outcomes 

have included on-the-ground fuels reduction, improved neighborhood cohesion, and greater interagency coordination. 

Conservatively, the neighborhood meetings have directly stimulated several hundred acres of fuels treatments, based on 

results of a follow-up survey of neighborhood meeting participants. Several cooperative fuels reduction projects involving 

BLM and adjacent private owners have been completed or are underway, and more than $400,000 in grants from the 

National Fire Plan and other federal sources have been obtained. A third party evaluation of the wildfire newspaper 

revealed that 35 percent of those who recalled receiving it (representing over 700 people) said they took specific fire 

prevention/fuels reduction measures after reading it. 

INTRODUCTION

Wildfire has played an integral role in the development and 

maintenance of forests and other ecosystems for millennia. 

In much of the United States, however, decades of fire 

exclusion have resulted in a substantial buildup of fuels. 

When fires occur, they are often uncharacteristically severe 

compared to those of the pre-exclusion era. In addition, 

many fire-prone areas have experienced an influx of new 

homes and other developments. Minimizing the threat of 

wildfire to lives and property in this wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) zone has become a major public concern (National 

Fire Plan 2002). 

Extension plays an important role in educating WUI 

residents about steps they can take to protect their homes 

and properties through fuels reduction, firewise landscaping, 

and use of appropriate housing materials. Typical 

educational programs and products have included brochures, 

videos, publications, toolkits, and workshops (Monroe, 

2000; Monroe, Jacobson, and Bowers, 2003; Creighton, 

Baumgartner, and Gibbs, 2002). A complementary role, 

building on Extension’s strengths in facilitation and 

convening diverse interests around a common problem, 

is to lead community-based efforts to develop a wildfire 

protection plan. Community fire planning involves a variety 

of local stakeholders and is widely viewed as critical to 

improving preparedness for wildfire in the WUI (National 

Fire Plan 2004). The Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

(HFRA) of 2003 provided a major stimulus to such planning 

efforts. Under HFRA, communities can significantly 

influence fuels reduction activities on federal lands and 

adjacent private lands through development of a Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). A CWPP provides a 

blueprint for prioritization and coordination of hazardous 

fuels reduction activities. Potential benefits include 

improved coordination and collaboration and accelerated 

fuels reduction. Increasingly, communities must have a 

CWPP in order to secure grant funds for fuels reduction. 

In addition, under the HFRA, federal agencies such as the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have incentives to 

consider local community priorities, as reflected in a CWPP, 

“...as they develop and implement forest management 

and hazardous fuels reduction projects” (SAF 2004). This 

paper reports on a case study of Extension involvement in 

a community wildfire protection planning effort, the Seven 

Basins Project. 

SITUATION

The Seven Basins is a 250,000-acre watershed in Jackson 

County, Oregon, one of the state’s most fire-prone areas. 

The watershed is characterized by rugged topography, 

heavy fuels, and a checkerboard ownership pattern, with 

alternating sections of federal and private land. There are 

about 3,300 rural households in the watershed and two 

small incorporated towns of approximately 2,900 people. 

Since 1970, the Seven Basins had experienced more than 

1,400 wildfires, including three over 5,000 acres in size 

(fig. 1). During these fires several homes were destroyed, 
191

many hundreds were threatened, and one life was lost. In 

addition, large areas of the watershed suffered significant 

resource damage, including loss of trees and wildlife habitat, 

accelerated soil erosion, flooding, road damage, and so forth. 

The majority of the fires were human-caused, with a few 

originating from arson. 

Prior to the initiation of the project described in this paper, 

several wildfire protection activities were taking place 

in the Seven Basins watershed. The watershed’s largest 

landowner, the Bureau of Land Management, had completed 

a number of hazardous fuels reduction projects, mostly 

involving brush and understory thinning, adjacent to WUI 

neighborhoods. The State Forestry Department, which 

provides fire protection to private, state, and BLM lands in 

the watershed, had recently secured National Fire Plan funds 

and helping local residents create defensible homesites 

through a cost-share program. Three fire prevention districts 

also provided service to the area, although about 10 percent 

of the residences were outside fire district boundaries and 

thus had no formal structural fire protection. Despite these 

important efforts, there was no coordinated effort to engage 

residents, neighborhoods or the community as a whole in 

wildfire protection planning. Perhaps this was because area 

residents had a reputation as being some of the most difficult 

to reach and engage in the county. Our experience was that 

Seven Basins residents placed a high value their privacy and 

were often suspicious of agency “agendas.”

The Seven Basins project was begun with the idea that 

community wildfire planning should be a “bottom-up” 

process rather than “top-down.” We hoped to engage 

watershed residents at the neighborhood level, inviting them 

to participate in planning efforts that would directly benefit 

them. Nevertheless, involving agency stakeholders was 

crucial. Consequently, we convened a steering committee 

with representatives from the state forestry agency, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Seven Basins 

watershed council, a local citizens group. The three local fire 

districts were invited to participate but were unable to due 

to staffing limitations. Nevertheless, we solicited their input 

throughout the planning process. In addition, we secured a 

grant for a pilot project and hired a half-time FTE project 

coordinator. 

The Project’s goals were to:

•	Educate rural homeowners in the watershed about fire-safe 

practices

•	Improve wildfire preparedness and emergency 

communications within neighborhoods

•	Promote fuels reduction and coordinate projects on a 

neighborhood level

•	Improve interagency coordination

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Getting Started: Community Outreach 

In February 2003, we mailed a newspaper on wildfirerelated topics to all 3,300 rural household in the watershed, 

informing them of the project and inviting them to 

participate in a one of three community meetings. The 

meetings were held at local schools during weekday 

evenings. After introductory remarks and a brief presentation 

regarding defensible space, participants were invited 

to break into neighborhood groups to discuss common 

concerns and interests around wildfire. Neighborhoods were 

defined in most cases by small watershed boundaries (e.g., 

all residents in the Sardine Creek canyon) and consisted 

of anywhere from a dozen households up to about 300 

households. These larger neighborhoods were later split 

into sub-groups. For a few residents, this was the first time 

they had met some of their neighbors. Volunteers from the 

watershed council and agencies were recruited and trained in 

advance to facilitate the groups. Attendance at the meetings 

Seven basins wildlife assessment

Figure 1—Recent (1970 to present) fire history, Seven Basins watershed. 

The area has experienced more than 1,400 fires since 1970, including 3 

greater than 5,000 acres in size.
192

ranged from about 25 to 75, a low, but not unexpected, 

turnout. It was enough to recruit about ten neighborhood 

“hosts” for subsequent fire planning meetings. We also 

recruited a few hosts who responded to an article about 

neighborhood fire planning in the wildfire tabloid.

Neighborhood Outreach

Thus began an intensive round of neighborhood outreach. 

Working with the host, the project coordinator convened a 

series of informal meetings with neighborhood residents, 

sometimes at a resident’s house, often in a neutral location 

such as a fire station or school. The meetings were 

advertised through a flyer and/or phone calls to neighbors. 

Neighborhoods ranged in size from a few households up to 

several dozen. There were no formal criteria related to size 

or other factors – we worked with whoever was interested. 

Participation ranged from a smattering of neighbors up to 

about 50 percent of the households in a given neighborhood. 

Usually a core group of neighbors could be counted on 

to attend most of the meetings (three to four were held in 

most neighborhoods). These were often the neighborhood 

“sparkplugs” – individuals or couples who were vocal, 

well known in the neighborhood, and typically had a strong 

interest in wildfire-related issues. 

What happened at the neighborhood meetings? Typically, 

the Project Coordinator started by helping residents identify 

values at risk and hazardous fuels concerns. The concerns 

were typically homes, power lines, bridges, steep slopes, 

brushfields, and so forth. In many cases, fuel loads on 

adjacent BLM lands were identified as major issues. Specific 

areas of concern were identified on aerial photos and taken 

back to the project steering committee. When possible, staff 

from the state forestry agency, fire districts, and/or BLM 

was invited to attend the meeting and interact with residents. 

In several cases, this resulted in initiation of new fuels 

reduction projects on BLM lands. These are discussed in 

more detail below. Individuals were also asked to sign up for 

homesite consultations made by the state forestry agency. 

Many of these consultations subsequently resulted in cost 

share fuels reduction projects with homeowners. 

Communications during wildfires, both between 

neighborhood residents and between residents and agencies, 

was also a major topic at neighborhood meetings. Typically, 

the Project Coordinator assisted residents with creating 

neighborhood phone trees for use in wildfire (and other) 

emergencies. She also recruited neighborhood dispatchers, 

who would maintain the phone lists as well as a list of 

neighborhood resources such as pump chances and fire 

equipment. Phone lists were passed on to the state forestry 

agency as well as the local fire districts.

Other wildfire related issues were addressed and solutions 

found whenever possible. Examples included developing 

plans for evacuation of animals, concerns about the spread 

of wildfire from campfires on BLM waterfront property, and 

forgotten burn piles in a railroad right of way.

From spring 2003 through spring 2005, 85 neighborhood 

meetings were held. Twenty-one neighborhoods were 

involved in planning, representing nearly 400 residents 

owning more than 6,000 acres. Thus about 10 percent of 

the rural households in the watershed participated directly 

in some level of neighborhood planning. The 6,000 acres 

managed by neighborhood meeting participants represented 

only a small fraction of the total acreage of the watershed 

(250,000 acres), but did include a significant portion of 

the more densely populated areas within the WUI. A large 

percentage of the watershed includes forests managed by 

BLM or private timber companies without any homes. 

Wildfire Education: Diverse Approaches

We wanted to reach the many watershed residents who 

did not participate directly in neighborhood planning. Our 

primary tool was an 8-page newspaper. We published five 

editions of the newspaper over a two-year period and mailed 

them to all rural households in the watershed (except those 

on farm land, where wildfire hazard was not an issue), about 

3,300 in all. Each issue focused on a theme (e.g., “getting 

ready for fire season,” “taking care of hazardous fuels”) 

but featured short articles on a variety of topics. We wrote 

articles ourselves and solicited pieces from agency partners 

as well as community members. To increase appeal, we used 

many photos, maps, and other graphics. After publishing the 

fall 2005 issue, we conducted a phone survey to assess the 

impact of the newspaper on resident awareness of fire issue 

and behavior. Results of the evaluation are discussed below.

In addition to the newspaper, we sponsored more than a 

dozen workshops on fire-related topics, such as fire safety 

and piling and burning 101. We also delivered two train-thetrainers session for fire plan volunteers and neighborhood 

dispatchers. 

Creating a Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

(CWPP)

The Seven Basins project partners focused initially on 

neighborhood-level outreach and planning, not creating 

an over-arching fire plan. Their intent was to promote 

strong community involvement, support, and ownership for 

localized fire planning and fuels reduction in the watershed. 

However, it became apparent a CWPP was need in order to 

(1) facilitate a more strategic approach to fuels reduction 

in the watershed, (2) improve interagency coordination and 

collaboration with private organizations and individuals, and 

(3) increase proficiency in securing fuels reduction grants 

through the National Fire Plan and other sources.

The CWPP was written by the Seven Basins steering 

committee, under the leadership of Extension. It 
193

incorporated data and expertise of the Oregon Department 

of Forestry and the Bureau of Land Management. All three 

fire districts gave important input both through meetings 

to study risk assessment data and through field surveys. 

Residents’ concerns and other data were gathered at the 

85 neighborhood fire planning meetings. Additional input 

was collected through reviews from a variety of agency 

personnel, the Seven Basins Watershed Council, and 

community members. 

To facilitate the prioritization process, we conducted a 

risk assessment incorporating a variety of spatial data 

such as fire hazard (fig. 2), ignition risk, and locations of 

completed treatments, using GIS software (ArcMap). The 

risk assessment helped identify neighborhoods within the 

watershed where limited resources can be most effectively 

focused to reduce the threat of wildfire. The plan was 

reviewed and signed off by Jackson County, the State 

Forestry Agency, and the three local fire districts. 

Getting Funded

We secured grants to support the outreach, planning, and 

education components of the project as well as for on-theground fuels reduction. The project coordinator’s salary 

and costs associated with the newspaper and developing the 

CWPP were funded with three grants from Jackson County, 

totaling approximately $90,000. Working with the Southwest 

Oregon RCD, a non-profit, we obtained a $130,000 federal 

grant to fund fuels reduction in high priority neighborhoods 

in the watershed. In addition, the steering committee worked 

with the State Forestry Agency, the applicant, to secure two 

National Fire Plan (NFP) grants totaling over $300,000, 

also for fuels reduction. The fact that we were developing a 

CWPP and prioritizing areas for treatment was critical to our 

success in obtaining NFP funding.

EVALUATION AND IMPACT

Evaluation of Neighborhood Fire Planning 

Meetings

In August 2005, 100 of the meeting participants were mailed 

a letter inviting them to participate in an on-line survey 

about their experience with the process. 35 surveys were 

completed by the deadline (response rate of 35 percent). No 

effort was made to contact non-respondents. We suspect that 

respondents were more likely to perceive the fire planning 

process favorably than non-respondents. Notable results 

included the following:

95 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with 

the statement that “participation in the neighborhood fire 

planning meetings has helped me to make more informed 

judgments about fuels reduction treatments.”

81 percent agreed or strongly agreed that “participating in 

the neighborhood fire panning meetings has helped me to 

feel more confident in the ability and desire of government 

agencies to implement fuels reduction programs in my 

neighborhood and the surrounding area.”

82 percent said the neighborhood fire planning meetings 

were a moderately or very important factor in motivating 

them to complete defensible space or other fuels reduction 

work. Of this 82 percent, 45 percent had removed or reduced 

hazardous fuels since the meetings, totaling 87 acres. An 

additional 33 percent were planning to do so. 73 percent had 

talked to their neighbors about hazardous fuels problems 

in the neighborhood of mutual concern. 39 percent had 

removed hazardous fuels along roads or driveways, and 24 

percent had cleaned gutters, moved woodpiles, screened 

vents, and completed other key fire prevention activities. 

Not all neighborhood planning efforts were successful, but 

of the 21 neighborhoods we’ve worked with, at least 16 are 

Seven basins wildlife assessment

Figure 2—Relative fuel hazard in the Seven Basins watershed, based on 

vegetation, slope, and aspect. Data such as these were critical in prioritizing 

areas for fuels reduction treatments. 
194

still meeting, updating their phone and resource lists, and 

many are continuing with hazardous fuels reduction. 

Survey comments included:

“My husband and I thought this was an extremely valuable 

program or we wouldn’t have gotten involved and gotten 

neighbors involved....a big THANK YOU...”.

“[A] strong network has been developed because of 

neighborhood meetings, working on getting reluctant 

neighbors to be more involved.”

“This is a great program. It’s a very effective way to 

motivate people like me to take action.” 

“It has been invaluable in educating us for fuel reduction 

and safety.”

Other comments we’ve received on neighborhood fire 

planning include the following:

“We have lived here for 9 years and really haven’t had 

the opportunity to meet many of our neighbors until our 

neighborhood fire meetings. Hopefully the day will never 

come when we have an emergency such as a wildfire, but we 

would not be on our own now that we have seen how many 

neighbors are willing to help each other out in that time of 

need. With a communications link and wonderful neighbors 

will to help we have a good start if a disaster strikes.” 

“Neighborhood fire planning was very beneficial to our sense 

of community and awareness of the fuel load problem.”

Evaluation of Wildfire Issues Tabloid

An important aspect of our educational strategy was the 

publication of five issues of an 8-page newspaper tabloid 

focusing on wildfire-related topics. We worked with 

agencies and a local newspaper publisher to develop a 

product that was focused and informative. The use of 

many photos and graphics and color on four of the eight 

pages increased the visual appeal. As an example, topics 

in a recent edition included “Don’t Wait Until The Last 

15 Minutes,” “Understanding Fire Behavior: A Key to 

Defensible Space,” and “Wildfire – Are You Prepared?” We 

served as editors and contributed several articles for the 

newspaper. The tabloid was distributed to all rural watershed 

residents (around 3,300). 

We hired the OSU survey research center to conduct a 

telephone survey of a random sample of 100 watershed 

residents who were sent the newspaper. Three hundred one 

call attempts were made to get 100 completed interviews. 

Unsuccessful call attempts fell into several categories such 

as no answer, busy signal, bad phone number, and refusal. 

