Assessing the Benefits of Forest Certification for Non-Industrial Private Forest Landowners in Washington State

Item

Title

Eng Assessing the Benefits of Forest Certification for Non-Industrial Private Forest Landowners in Washington State

Date

2017

Creator

Eng Andersen, Piek

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

Assessing the Benefits of Forest Certification
for Non-Industrial Private Forest Landowners in Washington State

by
Peik Andersen

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2017

©2017 by Peik Andersen. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Peik Andersen

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

________________________
Edward A. Whitesell, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
Assessing the Benefits of Forest Certification
for Non-Industrial Private Forest Landowners in Washington State
Peik Andersen
Certification offers a way for landowners to manage land for economic benefit,
while positively influencing the ability of forestland to sustain important ecosystem
services. Changes in ownership structure and goals resulting from fragmentation and exurbanization challenges the capacity to perform this function. Decisions to certify have a
complex set of factors and are not well understood. Consequences of this knowledge gap
are that certifications may not be effectively addressing the needs of non-industrial
private forest (NIPF) landowners, also known as family foresters. Providing more value
to landowners could increase the amount of land being managed in sustainable ways.
This thesis identifies the conditions that allow Washington State landowners certified
through the Washington Tree Farm Program to benefit from certification. Through
electronic surveys completed by 80 tree farmers, using open- and closed-ended questions,
this survey identified aspects of certification valued by family foresters, how they
benefitted, and how this changed with property size and time of ownership. Motivations
and benefits of family foresters in Washington State were found to be influenced by
property size and time of ownership. Economic incentives provided little benefit for
small landowners but increased with property size. Premiums from certified timber sales
were not a primary value or benefit for most landowners, who were instead motivated by
a strong sense of forest stewardship. Social networks created by certification were found
to be valuable for family foresters. Promoting social networks through certification
programs to connect landowners may be an effective method to attract tree farmers and
elevate the quality of forest management practices across rural America. Programs that
promote sustainable forest management should consider the variety of landowner
management objectives. This knowledge can inform programs and forest policies to
continue building sustainability across rural landscapes.

Table of Contents
List of figures .............................................................................................................vi
List of tables ...............................................................................................................vii
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................viii
1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................1
2. Literature review ..................................................................................................10
2.1 Changing demographics...........................................................................10
2.2 Family forester values ..............................................................................14
2.3 Past outreach efforts .................................................................................17
2.4 Economic incentives ................................................................................22
2.5 Conclusion ...............................................................................................24
3. Methods................................................................................................................26
3.1 The population and sample ......................................................................28
3.2 Survey design ...........................................................................................29
3.3 The data ....................................................................................................32
3.4 Validity issues ..........................................................................................35
3.5 Data analysis ............................................................................................36
4. Results ..................................................................................................................38
4.1 General results .........................................................................................39
4.2 Perceived benefits of certification ...........................................................40
4.3 Actual benefits reported ...........................................................................46
4.4 The influence of time ...............................................................................50
4.5 Tree farmer management goals ................................................................51
4.6 Selection bias ...........................................................................................54
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................56
iv

5.1 Main findings ...........................................................................................57
5.2 Values, motivations, and benefits with time and space ...........................59
5.3 Open-ended responses .............................................................................67
5.4 Implications for sustainable forest management......................................69
6. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................72
Works cited ................................................................................................................74
Appendices
A. Washington Tree Farm Program Survey ..............................................................76
B. Invitation to participants........................................................................................82
C. Research subject consent form to participate ........................................................83

v

List of Figures
Figure 1: Time of ownership......................................................................................39
Figure 2: What tree farmers reported to value in certification...................................46
Figure 3: Perceived benefits reported from open-ended question .............................50
Figure 4: Activities tree farmers are reporting to engage in post-certification ..........53
Figure 5: Reported topics of value from open-ended question ..................................54
Figure 6: Changes made to certify .............................................................................55

