Rethinking How Nonindustrial Landowners View Their Lands

Author： Kluender R. A. Walkingstick T. L.

Publisher： Society of American Foresters

ISSN： 0148-4419

Source： Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol.24, Iss.3, 2000-08, pp. : 150-158

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

Southwide nonindustrial landowners account for 70% of the commercial timber land and 69% of the total growing stock. These forests provide a diversity of benefits including solid wood products, wood fiber, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, water conservation, and scenic beauty. This study explores the diversity of landowner groups by developing landowner typologies (groups of individuals with similar characteristics) based on grouped responses to a mail questionnaire. Selected landowners were mailed a questionnaire that requested information about their land and their personal objectives for these land holdings. A K-means cluster analysis using chi-square distancing was used to separate out four cluster groups based on the seven clustering factors. These clusters were identified as Timber Managers, Resident Conservationists, Affluent Weekenders, and Poor Rural Residents. Once stable clusters of landowners were established, a cross tab, chi-square analysis of landowner clusters vs. discrete question responses was performed. The Timber Managers were most likely to have sold timber in the past and maintained plans to sell again in the future. They tended to be affluent and well educated. Resident Conservationists tended to live on their properties and displayed a strong aversion to harvesting. They were only moderately well educated and had a moderate income level. Affluent Weekenders hem their property as second homes or weekend retreats and were generally averse to timber harvest. They were well educated and generally affluent. Poor Rural Residents were raised in a rural environment, tended to be at or below national poverty levels, were poorly educated, and would consider using their land or timber to produce revenue if they could. South. J. Appl. For. 24(3):150-158.