Of the 100 individuals surveyed, 55 percent recalled getting 

the newspaper. Of this 55 percent, about 80 percent read 

at least some of it and 26 percent read all of it. Eightythree percent found it somewhat or very useful, 50 percent 

discussed it with others and 50 percent saved it. Notably, 

35 percent said they took specific fire prevention/fuels 

reduction measures after reading it. 

We also asked neighborhood meeting participants about 

the newspaper in the on-line survey (this represents a 

group more likely to be interested in wildfire issues than 

the average watershed resident). When asked about the 

newspaper, 94 percent of the respondents recalled getting it. 

Of this 94 percent, 94 percent found the content moderately 

or very useful, 68 percent discussed it with friends and 

neighbors, and 74 percent said they took action as a result 

of reading the newspaper. These actions include starting 

or completing defensible space (38 percent) or other fuels 

treatments (34 percent), and contacting the Department of 

Forestry to request a homesite consultation (19 percent). 

ODF, BLM, fire districts, and other agencies have requested 

multiple copies of each issue to distribute to their clientele. 

The Medford fire district requested permission to reprint the 

winter 2005 edition of the tabloid in its entirety to send to all 

of the rural residents in its district; another fire district wants 

to reprint articles from the tabloid.

Other Project Impacts

We have coordinated one neighborhood fuelbreak project 

(a fuelbreak is an area where hazardous fuels have been 

reduced, although a forest canopy is typically maintained), 

totaling nearly 400 acres, involving both private and Bureau 

of Land Management parcels. Two additional projects 

are underway, and more are in the planning stages. This 

has involved bringing neighbors together, including many 

who were strangers at the start of the process, and getting 

residents to work cooperatively with BLM, overcoming, 

in at least a few cases, significant distrust. These are the 

first projects of their kind in the Seven Basins watershed. 

Another cooperative effort initiated and coordinated 

through the project includes fuels reduction adjacent to five 

private access roads, completed in conjunction with Job 

Council youth crews. The project enjoys strong support 

from partners:

“The biggest benefit [of the project] to the BLM is the 

trust we have built in the area...When we first went into 

neighborhoods, the perception was that it’s all BLM’s 

problem....Now, there’s a perception that it’s everyone’s 

problem, and BLM is willing to do something. We’ve built 

some trust – that wasn’t there before.” - Fuels Planner, 

Medford District, Bureau of Land Management 
195

“An excellent project in community and public agency 

cooperation....the planning process has generated support 

from the community for fuels reduction projects and 

enhanced fire fighter safety.” – Fire Planning/Grants 

Coordinator, SW Oregon District, Oregon Department 

of Forestry.

CONCLUSIONS AND REFLECTIONS

The Seven Basins Project addressed several important needs 

in one of southern Oregon’s most fire-prone watersheds: 

reducing hazardous fuel, improving neighborhood 

collaboration, and improving interagency coordination. 

Through a variety of educational tools, intensive 

neighborhood outreach, development of a Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan, and facilitation of an interagency 

team, we have seen impacts both on the ground and in 

terms of the less tangible, but still critical dimensions of 

communication and cooperation among residents and 

between residents and agencies. 

However, not everything worked well. For example, some 

of the neighborhood planning efforts simply failed to jell 

or fell apart after a couple of meetings. This was due, 

perhaps, to personality conflicts, turf battles, suspicion 

about agency “agendas,” and all the other factors that go 

along with working with people. In other cases, residents’ 

interest in fuels reduction was aroused, but the slow pace 

of projects, miscommunications, or occasional failure of 

key personnel to show up at meetings resulted in a loss of 

interest in pursuing projects. In addition, many residents 

were frustrated at the perceived lack of action taken by their 

federal neighbor, BLM. While BLM was actively developing 

and implementing landscape-scale fuels treatment projects in 

the watershed, they manage literally hundreds of individual 

parcels, many adjacent to private lands with homes, and not 

every one can be treated in a short timeframe. Within the 

steering committee itself, challenges included personnel 

changes, confusion about roles, and lack of time, especially 

when participation in the project was not part of a member’s 

job description. Finally, despite the activities of the steering 

committee and substantial outreach, the project as a whole 

was not as visible as it could have been, both within the 

agencies and in the local community. A key oversight was 

our failure to work with the local media to get the word out 

about the project, initially, and as the project evolved. 

Following are some thoughts about working with rural 

landowners on neighborhood-scale planning.

Owner Concerns and Perspectives

•	Owners respond most to perceived threats, not 

opportunities to collaborate – with other neighbors, or with 

agencies.

•	So, many will take action to reduce risks from wildfire on 

their own properties – but fewer will work together to 

create a neighborhood fuelbreak, unless the benefits can 

be clearly communicated. Many don’t necessarily want to 

cooperate with neighbors (or even talk to them).

•	Privacy is a huge issue. Owners don’t necessarily want 

to give out information about their property, or have other 

people come on it. Keeping it “in the neighborhood” is 

important.

•	Privacy concerns are also important in fuels reduction. For 

example, in many cases it would be optimal from a fuels 

standpoint to treat vegetation along roads and driveways. 

However, these strips of vegetation are also visual screens, 

and keep out noise and dust.

•	Desire for privacy can outweigh need for safety (both in 

terms of fuels and communication).

•	Many owners are not too fond of “government” and often 

don’t understand why agencies do what they do - there 

is a built-in suspicion that must be overcome. But, with 

patience and perseverance, agency staff can build 

productive relationships with local residents. Face to face 

contact and consistency are important.

Working with Neighborhoods

•	Many neighborhoods have a “sparkplug” - a person who 

knows everyone else, is energetic, and vocal. Getting this 

person involved in a neighborhood fire planning project is 

extremely helpful.

•	In every case, we only worked in neighborhoods where we 

were invited in, at least by one resident. The process 

worked best when this person fit the “sparkplug” 

description.

•	Some neighborhoods are simply more cohesive than 

others; these make the best candidates for neighborhood 

fire planning.

•	The process can be slow, cumbersome, and time 

consuming. The same things may need to be explained 

again and again, especially as new neighbors become 

involved. There are meetings and more meetings. Agencies 

work slowly; projects may take a long time to materialize. 

Being realistic, not overly optimistic, about these 

timeframes is important. 

•	A skilled outreach person is essential. Ideally, this person

is a local resident and is not perceived as an outsider. The 

outreach person must be assertive and a skilled facilitator, 

flexible, and a good listener. When the process works 

well, this person becomes a trusted advocate for the 

neighborhood. 
196

• Although outreach is time consuming and potentially

expensive, it is essential. Unfortunately, it is harder to get 

funding for outreach and education than for on-the-ground 

work, even though the latter depends on the former. 

• Despite these hurdles, the process can work very well.

The results are not only evident on the ground or in the 

forest, but also in the sense of community and spirit of 

cooperation can develop. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the other members of the Project Steering 

committee for their commitment to and perseverance with 

this project: Leanne Mruzik, Bureau of Land Management, 

Teresa Vonn and Travis Ryan, Oregon Department of 

Forestry, Bill Collins, Paul Howell, and Marty Burreson, 

Seven Basins Watershed Council, and Amy Wilson, 

Southwest Oregon Resource Conservation and Development 

Council. The success of the project would not have been 

possible without the many Seven Basins residents who 

participated in the neighborhood planning process. 

REFERENCES 

Creighton, J.H.; Baumgartner, D.M.; Gibbs, S.D. 2002. Fire prevention 

in the rural/urban interface: Washington’s backyard forest stewardship/

wildfire safety program. Journal of Extension. 40(2). http://www.joe.org/

joe/2002April/iw5.html. [Date accessed: July 26, 2006]. 

Monroe, M.C. 2000. The value of a toolkit. Journal of Extension. 38(6). 

http://www.joe.org/joe/2000december/tt5.html. [Date accessed: 

July 24, 2006]. 

Monroe, M.C.; Jacobson, S.K.; Bowers, A. 2003. Partnerships for natural 

resource education: differing program needs and perspectives of 

extension agents and State agency staff. Journal of Extension. 41(3). 

http://www.joe.org/joe/2003june/a3.shtml. [Date accessed: 

July 24, 2006]. 

National Fire Plan. 2002. A collaborative approach for reducing wildland 

fire risks to communities and the environment: 10-year comprehensive 

strategy. http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/11-23-en.pdf. [Date accessed: 

July 24, 2006]. 

Society of American Foresters. 2004. Preparing a community wildfire 

protection plan: a handbook for wildland-urban interface communities. 

http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/cwpphandbook.pdf. [Date 

accessed: July 26, 2006]. 
1

Research Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Hot Springs, AR 71902; Research Forester, Information Technology Specialist, U.S. Forest 

Service, North Central Research Station, Columbia, MO 65211, respectively.

197

GETTING SCIENCE OUT—A BOSTON MOUNTAINS FOREST 

UNDERPLANTING TOOL ONLINE

Martin A. Spetich, Daniel C. Dey, and Jim Lootens1

Abstract—Scientists typically publish research results in scientific journals in formats, language, and styles that are not 

always useful to many professional and general public users. To address this gap in technology transfer, we developed 

a method to get research published in journal articles out to a broader spectrum of users. This paper uses a study of oak 

regeneration to illustrate how scientific information can be conveyed to the user in a more useful, applied way. Due to 

the quantitative and complex technical nature of the published model, its usefulness was limited mainly to scientists and 

others who have skills in statistics and computer programming. To communicate these research results to non-scientists we 

developed an interactive, Internet-based version of the oak regeneration model which we named the Oak Underplanting 

Success (OAKUS) model. Foresters can use OAKUS online to evaluate combinations of alternative silvicultural treatments 

(i.e., shelterwood harvest, underplanting oak seedlings and controlling competition) before they actually start the 

regeneration process http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/oakus/. Using the OAKUS model can reduce the need to invest in post-harvest 

remedial measures. It also can be used to teach the fundamentals of regeneration ecology and to introduce silvicultural 

methods. This work represents a major technology transfer effort, delivers research results to resource managers on 

demand, and provides a management decision tool that can improve the quality of resource decisions. Between January 

2003 and January 2008, there were 13,844 successful page requests for OAKUS.

INTRODUCTION 

As scientists, we are encouraged to report results primarily 

in scientific journals. However, due to the complex nature 

and importance of scientific work we need to make greater 

effort to get this science out to the public in a more useful 

format. In this paper, we explain how we did that through a 

simple process that we used to transfer results from research 

on oak regeneration. The result is an accessible Internetbased program managers can use to predict planting success 

under different conditions. 

The example research that we use examined the success 

of northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) seedlings that had 

been underplanted in shelterwoods. In 2002 we developed 

a model of oak regeneration for the Boston Mountains of 

Arkansas, which was published in Forest Science (Spetich 

and others 2002). The model explains the dynamic and 

complex relationships of hardwood reproduction following 

stand disturbances. However, due to the quantitative 

and complex technical nature of the published model, 

its usefulness was limited mainly to scientists and others 

who have skills in statistics and computer programming. 

We felt that a new way to effectively communicate these 

research results to non-scientists was needed. With an easily 

accessible and interactive model, foresters would be better 

able to evaluate combinations of alternative silvicultural 

treatments (i.e., shelterwood harvest, underplanting oak 

seedlings and controlling competition) for regenerating 

oak before actually initiating the regeneration process. We 

developed an interactive Web-based tool we named the Oak 

Underplanting Success (OAKUS) model.

METHODS 

We developed and followed a simple 4-step approach to 

technology transfer. This consists of (1) doing the science 

and publishing results in an appropriate journal, (2) 

developing technical transfer presentations of the work and 

obtaining feedback, (3) developing a technology transfer 

publication of the research, which practitioners can easily 

understand and use, and (4) for complex models, developing 

an interactive management decision tool that is widely 

accessible (this incorporates results of steps 1 through 3).

Our study examined the relationship of northern red oak 

seedlings and competing vegetation over an 11-year period 

in Arkansas’ Boston Mountains forests. Planted oaks 

were considered successful if they became dominant or 

codominant trees in the developing forest stand 11 growing 

seasons after planting (8 growing seasons after shelterwood 

removal). The study was implemented with shelterwood 

creation in the fall of 1986 and subsequent underplanting 

of over 4,000 northern red oak seedlings in April 1987. 

Planted trees and their competitors were remeasured after 11 

growing seasons as well as in intervening years. For study 

details, see Spetich and others (2002) and Spetich and others 

(2004).

RESULTS 

Original study results were published in Forest Science 

(Spetich and others 2002). Those results are expressed as the 
198

probability that a planted tree will successfully compete with 

other trees to attain a dominant or codominant position in the 

future tree canopy. In summary, this dominance probability 

depends on initial seedling stem caliper (diameter) before 

planting, site quality expressed as site index, weed control 

intensity, and shelterwood percent stocking. The probability 

of success increases with decreasing shelterwood stocking, 

decreasing site quality (measured as site index), increasing 

initial stem caliper, and increasing intensity of woody 

competition control. The reciprocals of the dominance 

probabilities provide silviculturally useful estimates of the 

numbers of trees that would need to be planted to obtain, on 

the average, one competitively successful tree in the future.

To further refine our understanding of the needs of resource 

specialists, we presented results at ten meetings through 

oral presentations and at one meeting using a poster. 

Through feedback from conversations at those meetings, 

we determined that managers needed and wanted more 

information to help them implement the underplanting 

method. In response we developed a technology transfer 

publication that presents this information in more accessible 

language and with new graphics (Spetich and others 2004). 

In the recommendations section of that publication, we 

provided practical management methods for optimizing 

success of underplanted northern red oak seedlings and to 

reach future stocking goals. In part we accomplished this 

through a simplified six-step process that practitioners can 

use to implement the underplanting method. Although this 

provided more accessible information for practitioners and 

specific steps to implement the method, it did not fully 

address the complexities of the oak regeneration model.

Due to the complexity of the oak regeneration model, its 

application was only completely available to scientists 

and others who had skills in statistics and computer 

programming. A new design was needed to more effectively 

deliver these results to managers and others who wanted to 

use this model to develop plans for oak underplanting. To 

address this need, we developed an interactive, Internetbased version of the models that we term the OAKUS 

model. OAKUS is available from the Internet site http://

ncrs.fs.fed.us/oakus/. The introductory page of the site 

briefly explains oak underplanting, introduces OAKUS, and 

provides links to related publications (fig. 1).

Users desiring a more immediate interactive experience 

of the OAKUS interface can go directly to the OAKUS 

program by clicking on “Start using OAKUS” (fig. 1). For 

those who prefer further information, we provide greater 

detail on the study, as well as an example scenario to help 

users understand the applicability of OAKUS (figs. 2 

and 3). For non-practitioners, we also provide a glossary 

and hyperlinks to terms throughout, thus broadening 

the usability of the site. The page describing how to use 

OAKUS was deliberately kept brief to accommodate quick 

use of the program (fig. 4). 

The OAKUS interface requires only six essential input 

variables that describe site quality (site index), seedling 

quality (initial stem caliper), the degree of woody 

competition control (competition control), shelterwood 

density (percent stocking), desired number of successful 

trees per acre and whether or not the shoots will be clipped 

(shoots) (fig. 5).

After entering the six variables, the user clicks on the 

“submit” button to run the data through the OAKUS model. 

For example, if the input variables were site index = 55, 

initial stem caliper = 1, competition control = two herbicide 

treatments, 40 to 60 percent stocking, the target trees per 

acre = 100 and shoots are clipped, then OAKUS would 

return the window in figure 6 below.

The “management suggestions” in figure 6 are brief and to 

the point. Based on the input variables, in the last paragraph 

the program reveals that 134 trees would need to be planted 

in order to obtain the target number of successful trees per 

acre that she entered (100) 11 years after planting. The field 

practitioner can combine that information with planting 

recommendations also provided on the OAKUS Web site. 

The Web site also includes links to find related publications, 

a search box, and other Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture links. Instructors can use the OAKUS interface 

to teach the fundamentals of regeneration ecology and to 

introduce students to silvicultural methods.

The potential impact of this work has been exhibited by the 

interest in the OAKUS model. For instance, from January 

2003 through January 2008 there were 13,844 successful 

page requests for OAKUS. Nearly one-half of the page 

requests originated from commercial search engines while 

searches through Federal Web sites were the second most 

used search tool (fig. 7).
199

Figure 1—Introductory OAKUS page. All blue, underlined text is hyperlinked.