vi

List of Tables
Table 1: Respondent profile by acreage.....................................................................38
Table 2: Influence of demand for certified forest products .......................................41
Table 3: Influence of higher prices paid for certified forest products .......................41
Table 4: Influence of public pressure to certify .........................................................42
Table 5: Influence of access to information and support for management ................43
Table 6: Influence of personal sense of responsibility...............................................43
Table 7: Influence of public recognition for responsible forest management ...........44
Table 8: Influence of new markets to sell timber products ........................................45
Table 9: Benefit of access to new buyers of forest products .....................................47
Table 10: Benefit of higher prices paid for forest products .......................................47
Table 11: Benefit of access to information and support ............................................48
Table 12: Benefit of public recognition for responsible forest management.............49
Table 13: Influence of access to information and support with time .........................51
Table 14: Benefit of access to information and support with time ............................51
Table 15: Aspects of certification ranked most valuable ...........................................52
Table 16: Reported changes to operation since certifying .........................................52
Table 17: Topics of interest to tree farmers ...............................................................54
Table 18: Tree farmers managing to certification standards prior to certifying ........55
Table 19: Tree farmers that made lots of changes to become certified .....................55

vii

Acknowledgements
Thank you to Nicole Hill, Bob Obedzenski, Tammie Perrault, Elizabeth Ide, and all the
volunteers and landowners involved with the Washington Tree Farm Program that
contributed to this research project. This thesis would not have been possible without
your contributions. I would also like to thank Angie Munguia, and my reader, Dr. Edward
Whitesell, for supporting this endeavor.

viii

1. Introduction
Forests are important for many reasons. Ecologically, forests act as a filter that
provides us with clean drinking water. Forests provide habitat for animals and other
organisms. Forests enrich people’s lives with recreational opportunities, scenery, and
other spiritual benefits. Forests absorb atmospheric carbon and turn it into wood fiber
which not only helps to slow down the effects of climate change, but also provides jobs
and income from forest products for those living in rural areas (Sagor & Becker, 2014).
Forest stewardship is a management approach to forestry with objectives that
include the perpetuation of ecological, economic, and social benefits from the use of land
(Kilgore, Snyder, Taff, & Schertz, 2008a). Sustainable forestry is defined by Kilgore,
Greene, Jacobson, Straka, and Daniels (2007a) as “managing forests for their ecological,
economic, and social benefits such that these benefits do not diminish in quality and
quantity over time.” (p. 185). The goals of forest certification are to protect soil, air,
water, biodiversity, and other forest benefits by focusing on the processes by which
forests are generated, managed, and harvested (Knoot & Rickenbach, 2011).
Timber harvesting is an important dimension of sustainable forest management
because good site management practices positively influence the capacity of forests to
sustain a wider range of important ecological benefits (Kilgore et al., 2008a). Forest
certification of timber production exists to promote sustainable forest use that protects the
environments, is economically profitable, and protects the interests of small timber
owners.
Forest certification is a method to document that land management practices are
effectively conserving their environmental, economic, and social benefits (Kilgore et al.,
1

2007a). Forest certification provides landowners with the opportunity to voluntarily have
their land formally assessed to verify they are managing the land to the predetermined
standards of sustainable forest management (Kilgore et al., 2008a).
Forest certifications were initially created by transnational and domestic nongovernmental organizations who turned to the market to create incentives and persuade
compliance in maintaining the ecological and social integrity of forest environments
(Cashore, Auld, & Newsom, 2003). The countries that attended the 1992 United Nations
“Earth Summit” could not agree on a forestry convention, due to developing countries not
wanting to give up autonomy and developed countries not offering financial support to
protect forests, which prompted development of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as
a private standard-setting body, which recognizes forest operations that meet specified
criteria for sustainable forest management (Moore, Cubbage, & Eicheldinger, 2012). FSC
and the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), which endorses an
industry-backed alternative to FSC in North America, the Sustainable Forest Initiative
(SFI), are the dominant certification systems globally (Kilgore et al., 2007a). The
American Tree Farm Program is the oldest certification standard for forests in the US and
certifies tree farmers with between 10 and 10,000 acres of land (WTFP, 2017). In
Washington State, this certification is administered through the Washington Tree Farm
Program.
The expectation and reward for certified landowners is that a market premium
will be assigned to their certified forest products for engaging in socially and ecologically
sound forestry practices (Daniels, Kilgore, Jacobson, Greene & Straka, 2010). Price
premiums and access to existing and new markets are both incentives for producers that

