Facilitating Private Forestland Management: Relating Landowners’ Experience of their Forestland and their Conceptualization of Forest Management to their Management Behavior

Privately owned forestland accounts for the majority of forested land in the US and provides numerous ecological, economic and social benefits to its owners and society at large. However, numerous issues ranging from fragmentation and parcelization, to pressure from the forest products industry, to increasing land values for development and real estate interests threaten to “unravel” the forest landscape. Active management of forestland is seen as one way to combat such threats. Active management of private forestland has been linked to numerous factors such as private forest landowners’ (PFLs’) general education level and familiarity with forest management, their goals, interests, objectives, attitudes, values, beliefs, and socio-cultural identity and the size and tenure of their ownership, among others. However, despite numerous efforts to understand private forest landowners (PFLs) and their interests, goals and objectives in owning private forestland, and to educate them about, and provide assistance for, private forest management, most privately owned forestland is not managed and most landowners remain unaware of the assistance and information available to them. In addition, the primarily quantitative studies investigating how these factors relate to private forestland management have been criticized for producing diminishing returns and insufficiently updating survey instruments. Using a mixed methods study design, including both quantitative and qualitative approaches, this study, conducted in the Emory-Obed watershed of East Tennessee, examined how the meaning of PFLs’ experience of their forestland and their conceptualization of forest management, two variables previously unaddressed in the literature, relate to PFL management behavior. Based on their experiences with their land, PFLs were found to form strong personal attachments to their land. Both the strength and the nature of these attachments varied relative to the degree to which PFLs actively engaged in forest management practices. The experience of those who actively engage in forest management activities is focused on the land and its condition, while the experience of those who do not actively engage in forest management activities is focused on themselves and how the experience makes them feel. Private forestland was also experienced as place. When these ways of experiencing forestland were quantified, a set of five components characteristic of the experience of forestland were identified: emotional connection to forestland, connection to nature via forestland, connection to family via forestland, forestland provision of PFL personal and financial gain, and forestland provision of financial investment. The more actively engaged with private forest land management PFLs were, the more strongly they agreed that each of these components was both meaningful and important to them. Landowners also varied in the ways in which they understood the forest management concept. Landowners simultaneously conceptualized forest management as property maintenance, as creating and enhancing forest habitat and as making money. As with the meaning of PFLs experience of their forestland, the more actively engaged in forest management activities PFLs were, the more strongly they agreed each of these components defined forest management. Lastly, the vast majority of PFLs participating in this study stated they believe they manage their forestland. This is in stark contrast to conclusions reported in the literature concerning the percentage of PFLs actually managing their forestland and is attributed in part to lack of standardization in the operationalization of forest management participation measures reported in the literature. Several implications of the findings for professional forestry practice, research, outreach and education are made based on recognizing the importance of the meaning of landowners’ experience of their forestland and their conceptualization of forest management to their interest in and engagement in forest management activities. For example, as the findings indicate PFLs may not see a relationship between the ways their forestland is meaningful to them and their understanding of what it means to manage their forestland, forest landowner educational opportunities and events capitalizing on the strong personal attachments PFLs feel to their land and utilizing language similar to their own ways of speaking about these attachments such as, “Getting to Know Your Woods”, “The Woods in Your Backyard: What’s There and Why You Should Care” and “Having Your Cake and Eating It Too: Enjoying and Profiting From Your Forestland” may prove more effective than traditional programs

Understanding the Data Management Needs and Data Sharing Challenges of Environmental Scientists

Surveys of scientists for the NSF DataONE project and the USGS Southeast Information Node of the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), as well as follow-up interviews, show that environmental scientists are interested in sharing their data with certain conditions, such as citations or acknowledgment. Government scientists are more likely to be satisfied with the processes for data management than are academic scientists, but less likely to be satisfied with the process of describing data or tools for documentation. Both groups value trusted and complete sources. There are many ways that scientists can be assisted with data management throughout the data life cycle

Challenges to Sharing Data Among Environmental Scientists and Data Managers in the Southeastern United States

Poster Submission The Increasing Biological Information Sources: Technical Assistance and Support for Delivery and Technology Transfer (IBIS) project was funded by the United States Geological Survey’s National Biological Infrastructure (NBII) to identify relevant data sets in areas of research that served NBII’s stakeholders: environmental decision makers, researchers and scientists including citizen scientists, and teachers and students. The IBIS project also developed biodiversity information tools and services to address the accessibility of USGS provided biodiversity information. For this report, forty data sets were identified and analyzed by the IBIS researchers; the results of the data set interviews are presented in this report. A data set refers to a specific type or group of related data collected by a researcher. The researchers identified four core issues that resonated in each of the data sets; 1) the availability of the data set, 2) how the data set was stored and formatted, 3) how the data set was organized (i.e., whether a metadata standard was adopted and used), and 4) the restrictions or conditions imposed on the data set before the data set could be shared. In this report, the data sets are discussed in terms of the four core issues and their relationship to their representative sectors and agencies (e.g., academic, nonprofit, and government)