Figure 2—Part of our one-page explanation of the study. 
200

Figure 3—An example page with an example scenario of using OAKUS. For more numerically oriented 

users we provide summary tables and for the graphically oriented user we provide a graphic summary.

Figure 4—Brief introduction on using OAKUS.
201

Figure 5—The OAKUS program interface.

Figure 6—An example of information returned from OAKUS after submitting: site index = 55, initial stem 

caliper = 1, competition control = two herbicide treatments, 40 to 60 percent stocking, the target trees per 

acre = 100 and shoots are clipped.
202

Commercial search engine

Federal sites

Other organizations

IP address

Dot.net

CONCLUSIONS 

We used published research results to introduce a simple 

4-step process that resulted in OAKUS, an interactive Webbased product for managers to use to reach oak regeneration 

goals. OAKUS represents a relatively new technology 

transfer effort, delivers research results to resource managers 

and others on demand, and provides a flexible management 

decision tool that can improve the quality of resource 

decisions. The Web site includes information explaining the 

study and terminology for new users, provides examples, 

and introduces an accessible program interface.

Figure 7—Of the 13,844 successful page requests for OAKUS 6,824 were 

commercial (.com) search engines, 2,526 were Federal Web sites (either 

ending in fs.fed.us or .gov), 2,001 were other organizations—there were 

361 organizations, 1,272 were linked to Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and 

1,221 were search engines ending in .net.

Resource managers (and others) can use the Web-based 

model to evaluate alternative silvicultural treatments 

for regenerating oak—before shelterwood creation and 

underplanting—and predict the future success of various 

underplanting options. Use of the OAKUS model can 

reduce the need to invest in post-harvest remedial measures. 

OAKUS also can be used to help teach the fundamentals 

of regeneration ecology and to introduce students to 

silvicultural methods. 

Through this process we not only get science done in a way 

conducive to scientific progress, but we also are getting 

science out to non-scientists in a useful, practical, 

applied way!

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We thank all of the meeting participants that provided 

feedback during technical transfer presentations.

References

Spetich, M.A.; Dey, D.C.; Johnson, P.S.; Graney, D.L. 2002. Competitive 

capacity of Quercus rubra L. planted in Arkansas’ Boston Mountains. 

Forest Science. 48(3): 504-517.

Spetich, M.A.; Dey, D.C.; Johnson, P.S.; Graney, D.L. 2004. Success of 

underplanting northern red oaks. In: Spetich, M.A., ed. Proceedings, 

Upland Oak Ecology Symposium: History, Current Conditions, and 

Sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–73. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 206-211.
1

 Research Scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Hot Springs, AR 71902.

203

 THE CROSSETT EXPERIMENTAL FOREST—72 YEARS OF SCIENCE 

DELIVERY IN THE SILVICULTURE OF SOUTHERN PINES

James M. Guldin1

Abstract—The network of experimental forests and ranges within the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

has unique attributes for research, demonstration, and technology transfer. Public forest lands experience a slower 

rate of ownership change than private forest lands, and this provides greater stability for long-term research studies 

and demonstrations over time. Experimental forests provide an ideal way to view, test, and display new technologies 

and tactics for different silvicultural practices. Few experimental forests in the South embody these attributes more 

than the Crossett Experimental Forest in Ashley County, AR. It was established in 1934 from a donation of 1,680 

acres of land by the Crossett Lumber Company to the Southern Forest Experiment Station. The mission was to study 

new silvicultural practices to restore and manage second-growth loblolly and shortleaf pine stands, and to share that 

knowledge with forest managers and landowners throughout the South. This approach has been unusually effective at 

Crossett Experimental Forest, where U.S. Forest Service researchers have published more than 1,000 articles on forest 

management and silviculture, and hosted more than 45,000 foresters, students, landowners, and university staff in tours 

of its renowned demonstrations and research studies. 

INTRODUCTION

The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

supports 77 experimental forests and ranges across the 

United States and its territories (Adams and others 2004) 

with 19 in the territory of the Southern Research Station 

(fig. 1). These facilities were established at varying times 

over the past 100 years by Forest Service chiefs, as lands 

were made available for experimentation in major forest 

types to support research and demonstration in ecology, 

management, silviculture, wildlife, hydrology, and other 

fields. These experimental forests, to varying degrees, 

have become outstanding models of science delivery and 

technology transfer over time, supporting field days, short 

courses, workshops, and visitors that collectively number in 

the hundreds of thousands. The ability to maintain long-term 

research studies and then also to deliver the science from 

these studies to the public is a unique feature of this network 

of Experimental Forests and Ranges. This is due to several 

attributes these sites generally share. 

Stability of Ownership

Over time scales measured in decades, lands in the Federal 

domain have greater stability of ownership than lands 

in either the industrial or non-industrial private forest 

sector. Long-term studies often face an initial threat to 

their continued maintenance and measurement when land 

ownership changes. Scientists who are responsible for 

long-term studies often find that ongoing study plans require 

modification when the land on which a study is located 

changes owners, to better conform to the ownership goals of 

the new landowner. At the extreme, new forest landowners 

may decide that continued cooperation in maintaining a 

long-term study is not in their best interest, in which case 

the study would be closed. The comparative rate of change 

in land ownership over six decades in two well-known 

silvicultural studies in Ashley County, AR (table 1) reveals 

a rate of ownership change on the forest industry land base 

that is not uncommon for studies of this duration in the 

region.

The permanence of the Federal commitment to experimental 

forests and ranges also allows the Forest Service to 

make investments in mission, budget, and staffing at 

these locations that, while not guaranteed in perpetuity, 

nevertheless offer greater stability than in the private sector 

in three key elements. The first is the stability of the research 

mission conducted by the research work unit with which the 

experimental forest is associated, which in itself provides a 

scientific basis to justify long-term investment. The second 

is the infrastructural investment by the supervising research 

stations—capital-intensive facilities such as gauging 

stations, weirs, canopy measurement structures, and other 

in-the-woods experimental infrastructure. The third is the 

ability to manage structures and associated facilities to meet 

research and/or science delivery needs such as labs, offices 

for permanent or visiting scientists, up-to-date conference 

rooms; some experimental forests even have lodging 

facilities such as dormitories and kitchens for use by visiting 

scientists and professional or technical support staff. 

Administrative Organization

Experimental forests and ranges on Federal lands are 

managed as a subset of the National Forests and Grasslands 

with which they are affiliated. This gives rise to three 

issues that merit special attention from an administrative 

perspective. The first is to ensure that research use of 
204

km

Experimental forests and rangelands

National forests and rangelands

Table 1—Forest ownership by decade for the Crossett Farm Forestry 

Demonstration Study and the Sudden Sawlog Study, both located in 

Ashley County, AR. 

Year

Landowner, 

Crossett Farm Forestry 

Demonstration Study

Landowner,

Sudden Sawlog Study

1940 U.S. Government Crossett Lumber Company

1950 U.S. Government Crossett Lumber Company

1960 U.S. Government Crossett Lumber Company

1970 U.S. Government Georgia-Pacific Corporation

1980 U.S. Government Georgia-Pacific Corporation

1990 U.S. Government Georgia-Pacific Corporation

2000 U.S. Government The Timber Company

2005 U.S. Government Plum Creek Timber Company

Figure 1—Experimental forests in the Southern Research Station of the U.S. Forest Service (Adams and others 2004).
205

experimental forests and ranges remains the priority. A 

major challenge on some experimental forests and ranges 

is the encroachment of non-research uses such as hunting 

or mountain-biking, which can conflict with the primary 

research mission. National policy has recently been clarified 

to ensure that the line officers in both the research side and 

the management side of the Agency work together to ensure 

that research sites are protected and research activities are 

not compromised by non-research use. 

The second issue is associated with planning research 

activities; project planning for research activities on 

experimental forests must proceed under the same system 

of environmental analysis and public involvement as 

do activities on national forests. The timeframe of this 

planning process can occasionally constrain the initiation 

and the completion of research treatments. Here again, the 

answer is for scientists and managers to work together to 

ensure that the planning activities do not adversely affect 

the implementation of time-sensitive research projects on 

experimental forests and ranges. 

The third issue is that timber harvests on experimental 

forests are handled in a similar manner as those on national 

forests. When harvesting activity occurs, proceeds from the 

harvest go to the U.S. Department of the Treasury rather 

than to the research unit, according to the standard practices 

of Forest Service operations as codified in Federal law and 

Agency manual direction. Existing timber sale authorities 

allow the unit to retain a portion of harvest proceeds for 

improvement of the sale area under provisions of the 

Knutsen-Vandenberg Act of 1933—but, specifically, not for 

research. Essentially, this means that harvest activities on 

experimental forests can be implemented operationally, but 

that research activities to study and quantify the operational 

treatments are funded separately from the harvest. This has 

two important implications: (1) it increases the likelihood 

that the treatments being implemented for a research 

purpose are done realistically, which makes the research data 

and findings more applicable to users, and (2) it limits any 

incentive that research scientists might have to overcut their 

experimental forests so as to directly fund their research 

program.

Science Delivery at Experimental Forests and 

Ranges

A small number of Forest Service experimental forests 

have become prominent regional models of working, 

sustainable forests in a given forest type. The Crossett 

Experimental Forest (CEF), established in 1934 and located 

7 miles south of the town of Crossett in Ashley County, 

AR, is an archetypal example. It was the first field station 

in the Southern Forest Experiment Station, and was set 

up to study problems associated with rehabilitation and 

management of second-growth southern pine stands. The 

challenge was to determine whether it was possible to 

simultaneously rehabilitate cutover loblolly-shortleaf pine 

stands while providing landowners with an acceptable 

return on their investment. As such, silvicultural research 

at the CEF emphasizes neoclassical silvicultural practices, 

especially even-aged and uneven-aged reproduction cutting 

methods that rely on natural regeneration, which abundantly 

occurs in this forest type. This research continues to be 

important after seven decades in three ownerships: (1) 

public lands where alternatives to clearcutting are sought, 

(2) nonindustrial private lands where owners seek lowcost stand establishment and trees of large size and high 

quality, and (3) elements of the forest industry land base not 

suited to intensive plantation forestry, such as streamside 

management zones. In 1934, the goal of research at the 

CEF was to determine if large high-value saw logs could be 

produced from these cutover understocked second-growth 

southern pine stands. Today, that goal has been modified 

to encompass continuous-cover forestry (Guldin 2002) 

that meets a diversity of ownership objectives through 

development of trees of large size.

The layout of the CEF is somewhat unique in that the 1,680-

acre property is essentially 42 contiguous compartments, 

each of which is approximately 40 acres in area. There are 

six compartments from east to west and seven compartments 

from north to south, with fire protection lanes between 

each compartment and a road network that can access at 

least one side of each compartment on the property (fig. 

2). Each 40-acre compartment is numbered. This layout 

promotes operations and access on a compartment basis, 

allows comparisons to be made among compartments, and 

simplifies administration, management, experimentation, 

and science delivery. 

SCIENCE DELIVERY AT CEF—A CASE STUDY

Background

The CEF essentially serves as a living example of a working 

forest. The highest priority for ongoing harvest operations 

is to maintain research and demonstration areas that relate 

to specific silvicultural practices that landowners can apply 

on their own lands. These include natural regeneration, 

site preparation and release treatments to promote pine 

regeneration, intermediate treatments to control stand 

density and growth, and reproduction cuttings that show 

landowners how to harvest mature trees in sustainable 

systems. This diversity of practices is concentrated in 

space and time, which provides unusual opportunities for 

professional interaction.
206

Our Intended Audience

Over the decades, scientists and staff at the CEF have had 

an ongoing relationship with foresters from three different 

categories—forest industry, forestry consulting firms, and 

forestry educators. Of these, the relationship with forest 

industry foresters has changed most notably. When the CEF 

was established, forest industry foresters were interested 

in producing large high-quality saw logs for production of 

dimension lumber and, later, for plywood. But as industry 

outputs have shifted to smaller products and to chipbased panel products, forest industry landowners have 

increasingly been enamored with intensive approaches to 

forest management. Those approaches rely silviculturally on 

clearcutting and planting, featuring intensive site preparation 

and capital-intensive amendments to enhance stand growth, 

and harvest at relatively young ages. Despite this, even 

forest industries that practice the most intensive plantationbased silviculture retain a portion of their forest land in 

forest conditions that will not be clearcut, such as streamside 

management zones or other sensitive areas that require 

continuous forest cover. Management of those areas requires 

specialized applications of sustainable silvicultural practices 

that retain forest cover, and as a result there continues 

to be interest within forest industry in CEF research and 

demonstrations.

Consulting foresters in the region continue to practice 

even-aged and uneven-aged silviculture as a means to 

economically produce large high-quality sawtimber for 

the landowners or clients they serve. One can speculate 

that major growth in the consulting forestry sector will 

be centered on the divestiture of large forested holdings 

to landowners seeking forest land for multiple uses such 

as timber income, outdoor recreational opportunities, and 

aesthetic reasons that preclude the use to clearcutting and 

planting. The research at the CEF is extraordinarily useful 

for such foresters and the clients they serve.

The varied distribution of studies and demonstrations within 

close physical proximity make the area ideal for education 

and training, both for college classes and for continuing 

education of professional resource managers. Foresters and 

students alike can observe silvicultural treatments that are 

properly conducted according to rigorous standards, and the 

resulting stand structure and the relative homogeneity or 

heterogeneity of treatment application and forest conditions 

can be easily seen.

Landowners in particular enjoy the opportunity to examine 

forest stands at the CEF, as a way to visualize the stands they 

would like on their own lands. Foresters occasionally have 

difficulty translating the general objectives of ownership 

that landowners have into a quantitative set of standards 

and guidelines for imposing silvicultural practices on the 

landowner’s domain. Tours of the stands on the experimental 

forest can help foresters and the landowners they advise to 

broaden their understanding of the silvicultural potential 

of their lands, and can also help the forester obtain the 

technical details required to manage stands according to the 

landowner’s goals. 

Methodology for Science Delivery

Because of these features and clients, science delivery 

at the CEF has devolved into a series of interactions that 

emphasize not only the distribution of publications, but also 

putting on boots and walking around. Sessions typically 

involve a combination of indoor and outdoor presentations. 

The indoor presentations take advantage of an updated 

conference room at Crossett that accommodates 40 people 

in table setup and 100 people in theater style seating, and 

boasts state-of-the-art projection, sound, video display, and 

wireless Internet capabilities. The outdoor presentations are 

limited only by the weather; and there are few more pleasant 

ways to spend time in the woods than a sunny, springtime 

day at the CEF. Thus, Station scientists and visiting lecturers 

Figure 2—Aerial photo of the Crossett Experimental Forest; the regimented 

structure of the area and the individual 40-acre compartments can be easily 

seen from aerial imagery. The image is oriented along cardinal directions 

with north at the top of the image; the image is approximately 8,580 

feet east to west and 9,900 feet north to south. Source: www.terraserver.

microsoft.com; image located using latitude 33.03368 degree North, 

longitude 91.93829 degree West. [Date accessed: February 14, 2007]
207

have a variety of instructional resources and opportunities at 

their disposal.

Participation of the University of Arkansas Cooperative 

Extension Service has been especially important in the 

program delivery at the CEF. For a period of about 10 years 

in the late 1980s to the early 1990s, the late Dr. R. Larry 

Willett, an extension forestry professional located at the 

School of Forest Resources at the University of Arkansas 

at Monticello, organized and conducted field days, tours, 

short courses, and training sessions (including some that 

were videotaped) at the experimental forest. A portion of 

the salary for Willett’s position was provided by the Forest 

Service, which was an unusual arrangement at the time but 

an effective one. This assignment of a professional extension 

forestry specialist in close proximity to the CEF is a model 

to be considered elsewhere. Today, an equally important 

element of the role that extension forestry professionals 

provide at the CEF is the ability to execute financial 

arrangements for program delivery that Federal employees 

are constrained from making, such as collecting registration 

fees from private individuals and defraying the costs of field 

days or short courses from those collected funds. 