2

differentiate their product through certification (Blackman & Rivera, 2011). Third-party
auditors assess the quality of a company’s forest management practices in relation to a
predetermined standard, giving written assurance to the market that a forest product or
process conforms to the requirements (Rametsteiner & Simula, 2003).
In the United States, we have substantial private timberlands and most of that is
held by 10.4 million family foresters (Ma, Butler, Kittredge, & Catanzaro, 2012). Of the
751 million acres of forest in the United States, more than half of it is privately owned
(Butler, 2008). Non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners, also known as family
foresters, own and manage 264 million of these acres, or 35% of all US forest land
(Butler, 2008). There is little distinction between NIPF’s and family foresters and the
terms are interchangeable in this thesis. NIPF’s are defined by Schubert and Mayer
(2012) as “forests owned by private entities such as individuals and families, that do not
fall under the category of vertically-integrated timber companies.” (p. 150). This means
that no more than one aspect of processing is performed by the landowner. For example,
harvesting and milling are considered 2 separate production aspects. Private forest
owners include forest industry companies, businesses, corporations, partnerships,
families, and individuals (Butler & Leatherberry, 2004). Butler (2008), defines family
foresters as families, individuals, trusts, estates, family partnerships, and other
unincorporated groups. The land owned by these individuals and groups must be at least
1 acre that is 10% or greater stocked with trees (Butler & Leatherberry, 2004). The term
family forester also makes a distinction in that the ownership characteristics are
associated with personal and family-centered management motivations in which

3

landowners also recognize the unique contribution their land makes in the greater
landscape picture (Bliss, 2003).
NIPF’s play a critical role as sustainable forestland stewards in Washington State.
While 56% of forest land is owned by family foresters nationally, the ratio of public
versus private ownership varies by region and private landowners own 30% of forestland
in the west (Oswalt & Smith, 2014). Family foresters are important because they manage
so much of the nation’s forests and their collective decision making accounts for over a
third of the management that occurs in US forests. The collective behavior has a large
impact on the sustainability of US forests (Ma et al., 2012). Owner relationships with the
land have important implications for the sustainable production of timber and the
continuing benefits of ecosystem services like clean water (Butler & Leatherberry, 2004).
Amongst the ecosystem services and ecological benefits their forests provide, family
foresters account for over half of the national timber supply (Rickenbach, Zeuli, &
Sturgess-Cleek, 2005). Because timber harvests have been declining on public land,
family foresters play a larger role than ever in the supply of timber (Bliss, 2003). The
certification rate is low with respect to private, non-corporate forestland (Kilgore et al.
2007). Only 4.2% of forest land in the US is certified by just .08% of the landowners (Ma
et al., 2012).
Geographically, family forest land plays a critical role in forest systems. Because
early settlement patterns in the west made it so family forest land occupies many riparian
corridors and is at lower elevations, this land has an importance disproportionate to the
area it occupies due to it being critical habitat to species like salmon and endangered
species like Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets (Bliss, 2003). Additionally,

4

this land disproportionately dominates the area around cities and family forestland
provides ecosystem services like open space and aesthetic beauty that improve urban
dwellers lives (Bliss, 2003). Family forestland typically provides a unique mixture of
young to medium aged trees and open spaces from abandoned farmland that contributes
to ecological diversity in the landscape which might otherwise be dominated by the
homogenous industrial commercial timber operations or mature Douglas-fir stands found
on public lands in the Pacific Northwest (Bliss, 2003).
Shifting demographics and land management goals raise questions about the
efficacy of certification programs in the United States. A study by Butler and Ma (2011)
that examined the National Woodland Owners Survey, a periodic survey conducted by
the U.S. Forest Service on small forest landowners, revealed that individual forest
ownerships are shrinking in size while the amount of non-farming forest landowners is
simultaneously increasing. Zhang, Zhang, and Schelhas (2005) examined NIPF
landowner data collected by the U.S. Forest Service since 1952 which showed that
landowners who identified as “farmers” shrank from approximately 173,000 to 82,000
and those identified as “other private” rose from approximately 132,000 to 205,000
between 1952 and 1992. The authors of this study did not provide data past 1992 because
data distinguishing the two categories was likely not available because it is getting harder
to distinguish them apart (Zhang et al., 2005).
The amount of low-density rural housing has increased 5-fold since the 1950’s
(Ferranto, Huntsinger, Stewart, Getz, Nakamura, & Kelly, 2012). Butler and Ma (2011)
found that in 20 states in the northern United States between 1993 and 1996, that the
amount of family foresters owning between 1 and 9 acres rose from 6.6% to 9.5% while