Public Progress, Data Management and the Land Grant Mission: A Survey of Agriculture Researchers\u27 Practices and Attitudes at Two Land-Grant Institutions

This article reports results from a survey about data management practices and attitudes sent to agriculture researchers and extension personnel at the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture (UTIA) and the College of Agricultural Sciences and Warner College of Natural Resources at Colorado State University. Results confirm agriculture researchers, like many other scientists, continue to exhibit data management practices that fall short of generally accepted best practices. In addition, librarians, and others seeking to influence future behavior, may be informed by our finding of a relationship between the land-grant mission and researchers\u27 data management practices

IAALD 2013 World Congress Paper Presentations, D-M

IAALD 2013 World Congress Paper Presentations, first presenter last names D-

Agricultural Information Worldwide, vol. 6, 2014

Agricultural Information Worldwide, Volume 6, 2014In this issue: FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK / Jim Morris-Knower (3); Conference Reflections / Antoinette Paris Greider (4). ARTICLES: Keynote Address: The State of Information Literacy Policy: A Global Priority / Sharon Weiner (5); Framing of Climate Change News in Four National Daily Newspapers in Southern Nigeria / Agwu Ekwe Agwu, Chiebonam Justina Amu (11); Access and Use of Information Communication Technologies by Women Staff of Public Extension Service in the North Central Zone of Nigeria / Agwu Ekwe Agwu, Elizabeth Ene Ogbonnah (18); Providing User Preferred Information Resources for a New Faculty of Agriculture, Nnamdi Azikiwe Univeristy, Awka, Nigeria / Chinwe V. Anunobi, Andrew U. Ogbonna (25); Diffusion of Scientific Knowledge in Agriculture: The Case for Africa / Shimelis Assefa, Daniel Gelaw Alemneh, Abebe Rorissa (34); The Use of Social Media in Agricultural Research Workflows in Ghana and Kenya / Justin Chisenga, Richard Kedemi, Joel Sam (48); Towards Mobile Agricultural Information Services in Zimbabwean Libraries: Challenges and Opportunities for Small Sacle Farmers in Utilizing ICTs for Sustainable Food Production / Collence Takaingenhamo Chisita, Thembani Malapela (58); Agriculture and Natural Resource Scientists' Biodiversity Information Needs: Barriers and Facilitators to Use and Access in the U.S. Southeast / Miriam L.E. Steiner Davis, Carol Tenopir, Suzie Allard (66); French Agricultural Research Institute Paves the Way to Open Access: Feedback from CIRAD / Marie-Claude Deboin, Cécile Fovet-Rabot (77); Exploring Relevance of Agro Input Dealers in Disseminating and Communicating of Soil Fertility Management Knowledge: The Case of Siaya and Trans Nzoia Counties, Kenya / T. B. Etyang, J. J. Okello, S. Zingore, P. F. Okoth, F. S. Mairura, A. Mureithi, B. S. Waswa (82); Plantwise Knowledge Bank: Building Sustainable Data and Information Processes to Support Plant Clinics in Kenya / Cambria Finegold, MaryLucy Oronje, Margo C. Leach, Teresia Karanja, Florence Chege, Shaun L.A. Hobbs (96); Innovation in Extension Services for Improved Farmer Access to Agricultural Information in Uganda / Patrick Kasangaki (102); Managing a Web Portal Adapting to New Technologies / Soonho Kim, Kathryn Pace Kincheloe, Yuan Gao, Valdete Berisha (107); Library Outreach to University Farm Staff / Emily MacKenzie, Natalie Waters (114); Enhancing Access to Research in Institutional Repositiories through API / Ryan Miller, Indira Yerramareddy (118); Building Capacity of Smallholder Farmers in Agribusiness and Entrepreneurship Skills in Northern Uganda / Basil Mugonola, Callistus Baliddawa (122); The Data Landscpe of the Coral Triangle / Jeanette Norris (127); Agricultural Information Access Among Smallholder Farmers: Comparative Assessment of Peri-Urban and Rural Settings in Kenya / Dorine Odongo (133); From Local to Global: Launching the New Rangelands West Portals and Database / Jeanne L. Pfander, Barbara S. Hutchinson, Valeria Pesce, Matt Rahr (138); Seed Village Programme: An Innovative Approach for Small Farmers / Dheeraj Singh, M. K. Chaudhary, M. L. Meena, M. M. Roy (143); Transformation of Indian Agricultural Libraries in a Digital and Collaborative Era: A Case Study / Neena Singh, Anil Chikate (147); Collaboration for Impact / Indira Yerramareddy, Luz Marina Alvaré, Katarlah Taylor (157