Publications and Presentations

The foundation for all of the research and demonstration 

activities at the CEF is the bibliography of publications and 

presentations that have been produced by scientists with the 

Southern Research Station and the academic cooperators 

who have worked there. Publications in the refereed 

scientific literature remain the coin of the realm in academic 

and government research, and the record of publications and 

supporting presentations has been substantial. For example, 

a recent tabulation shows that from 1979 to 2005, CEF 

scientists had authorship on 432 publications with a total of 

5,903 pages; that is a yearly average of 17 publications and 

276 pages. Of this total, 151 publications (1,406 pages) were 

in refereed journals; 276 publications (2,905 pages) were in 

books, proceedings, and series; and 6 publications (1,592 

pages) were proceedings that were edited or compiled by 

CEF scientists. 

That body of scientific literature—built on the work of unit 

scientists from the 1930s to the 1970s—forms the core of 

the corporate knowledge base on the silviculture of naturally 

regenerated stands of loblolly and shortleaf pine managed 

using even-aged and uneven-aged reproduction cutting 

methods in the West Gulf region. But research papers that 

are intended for scientists and professionals fail to provide 

the breadth and depth of information that many users seek as 

they apply the newly research practices and methods in the 

woods. Different approaches with a practical approach are 

called for in delivery of that science to users, and a number 

of these methods have been extremely successful at the CEF.

Crossett Forestry Field Days

The earliest public activity for science delivery at the CEF 

has been the “Forestry Field Day”. At this annual event, 

foresters and landowners gather on the CEF for a program 

that concentrates on a few specific elements of the science 

program there. In the 1950s, Field Days focused on showing 

the potential for timber production from well-managed 

second-growth forest stands, in which the annual cut was 

made so as to equal the annual growth from the property. 

To show this, Station scientists would physically lay out 

the harvested logs and pulpwood to illustrate the annual 

growth, and thus the sustainable volume, that could be 

produced from a managed 40-acre stand under scientific 

principles of management (fig. 3). Today, scientists and 

professionals prepare handouts with a compact disc of 

supporting materials, and engage in lectures and dialogue 

while standing with tour participants in those same stands 

whose data were used to illustrate concepts and principles 

under discussion. 

During the Field Day, tours are usually subdivided so that 

one group contains landowners, and the other contains 

foresters or resource managers; the level of technical detail 

is made more rigorous for the professionals. Between 1978 

and 2006, the unit has conducted 19 Field Days with an 

estimated attendance of 3,000 participants. Reaching the 

target audience remains the big challenge; in recent years, 

mailed and e-mailed announcements about the Field Day 

have been sent to past participants as well as distributed 

through common resource management mailing lists, with 

the goal of having both landowners and foresters attend. 

While this ensures attendance numbers that are logistically 

feasible at the Field Day, new techniques are needed to reach 

new or underserved clients. 

Figure 3—Annual growth represented by harvested logs in a 40-acre 

stand managed using uneven-aged methods in 1956 from the Good Farm 

Forestry Forty Demonstration at the Crossett Experimental Forest. 

(USFS photo)
208

Field Tours

Specific field tours on detailed subjects are commonly and 

easily arranged through informal contacts with scientists or 

staff at the CEF. Scientists maintain an up-to-date summary 

of each demonstration and research study suitable for use 

as handouts, so that tours can be customized for specific 

topics, interests, and with an appropriate level of technical 

detail for visiting groups. The most common tour groups 

are visiting student groups in the region, but student groups 

from distant locations such as the University of Wisconsin 

and Yale University have visited. In addition, international 

guests have taken advantage of the opportunity to see the 

neoclassical alternatives to clearcutting in southern pines at 

the CEF; recent guests have included university faculty from 

Russia and Sweden.

A subset of the field tour approach that merits specific 

mention is the opportunity for an individual level of 

engagement between CEF scientists and visitors. For 

example, in the past decade, Crossett has entertained visits 

from company vice presidents and woodland managers as 

they evaluated their company’s forestry philosophy and 

practices. Similarly, Crossett scientists have hosted tours 

for major forestry consulting organizations, not only for 

owners and staff of the consulting firm but also for key 

clients as they mutually consider management decisions 

on family estates and forest land holdings. However, unit 

scientists rarely hear about the outcome of such tours with 

respect to choices in management tactics and strategy that 

are taken because of the privileged nature of some of these 

conversations, and because management decisions rely on 

multiple sources and considerations. But as it should be 

in the practice of forestry, where the responsibility of the 

forester (and the forestry research scientist) is to advise, not 

to make decisions for, the private forest landowner. At the 

CEF, advice is abundantly provided as a Federal service by 

the scientists and staff who work there.

Continuing Education Short Courses and 

Workshops

The CEF is home for the Southern Pine Module in the 

Forest Service National Advanced Silviculture Program 

(NASP). Silvicultural certification is required for Forest 

Service employees who approve silvicultural prescriptions 

on Federal lands. Successful completion of the NASP 

course provides this certification. A key element of the 

overall program is a 2-week module in the forest type 

within which candidates are currently working. In addition, 

standards require that Forest Service employees from 

one region to another participate in the appropriate local 

forest type module. Elements of the program at the CEF 

are provided by Station scientists and outside experts from 

across the East. Participating students received an in-depth 

exposure to silvicultural principles and practices appropriate 

and applicable for management of naturally regenerated 

stands of southern pines, and a bibliography of supporting 

publications and technical data applicable to the forest types 

of the region.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Though the programs at the CEF have developed an 

outstanding regional reputation, ample opportunities remain 

for improvement of science delivery, especially in the realm 

of personal computer and Internet-based technologies. This 

experimental forest is located in a remote part of south 

Arkansas, and high-speed Internet capability has only 

recently been established there. Station scientists and others 

who lead the technology transfer programs there now have 

opportunities to develop materials for lectures and short 

courses that include access to materials available on the 

Internet, such as scientific publications and digital image 

libraries.

There may be additional technological opportunities in 

the future to bring the outdoor element of field tours and 

short courses to online clients, such as real-time video 

conferencing, podcasts, and similar highly evolving 

technologies. The underlying goal would be to allow 

users to enjoy a customizable field tour of studies and 

demonstrations at CEF at any time from any Internet 

access portal, linking to a database containing the latest 

appropriate measurements, videos, still photos, lectures, and 

publications. 

Scientists at the CEF also need to develop better ways to 

quantify the delivery of scientific information through the 

various methods that are applied there. While evaluation 

forms are distributed and collected immediately following 

field days, short courses, and training sessions, the real test 

of successful science delivery is whether the principles 

discussed during activities at the experimental forest are 

applied by landowners and the foresters who advise them. 

This suggests some sort of reevaluation of attendees, 

perhaps a year or two after their attending an event at the 

experimental forest, to ask whether the information provided 

during the event was subsequently applied on the forest 

lands they own or manage.

There will always be a place for the “in-the-woods” 

approach to science delivery, where an expert scientist, 

professional, or technician stands in front of a group of 

people interested in management of forest stands, where 

specific subtleties in the silvicultural condition can be 

identified and examined as a walk through the woods 

is made. But clearly, scientists at the CEF have not yet 

mastered the potential application of Web-based and Internet 

capabilities in the science delivery mission. As the 75th

anniversary of the CEF approaches, the opportunities and 

challenge for current unit scientists will be to better integrate 

the traditional field-based methods of science delivery with 

the powerful new tools available to support information 

dissemination capabilities of the 21st century.
209

References

Adams, M.B.; Loughry, L.; Plagher, L., comps. 2004. Experimentalforests 

and ranges of the USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-321. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station. 178 p.

Guldin, J.M. 2002. Continuous cover forestry in the United States—

experience with southern pines. In: Continuous cover forestry: 

assessment, analysis, scenarios. von Gadow, K.; Nagel, J.; 

Saborowski, J., eds. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic 

Publishers: 295-307.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Ernest Lovett, Don Bragg, Mike Shelton, 

Mike Chain, and Larry Hedrick for helpful thoughts and 

comments as this manuscript was being prepared.
1

 Project Learning Tree Coordinator and Professor, University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Gainesville, FL 32611, respectively.

210

FOREST EDUCATION WITHOUT FORESTS: OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

Jennifer A. Seitz and Martha C. Monroe1

Abstract—Understanding our environment is critical to making good decisions about natural resources. One solution is 

to reach youth through educators. The Project Learning Tree (PLT) program provides educators with hands-on activities 

to use with students in grades pre-kindergarten through twelve. The challenge is helping Florida teachers use PLT if they 

do not have access to forests. Needs assessments have provided clues about why urban educators do not attend Florida 

PLT workshops. Standards-based materials and distance education options top educators’ list of requested professional 

development opportunities. To increase the success of our program we established innovative partnerships, created new 

educational resources, and provided professional development opportunities for educators. This presentation will describe 

the activities that are increasing teacher interest in PLT in South Florida. Taking the time to develop a program that meets 

the needs of the audience and combining that with community support is proving to be a successful endeavor.

INTRODUCTION

Forests provide a variety of benefits such as peaceful 

retreats away from everyday worries, wildlife habitat, 

and cleaner air. To maintain the existing forested areas in 

Florida, it is important to educate the citizens about their 

value and management requirements. There are many 

agencies and organizations that offer public programs to 

all ages to increase awareness of nature in their backyard. 

Environmental education (EE) programs, in particular, 

incorporate needed communication and analytical skills 

in addition to knowledge. EE refers to educational efforts 

that increase public awareness and knowledge about 

environmental issues while providing critical thinking, 

problem-solving, and effective decision-making skills 

(National Education and Environment Partnership 2002). 

This combination of information and skills allows the 

public to make informed and well-reasoned environmental 

decisions. There is clearly a need to provide natural resource 

education opportunities to urban, as well as rural citizens; 

existing efforts should be continued and accelerated with 

Florida’s increasing population. The Project Learning 

Tree (PLT) program provides educators with hands-on, 

forestry-based activities to use with students in grades 

pre-kindergarten through twelve. PLT also provides a 

balanced approach to current issues, and as a result, has 

won recognition from conservation groups and industry 

throughout the nation. Florida’s PLT program is working to 

be relevant and meaningful to Florida’s population.

The majority of Florida’s forested land is in the Panhandle, 

North, and Central Florida. Some counties in South Florida 

have a forest, but often these are located on the outskirts of 

town or in an area considered rural. Florida’s population 

increased from 13 million in 1990 to 18 million in 2006. 

Between 2000 and 2006 the net migration into the state 

was 1,863,728 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). Florida 

has the most number of fastest growing counties than any 

state. Using U.S. Census Bureau population projections, 

Zwick and Carr (2006) estimate that Florida’s population 

will increase to over 35 million in 2060, with an annual 

population change rate of 330,537 people. Counties with 

populations currently over 1 million include Broward, 

Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Orange, and Palm Beach, 

with over 500,000 residents living in Brevard, Duval, Lee, 

Pinellas, and Putnam Counties (U.S Census Bureau 2006). 

With the exception of Duval, these counties are all in South 

Florida, where there is little natural forest.

This increase in population is causing a reduction in natural 

areas statewide, but the development is more noticeable in 

South Florida. This region naturally includes more open 

ranch land than forests. To the extent that urban areas have 

urban forests, they may not be managing or restoring them 

because of fears of hurricane damage. Education can play 

a large role in informing the citizenry about the multiple 

benefits of the urban forests.

Traditionally, forestry education is limited to areas with 

large forested areas, such as national or state forests. 

Increased development and reduced forest cover means 

that most teachers in Florida do not have access to natural 

forests. They do, however, have their own unique urban 

forests. Florida PLT is helping urban teachers use their 

urban forests by providing special resources.

SITUATION 

Project Learning Tree reaches a growing number of 

educators throughout Florida. The nationwide program 

was introduced to Florida in 1977 and has been offered 

to thousands of educators. Since 2002, over 3,300 new 

educators received training. These PLT-trained educators 

use PLT activities in the classroom to teach students the 

importance and benefits of our forest resources. On average, 

each teacher who uses PLT influences 42 students per year 
211

with approximately six activities (Easton and Monroe 2002), 

making PLT’s impact small but extensive. The use of PLT 

throughout Florida is not uniform. The southern region has 

fewer workshops and lower attendance than the rest of the 

state. The challenge is helping teachers use PLT if they do 

not have access to forests and are not familiar with PLT.

Environmental education programs as a whole are 

challenged in Florida because of the increased emphasis on 

accountability. Florida education reform mirrors national 

efforts (No Child Left Behind) to assure that all youth attain 

basic reading, writing, and math skills. The movement 

strives to increase teacher accountability by standardizing 

the curriculum content (with Sunshine State Standards and 

benchmarks), assessing student achievement (with Florida 

Comprehensive Achievement Tests), providing funding to 

schools where student test scores increase, and reorganizing 

schools that repeatedly score poorly (Monroe and others 

2005). Teachers acknowledge that the changes are reducing 

their time and interest in environmental education (Easton 

and Monroe 2002). Achievement test scores for Florida 

youth in underserved urban areas are alarmingly low in 

reading, writing, and math. Teachers of these students are 

more likely to attend professional development workshops 

that focus on these subject areas in which their students 

scored low. Many schools in Florida are focusing their 

school improvement plans on strengthening reading and 

writing skills. 

A needs assessment of South Florida educators was 

conducted from November 2005 through February 2006. 

Sixteen urban counties in South Florida were selected 

based on the definition of urban by the U.S. Census Bureau 

(2005), “An area consisting of a central place(s) and 

adjacent territory with a general population density of at 

least 1,000 people per square mile of land area that together 

have a minimum residential population of at least 50,000 

people.” Counties in the assessment included Brevard, 

Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, 

Manatee, Miami-Dade, Orange, Osceola, Pinellas, Polk, St. 

Lucie, Sarasota, and Seminole. School district professional 

development directors, their staff, and active PLT Facilitators 

located in the designated counties were surveyed with 

questionnaires and phone interviews. The needs assessment 

pinpointed four issues, distance learning, target standardsbased skills, name recognition, and audience buy-in, that can 

help improve the PLT program. 

Due to travel costs and limited time available during 

the school week to allow teachers to leave class, school 

districts are encouraging their faculty to take online courses. 

Online courses designed to meet professional development 

standards allow previously unreachable educators, due to 

time constraints, location, and availability, the opportunity to 

obtain our resources. 

While school districts turn to distance learning courses to 

provide opportunities to their faculty, the resource or topic 

of the workshop is also important. Name recognition is what 

encourages educators to register for a particular course. A 

workshop focused on tips for improving students’ reading 

scores is a “hot topic.” Teachers are less likely to register 

if they are unfamiliar with the program’s organization or 

instructor(s). By promoting the PLT program as a way to 

help strengthen students’ critical thinking and writing skills, 

educators will see the workshop as a way to gain useful 

knowledge, resources, and training they need to help their 

students. Increasing familiarity of the program with the 

audience will in turn increase audience buy-in. 

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

To increase the success of the Florida PLT program, we 

increased audience buy-in through establishing innovative 

partnerships with PLT Environmental Education Centers. To 

increase familiarity with locally available forests, we created 

a Florida urban forests supplement. To provide easier access 

to professional development opportunities, we launched an 

online distance course for educators.

PLT Environmental Education Centers 

The PLT Environmental Education Centers (EE Centers) 

serve as regional sources of information, field trips, and 

professional development centers for educators. The PLT 

EE Center designation provides a link between teachers 

and these important community environmental education 

resources. Approved PLT Centers have at least one staff 

member or volunteer who has attended a PLT Facilitator 

Training Workshop. Funding from Florida Ag in the 

Classroom enabled us to train representatives from centers 

in Spring 2005. Each center received tools and resources 

necessary to lead workshops.

These EE Centers help market the PLT program effectively 

because they are local, established voices for environmental 

education in their community. Centers demonstrate their 

commitment to education through existing educational 

programs and host at least one PLT educator workshop per 

year. Our seven inaugural centers in South Florida include: 

Brevard Zoo, Brooker Creek Preserve Environmental 

Education Center, Calusa Nature Center and Planetarium, 

Environmental Center at Miami-Dade College, Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge, Nature’s Classroom, 

and Weedon Island Preserve Cultural and Natural History 

Center. 

Florida Urban Forests Supplement

While some of the PLT activities are well suited to urban 

areas, few of them convey the many benefits of urban forests 
212

to city residents. The Florida PLT Urban Forests Supplement 

is a companion document for educators who have the 

PreK-8 PLT Activity Guide. This supplement is based on 

three themes: urban forest ecology, benefits of an urban 

forest, and strategies for improving urban forest health. 