5

the average property size shrank from 25 to 20 acres. Between 1990 and 2010, urban land
in the United States increased from 2.5 percent of total land area to 3.6 percent in 2010
(Oswalt & Smith, 2014). Urbanization affects the forest resource and its management by
eliminating some trees and forests, increases population density, human activities, and
urban infrastructure (Oswalt & Smith, 2014). As urban landscapes increase across the
nation, rural forest landscapes are often converted to developed lands and with more than
80 percent of the U.S. population living in urban areas, ecosystem services provided by
urban trees and forests are significant and valued in billions of dollars annually (Oswalt
& Smith, 2014).
A phenomenon over the last several decades is the growth of exurban landowners
with non-timber management goals which is increasing the overall variety of ownership
goals in America forests. These alternative reasons for ownership are concepts which
include privacy, home, and land investment and were reported by Bengston, Asah, &
Butler (2011) to be the 3 biggest motivations for ownership amongst forest landowners.
This trend presents an issue for ensuring forestland is managed in ways that promotes the
continued flow of ecosystem services.
Adding to this issue is an aging population of family foresters indicating that
owner demographics will undergo rapid transformations in the near-term future when
lands are sold or gifted to new owners (Butler & Leatherberry, 2004). From the results of
the NWOS, Butler and Leatherberry (2005) determined the average age of family
foresters to be 60. In 2014, the U.S. Forest Service reported that 20% of U.S. forestland is
owned by people 75 years of age and older (Oswalt & Smith, 2014). This same summary
also reported that people aged 65 to 75 owned 28% of U.S. forestland. A shift in

6

landowners with a long history of residence and of management for timber production to
a younger population of newcomers that are looking for amenity values as opposed to
cutting down their trees will certainly affect how and where timber is sourced from.
The potential consequences of new owners managing for purposes other than
timber production and reduced property sizes affect the ecological, economic, and social
integrity of the landscape. Fragmentation contributes to habitat destruction as areas of
forest are repurposed with housing, agriculture, or other uses reducing forest
connectivity. Urban land in USA increased from 3.1% in 1990 to 3.6% in 2010 (Oswalt
& Smith, 2014). Reduced property size causes a loss in landowner management options
resulting in further declines in timber production (Bliss, 2003). Increased social conflict
can result as rural and urban lifestyles meet as new neighbors move out of the cities and
into the woods (Bliss, 2003).
This thesis addresses some of the most important of these questions, within the
context of Washington State. Certification offers a way for landowners to manage land
for economic benefits, while positively influencing the ability of forestland to sustain a
range of important ecosystem services. The changes in ownership structure and goals
resulting from fragmentation and ex-urbanization challenges the capacity to perform this
function. There is a need for research to inform and improve certification programs for
our times.
The objectives of this thesis project are to identify conditions where landowners
benefit from certification under the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), identify what is
valued by landowners in this program, identify how the values and benefits might change

