Variations in the social networks of forest owners: The effect of management activity, resource professionals, and ownership size

ASU Author/Contributor (non-ASU co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)
Tatyana Ruseva Ph.D., Assistant Professor (Creator)
Institution
Appalachian State University (ASU )
Web Site: https://library.appstate.edu/

Abstract: Social networks play an important role in the communication of information among forest owners and how owners process that information in making land management decisions. This article examines variations in the social network characteristics of family forest owners using survey data and interviews with 42 owners in south-central Indiana. We examine how network structure and content vary by harvesting activity, information sources, ownership attributes, sociodemographic characteristics, and location. Quantitative measures of network size and diversity, along with a qualitative understanding of network content and function are discussed and compared for active and passive forest managers. We find that active managers (people who had a recent timber harvest) had at least twice as many social ties related to forest management compared to passive managers, particularly after accounting for parcel ownership size, forest area, and total landholding size. Learning and service were the main functions of these networks, with learning being the most frequently cited reason for talking to others regardless of the management profile of forest owners. The study contributes to a growing interest in mixed methods approaches to network studies and research on social networks in private forestry.

Additional Information

Publication
Tatyana B. Ruseva • Tom P. Evans • Burnell C. Fischer (2014) "Variations in the Social Networks of Forest Owners: The Effect of Management Activity, Resource Professionals, and Ownership Size" Small-scale Forestry #13 pp.377-395 Version of Record @ (DOI 10.1007/s11842-014-9260-z)
Language: English
Date: 2014
Keywords
Ego networks, Family forest owners, Network structure, Network diversity, Network content

Email this document to