The activities for youth in grades three through eight help 

them to see their community’s urban forests as significant, 

valuable, and worth sustaining through science-based 

investigations. For example, one activity focuses on the links 

between tree health and placement, hurricanes, and a tree’s 

level of wind resistance to help explain what happens to 

trees during hurricanes.

Florida Horticulture and 4-H Extension Agents received a 

copy for their county office through the mail in March 2006. 

A pilot workshop was held for educators in Miami in March 

2006. Urban forest workshops are planned for the 2006–08 

school years in urban areas. Partners for the workshops 

include the Florida Division of Forestry County Foresters, 

county parks and recreation departments, and county 

extension agents.

The supplement is posted on the Florida PLT web site for 

educators to download. Advertisements about the availability 

and objectives of the supplement have been printed in state 

environmental education newsletters and in listserves. PLT 

Facilitators received the revised supplement at our facilitator 

retreat in 2006.

Online Distance Course

Florida PLT is developing an online asynchronous distance 

course for secondary educators as an alternative to an 

in-person Places We Live workshop. This secondary 

unit focuses on a sense of place and community change 

particularly at the wildland-urban interface. The course will 

include case studies, internet searches, activity modeling, 

videos, and slide presentations. Participants will have the 

opportunity to immediately take what they learn during the 

course and apply it to classroom lessons. Ideas and thoughts 

on applying the information learned during the online 

module to the classroom and information on local issues 

and resources will be submitted in a completion handout. 

An online learning community for all PLT workshop 

participants is in development to allow successes and 

challenges with the materials to be shared among educators. 

This strategy for professional development is strongly 

encouraged by the Florida Department of Education. This 

course conforms to their professional development standards 

(Monroe and others 2005). The course was pilot tested in 

Fall 2007 and will be available to educators statewide in 

Spring 2008. 

EVALUATION AND IMPACT

Because all of these activities are newly launched, it is too 

early to conduct a summative evaluation. Nevertheless, 

on-going reflection and observation of our activities is 

confirming information gleaned from the needs assessment 

and providing insights that can strengthen our program. We 

are heartened by reports from Oil City Elementary Magnet 

School in Oil City, Louisiana (Haines and Kilpatrick 2007) 

which increased student achievement scores by using PLT 

activities. No doubt a number of factors worked together 

to increase student interest in learning, but using engaging 

environmental education activities was most certainly one.

Low test scores and low enrollment were reasons Oil 

City faced closure by the school district. Faculty declared 

environmental science as the emphasis for the school and 

created a new school curricula based on a model from the 

book Closing the Achievement Gap. The Environment as 

an Integrating Concept model supports using environmental 

education to integrate subject areas (Lieberman and Hoody 

1998). Each year, grade-level teams choose a schoolwide 

environmental theme. Teachers incorporate PLT activities 

to cover the multiple subject areas. Students apply math 

skills planning a garden or charting tree growth; creative 

writing happens on the school’s nature trail; and research 

occurs to determine what plants and flowers would attract 

a particular species of butterfly (Irvin 2007). The result is 

improved test scores. In 1999, the schools’s score on the 

Iowa Test of Basic Skills was 26 points below the state 

school performance score average and now they are at 89.0 

score improving by 48.6 points and surpassing the state 

average (Haines and Kilpatrick 2007). Today, the school is 

recognized for significant improvement in test scores at all 

grade levels.

PLT Environmental Education Centers

Prior to 2004, the average number of workshops in South 

Florida per year numbered four. Increased presence in South 

Florida through the PLT EE Center program and marketing 

efforts in urban areas last year expanded workshop numbers 

in this region to 23. Facilitators reached 560 teachers who 

were new to PLT. Of these, 42 educators attended one of 

three workshops at a PLT EE Center. Evaluations collected 

at the end of each workshop from all 560 participants 

suggest that 90 percent strongly agree the materials are 

appropriate to their needs. When surveyed about their 

confidence in using PLT activities with youth, 97 percent 

agreed they are confident they will be able to use the new 

resource. Ninety-five percent agree PLT activities will likely 

increase student achievement.

Of course more workshops were held outside the new PLT 

EE Center system, but they might have benefited from 
213

the regional marketing that the EE Centers did for their 

three programs. The increase in willingness to attend PLT 

workshops may also be due to the growing concern about 

the environment, the local interest in Everglades restoration, 

or improved marketing to focus on state standards with PLT.

Some PLT EE Centers have been unable to launch teacher 

workshops, though many have incorporated PLT activities 

into their programs. We find four barriers to successful 

workshop implementation: 

•	Centers need administrative support to host new 

workshops. A meeting between the staff PLT facilitator, 

center manager, and PLT state coordinator could help 

everyone focus on how the PLT program meets the center’s 

goals and objectives for outreach education. 

•	The PLT program should build a larger local support 

system for the centers. Traditionally workshops have at 

least two facilitators. Centers are in locations with few 

trained PLT facilitators in the area. A stronger facilitator 

mentoring program to include travel funding for veteran 

facilitators to travel to workshops outside their county, 

and increased opportunities for advanced facilitator skills 

building workshops will strengthen the EE Center’s staff 

comfort level in leading workshops. 

•	The PLT program’s alignment with the teacher professional 

development protocol (Monroe and others 2005) and the 

center’s ability to offer quality professional development 

workshops and school programs should attract teachers. 

School district personnel will remember the center is a 

valuable resource and may be more willing to advertise 

future workshops. 

•	Centers need to offer grant funds to provide teacher 

substitute pay or teacher stipends. Substitute pay allows 

teachers to attend a workshop during the school day. 

Teacher stipends pay the educator for their weekend or 

evening time and usually require a project or lesson plan. 

Either of these options would allow the PLT Program to 

match offers by other educator-focused workshops. 

Florida Urban Forests Supplement

Expert review and teacher feedback on the Urban Forest 

Supplement was strongly supportive. Responses from 

workshops suggest that the materials will be easy to use 

and will enhance existing curriculum efforts. A full scale 

evaluation project has not yet occurred. An urban forest 

workshop was held in March 2006 with 48 attendees. When 

asked a month later about their use of the supplement we 

received the following comments: 

“The supplement contains easy to follow activities and uses 

easy to find materials. I plan to incorporate the activities into 

a lesson utilizing the trees on the PE [physical education] 

field and potentially starting a project where the students 

create an arborization plan.” 

—Middle School Teacher, Miami 

“I plan to use the supplement to expand activities to show 

a comparison to interrelationships between the urban forest 

vs. the forest when working with students. I incorporated the 

mapping and inventorying and water wonders activities with 

teachers at a recent workshop. It was great to have activities 

that allowed me to demonstrate how compaction plays a 

role in the city regarding runoff, irrigation, and storm and 

drainage systems. The mapping activity gave us a chance to 

utilize the school grounds and show the teachers how they 

can do this activity with their students.” 

—Arborist, Orlando

Florida PLT plans to contact educators one month after 

attending future urban forest workshops to ask a series 

of reflection questions about their use of the activities in 

their place of work. Additional plans include contacting all 

Florida 4-H and Horticulture Extension Agents in Fall 2006 

to ask them if they have used the supplement, if not, do they 

plan to use the activities, and how we can assist them in the 

use of PLT in their county.

A national review of EE curriculum materials conducted 

by the North American Association for Environmental 

Education rated the Urban Forest Supplement as meeting the 

guidelines for excellence. The review guidelines are based 

on the Environmental Education Materials: Guidelines for 

Excellence (NAAEE 1996), a set of recommendations for 

developing and selecting environmental education materials. 

The recommendations include six key characteristics with 

indicators for determining high quality environmental 

education materials. Reviewers concluded the supplement 

met all six characteristics: fair and accurate, depth of topic, 

emphasis on skill building, action oriented, usable, and 

instructional soundness. 

Online Distance Course 

Distance learning courses are not a new phenomena, 

but in utilizing the technology for teacher professional 

development it is still in its infant stages. As part of the 

Monroe County Professional Development Conference (Key 

Largo, FL), a PLT in-person workshop combined with a 

one-month online component was offered to educators and 

we pilot tested the Places We Live Module with secondary 

educators recruited from conference presentations. Of the 
214

33 educators in the workshops, 40 percent completed all 

sections of the course. The design of the course prompts the 

following conclusions:

•	Teachers are capable of interacting online and using the 

required technology. 

•	Interactive features such as video clips and audio 

commentary engage the learner.

•	Additional time is required of the facilitator to monitor 

online discussions, provide project reviews, and handle 

technological mishaps during the course.

•	New ways of participating in a course are not embraced 

readily by educators. 

Overcoming misconceptions and fears of using computers 

is a barrier for some educators to embrace this option for 

training. At the same time learning how to design an online 

course can be a challenge for the instructor since teaching 

and learning strategies are different online than at in-person 

workshops. Examination of online learning, regarding 

effectiveness, quality, and structure is still required to 

develop good online courses (Dede 2006).

CONCLUSION

Extension programs face new challenges as audience needs 

change. Successful extension programs should be guided 

by clientele advisory groups and needs assessments, to best 

define and address these audience needs. In Florida, the 

PLT program is realizing success from the investment that 

was made to understand audience needs and develop new 

programs. 

The rising population combined with the pressure to develop 

natural areas leaves few opportunities for teachers to access 

forests. Connecting urban tree education to classroom 

lessons gives educators tools for becoming familiar 

with local trees. Our assessments suggested that using 

local partners, emphasizing local resources, addressing 

curriculum standards, and using technology to provide 

resources to educators instead of an in-person workshop are 

valuable directions for our program.

For Florida PLT, the challenges of attracting teachers in 

South Florida have led us to: 

•	Help teachers see urban trees as part of a forest. 

•	Support local environmental facilities that have urban trees 

around them. 

•	Meet educator’s professional development needs by 

creating an online distance course. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank PLT Facilitators for commitment to 

the program, PLT Steering Committee for guidance, 

International Paper Company for funding the needs 

assessment, and the Florida Division of Forestry, School 

of Forest Resources and Conservation, the College of 

Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Florida 

for funding the creation of the Urban Forest Supplement, 

and Florida Ag in the Classroom for funds to start the EE 

Center Program.

REFERENCES 

Dede, C., ed. 2006. Online professional development for teachers: emerging 

models and methods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing 

Group. 296 p. 

Easton, J.O.; Monroe, M.C. 2002. Project learning tree teacher assessment 

survey. Applied Environmental Education and Communication. 1(4): 

229-234.

Haines, S.; Kilpatrick, C. 2007. Environmental education saves the 

day. Science and Children. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers 

Association. February: 42-47.

Irvin, T.M. 2007. Nature lessons. Educational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: 

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. May: 54-56.

Lieberman, G.; Hoody, L. 1998. Closing the achievement gap: using the 

environment as an integrating concept for learning. Poway, CA: Science 

Wizards. 112 p. 

Monroe, M.C.; Seitz, J.; Agrawal, S. [and others]. 2005. Improving teacher 

inservice workshops in Florida. FOR 109. Gainesville, FL: University 

of Florida, Cooperative Extension, School of Forest Resources and 

Conservation. 4 p.

National Education and Environment Partnership. 2002. Environmental 

education and educational achievement: promising programs and 

resources. Washington, DC: National Environmental Education and 

Training Foundation. 20 p.

North American Association for Environmental Education. 1996. 

Environmental education materials: guidelines for excellence. 

Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental 

Education. 61 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Glossary. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/

main.html?_lang=en. [Date accessed: April 6, 2005].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Table 1: annual estimates of the population for 

counties of Florida: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 (CO-EST2005-01-12). 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000lk.html. [Date accessed: 

February 6, 2008].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. State and county quickfacts. http://quickfacts.

census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html. [Date accessed: February 6, 2008].

Zwick, P.D.; Carr, M.H. 2006. Florida 2060: a population distribution 

scenario for the State of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, 

GeoPlan Center. 29 p.
1

Professor, Virginia Tech, College of Natural Resources, Blacksburg, VA 24061; Research Scientist and Forestry Technician, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station, Blacksburg, VA 24061.

215

FINDING EFFECTIVE WAYS TO PROVIDE KNOWLEDGE TO FOREST 

MANAGERS ABOUT NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS: 

A CASE-STUDY OF DISTANCE LEARNING APPROACHES

A.L. (Tom) Hammett, Jim Chamberlain, and Matt Winn1

Abstract—Many who grow or collect non-timber forest products (NTFPs) have been under-served in traditional forestry 

educational programs. It has often been difficult to determine the needs of this disparate group of stakeholders as collectors 

and growers are widely dispersed across the landscape, and not recognized as important stakeholders in formal cost forest 

management or forest products outreach programs. In most cases they may not attend or participate in traditional forestry 

education programs. Forest managers and extension agents, who serve this clientele, lack information and knowledge 

concerning NTFPs and are challenged to serve these stakeholders’ needs. Distance learning methods may be an efficient and 

low cost way to teach collectors, growers and the extension agents that serve this group of stakeholders about how to manage 

and utilize NTFPs in a sustainable way. We examine, here, distance learning methods such as two-way television (video 

conferencing) and on-line courses to determine if they are appropriate for training those who harvest and utilize NTFPs. 

INTRODUCTION—WHAT IS DISTANCE LEARNING?

Universities have been seeking methods to better reach 

students across great distances, and to offer courses that 

are more convenient for a more mobile group of students. 

Students who lived and worked at great distance from their 

chosen educational institution and/or did not have the time 

or resources to attend educational programs were left with 

few alternatives. Many enrolled in correspondence courses. 

Assignments were mailed to students, who returned them 

to instructors for grading and comments by mail. This 

system was slow and had little flexibility to offer educational 

pedagogies that fit the needs of the student or the content 

of the course. Night classes or weekend-based courses 

followed and were more expensive, but offered learners who 

are job bound opportunities for continuing their education. 

However, these are less desirable if students have trouble 

traveling great distances to attend. Distance learning 

education techniques build on these needs; providing 

campus-based instruction and doing so at the convenience of 

both the instructor and student. 

Instead of assembling students from dispersed locations in 

one place, distance learning courses reach students wherever 

they wish to live or study (Guri-Rosenblit 2005). Mobile 

life styles and working environments mean that educational 

programs offered need to be flexible in timing and location. 

As the costs of delivering and receiving traditional, inperson on-campus educational programs increased, cheaper 

methods, especially those that serve more geographically 

diverse audiences, became more desirable. Distance learning 

utilizes cost effective, electronic and on-line media to 

provide courses and bridges the gaps between the teacher 

(and educational institution) and students. 

Within the past decade technologies have become 

available that enable institutions to meet these needs. 

Distance learning can now match the needs of students 

and educational institutions and use technologies that are 

appropriate technologies to the learning opportunities. A 

variety of media may be used or adapted to the learning 

group needs and range from add-on functions in classrooms 

replacing face-to-face meetings with on-line learning 

encounters.

The instructor is positioned in a central location—no need 

to travel to serve the audiences. This technology seems 

appropriate for Federal agencies, such as the military, 

Forest Service and other Federal and State agencies with a 

high percentage of their personnel stationed in rural areas, 

but needing training for career development and to meet 

changes in the workplace. Distance learning seems to be a 

good fit for these students. 

Earlier distance learning technologies included teachers 

distributing video tapes (now replaced by DVD) by mail to 

students, and the students reviewing them and then returning 

them with completed exams. A simpler method is the use 

of conference phone calls. These are being replaced using 

on-line (web-based) connections which enable one or many 

users to join a discussion. Recently a variety of web-based 

phone and video phone systems (i.e., SKYPE) offering 

inexpensive or free connections through the web have begun 

to be offered. These are making communication between 

students, and students with their teacher easier and more 

affordable.

In the past few decades, a variety of distance learning 

technologies, primarily web-based, have been introduced. 

One of the most common is interactive video-conferencing 

(“two-way television”). Students sit in a classroom served 

by cameras and monitors linked to similar equipment in 

other locations. The instructor(s) can work from a remote 

location. In addition to the live broadcast, the technology 
216

allows for use of slides, video and overhead projector. This 

has been a very effective way to involve several groups to 

discuss and work simultaneously. 

Another common tool is the virtual chat room which gives 

the students the opportunity to conduct live conversations. 

