United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Communicating 

with Nonindustrial 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station Private Forest-land Owners: 

NE-RP-593 Getting Programs on Target 

Thomas W. Birch 

Nancy A. Pywell 
The Authors 

Thomas W. Birch is a research forester in the Forest Inventory, Analysis, and 

Economics Project, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, 

Broomall, Pennsylvania. Nancy A. Pywell is Assistant Professor of Natural 

Resources Extension Education, Department of Forestry, Institute of Food and 

Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. This paper was 

prepared in cooperation with Pennsylvania State University when Nancy Pywell was 

Assistant Professor of Forest Resources Extension there. 

Abstract 

Nonindustrial private f orest-land (NIPF) owners can be motivated by programs 

directed to their needs and objectives. Seven target audiences in Pennsylvania 

were defined and outlets for information programs identified for each target 

audience. The primary objectives of each group and the benefits they expect 

from owning forest land were considered in the preparation of each group's 

program. This system is now being used by Pennsylvania State University in its 

forest extension program. 

Manuscript received for publication 28 August 1986 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

370 Reed Road, Broomall, PA 19008 

October 1986 
Nonindustrial private forest-land owners 

Throughout the United States, 

private forest-land owners make 

management decisions affecting nearly 72 

percent of the nation's timberland (USDA 

Forest Service 1981). A diverse group 

of 7.8 million individuals, 

corporations, groups and associations 

control these private forest lands 

(Birch et al. 1982). 

Much has been written about this 

ownership group and recent surveys of 

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land 

owners have sought to determine what 

should be done about the "pr~blem,~ 

which many perceive to be the lack of 

active management and resulting low 

productivity on the millions of acres of 

privately owned forest land. Although 

its low productivity has been questioned 

(Clawson 1979), the existence of NIPF 

land can be looked on as an opportunity. 

There is a large forest resource base 

which we, as professionals, have an 

opportunity to influence. Public 

foresters in most s t a t e s a r e deluged 

with requests for assistance, many of 

which may go unanswered because there 

are not enough trained personnel to 

respond to them. An organized 

educational program could provide much 

of the information these landowners 

want-- information currently distributed 

through one-to-one contacts . Worrell and Irland (1975) discuss 

both public and private goals and 

motivations, concluding that programs 

aimed at motivating private forestry in 

the United States have had "less than 

spectacularn success, because incorrect 

agencies were chosen to conduct programs 

or programs were aimed inaccurately. 

They point out that many efforts have 

been aimed at landowners whose reasons 

for not practicing management are such 

that motivating them is impossible. One 

promising approach in formulating 

educational programs is to identify 

target audiences and direct programs to 

their needs. Kurtz and Lewis (1981) 

identified four such groups in the 

Missouri Ozarks. Three target groups 

were identified by similar techniques in 

Wisconsin (Marty 1983). Though interest 

categories may or may not be identical 

in other regions, the results of their 

studies illuminate one salient fact: 

"Motivations are guiding forces and 

knowing what they are should be the 

starting point for any effort to 

stimulate productivity. 

In Pennsylvania, 78 percent (1 2.5 

million acres) of the commercial forest 

land is in private ownership (Powell and 

Considine l'982). Though it may, in 

fact, be impossible to motivate some of 

the 490,100 forest-land owners in 

Pennsylvania, Birch and Dennis ( 1980) 

indicate that a number of identifiable 

landowner groups could be reached 

effectively. By analyzing the 

characteristics of these groups, 

especially their reasons for owning 

forest land and harvesting or not 

harvesting timber from it, a 

motivational plan targeted specifically 

at each group may be developed. 

The objective of this paper is to 

provide information useful in 

formulating and targeting educational 

programming for nonindustrial private 

forest landowners. Some of these 

suggestions have been tried in different 

states with various degrees of success. 

The authors have modified particular 

approaches when they failed to generate 

the desired result. Some have not been 

tried, but are based upon 

characteristics of land owners and 

motivational theory. The 

characteristics of groups identified in 

this paper were estimated from the 

forest-land owner study conducted by the 

USDA Forest Service's Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station and the 

analysis done in cooperation with 

Pennsylvania State University. 