7

with property size and time of ownership, and understand how this knowledge can inform
programs and forest policies to continue building sustainability across rural landscapes.
Partnering with the Washington Tree Farm, which has certified 400,000 acres in
Washington State (Washington Tree Farm Program, 2017), I collaborated on an
electronic self-administered survey that asked 44 open- and closed ended questions and
was sent to approximately 450 tree farmers. The Washington Tree Farm Program
provided me with technical expertise and their database of ATFS certified foresters to
sample from.
My research question asked what motivated family foresters to certify their
forests and how this benefits NIPF landowners. Through analyzing the survey results of
80 ATFS certified family foresters, I found that motivations and benefits of NIPF
landowners in Washington State are influenced by property size, time of ownership, and
social influences. Economic incentives provided little benefit for small landowners but
increased with property size. Premiums from certified timber sales are not a primary
value or benefit for most landowners. In general, landowners are motivated by a sense of
forest stewardship or “land ethic”. Social networks created by certification were found to
be a substantially valuable component within the community of family foresters.
These findings can lead to enhanced sustainability within Washington’s private
forests in the several ways. Promoting social networks through certification programs to
connect landowners may be an effective method to attract tree farmers and elevate the
quality of forest management practices across rural America. ATFS certified Washington
tree farmers rated this as an important motivation for certifying and benefit they got from
it. Programs that promote sustainable forest management should also consider the variety

8

of landowner management objectives. Certification programs can be more efficient with
their resources by understanding the differences in their members.
Decisions to certify have a complex set of factors and are not well understood at
this time. Consequences of this knowledge gap are that certifications may not be
effectively addressing the needs of small NIPF landowners and this could be a missed
opportunity to increase the amount of certified land being managed in sustainable ways in
Washington State and elsewhere, but also to prevent the reduction of certified land
through attrition by providing more value to both new and long-term landowners.
In this thesis, I will begin with a review of the literature pertaining to motivations
and values behind certifying forestland. I will go on to discuss the methods I used to learn
about and record the motivations of NIPF landowner certification participation. Next, I
will review the original data I obtained through surveys of NIPF landowners. Finally, I
will discuss what the results of this data can tell us about assessing the effects of
certification on NIPF landowners and its implications as a resource and strategy that
benefits landowners while promoting the sustainability of forests and the ecological and
societal benefits they provide.

9

2. Literature Review
The following review of past and current research on NIPF landowner
certification will discuss the motivations and values of family foresters in general, and
ones that manage with an emphasis on sustainability. Factors landowners consider
include economic gains, the quality of incentive programs, varied learning opportunities,
and recognition for forest management that goes beyond what government mandated
forest regulations require. This literature review will look at the changing demographics
of family foresters across the US and examine how ownership structure and values are
changing and the potential impacts this may have on this nations forestland. This review
will discuss how researchers have previously measured the success of “green premiums”
earned from certified forest products and other programs and benefits reported by NIPF
landowners. This section will look closely at potential spatial and temporal biases which
could be barriers or affect the attitudes of landowners towards forest management. This
review will go on to look at how effective current outreach programs targeted at elevating
forest management practices are at reaching and recruiting family foresters. Evidence in
this literature review will look at findings from previous outreach efforts by organizations
wanting to promote sustainable forestry management and how they could reach family
foresters more effectively by recognizing the unique values and motivations that family
foresters have towards their forestland. The information and evidence reported in the
review are from studies conducted throughout North America.
2.1 Changing Demographics
Family forester ownership patterns are undergoing several notable changes
throughout the United States. Butler and Leatherberry (2004) analyzed the results of The

10

National Woodland Owner Survey, which is a series of periodic studies conducted by the
U.S. Forest Service with the purpose of identifying the state of the all national
forestlands. These studies by the U.S. Forest Service, which targeted forestland owners
having 1 or more acres that were stocked with at least 10% trees, asked questions
designed to reveal qualities of their owners including; demographic data, their intentions
for the land, and where they received information and advice for managing their land
(Butler, Leatherberry, & Williams, 2005). The results showed that landowners generally
reported owning forestland for the privacy, lifestyle, or otherwise referred to as amenityvalue that owning forestland provides, as opposed to reasons involving the production of
sellable timber (Butler et al., 2005). Butler and Leatherberry (2004) found that along with
a trend of large sections of privately owned forestland being divided into smaller
ownerships, owner values are changing. In addition, survey results showed that the
percent of family foresters harvesting timber has been decreasing (Butler et al., 2005).
Butler and Ma (2011) analyzed the results of the NWOS conducted on family
forester landowners in 1993 and 2006, which revealed changing trends in ownership size,
structure, and values. The results of these studies show that the number of acres owned
by family foresters increased overall, while the amount of acreage owned by individuals
decreased. The largest change in ownership patterns reported was the number of
landowners owning the smallest class of property size from the study—between 1 and 9
acres, had increased the most (Butler et al., 2005). These studies all suggest that forests in
the US are being collectively managed by an increasing number of landowners, which are
managing ever smaller pieces of forest. The average number of acres owned by a family
forester shrank from 25 in 1993 to 20 in 2006 (Butler & Ma, 2011). Butler and