It also serves as an on-line repository where the responses 

to all questions can be posted and referred to later by all 

the students. Many courses utilize a virtual library that has 

the capacity to store on-line numerous case studies, reading 

materials, video clips and other resources ready for easy 

access.

Internet or on-line discussion board messages are posted 

over time for future use. These “synchronous chats” can 

be live or have delayed participation. These are accessed 

through web sites at any time to review the discussion. 

Internet-based course management systems assure that 

all students have 24 hour access to materials and can add 

materials, participate in discussions, and retrieve and submit 

documents (including quizzes).

We also need to define the NTFP stakeholders. Knowing 

who they are and how they might be reached through 

educational programs is critical to our examination of 

distance learning techniques. Non-timber forest products 

include all the flora and fauna of the forests, except for 

timber, pulp and other wood products. NTFPS are collected 

usually in small quantities from forest land and may 

include edible forest products (berries, nuts, etc.), floral 

or decorative products (dried flowers, vines, bark, etc.), 

medicinal or dietary supplements (ginseng, black cohosh, 

etc.), specialty wood products (carvings, turnings, and 

products made from lesser known timber species), and 

ecosystem services (recreation, ecotourism, agro-tourism, 

etc.). Each product has differing seasons for production, 

processing, and marketing, and different product qualities 

that dictate individual production, and marketing strategies. 

With this diversity of products and markets, NTFP 

stakeholder training needs differ greatly between regions. 

The training needs of NTFP stakeholders are varied—i.e., 

how to learn how to start a NTFP business for those who 

do not have access locally to a business school, or how 

to produce NTFPs without a specialty crops program 

in the area. In addition, some stakeholders lack higher 

education, and many can’t afford computers or lack 

adequate access to the Internet. NTFP stakeholders are 

most likely geographically spread out, often living and 

working in remote, rural areas. They are not often able to 

relocate to pursue study opportunities due to the distance 

from educational institutions or training centers. Many have 

differing and non-traditional learning needs—some wish to 

learn skills to grow or propagate NTFPs, while others want 

to learn about marketing or business establishment.

This is an expanding group of learners. The number 

of people interested in learning more about NTFPs is 

expanding. Many landowners who recently, as an investment 

in a future residential or vacation home spot, have invested 

in a small piece of forest land and have looked for new and 

expanded sources of income to support these investments. 

Distance learning seems appropriate for these NTFPs 

stakeholders, as it can serve single students or engage in 

small groups and is very effective for large dispersed groups 

of students.

The goal of this paper is to explore different methods of 

distance learning and reflect on which ones might be most 

applicable to address NTFP stakeholder needs. What follows 

in the next section is a review of distance learning programs 

with the emphasis on those that might be most useful for 

technology transfer to NTFP stakeholders.

BACKGROUND

Efforts of Virginia Tech to transfer knowledge about 

NTFPs began with involvement in traditional workshops 

and extension publications in the mid-1990s. In 1997, a 

Virginia Tech/Forest Service collaboration made its first 

venture into distance learning specifically focused on 

NTFP stakeholders when it installed tutorials on the NTFP 

(special forest products) website (Hammett and others 

2001) providing simple instructions on the economics, 

production and marketing of important NTFPs. The plan 

was to provide a series of tutorials that help landowners 

manage and entrepreneurs utilize common and economically 

viable NTFPs (Hammett and Jones 1998). Two test tutorials 

“Writing Business Plans for Wild Harvest Sector” and 

“Growing Slippery Elm” were posted, with plans to post 

others after evaluation of the first two. While both tutorials 

were well visited the level of user response was not up 

to our expectations, and we decided not to add others. 

However, this experience helped us see the potential for 

on-line education in the NTFP sector. Many users provided 

comments on these tutorials and a few suggested topics for 

additional tutorials (see paper by Chamberlain and others 

in these proceedings), but additional tutorials seemed 

unnecessary.

What is the history of the use of distance learning in natural 

resources? To find this out we first did a literature review to 

locate information and research associated with the use of 

distance learning in natural resources and more specifically 

as it had been used with NTFPs. Our search yielded few 

pertinent papers and reports that offered examples that may 

be appropriate for the needs of NTFP stakeholders. Downing 

and Finley (2005) surveyed landowners to assess their 

preference in delivery of educational programs and found 

that video conference delivery was the least desirable of the 

“passive” methods of delivery. 
217

Next, we sought to find those in the natural resources 

field that are working with distance learning. Many of the 

examples in our search were found in the agriculture sector 

(i.e., Lippert and others 1998), but we tried to focus our 

attention in the natural resources sector. Such examples in 

forestry and forest management seem to have merit when 

looking for programs that might be appropriate for NTFP 

stakeholders. 

Many Forest Service personnel are dispersed across the 

country and often posted in rural areas far from the nearest 

college campus. Many of these personnel seek, in the shortterm, courses that raise their skill levels, while others wish 

to earn a masters degree. Virginia Tech is collaborating with 

the Forest Service in a major distance learning project that 

provides on-line courses taught by Virginia Tech faculty. 

For many Forest Service employees distance learning seems 

very reasonable for serving those working in outlying 

areas without access to college campuses or other learning 

sites (Evans 2006). We formed a consortium of several 

universities to provide courses not available at Virginia Tech. 

This example will be examined in more detail later in this 

paper. 

Over the past several years Virginia Tech has been involved 

in developing and presenting several types of distance 

learning activities; both through its regular academic 

programs and offering a wide range of non-credit courses. 

Virginia Tech’s Institute of Distributed and Distance learning 

(IDDL) was set up to provide the course development, 

management, and other support to VT faculty that match the 

needs of their audiences (in this case, the students) (Evans 

2006). This group is representative of other technology 

assistance organizations that can provide support to NTFP 

specialists wishing to use these new technologies for 

training programs.

Early distance learning techniques included sending out 

content on tapes of lectures to students for their review 

(more recently CDs or DVDs have been used). Experts were 

hired (as they are still) to give lectures which were then sent 

out to subscribers on tape. This technology continues to be 

used by accreditation agencies to keep professionals skilled 

or up-to-date on current issues. Earlier methods included 

broadcasting the lessons through traditional television 

stations and with the instructors receiving questions through 

telephone—much like current talk shows are operated. 

Newer, web-based technologies have replaced many of 

these programs. The concept is the same, only the delivery 

mechanisms have changed.

We queried several universities that offer natural resource 

courses on-line, and decided to stick with examining our 

own experience for lessons learned which appear to be 

appropriate for possible development of NTFP on-line 

training. We selected three examples from Virginia Tech’s 

distance learning experience to help us examine the benefits 

of distance learning for NTFP stakeholders. The first 

highlights the Virginia Tech - Forest Service joint venture 

which offers a graduate degree program through distance 

learning. The second example is The Global Seminar 

which uses distance learning technologies to reach students 

worldwide. The last one examines the Royal Roads/Virginia 

Tech collaboration to offer an on-line NTFP course.

SELECTED DISTANCE LEARNING ACTIVITIES

We learned of several institutions in the region, at varying 

levels of emphasis, which are beginning distance learning 

programs. Few offered courses that included content focused 

on non-timber forest products. However many may provide 

lessons for the NTFP community.

Enabling two-way communications between forest managers 

and NTFP stakeholders is also a concern. Each distance 

learning technique was reviewed to better understand its 

effectiveness and looked for ways to improve access to 

information for NTFP stakeholders. Technology transfer 

programs will be more successful if they first ascertain 

NTFP stakeholders’ needs to help design and implement 

technical assistance that is appropriate. The case study 

discusses issues, opportunities, challenges and potential for 

distance learning methods to get information and knowledge 

to this diverse clientele. What follows is a review of selected 

distance learning techniques in use today that serve the 

forestry, forest products, and related natural resource 

communities.

Regular teaching of courses on-line and through other 

distance learning methods has been a regular feature at 

Virginia Tech over the past decade. Several courses in many 

disciplines have been modified to be presented through 

distance learning (i.e., Global Issues in Natural Resources), 

while several new courses have been developed for distance 

learning delivery. The course offers skills in decision making 

for mid-level managers in natural resources. 

Reaching tree farmers through video conferencing using 

two-way television events are cost effective. During 2000, 

Virginia Tech, several other academic institutions, and 

forestry agencies organized a major video conference 

discussion on forest certification that reached practitioners 

across the country. The Master Tree Farmer Program has 

used video conferencing to reach hundreds of subscribers. 

The most recent included a segment on NTFPs during the 

spring of 2004. Both programs simultaneously reached 

scores of participants in dozens of locations. In each case 

recording and distributing the conference extends the benefit 

to others who may not have been in attendance at the live 

conference. 

Academic institutions are moving quickly to distance 

learning as a more cost effective and niche market for their 
218

course. Business and then Engineering programs were 

first to embrace distance learning. They were proactive, 

especially in filling the needs of mid-level professionals 

who wished to sharpen or update their skills with a few 

courses, or gain advancement with an additional degree 

(i.e., a professional certificate or a master’s degree). As the 

educational market got more competitive, distance learning 

was found to be an effective tool to widen the geographic 

area from which universities could recruit students. They 

no longer had to recruit students only within commuting 

distance. Another advantage is that students could take 

the courses when they wished, or from home. With new 

technologies, students can join a video conference from their 

home, or be part of on-line courses that include streaming 

videos and on-line video chats so that students no longer 

need access to video conferencing equipped space. 

Courses may be separated into those for degree granting 

programs and non-academic or professional programs. Land 

grant institutions are mandated by law to provide outreach 

programs for landowners and natural resource practitioners 

and skill development programs for foresters and other 

natural resource professionals. Is seems appropriate for 

some of the outreach programs to serve as models for 

training NTFP stakeholders.

North Carolina State University (NCSU) has widely 

publicized several graduate-level courses it offers through a 

combination of on-line and video conferencing methods on 

subjects such as wood chemistry and wood anatomy (but no 

courses as of yet are offered on non-timber forest products). 

NCSU has also developed and now offers several on-line 

courses in forestry and related subjects (www.distance.ncsu.

edu).

Several technologies are used in distance learning. Delivery 

modes include on-line courses, video conferencing courses, 

DVD/Video, or audio CD courses. Video conferencing 

involves holding a class meeting using video to connect the 

students and the instructor and is becoming quite popular. 

Students congregate in a class room that is equipped with 

television and cameras with sound equipment rigged for 

two-way or multi-location broadcast. The instructor can 

be in his or her office or with another group of students. 

Technology now also allows for individuals in some cases 

to join such a video conference from their own computers. 

This method is closest to traditional, in-person, extension 

programs (workshops and short courses) and thereby 

may hold much promise for providing courses to NTFP 

stakeholders.

The Instructional Technology Council (ITC), which 

provides leadership, information and resources to expand 

and enhance distance learning through the effective use of 

technology, defines distance education as “the process of 

extending learning, or delivering instructional resourcesharing opportunities, to locations away from a classroom, 

building or site, to another classroom, building or site by 

using video, audio, computer, multimedia communications, 

or some combination of these with other traditional 

delivery methods”. ITC proposes that users of distance 

education opportunities are older and most work during the 

traditional classroom hours. Distance Education students 

require flexible learning schedules and demand professional 

development opportunities and classes to help them keep up 

with today’s ever-changing work environment. ITC indicates 

that the main reason for students to select distance education 

as a delivery method is that they want to learn at their 

own pace, and at times and locations that are convenient 

(Instructional Technology Council 2006).

Of the universities delivering any natural resource courses 

on-line, only one provides a course with focus on non-timber 

forest products. However, several of our colleagues are 

developing or have offered courses in natural resources. For 

instance, at the University of Tennessee, one faculty member 

is coordinating a group of on-line courses in forestry. The 

University of Florida has offered a set of interstate courses 

on-line to the natural resources community. And Clemson 

University and Mississippi State have offered courses in 

taxation using distance learning. 

At Virginia Tech traditional outreach programs such as the 

Master Logger Training Program and other similar programs 

have been increasing their web presence. We have also 

used video conferencing to connect two or more classes 

around the state to interact on subjects related to sustainable 

natural resource management and utilization. On-line chats 

(incorporated in earlier versions of the web site as bulletin 

boards) have been found as good ways to have “live” 

discussion about methods and issues related to forestry and 

forest products.

Distance learning seems to be an effective way for 

instructors that have niche course or teaching specialties 

to provide these when they can’t travel to serve students 

groups. NTFPs are a good example of such a niche subject. 

Through distance learning we can incorporate guest speakers 

from other locations and not be solely dependent on the 

local instructors. What follows are three distance learning 

experiences at Virginia Tech that may offer examples for 

setting up an on-line training for NTFP stakeholders.

Natural Resources Distance Learning Consortium

The Natural Resources Distance Learning Consortium portal 

was initially developed by the College of Natural Resources, 

Virginia Tech and the Forest Service. It was designed 

to deliver course information to web-based learners, 

particularly those at non-campus locations especially those 

working on remote areas of the National Forest System 

(Natural Resources Distance Learning Consortium 2006). 

It has expanded to include web-based courses from many 
219

natural resource programs, from Land Grant, McIntireStennis designated, and other universities. The Consortium 

provides upper-division undergraduate and graduate distance 

learning education to anyone interested in natural resources 

and managing their uses. The consortium offers full college 

credit graduate courses, certificates of study, and graduate 

professional degree programs (Evans 2006). The consortium 

will include a course on NTFPs currently being developed at 

Virginia Tech reflecting interest shown by the students in the 

program.

The Consortium offers courses originating at those 

institutions that specialize in particular subject areas (i.e., 

VT offers eastern hardwood courses, The University 

of Idaho teaches forest ecosystem and wild land fire 

management courses, and Northern Arizona University 

offers through the Consortium courses related to recreation). 

Each of the universities working together with the others 

offers the courses it can best provide. These institutions are 

spread across the US, offering collaboration opportunities 

with several Forest Service units, and other government 

agencies. This widens the geographic presence of the 

Consortium and makes it more effective in serving students 

across a wide range of needs.

An initial survey at VT found a low percentage of 

universities offering natural resources courses on-line. 

Only 4.5 percent of universities with an on-line presence 

delivered natural resource education courses (Personal 

communication. 2006. Dr. Gary Evans, Director of the 

Natural Resources Distance Learning Consortium, Northern 

Virginia Center, Virginia Tech, Falls Church, VA.).Over 

three thousand courses were reviewed, only one had 

substantial NTFP content—Alternative Forest Products 

offered at Oregon State University. Another course entitled 

Non-timber Forest Products Culture and Management has 

recently been introduced at Oregon State (Oregon State 

2006). Neither of these courses addresses the needs of those 

interested in NTFP marketing and business development or 

the NTFPs found in the Eastern US.

The Consortium offers three options for learning: individual 

courses, as needed; courses clumped into Certificates of 

Accomplishment (usually 9 – 12 credits); and a degree, 

Master of Natural Resources (30 - 33 credits). Both these 

options may not be appropriate for NTFP stakeholders.

The Forest Service and other government agencies that post 

personnel in remote areas are the initial target audience. The 

consortium works closely with the target agency to ensure 

courses fit needs of personnel, and seeks to serve other 

agencies across large areas (Personal communication. 2006. 

Dr. Gary Evans, Director of the Natural Resources Distance 

Learning Consortium, Northern Virginia Center, Virginia 

Tech, Falls Church, VA). Based on these contacts with 

agencies an on-line NTFP course is being developed and 

will be offered during the fall of 2007. 

The Global Seminar

The cornerstone of our distance learning experience at 

Virginia Tech is The Global Seminar, a course that combines 

on-line and video conferencing techniques through which 

teams of students discuss four to six cases (focused on topics 

such as biodiversity conservation, forest-based livelihoods, 

and natural resource sustainability) during a semester. 

This course has been an excellent way to get several of our 

faculty and students exposed to the potential of distance 

learning. It has also exposed teams of students in agriculture 

and natural resources to key issues in natural resources, and 

to connect them with teams across the globe ranging from 

China to Africa.

A course using distance learning technologies focused 

on environment and sustainability now is being taught at 

VT. The Global Seminar started 1997 at Cornell, now is 

based at the Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine 

(VCOM), and Virginia Tech. The course is active at a total 

of 35 universities, community colleges, and high schools—

located worldwide in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and 

the Americas. Student teams within clusters of 4-6 schools 

(across regions, languages, and cultures) study and discuss 

the same set of cases. The course utilizes a variety of 

distance learning technologies including video conferences, 

on-line chats, email, an on-line library (case studies, 

resource materials, etc.) and sharing documents through a 

web site. 