The survey 

The 1977 Pennsylvania landowner 

survey generated data on a variety of 

topics, including size and location of 

ownership, tenure, size of trees, and 

past harvest experience. Two basic 

areas, (1) ownership characteristics, 

objectives, and attitudes, and (2) facts 
concerning harvest and utilization of 

forest products, have been further 

analyzed in an attempt to target 

extension and service forestry programs. 

Table 1: Topics analyzed in the 

1977 Pennsylvania landowner survey 

Ownership characteristics, 

objectives, and attitudes 

Size of ownership 

Occupation 

Reasons for owning 

Primary benefits expected 

Magazines subscribed to 

Reasons for harvesting and 

not harvesting 

Intention to harvest in future 

Harvest and utilization of 

forest ~roduc. s 

Past history of harvesting 

Individual selecting timber 

Method of harvest 

Product combinations harvested 
Eleven topics (Table 1) were 

analyzed for eight NIPF owner groups 

(Fig. 1 ) within Pennsylvania. Since 

size of ownership has a decided 

influence on willingness and ability to 

manage forestland economically (Kessler 

1978, Thompson and Jones 1981, Row 

1978), acreage of ownership was selected 

as a primary characteristic of each 

ownership group. Past studies (Marler 

and Graves 1974, Webster and Stoltenberg 

1959) have also indicated that farm and 

nonfarm owners may have substantially 

different objectives and motivations for 

forest management. 

Survey data on topics listed in 

Table 1 were combined with data in 

Figure 1 to create ownership profiles 

that included the two or three most 

common responses to survey questions 

within each group. Data presented are 

for the state as a whole unless 

Ownership Groups 

otherwise indicated. Summaries of data 

were also compiled by regions to permit 

more specific targeting of programs on a 

regional basis within Pennsylvania. 

Survey results 

The survey indicated that, in 

Pennsylvania, forest land is owned for 

the following reasons (in descending 

order of preference by acres owned): 

(1) recreation, (2) investment, (3) part 

of farm, (4) farm and domestic use, 

(5) other (includes: oil, gas, or 

mineral extraction and watershed 

protection), (6) aesthetics, (7) part of 

residence, (8) timber production. 

Farm and nonfarm groups differed 

significantly in their primary reasons 

for owning forest land (Fig. 2). 

Farmers were more likely to indicate 

"farm and domestic usen and "part of 

in Pennsylvania 

Number of Owners 

2bo.000 1oo.000 o 

139. 100 

190. 000 

Acres Owned 

Farmer 1-49 acres 

Farmer 50-499 acres 

Farmer 500t acres 

Individual 1-9 acres 

Individual 10-99 acres 

Individual 100-499 acres 

Individual 500t acres 

All Others 

Ownership Groups 

All other includes: sportsmen's clubs. 

gas and mineral companies. other corporations. 

partnerships, and undivided estates 

Figure 1.--Distribution of private ownership groups in Pennsylvania. 
Primary Reasons for Owning 

Ownership Groups 

AI~ NIPFL Owners 

Farmer 1-49 acres 

Farmer 50-499 acres 

Farmer 500t acres 

Individual 1-9 acres 

Individual 10-99 ac. 

Individual 100-499 

Individual 500+ ac. 

All Others 

part of Farm 

B~arm 6 Domestic Use 

Aesthetic Enjoyment 

Investment 

B~ecreat ion 

m~art of Residence 

Timber Production 

U other 

Percent of Area 

Figure 2.--Distribution of private ownershfp groups,. by primaryreason for owning 

forest land. 

farm" as primary reasons. With the 

exception of ownerships less than 100 

acres, nonfarm owners listed recreation 

and investment most often as primary 

reasons for forest ownership. Nonfarm 

individuals with less than 100 acres 

gave aesthetic enjoyment as their 

primary reason for owning forest land. 