11

Leatherberry (2004) concluded that because the average age of a family forester from the
study was reported to be 60, that large land transfers would occur in the next couple
decades due to aging of family foresters which would likely further lead to increased
parcelization and potential fragmentation.
The U.S. Forest Service reported that the subdivision and re-purposing of land in
the southeastern USA resulted in a 4.9-million-hectare reduction in forests between 19821997, and that they anticipate an additional conversion of 7.7 million hectares of mostly
NIPF land by 2040 (Bliss, 2003). The rate of change from 1992-1997 averaged 2.26
million acres per year, representing a 50% increase from the previous 5 years (Sampson
& DeCoster, 2000). Because shrinking property size erodes management options for
timber due to the economy of scale, the continuation of this trend may further strain the
ability of family foresters to manage for timber production reliably and provide the other
benefits that accompany land dedicated to the long-term growth of trees.
The cause of shrinking forestland has several theories. (Bliss, 2003) asserted that
timber producing forestland is declining in this country due to a shift in the forest
industry now favoring smaller dimensioned trees grown in shorter rotational-periods in
addition to a weakened social contract between the public and family foresters. This
author’s literary review attributes the decline in family forests to migration pattern shifts
in human populations from rural to urban to suburban living and the influence of this
change in shaping the changing rural landscape. Results from the preceding studies based
on the NWOS would enforce this notion. Fewer foresters means less demand and
capacity to support local lumber mills. The combined reduction in mills and conversion
of mills to support the smaller diameter timber now more typical of industrial forestry

12

means that family foresters have fewer options available for selling and processing their
timber.
Urbanization is a factor cited by Sampson and DeCoster (2000) to be partially
responsible for the decrease in forestland due to there being strong incentives to convert
land to other uses. In their review of the implications of fragmentation for sustainable
forestry, the authors argue that the current tax system disincentives small forestry
operations and that urbanization pushes out low-margin businesses such as agriculture,
forestry, and milling which receive less benefit than urban tax-payers suggesting rural
inequality as a cause (Sampson & DeCoster, 2000).
The structure of ownership is changing along with owner social values as people
move back into rural areas (Bliss, 2003). The changing size and owner characteristics
changes owner relationships to their land (Butler & Ma, 2011). The trending reduction of
individual forest property sizes could lead to increased fragmentation when the land
parcels are managed for different objectives (Schubert & Mayer, 2012). Since the 1950’s,
the amount of low-density rural housing has increased 5-fold (Ferranto et al., 2012). Due
to shifts in attitudes of new forest owners, they are now less likely to be farmers,
therefore more likely to have different and more varied relationships with their land
(Butler & Ma, 2011). Land being managed by an increasing diversity of owners with
unique goals is increasing fragmentation and increasing the challenge to conservation in
the overall management of forests (Ferranto et al., 2012).
2.2 Family forester values
The cumulative decisions made by family foresters is comprised of the many
discrete decisions made by landowners. Collectively, this group plays a large role in the