Once the schools are grouped in clusters, one school’s team 

is selected to lead each one of the cases to be discussed. 

There is ample opportunity for interaction as each team 

leads the discussion of a case, choosing the questions for 

and leading an on-line chat, and setting up and leading the 

video conference. The class web site is shared between 

members of the group where background materials are 

posted. The virtual chat, virtual library, discussion board and 

all other on-line features are managed on the Blackboard 

platform. These collaborations across schools and cultures 

offer an example of what may be possible in a course for 

NTFP stakeholders. 

Instructors select from the long list of cases and resource 

materials posted on-line and may add other materials to the 

web site so they are accessible to the students. The Global 

Seminar virtual library of cases includes several that deal 

with issues associated with NTFPs (i.e., biodiversity, bioprospecting for the pharmaceutical industry). In particular, 

the case on agro-forestry examines the use of NTFPs in the 

Chesapeake Watershed as part of the discussion on water 

quality and resource sustainability. 

On-Line for-credit Courses

While there are now hundreds of natural resource related 

courses taught on-line, we found very few examples of 
220

using distance learning techniques for NTFP related subject 

areas. An on-line NTFP course designed to improve forest 

managers’ skills was one of several international NTFP 

outreach programs examined. In 2004 Canada’s Royal 

Roads University in British Columbia with Virginia Tech 

organized the first on-line course on non-timber forest 

products. Representatives from Canada, Germany, India, 

Nepal, Russia and the United States assisted in pioneering 

this on-line course designed for foresters, forest students and 

managers around the world. Led by Royal Roads University 

in British Columbia in collaboration with Virginia Tech and 

the International Forestry Students Association (IFSA), the 

team developed a pilot for a new international course on 

management of NTFPs. The development phase was funded 

by the International Partnership for Forestry Education 

and Canada’s International Development Research Centre 

through the University of British Columbia. The project’s 

steering group includes representatives of the Government 

of India, the Georg-August University in Goettingen, 

Germany, and the IUCN, The World Conservation Union, 

representative in Moscow. As with any course development 

effort, such cross-agency input will help ensure that the 

course is appropriate for the target stakeholders.

This regional on-line course “An introduction to nontimber forest products in sustainable forest management” 

is planned for worldwide application, but the pilot will 

be delivered in India. It is designed to provide those 

responsible for forest management with a broad perspective 

on the social, economic, and environmental issues that 

surround the sustainable utilization of non-timber forest 

products (NTFP), also known as “non wood products”. 

NTFPs are of major importance in tropical and subtropical countries and are being recognized as a significant 

contributor to rural economic diversification and forest 

conservation in temperate and boreal regions, as well. The 

course is designed in a modular format so that elements 

can be “mixed and matched” to meet the needs of specific 

audiences. The first is generic worldwide (what are NTFPs, 

trade in NTFPs, etc.). The second is generic to a bio region 

(tropical, sub tropical etc.)

The third is specific to a geographic region (India and 

Nepal) and focuses on the problems and opportunities in 

that region. For example, the pilot course’s three modules 

address “global”, “tropical/sub-tropical” and Indian subcontinent issues. Other versions of the course could include 

“temperate/boreal” and a variety of regional modules, such 

as Northern Europe, China, North America or Sub-Saharan 

Africa. Testing of this course will provide experience that 

helpful in developing on-line NTFP training in the US.

This semester-long (16 weeks) course is directed to students 

who are field technicians. Each student completes a project 

that is focused as much as possible on a situation at their 

work sites (i.e., market study or a production study for 

NTFP in their working area), and will hopefully contribute 

to their work. This approach might offer content appropriate 

for a US-based course.

Few other US-based for-credit courses were found in 

our search that may serve as example NTFP courses. As 

previously mentioned, at Oregon State University a new 

one credit course, SNR 533: Alternative Forest Products, 

covers the integration of “non-timber forest product (NTFP) 

management into the broader context of sustainable natural 

resource management” in the Pacific Northwest region 

(see course syllabus, Oregon State University 2006). 

Virginia Tech is proposing an on-line course in NTFPs for 

undergraduate and graduate credit. The course will focus 

on issues relevant to NTFPs in the Eastern US with some 

Pacific Northwest and International Examples. 

DISCUSSION—CHALLENGES AND 

OPPORTUNITIES

The challenges to offering courses on-line to NTFP 

stakeholders are many. First and most important is the 

technology may not be appropriate for this group of 

students. The “digital divide or lack of access by students 

to computers and the Internet may prevent students from 

participating in on-line classes. This may be a particular 

problem in rural areas and makes offering courses for many 

NTFP stakeholders problematic. In addition, technology 

failures can impact the effectiveness of courses. Computers 

and software are not foolproof. A key obstacle to presenting 

NTFP related courses on-line is the lack of acceptance by 

many stakeholders to using the Internet. The Internet is just 

not for everyone. Reluctance to use computers in general or 

the Internet as a learning tool is not well documented, but is 

difficult to overcome. Lastly, even with the growing amount 

of technology in place, still many landowners prefer hands 

on and face to face or interactive methods such as traditional 

short courses (Johnson and Baker 2006).

Many NTFP stakeholders find live discussion and more 

traditional methods such as face to face sessions best suited 

to meet their learning needs. One method that may be most 

suitable for NTFP collectors and processors is to present 

content through a “hybrid course” – one that combines 

both distance learning techniques and in-class (in person) 

sessions. The possibility of offering content through faceto-face activities on-line is improving (McCray 2000). 

Centra and other communication programs now available 

offer great potential for on-line class interaction at low cost. 

For example, we use it at Virginia Tech to teach technical 

writing (in English) to Chinese speaking students in Taiwan. 

Another example is The Global Seminar where video 

conferencing (face-to-face contact) is used on an occasional 

basis (4 to 5 times) each semester.
221

There are many technical improvements on the horizon that 

will lead to more Internet access and at reasonable cost. 

Wireless technology is increasingly available in smaller 

towns and through cell phone companies. Libraries, airports, 

and other public buildings are often venues for free wireless 

Internet access. This will make courses more accessible and 

cheaper to provide.

Technology transfer serving NTFP stakeholders will grow 

with the increased collaboration between organizations (i.e., 

forestry schools, on-the-ground groups that are working 

in NTFPs). These collaborations will help bridge gaps and 

offer “help course” technical areas where there are few 

resources or instructors available in that technical area 

(Evans 2006).

What do programs that operate on-line courses use to 

evaluate course effectiveness? On-line efforts to supply 

content may be effective for NTFP stakeholders who have 

regular access to the Internet. The concern is the lack 

of Internet access (or “digital divide”) for many NTFP 

stakeholders. In short these participants may be difficult to 

reach without regular access to the Internet. Reaching them 

through computer hook ups in local libraries or other public 

institutions may be the answer.

What are the constraints that we found to development and 

use of distance learning courses by NTFP stakeholders? The 

technology may be expensive to purchase and install and 

needs regular technical servicing (Walstad and others 2003) 

and this not always available especially in rural settings. 

This “high tech” equipment is quickly becoming part of 

mainstream educational programs, but still is not appropriate 

for remote settings. Access to small regional academic 

institutions (i.e., community colleges) may be the answer to 

bridging these gaps. This is compounded when you consider 

that funding and other resources for purchasing computer 

equipment, or paying to support building new on-line 

courses, or conversion of existing traditional courses into 

on-line courses is beyond the budgets of smaller colleges.

CONCLUSIONS

Distance learning is a significant part of the menu of 

available learning methodologies and offers great potential 

for technology transfer to NTFP stakeholders. However, 

this comes with some additional costs that educational 

institutions and students must be willing to bear. North 

Carolina State University suggests that their on-line 

students have ready access to adequate computers with 

the proper browser and audio capabilities, and the ability 

to communicate via e-mail (Southern Regional Extension 

Forestry 2006). Instructors need also learn how to use these 

technologies increasing the frequency of their e-mail use and 

providing important course materials on-line. 

Distance learning seems very applicable for NTFP 

stakeholders (i.e., landowners, and forestry extension 

practitioners). But these stakeholders must commit to 

access to and to the use various distance learning methods. 

This seems very possible when looking at examples where 

distance learning techniques have successfully served 

difficult to reach students over great distances. There are 

many examples of distance learning applications that 

are successful in spite of slow access to the Internet, less 

than fluent English speaking capacity, timing trouble due 

to various time zones, and gaps in access to technology. 

Most of the participants in The Global Seminar course 

do not speak English as their native language yet they 

are successful in this course which is based entirely on 

cases and discussion in English. With the proper teaching 

pedagogies NTFP courses can cater to the needs of most 

NTFP stakeholders.

Technology is developing quickly to facilitate access to 

courses in an increasing number of venue types. Voice 

transmission programs (such as Centra) are also becoming 

easier to use, and less costly to operate. With reasonable 

Internet access, on-line classes can be conducted utilizing 

slides, voice and in some cases short videos.

There is great need to evaluate current systems to learn 

which aspects would be appropriate for NTFP courses. 

Learner preparedness, access to delivery systems, 

communications and interaction with faculty and peers 

are all concerns when developing effective on-line courses 

(Lockee and others 2002).

Size and location of organizations providing educational 

opportunities is no longer an issue. Larger universities are 

now “competing” with smaller colleges for students not 

just in their own back yard or within commuting distance to 

campus, but across the country. Small forest landowners and 

service providers (harvesters, workers, etc.) can now access 

courses in many regions (i.e., New England, see Foster and 

Cranch 2001).

Several international examples of distance learning should 

be used for guidance. Beginning in 1996 The Global 

Seminar, formed as a consortium of educational institutions 

that are concerned with the future of our planet in terms of 

the environment and a sustainable food supply. The Global 

Seminar engages students in key issues pertaining to the 

sustainability of our environment and food system and uses 

on-line communication tools to support discussion among 

students, faculty and international leaders across several 

cultures and languages. The course fosters discussion of 

open-ended cases are designed to impart critical thinking 

skills and could have application for an audience of NTFP 

stakeholders.
222

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Gary Evans of the Forest Service Distance Learning 

Project, National Capital Region, Virginia Tech, East Falls 

Church, VA.

REFERENCES 

Downing, Adam K.; Finley, James C. 2005. Private forest landowners: 

what they want in an educational program. Journal of Extension. 43 (1) 

February. (Also found online at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/

rb4.shtml)

Evans, Gary R. 2006. Multi-institutional natural resources Web-based 

distance learning consortium. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial 

Conference on University Education in Natural Resources Conference 

held at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. March 6th. 

(Forthcoming in the conference proceedings).

Foster, Charles H.W.; Cranch, Edmund T. 2001. Of pines and pixels: 

distance learning and forestry in New England. Connection: New 

England’s Journal of Higher Education and Economic Development 

15(3): 31-33. 

Guri-Rosenblit, Sarah. 2005. “Distance education” and “e-learning”: not the 

same thing. Higher Education. 49: 467–493.

Hammett, A.L.; Jones, Shelby. 1998. The World Wide Web: an emerging 

technology for marketing special forest products. Poster presented 

at: North American Conference on Enterprise Development Through 

Agroforestry: Farming the Agroforest for Specialty Products. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Hammett, A.L.; Winn, M.; Chamberlain, J. 2001. Non-timber forest 

products. http://www.sfp.forprod.vt.edu [accessed 11 July 2006].

Instructional Technology Council. 2006. http://www.itcnetwork.org. 

[accessed 20 July 2006].

Johnson, James E.; Baker, Shawn A. 2004. Communicating with forest 

owners: a Web-based distance education approach. In Communication 

Strategies for Multiple Partner Involvement in Forestry Extension. 

IUFRO 7th Extension Working Party Symposium. Sept. 27 – Oct. 1 

2004. Orvieto, Italy. 9 pp.

Lippert, R.M.; Speziale, B.J.; Palmer, J.H.; Delicio, G.C. 1998. Evaluating 

an Internet distance learning course on sustainable agriculture. Journal of 

Natural Resources and Life Science Education. 27: 75-79.

Lockee, Barbara; Moore, Mike; Burton, John. 2002. Measuring success: 

evaluation strategies for distance education. EDUCAUSE Quarterly 

Magazine 25(1): 20-26.

McCray, G.E. 2000. The hybrid course: merging on-line instruction and the 

traditional classroom. Information Technology and Management. 1(4): 

307-327. 

Natural Resources Distance Learning Consortium. 2006. http://cnr.iddl.

vt.edu/index.php [accessed 20 July 2006].

Oregon State University. 2006. Course: SNR 533X alternative forest 

products. http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/soc/ecatalog/ecoursedetail.htm? 

[accessed 15 February 2008].

Southern Regional Extension Forestry. 2006. (Web site listing NCSU 

on-line courses) http://sref.info/news_items/ncsu_course [accessed 12 

September 2006].

Walstad, John D.; Reed, Mark D.; Doescher, Paul S. [and others]. 2003. 

Distance education: a new course in wildland fire ecology. Journal of 

Forestry. October/November. 101(7): 16-20.
POSTER ABSTRACTS

225

LINKING USER NEEDS AND SOIL RESOURCE INFORMATION: 

A CASE STUDY IN MISSISSIPPI

W.L. Kingery, D.B. Johnson, and M.E. Lilly1

Soil Surveys show soil characteristics, distribution, and capabilities. They help people better understand soils and 

their use and conservation. An important tool for community planning, soil surveys are regularly requested by 

consultants, land use planners, and appraisers. Recently, NRCS instituted a new policy discontinuing hard-copy 

publication of the county soil survey text. This has been made possible through the development of GIS-based 

soils information, of which the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) is a prime example. The availability 

of spatial and tabular information as well as soil interpretations creates a first-time opportunity to ‘customize’ soil 

survey-related products to meet user needs. This may take one of several forms including the ability of users to 

access, acquire, and develop soil survey information to satisfy individual requirements. In many other cases it will 

be necessary for those involved in the Cooperative Soil Survey to identify and assess needs in light of current and 

planned database characteristics and available technologies amenable to connecting information and users. In this 

poster presentation we show brief profiles of stakeholders in Mississippi and their needs; summarization of current 

soil survey databases; technologies that allow these products to formed in ways to meet various stakeholder needs; 

and, an example of specific stakeholder and potential soil survey products designed to meet that need.

1

Professor, Dorman Hall, Mississippi State, MS 39762; Soil Scientist and Mississippi State Soil Scientist, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, Jackson, MS 39269.
226

WARNELL SCHOOL’S MODEL FOR DISTANCE LEARNING IN 

FORESTRY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Ben Jackson, Morgan Nolan, Eugene MacIntire, Jason Derifaj1

With the rapid changes in demographics and land ownership in Georgia, the School wants to remain viable to the 

public’s information needs. This involves providing current, real-time information about forestry, wildlife, fisheries, 

recreation, and water resources. Paper publications, print on-demand publication, CDs, and other such media now 

longer satisfy the information needs exclusively. The new standard is instantaneous information on demand through 

distance learning technology.

The School recognizes this new information demand and has created a system to supply the resources needed. Our 

multimedia group has developed a network of online resources like PSAs, blogs, podcasts, independent and distance 

learning courses, faculty introductions, lecture series, and other products. We will discuss these products, what it 

took to develop them, what it takes to keep them going. We will also review the public’s perception of the value of 

the system.

1

Professor, Instructional Technology/Distance Education Specialist, Editor, IT Specialist, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, 

University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, respectively. 
227

WHEN NATURE IS AT YOUR DOORSTEP: THE MAKING OF 

AN EFFECTIVE OUTREACH VIDEO

Lauren McDonell, Martha C. Monroe, Annie Hermansen-Báez, Edward A. Macie1

Population growth and changing land use in the Southern United States are influencing natural resources in the 

wildland-urban interface (WUI), creating challenges for natural resource agencies, residents, and local governments. 

In response, a multi-agency initiative developed between the University of Florida School of Forest Resources and 

Conservation, the U.S. Forest Service Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface Research and Information, 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center. These agencies developed a video 

outreach tool for natural resource professionals, When Nature is at Your Doorstep, to use with people living in the 

southern WUI. The video is a component of a professional development program for resource professionals working 

in the WUI.