Benefits expected from forest land 

ownership show similar patterns (Fig. 3), 

indicating that motivation for ownership 

of 24 percent of the state's forest land 

is involved with investment, 21 percent 

with aesthetics, and 17 percent with 

recreation. Only 6 Dercent of 

Pennsylvania's nonindustrial private 

forestland is owned by people who expect 

income from timber to be their primary 

benefit in the next 5 years. 

With such low concern for timber 

production, it may seem surprising that 

73 percent of Pennsylvania's forest 

products are harvested from NIPF owners' 

property (Considine and Powell 1980). 

When motivation for harvesting or not 

harvesting timber is examined, it is 

apparent that economics play a major 

role in the decision to harvest. 

Landowners who hold forest land for 

recreational reasons, or simply because 

it is part of their farm, are likely to 

harvest if they need money or are 

offered a wgood price.^ Binkley's 

observation (1979) that owners respond 

to high prices even if timber production 

is a low-priority objective appears to 

hold true in Pennsylvania. Small 

landowners are more likely to cut trees 

for their own use, while larger 

landowners tend to harvest when timber 

is mature, especially if motivated by a 

need for extra income. 

Belief that harvesting timber will 
Primary Benefit Expected in the Next 5 Yeaw 

Ownership Groups 

All NIPFL Owners 

Farmer 50-499 acres 

Farmer 500t acres 

Individual 1-9 acres 

Individual 1G-99 ac, 

Individual 100-499 

.Farm 6 Domestic Use 

nesthetic En j oytnent 

Tncreczse in 

Land Value 

Income From 

Timber 

~ecreational Use 

other 

Individual 500t ac. 

All Others 

Percent of Area 

Figure 3.--Distribution of private ownership groups, by primary benefit expected 

in the next 5 years. 

ruin the scenery in a woodland is a 

primary deterrent to harvesting forest 

products for many owners. As 

Pennsylvania's second-growth forests 

reach maturity in the near future, this 

belief seems to be the main motivating 

force preventing owners from harvesting. 

Reasons for not harvesting may have 

far less impact on future timber 

supplies than reasons for harvesting. 

Turner et al. (1977) indicate that a 

landowner's stated intent to harvest or 

not harvest may alter in less than 5 

years, especially if economic incentives 

are brought to bear. Survey data 

indicate that 28 percent of landowners 

who have harvested in the past plan 

never to harvest again. Of those who 

have never harvested, 56 percent 

indicate that they never will. 

With the exception of very small 

ownerships (individuals; 1-9 acres), the 

majority of the acreage is controlled by 

landowners who expressed a willingness 

to harvest (Fig. 4). The 8 percent who 

plan to harvest within 10 years of the 

survey control 2,687,200 acres. The 34 

percent whose harvesting plans are 

indefinite control 5,372,800 acres. 

When demand for timber increases, 

followed by increasing prices for forest 

products, research indicates that many 

NIPF owners will harvest as their trees 

reach maturity, despite expressed 

opposition to harvesting. 

We can use information provided by 

the landowner survey to motivate 

increased management. The question must 

be posed: management for what? Close 

to 2 million acres in the state are 

owned primarily for recreation. 
Intention to Harvest 

Ownership Groups 

All NIPFL Owners 

Farmer 1-49 acres 

Farmer 50-499 acres 

Farmer 500t acres 

Individual 1-9 acres 

Individual 16-93 ac . 

Individual 100-499 

Individual 500t ac. 

1-1° Years 

@ Indefinite 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent of Area 

Figure 4.--Distribution of private ownership groups, by intention to harvest timber 

from their forest land. 

Recreation includes hunting, camping, 

and fishing, as well as hiking and more 

passive recreation. 

Management for wildlife and outdoor 

recreation requires a variety of 

silvicultural and management practices, 

which could include selection cuts, 

regeneration cuts, and thinnings . More 

than 1,800,000 acres owned for 

investment will increase in value under 

a management plan as well as providing 

added income from timber harvesting if 

the owners so desire. Undisturbed 

hardwood stands in Pennsylvania 

increased in value at a rate of 4.7 

percent per year over the last decade 

(Herrick 1984). 