13

overall shape of forest ecosystems and the benefits they provide people. The goals of
these landowners are therefore critical to understand for influencing their management
decisions toward creating forests that are managed in ways that are sustainable for
landowners, and provide benefits beyond individual property lines. Incentive programs
that are not aligned with family forester values will likely be less effective than ones that
are.
An early study of the values behind NIPF landowner management motivations
was conducted by Bliss and Martin (1989) using qualitative methods to interview family
foresters actively managing their land. The study identified 2 categories of motivating
factors—internal and external incentives. Internal incentives contribute to a manager
identity whereas external incentives involve benefits such as income production,
technical assistance, forest tax programs, and forest incentive programs (Erickson, Ryan,
& De Young, 2002). Although the study did not go on to address external incentives, the
author’s findings contradicted a previous “mythical” concept that timber harvesting
NIPF’s were driven by maximizing profits rather than managing for multiple uses.
An important aspect of the NWOS was to identify characteristics of landowners
that participated in forestry incentive, educational, and technical assistance programs.
This source of information about NIPF’s became the base for many subsequent studies on
trends in ownership, values, and attitudes towards land management. For instance, Butler
and Ma (2011) found in a study of family forest owners in the northern US, that the value
of land as an investment has been increasing. Non-economic values of forestland
ownership are also increasing (Butler & Leatherberry, 2004). Results from the NWOS
show that nationally, only 9% of family foresters reported that timber harvest was a

14

reason for owning land, while in the west that number is reported to be 18% (Butler &
Leatherberry, 2004). Butler and Ma (2011) found that newer owners were less likely to
be tree farmers by comparing the value family foresters placed on managing land for
timber production between the 1996 and 2003 studies. The NWOS studies provide
insight into what rural landowners manage for and value in forestland. Both are key
concepts in the discussion about strategies to reduce the rate which forestland is being
converted into other non-timber uses and therefore retaining the ecosystem services that
forests provide society.
An increasing number of land managers has resulted in a more diverse set of
forest owner management objectives. Changing ownership property sizes and owner
characteristics is changing the way that owners see and manage their properties (Butler &
Ma, 2011). A shift in the values of forestland owners could have great implications for
where Americans get timber products from, find recreational opportunities, spiritual
values, and the degree to which we all benefit from healthy watersheds (Butler &
Leatherberry, 2004).
Incentives that appeal to family foresters are ones that provide them with
knowledge and advice for managing their forested land. Daniels, Kilgore, Jacobson,
Greene, and Straka (2010) found the most appealing aspect of sustainable forestry
incentive programs to be ones that provided face-to-face contact with professional
forester support. Kilgore et al. (2007a) separately reported on the same study that family
foresters desire the kind of interaction with foresters where they can see demonstrations
and become educated about forestry issues and practices in person. The assessment of
Kilgore et al. (2007a) was that technical assistance, cost-sharing programs, and

15

management planning assistance were 3 approaches which consistently led family
foresters to elevate their level of forest stewardship.
Studies have provided evidence that many landowners manage their land for
beauty, privacy, and non-consumptive amenities (Ma et al., 2012). A study by Erickson et
al. (2002) of landowner attitudes in rural Michigan analyzed survey responses of
landowners living in one agricultural watershed where the amount of forest cover had
been increasing. The finding from the 112 responses showed that aesthetics and
environmental protection were more important than economic incentives in motivating
their land management practices. Furthermore, this study reported that there was no
significant cooperation occurring between landowners to create this change. This
suggests the landowners were independently managing for this benefit apart from one
another.
Studies have shown that new forest owners that actively manage are managing for
different goals than traditional forestland owners. Using a case-study approach,
Rickenbach et al. (2005), performed a qualitative analysis using 22 semi-structured
interviews that asked new ex-urban family foresters about their motivations for joining a
cooperative in Wisconsin which offered one variety of certification to landowners. A key
finding from this study was that NIPF landowners were frustrated by tax incentive
programs that were oriented toward timber production and excluded incentives for
alternative management focused on environmentally sensitive management goals. This
finding suggests that the values of small landowners are likely broader and go beyond
external incentives like economic benefits.