The objectives of the video are to (1) define the WUI, (2) provide examples of interface issues and how they 

are interconnected, (3) explain how these interconnections provide unique challenges and opportunities, and (4) 

encourage residents and resource professionals to work together to address problems. The video’s audience and 

objectives guided the script’s development and expert reviews helped ensure that the information was accurate and 

relevant. Information from behavior change and environmental communication literature helped shape the script’s 

messages. 

In order for the video to be relevant to audiences across the South, a wide range of southern communities and 

ecosystems had to be visually represented. Also, the video needs to appeal to an increasingly diverse population. 

Consequently, the footage includes a variety of ages, ethnicities, and housing types was included. 

The video is available in VHS and DVD formats and portions will be featured on the InterfaceSouth website to 

help make it accessible for a wide range of users. Discussion questions and evaluation materials will be provided 

to facilitate conversations between resource professionals and WUI residents and to determine if the video has 

achieved its objectives. 

1

Wood to Energy Program Coordinator and Professor, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

32611-0410; Center Manager, U.S. Forest Service Centers for Urban and Interface Forestry, Gainesville, FL 32611-0806; Urban Forestry 

Program Manager, U.S. Forest Service Region 8, Atlanta, GA 20209-2449.
228

USE OF COUNTY TAX Rolls FOR MARKETING EXTENSION PROGRAMMING

Andrew J. Londo, J.D. Kushla, and P. Smallidge1

Contacting prospective clientele about upcoming and ongoing extension programs is one of the most important 

and sometimes difficult activities facing extension professionals. There is abundant evidence, especially for forest 

landowners, that the potential audience changes regularly and that many are outside the normal channels reached 

through Cooperative Extension programs. Current methods of marketing extension events may not reach audiences 

who lack a traditional connection to extension programs.

Existing mailing lists developed from past program participants are commonly used, however the clientele served 

are typically those already reached through programming While this works, and provides the needed program 

numbers and contacts, it’ leaves one “preaching to the choir”. It can be challenging, and somewhat risky to try to 

expand the clientele base. Further, while some programs attempt to significantly change the ability of a client to 

perform a specific task, other program objectives seek a less dramatic behavior of simply being aware of educational 

resources or management philosophies. 

The extension forestry program at Mississippi State University and Cornell University Cooperative Extension in 

New York have developed a way to expand the number of potential clients reached for any given program and to 

deliver targeted content information on specific subjects. This method uses mailing lists developed from county 

tax rolls. We describe the methods used to obtain and manipulate these lists, and identify problems and pitfalls 

associated with their use.

1

Professor and Professor, Thompson Hall, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762; Senior Extension Associate, Fernow Hall, 

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
229

TECHNNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTIVITIES OF THE SOUTHERN CENTER FOR 

WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE RESEARCH AND INFORMATION

Annie Hermansen-Báez and Edward A. Macie1

The Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface Research and Information (Center) is a research work unit of the 

U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station. The Center’s mission is to develop and communicate guidelines, 

models, and tools needed by natural resource managers, policymakers, planners, and citizens to reduce risks to 

ecosystems and human communities in urban and urbanizing landscapes. The emphasis on packaging and delivering 

science for end users is thus an important component of the Center’s work.

There are four main methods that the Center uses to disseminate and exchange information about interface issues. 

They include (1) electronic media (e.g., website, listserve, (2) publications, (3) professional development courses 

and conferences, and (4) model projects/demonstrations.

The InterfaceSouth website (www.interfacesouth.org) provides information about Center products, research, and 

training projects, plus serves as a clearinghouse of information about interface events, publications, weblinks, and 

much more. Information and pictures about a demonstration project in which a Florida home was retroffited to 

make it Firewise can also be found on the website. The Center’s listserve, SWUINET, distributes the InterfaceSouth 

Update and Post (electronic newsletter and announcements respectively) to natural resource professionals across the 

South. 

The Center produces several kinds of publications for natural resource professionals, including fact sheets, general 

technical reports, journal articles, and books. One example is the “Fire in the Interface” fact sheet series (http://edis.

ifas.ufl.edu/TOPIC_SERIES_Fire_in_the_Wildland_Urban_Interface) which provides information about fire issues 

relevant to the WUI in the South and is produced cooperatively with the University of Florida. 

The Center develops professional development courses, outreach programs, and conferences in cooperation with 

several partners. One example is the “Changing Roles: WUI Professional Development Program”, which was 

developed with the University of Florida to help resource professionals design and implement in-service trainings 

and that will enhance their work in the WUI.

1

Center Manager, U.S. Forest Service, Centers for Urban and Interface Forestry, Gainesville, FL 32611-0806; Urban Forestry Program Manager, 

U.S. Forest Service Region 8, Atlanta, GA 20209-2449.
230

FOREST CERTIFICATION AND NONINDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LANDOWNERS: 

ASSESSING AWARENESS, ACCEPTANCE, AND EDUCATIONAL PREFERENCES

David C. Mercker and Donald G. Hodges1

As forest certification has grown as a tool to foster sustainable forest management, questions have arisen about 

the potential and suitability of forest certification for nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) ownerships (Lindström 

and others 1999, Newsome and others 2003, Rosenberger and Huff 2001, and Vlosky, 2000). This ownership 

category is particularly important in the southeastern United States where it comprises the majority of the forest 

land and contributes the greater part of the region’s annual timber removal. Little is known of who among this 

diverse and sizable group will adopt forest certification on their lands and why. This information is important if 

viable certification programs are to be developed and implemented by Extension professionals. NIPF owners in 

western Tennessee with 40 acres or more of forest land were surveyed to evaluate their awareness, acceptance, 

and educational preferences toward forest certification. Mail surveys were utilized for data collection and 50.7 

percent of the participants responded. The results indicate that the largest majority of NIPF landowners had very 

little knowledge of forest certification. Even so, when provided with a definition of certification, the preponderance 

seemed willing to consider it. Those willing to consider certification agreed that it could improve forest management 

and that it would lessen the need for forestry regulation. They were more likely to be well educated, professionals, 

that were new to land ownership. Those who have received information or advice about forestry were most 

accepting of certification, and they trust the State Division of Forestry and consulting foresters as potential thirdparty certifiers. Ten methods of learning about certification were examined. Participants preferred the passive 

methods of visiting a website and viewing a video tape at home, and the active methods of attending an on-site 

forestry field day, and talking with professional and other landowners. 

1

Extension Specialist and Professor, University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture and College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 

Knoxville, TN 37996.
231

WEB-BASED TREE CROWN CONDITION EVALUATION TRAINING TOOL 

FOR URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY

Neil Clark, Matthew Winn, and Philip Araman1

Volunteers are getting involved more and more, particularly in monitoring applications within the context of urban 

and community forestry. Training numerous volunteers becomes a substantial task given the numbers of people, 

time available, and a multitude of other projects. Hundreds of different individuals may be involved in a single field 

season. These individuals may only be able to spare a few days of volunteer time. The more of this limited time that 

is spent on on-site training, the less time available for meeting the project goals. This paper deals with using webbased training (WBT) to address some of these issues relating to the specific application of tree crown condition 

evaluation, which is a particularly challenging element to explain. It is also inherently difficult to find representative 

trees at a single field location, so images created by 3D graphical modeling software are used to generate virtual 

trees with desired characteristics.

1

Research Forester, U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station, 1650 Ramble Rd., Blacksburg, VA 24061; Forestry Technician and Professor, 

Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061.
232

PARTNERSHIPS OF THE SOUTHERN CENTER FOR 

WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE RESEARCH AND INFORMATION

Annie Hermansen-Báez and Edward A. Macie1

The Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface Research and Information (Center) is a research work unit of the 

U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station and was conceived and developed through strong partnerships, both 

internal and external to the Forest Service. Internal partners include Region 8 State and Private Forestry and the 

National Forests. External partners include the University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation 

(UFL), the Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF), and the Southern Wildland-Urban Interface Council 

(SWUIC), which is composed of members from State Forestry Agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, Academia, 

Cooperative Extension, and non-government organizations.

One key example of the effectiveness of the Center’s partnerships is the guidance that SWUIC provides the Center. 

SWUIC serves as the advisory council for the Center and provides critical guidance on all technology transfer 

activities and products. This ensures that products meet the needs of the Center’s stakeholders. 

There have been many products produced through these partnerships. Examples include:

Changing Roles: WUI Professional Development Program commissioned and financially supported by SGSF, 

developed by UFL and the Center. www.interfacesouth.org/products/training.html 

“Wood to Energy: A Training Program to Utilize Interface Fuels for Bioenergy”, a partnership between the UFL, the 

Center, the Southern States Energy Board, and Cooperative Extension.

Electronic delivery of science applications through the InterfaceSouth website and Interface South Updates and 

Posts (www.interfacesouth.usda.gov). SWUIC helps guide website content.

 “Fire in the Interface” fact sheet series, partnership between the UFL and the Center (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/TOPIC_

SERIES_Fire_in_the_Wildland_Urban_Interface)) 

“Forests at the Wildland-Urban Interface: Conservation and Management”, partnership between UFL and the Center. 

(http://www.crcpress.com/shopping_cart/products/product_detail.asp?sku=L1602&parent_id=&pc= )

Effective partnerships have helped the Center since its inception, resulting in an increased ability to manage natural 

resources in the context of urbanization and changing land use, while reducing risks and maximizing ecological 

goods and services.

1

Center Manager, U.S. Forest Service Centers for Urban and Interface Forestry, Gainesville, FL 32611-0806; Urban Forestry Program Manager, 

U.S. Forest Service Region 8, Atlanta, GA 20209-2449.
233

BUILDING PROGRAMS THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS

Alan Long and Chris Demers1

In the last 15 years, educational programs for forest landowners in Florida have benefited greatly from a diversity of 

partnerships. The Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Division of Forestry and Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, Florida Forestry Association, forestry consultants, Florida Farm Bureau, and industry have all 

played key roles in determining program needs, providing speakers and educational materials, hosting field tours, 

workshops, and web pages, and providing financial support in various ways. The result has been a wide variety 

of themes and venues across the state. Two important keys to these partnerships have been a willingness to work 

together in whatever functional role is needed at a certain time, and a steady exchange of ideas among partners on 

program ideas, planning, and conduct. Our case study will elaborate on how these keys have been developed and 

provide a set of examples to illustrate different types of partnerships.

1

Professor and Florida Forest Stewardship Coordinator, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

32611-0410.
234

SURVEY STUDIES HOW TO REACH PRIMARY HARDWOOD 

PRODUCERS WITH NEW INFORMATION

Philip A. Araman, Robert L. Smith, and Matthew F. Winn1

It is important for the timber industry to obtain new knowledge in order to stay competitive, increase productivity, 

or to produce new products from a sometime changing resource. We sought to understand how new knowledge—

innovative techniques, improved technology, and marketing information—reach our primary forest industries in the 

United States. We surveyed hardwood lumber producers. We will present the results of our survey. Scientists want to 

make a difference and to do that we need to complete the cycle with effective technology transfer.

1

Research Scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Blacksburg, VA 24061; Professor and Forestry Technician, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061.
235

COMPUTERIZED TRAINING FOR THE HARDWOOD SAWMILL INDUSTRY: 

THE EDGING AND TRIMMER TRAINER (Version 3.0)

Philip A. Araman, A. Jefferson Palmer, Matthew F. Winn, and D. Earl Kline1

In the hardwood sawmill industry, decisions made at the various processing stages directly affect the value of 

the end product. In order to realize maximum product value, it is essential that employees be properly trained. 

The edging and trimming stage of lumber processing is one area where lack of proper training can result in poor 

manufacturing decisions and ultimately reduced product value. To supplement on-site training, we have created a 

computer program to assist edger and trimmer operators in making good manufacturing decisions. The Edging and 

Trimming Trainer Program is designed to help hardwood lumber edger and trimmer operators and sawmill managers 

better understand how lumber grade, surface measure, and price interact to affect lumber value and processing 

decisions. 

1

Research Scientist, U.S. Forest Service Computer Technician, Forestry Technician, Professor, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061.
236

FROM A PROMISING STRATEGY TO A PRACTICAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Boris Zeide1

To realize the potential of the minimax strategy and turn it into a practical management system, it is proposed to 

combine forestry with agriculture and use several silvicultural techniques, including cluster planting and pruning. To 

compensate for establishment mortality and be able to select better trees, they are planted in clusters. The clusters 

tested on the study established in 1997-1998 by our School in Hope, Arkansas, consist of four loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda L.) seedlings planted at the corners of a square with sides of 1 foot. All but one tree per cluster are thinned by 

age 5. Instead of struggling with the competing vegetation, we put to agricultural use the portion of land unutilized 

by pines until they close their crowns. Thus, the minimum number-maximum yield strategy leads naturally to 

diversified land use: agroforestry. Traditionally, foresters improved wood quality by keeping high stand density. 

Unfortunately, such density kills many trees and slows the growth of the rest. Pruning is a better way to improve 

stem form and wood quality than choking trees with density. Pruning improves wood quality physically by cutting 

off branches, and physiologically by removing of the apical meristem of branches (which stimulates the production 

of juvenile wood) and forcing trees to grow taller, which moves the crown apical meristems further from the lower 

bole. The described system not only increases financial returns but also maximizes them. On good sites (site index 

>60, base age 25 years) the system doubles sustainable returns as compared with regular forestry or agriculture 

practiced separately.

1

Professor, School of Forest Resources, University of Arkansas at Monticello, Monticello, AR 71656-3468.
237

THE MINIMUM NUMBER-MAXIMUM YIELD STRATEGY 

FOR TREE GROWTH

Boris Zeide1

To maximize stand volume, foresters keep stand density in a medium range by periodic thinning to a certain residual 

basal area. It is possible to show without any experiments that higher final (and most valuable) harvest and returns 

can be expected when we let density to increase with age. The reason is that stand volume increases with density 

and average tree size. Low density at the beginning means high growth rate and larger size. High density at the 

rotation time means large harvested volume. Because this volume would be composed of bigger trees, it should be 

greater than the volume from stands where density was stationary. The reasoning that the optimal density trajectory 

increases with age might send us to search for some equation relating basal area or stand density index and age. 

Actually, no sophisticated functions and parameters are needed. The best description of optimal trajectory is simple: 

keep the number of trees per unit area constant. The number should be the minimum that assures the density 

sufficient to maximize financial returns by harvest time. At the beginning, this number assures low density and 

fast growth. Due to this growth, stand density increases with age. Such a rule can be called the minimum numbermaximum yield (minimax) strategy. Albeit unknown in forestry, it is not new: for millennia, farmers have grown 

only the plants (sometimes, after the initial thinning of seedlings) they intend to harvest. However promising it 

sounds, minimax has several disadvantages such as inability to select better trees, forfeiting intermediate harvest, 

competition from undesirable vegetation, and poor wood quality of final harvest.

1

Professor, School of Forest Resources, University of Arkansas at Monticello, Monticello, AR 71656-3468.



Ashton, Sarah F.; Hubbard, William G.; Rauscher, H. Michael, eds. 2009. A southern 

region conference on technology transfer and extension. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–116. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 237 p.

Forest landowners and managers have different education and technology transfer needs and 

preferences. To be effective it is important to use a multi-faceted science delivery/technology 

transfer program to reach them. Multi-faceted science delivery programs can provide 

similar content over a wide range of mechanisms including printed publications, face-to-face 

workshops and training sessions, satellite-based and pod casting-based distributed learning 

courses, and a wide range of Internet-based products. Several opportunities exist to share 

theories, products, activities, successes and failures across the science delivery, Extension 

and education communities. These proceedings from the Southern Region Conference 

on Technology Transfer and Extension in Natural Resources contain 4 keynote papers, 

18 papers on various technical and procedural aspects of science delivery, and 9 papers 

describing various technology transfer efforts. As a collection, these papers describe the state 

of activities and thinking in Southern United States natural resource science delivery and 

technology transfer.

Keywords: Extension, forestry, technology, transfer.
The Forest Service, United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated to the 

principle of multiple use management of the 

Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields 

of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through 

forestry research, cooperation with the States and 

private forest owners, and management of the National 

Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed 

by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to 

a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 ( TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.