The 1,767,400 acres that are parts 

of farms in Pennsylvania can provide 

added income and a sustained yield of 

fuelwood, lumber, and fenceposts under 

well-designed management. There is no 

owner objective specified in the survey 

that would not be more achievable under 

planned management. Our challenge is to 

inform and educate NIPF owners to see 

and accept the benefits of forest 

management. 

An extension objective is to 

educate and inform NIPF owners to 

increase their practice of forest 

management. Who are we trying to 

educate and how should we go about it? 

Group profiles generated by analysis of 

survey data provide part of the 

picture. Retired people, farmers, 

executives, and professionals control 46 

percent of Pennsylvania's forest land 

(5,291,100 acres). Retired people alone 

control more than 1,800,500 acres, with 

full-time farmers placing second 

(1,480,600 acres), executives third 

(1,167,800 acres) and professionals 
fourth (842,200 acres). 

Motivations and occupations help 

identify target groups. The 1977 survey 

queried landowners about membership in 

conservation organizations and 

subscriptions to conservation-oriented 

magazines. No single organization 

listed had more than 8 percent of all 

landowners as members. Owners of more 

than 60 percent of the state's private 

forestland belong to no such 

organization. 

Magazines subscribed to presented a 

different picture. Approximately 25 

percent of individual forest landowners 

receive Pennsylvania Game News. They 

own approximately 33 percent of the 

state's private forestland. The most 

widely read magazines included in the 

survey are: Pennsylvania Game News, 

Cooperator, Field and Stream, 

Sports Afield, and National Wildlife. 

We have identified the following 

target audiences and present programming 

ideas for each. 

Target: People interested in wildlife 

A major portion of Pennsylvania's 

wildlife resource is produced on NIPF 

lands. The way in which these lands are 

managed will directly affect how well 

the state's wildlife needs are 

satisfied. With this background in 

mind, several avenues for reaching large 

groups of landowners present 

themselves. ~otivations, benefits 

expected, and magazines subscribed to 

make it clear that interest in wildlife 

is significant within the NIPF owner 

population. Therefore, slightly 

popularized articles on the benefits of 

forest management for-wildlife should be 

placed in as many of the publications 

mentioned as possible. Programs on 

forest management for wildlife benefits 

delivered to sportsmen's clubs will also 

reach large numbers of NIPF owners. 

Topics to be considered for 

reaching landowners with wildlife 

interests should include: silviculture 

systems (even-age vs. uneven-age 

management), basic forest ecology; 

dendrology (including identification of 

species that provide food and/or cover), 

integrated pest management, soil and 

water conservation, and multiple use 

management . 

Target: Retirees 

The retired people who control 

nearly 2 million acres of forest 

resources may be reached through local 

or state chapters of the American 

Assocation of Retired Persons (AARP) as 

well as through articles in Modern 

Maturity (a publication of the 

Association). Although this publication 

was not included in the survey, we 

believe that Modern Maturity is received 

in a significant number of NIPF owners1 

homes. The editors are reluctant to 

publish an article dealing strictly with 

forest management, but articles 

featuring seniors who are actively 

managing forest land may "selln. Similar 

"human interestn articles in the local 

press may raise awareness of forest 

resources. AARP conducts frequent tours, 

and may be interested in a 

well-organized forest management tour. 

Elderhostel, Inc., an international 

nonprofit organization that provides 

educational programs for older adults, 

is another avenue for reaching this 

group, with programs at cdlleges and 

universities throughout the country. An 

intensive short course on forest 

management offered at Penn State in the 

summer of 1984 attracted 20 forest 

landowners, with average holdings of 

approximately 80 acres. On course 

evaluations participants said they had 

"benefitted signif icantlyn from the 

program. Although this course was not 

directed specifically at retirees, a 

majority of the participants were of or 

approaching retirement age. Forestry 

specialists need only develop forestry 

programs for presentation and offer them 

at a variety of times and locations 

convenient to retirees. 

Retirees who are not interested in 

wildlife or general forestry topics may 

be motivated by programs and information 

on taxation and estate planning, 
marketing forest products, and 

determining financial maturity of 

resources they control. Information on 

selecting and working with consulting 

foresters would also be of special value 

to this group. 

Retirees have a substantial impact 

on forest management, as they hold close 

to 2 million acres of forest land in 

Pennsylvania. Other states may find 

similar patterns and chose to focus on 

this group as a priority audience. We 

may find retirees a rewarding group to 

begin with, as we will not be competing 

with their careers for their attention. 

sedimentation control, forest taxation, 

and forestry consultants. Information 

on tree farming might be particularly 

pertinent to this group. Avenues for 

information exchange appropriate to 

reaching this group include articles in 

Away Cooperator, Pennsylvania Farmer, 

Pennsylvania Game News, and Field and 

S_f;ream. County Extension programs and 

newsletters provide outlets for 

educational efforts. Conservation 

district newsletters should not be 

overlooked. Agricultural fairs and 

events such as "Ag ,Progress Day" and the 

annual Farm Show are appropriate for 

displays and dissemination of 

information. 

Target: Professionals and executives 

Target: Middle size ownerships 

Professional people and executives 

may be reached on the job through 

articles in such publications as the 

Wall Street Journal, and Business Week. 

Both have published articles and notes 

dealing with forestry in the past. Such 

articles, and presentations to business 

and professional clubs and fraternal 

organizations, should focus on economic 

benefits of management, forest taxation, 

and marketing. Many members of this 

group may also be reached during leisure 

time through avenues listed for 

wildlife-oriented landowners. 

As women become increasingly 

involved in forest management as well as 

the business and professional world at 

large, magazines such as Workinp, Woman 

should be considered for articles on 

forestry investments. Workshops for 

bankers, real estate brokers, CPAs, and 

tax assessors could also be of value in 

getting information on forestry into the 

hands of professionals and executives. 

Financial (tax, investments, marketing) 

aspects of forestry should be presented 

to this audience, and multiple use and 

basic forest ecology would probably be 

of interest as well. 

Target : Farmers 

Farmers should be informed about 

basic techniques of fuelwood management, 

benefits of multiple-use management, 

marketing procedures, erosion and 

Programming aimed at owners of 

tracts between 10 and 499 acres will be 

the most cost-efficient, as these people 

control more than half of Pennsylvania 

NIPF resources. The group "all othersn 

controls 2,785,700 acres. Programming 

directed toward this group through 

sportsmen's clubs, corporate 

newsletters, or other channels could be 

extremely cost-effective. 

Personnel of the Pennsylvania 

Division of Forestry have reported 

enthusiasm from snowmobile club members 

introduced to forestry concepts through 

slide-tape presentations generated by 

extension personnel. Program materials 

geared for such audiences would be 

useful . Target : Small ownerships 

The 309,900 owners (63 pecent) , 

with fewer than 10 acres of forest 

land, control 1,028,000 acres of forest 

land (8 percent of the private 

timberland). It is probably not 

cost-effective to work with this group 

at present, but if landowner 

associations become more widespread, 

this group may become more influential. 

Organized groups of small landowners 

could provide a forum for information 

exchange as well as forming a nucleus 

for political action. Associations can 

improve the marketing picture by 
aggregating sufficient timber to achieve 

economies of scale, and may hire 

consultants to assist association 

members in management planning. 

The most cost-efficient way to 

serve the small ownership audience at 

present is through newsletters. Every 

NIPF landowner contacted should appear 

on a mailing list to receive information 

regularly. Frequency of stimulation (in 

this case reading information about 

forest management) affects motivational 

impact. Displays, newsletters, or 

newspaper articles every month could 

make programs more effective (Korman 

1974) 

Target: All NIPF owners 

Essential needs bring people to 

certain locations, regardless of age, 

occupation, or interests. Shopping 

centers, libraries, schools, and county 

buildings serve thousands of people 

daily. Displays on general forestry 

topics and lists of sources of 

information set up in such facilities 

would be visible to virtually any NIPF 

owner. Local newspapers should be 

considered, perhaps for syndicated 

articles. 

Programming for the general public 

can be varied. Topics of interest may 

include: forest-wildlife interactions, 

products that forests provide, basic 

tree identification, pruning and insect 

control, multiple benefits of our 

forestland, forests as watersheds, 

forests as recreation spots, forests as 

an investment. Home economics extension 

newsletters reach hundreds of homes 

monthly. 

Youth education could also be a 

focus for foresters. Ranger Rick 

Magazine reaches the homes of a 

substantial number of NIPF landowners. 

The use of 4-8 as a vehicle for 

introducing new techniques to farmers 

through their children can work in 

forestry as it has with more traditional 

agriculture practices in the past. 

School programs, Future Farmers of 

America, and Scouts provide additional 

pre-organized audiences. The authors 

have'met many whose interest in forestry 

began through such youth programs. As 

SAF members we should all be promoting 

and supporting the use of Project 

Learning Tree in our local school 

systems. 

Pennsylvania is not alone 

In the northern United States in 

1970 more than 128.4 million acres of 

timberland (25.7 percent of the regional 

total) were owned by wfarm and 

miscellaneous privatew 

individuals--basically the NIPF owners 

described above (Marler and Graves 

1974). On a national level, 296.2 

million acres or 59 percent of the 

timberland was controlled by this 

group. It is projected that this group 

will continue to own well over 50 

percent of the nation's commercial 

timberland through the year 2020. 

Marion Clawson, in The Economics of 

U.S. Non-industrial Private Forests 

(1979), pointed out that NIPF owners 

H variety of outputs in addition 

to wood. Recognizing the social and 

economic values of these outputs, 

Clawson notes that "in the long run 

nearly all truly merchantable timber 

from such forests will be sold and 

harvested in regions where good markets 

exist, although the timing of such sales 

might be irregular and not what a 

forester would have recommended. 

Conclusion 

By encouraging management for 

multiple use on NIPF properties, we may 

not only increase their nontimber 

outputs, but timber outputs as well. 

Regionally and nationally, the 

motivations for forestland ownership 

must be examined, and programs directed 

toward identified audiences. Increased 

awareness of the benefits of forest 

management for wildlife, recreation, and 

investment, as well as timber, will 

motivate increased management. While 

poor markets, diseconomies of scale, 

unfavorable tax situations, and lack of 

knowledge will continue to serve as 
disincentives to management, nothing 

will be more effective in improving 

management than accurately targeted 

educational programs on topics in which 

NIPF owners have an interest. Awareness 

can spur interest and action to overcome 

many disincentives. The Task Force on 

Programs to Improve Outputs from 

 oni industrial Private Forests ( 1979) 

reported that "...enlightened 

self-interest is the most powerful and 

effective force in bettering forest 

management in the long run." 

If we can make NIPF owners aware of 

the genuine benefits of forestland 

management, they will find ways--with or 

without federal programs--to improve 

their forest resources and supply 

multiple benefits for present and future 

generations. The approach outlined in 

the current SAF position on improving 

outputs from these lands is a step in 

the right direction. 

Literature Cited 

Binkley, Clark S. Timber supply from 

private nonindustrial forests - an 

economic analysis of landowner 

behavior. New Haven, CT. Yale 

University; 1979. Ph.D. 

dissertation. 127 p. 

Birch, Thomas W.; Dennis, Donald F. 

The forest-land owners of 

Pennsylvania. Resour. Bull. NE-66. 

Bromall, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture , Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station; 1980. 90 p. 

Clawson, Marion. The economics of U.S. 

nonindustrial private forests. Res. 

Pap. R-14. Washington, DC: 

Resources for the future; 1979. 410 

P 

Considine, Thomas J. Jr.; Powell, 

Douglas S. Forest stastics for 

Pennsylvania-1978. Resour. Bull. 

NE-65. Broomall, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station; 1980. 88 p. 

Herrick, Owen W. Rate of value change 

in Pennsylvania timber stands. Res. 

Pap. NE-547. Broomall, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station; 1984. 5 p. 

Kessler, George D. Programs and 

priorities in nonindustrial private 

forestry. Journal of Forestry. 

76(7):409-413; 1978. 

Korman, Abraham K. The Psychology of 

Motivation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : 

Prentice Hall; 1974. 291 p. 

Kurtz, William B.; Lewis, Bernard J. 

Decision-making framework for 

nonindustrial private forest owners: 

An application to the Missouri 

Ozarks. Journal of Forestry. 

79:285-288; 1981, 

Marler, Ray L.; Graves, Paul F. A new 

management rationale for small 

forest-land owners. AFRI Res. Rep. 

No. 17. Syracuse, NY: Applied 

Forestry Institute, State University 

of New York, College of Envirormental 

Science and Forestry, 1974. 18 p. 

Marty, Timothy D. An extension of 

nonindustrial private forest 

landowner typologies: A Wisconsin 

study. Columbia, MO: University of 

Missouri-Columbia; 1983. 230 p. M.S. 

thesis 

Powell, Douglas S.; Considine, Thomas J. 

Jr. An analysis of Pennsylvania's 

forest resources. Resour. Bull. 

NE-69. Broomall, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station; 1982. 97 p. 

Row, Clark. Economics of tract size in 

timber growing. Journal of 

Forestry. 76(9) :576-579, 582; 1978. 

Task force on programs to improve 

outputs from nonindustrial private 

forests. Improving outputs from 
nonindustrial private forests. 

Washington, DC: Society of American 

Foresters; 1979. 11 p. 

Thompson, Richard P.; Jones J. Greg. 

Classifying nonindustrial private 

forest-land by tract size. Journal 

of Forestry. 79(5) : 288-291 ; 1981. 

Turner, Brian J.; Finley, James C.; 

Kingsley, Neal P. How reliable are 

woodland ownerst intentions? Journal 

of Forestry. 75(8):498-499; 1977. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. An assessment of the forest 

and range land situation in the 

United States. For. Res. Rep. 22. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service; 1981. 

325 P* 

Webster, Henry H.; Stoltenberg, Carl H. 

What ownership characteristics are 

useful in predicting response to 

forestry programs? Land Economics. 

l5(3) ~292-295; 1959. 

Worrell, Albert C.; Irland, Lloyd C. 

Alternative means of motivating 

investment in private forestry. 

Journal of Forestry. 73(4):206-209; 

1975 

/ *U.S. GOVERNmENT PRINTING OFF ICE:1986-646-160t40001 
1 Birch, Thomas W.; Pywell, Nancy A. Communicating with 

nonindustrial private forest-land owners: Getting I programs on target. NE-RP-593. Broomall, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

I Forest Experiment Station; 1986. 11 p. 

1 Nonindustrial private forest-land owners can be motivated 1 by programs directed to their needs and objectives. Seven 

, target audiences in Pennsylvania were defined and outlets 

for information programs identified for each target 

I audience. The primary objectives of each group and the 

benefits they expect from owning forest land were considered in the preparation of each group's program. This 

system is now being used by The Pennsylvania State University in its forest extension program. 

ODC 923.9 (748) 

Keywords: Forestry assistance, recreation, forest-land 

ownership, available timber, harvesting 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station are in Broomall, Pa. 

Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts. 

e Berea, Kentucky, in cooperation with Berea College. 

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont. 

e Delaware, Ohio. 

e Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire. 

e Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University. 

e Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University, 

Morgantown. 

Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine, Orono. 

Parsons, West Virginia. 

Princeton, West Virginia. 

e Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York 

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University, 

Syracuse. 

University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania State 

University. 

e Warren, Pennsylvania. 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or with any handicapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, and services 

of the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency policy, and 

should be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.