16

Previous studies have provided evidence that the forest industry and public land
managers have sought certification as a means to increase their profits, improve or defend
access to forest product markets, and earn public confidence (Ma et al., 2012). Timber
harvesting for income has been shown to not be the primary goal of all private forestland
owners, or their primary source of income (Rickenbach et al., 2005). Ex-urbanization and
the flow of residents from cities into the forests brings new backgrounds and values
which differ from traditional rural values (Rickenbach et al., 2005). Different
management philosophies and objectives appears to be causing changes in the behavior
of landowners in rural areas. There are few studies that connect the intentions of new
forest owners with their values.
2.3 Past Outreach Efforts
Effective outreach is a method that could increase sustainable forest management
across the United States. As forest parcels shrink, become more numerous, and become
increasingly fragmented, outreach efforts will need to be scaled to reach the owners of
these smaller, spaced-out, but increasingly significant forest plots. Jones, Luloff, and
Finley (1995) recommended that programs should appeal to the growing number of
family foresters and their increasing diversity. Understanding the preferred method of
communication for family foresters could assist in connecting with the landowners and
conveying the information and advice they are looking for in managing their lands.
Programs have been established to conserve private land for the benefit of the
public by offering landowners technical assistance, education, and financial incentives
(Sagor & Becker, 2014). To encourage land conservation and sustainable forest
management, non-profits and government have created a wide range of programs and

17

policies aimed at forest landowners that include technical assistance, tax incentives, costsharing, forest conservation easements, outreach education, and forest certification (Ma et
al., 2012). These groups which include government, universities, private consultants,
foresters, and industry offer family foresters a variety of programs to assist them in
achieving the goal of sustainable forest management which include technical assistance,
financial subsidies, and outreach services (Rickenbach et al., 2005).
Many of the current forest policies connect landowners to technical assistance and
advice from services offered by universities with the assumption that better forestry
practices are associated with this expert advice. An early study by Hayward and
Vertinsky (1999) identified motivations of both NIPF landowners and public land
managers for utilizing certification programs by using structured interviews on a
nationally representative sample of 20 participants. The results of the study showed that
while the expectations for economic benefit through certification were high, the learning
benefits reported were greater than expected. The findings show that certification has the
potential to meet the needs of smaller operations as an important source of information
for land management, which has been demonstrated to improve the management quality
of forestland (Egan & Jones, 1993).
Receiving the right type of information could be very important for increasing the
sustainable forest management practices of family foresters. Studies have revealed a
demand for knowledge beyond just harvesting practices. Most programs offered to
landowners contain some type of educational component (Schubert & Mayer, 2012).
Kilgore et al. (2007a), found that the presence of more forestry experts was associated
with better management practices. A study by Egan and Jones (1993) found a substantial

18

positive correlation between access to knowledge and land being managed for
sustainability. Improving the decision-making process by providing diverse sources of
information may increase the capacity of landowners to evaluate decision options and
outcomes which can lead to better outcomes (Kilgore et al., 2007a). This is based on
Weak-Tie Theory, in which the strong ties that make up a landowner’s immediate social
circles contain information that are more similar to its own than information that comes
from those further outside their circle (Kilgore et al., 2007a).
What is not known is if the message of practicing sustainable forestry, which has
been promoted through a certification program like the American Tree Farm System, or
other stewardship programs, or the various economic incentive programs, can find
success with a shifting group of owners and the changing surroundings as urbanization
continues. With the increase in diversity in ownership, new landowners may be motivated
by benefits other than economic gains from harvesting timber and therefore not
participating in standard forestry programs which may not matter to them (Sampson &
DeCoster, 2000). There may be a need to identify strategies in outreach programs that
address changing ownership patterns. Incentive programs designed to help family
foresters could reduce the rate of forestland being subdivided, and ultimately fragmented.
Studies have looked at the characteristics of the family forester data collected in
the NWOS to determine how they can be used to improve programs and draw a wider
range of participants (Knoot & Rickenbach, 2011). Looking at survey responses from the
NWOS, Ma et al. (2012) analyzed 15,799 results to determine the characteristics of
family foresters that participated in 3 major forest conservation programs across the
United States—forest certification, cost-sharing, and conservation easements. Findings

19

from the study showed that those with more forest land were more likely to participate in
all 3 programs than those having less forestland. This could either mean that those with
less land are less interested to participate in incentive programs or that they are simply
less aware that these programs exist. Ma et al. (2012) found that the amount of time a
landowner had possessed their property did not significantly influence their participation
in a forest certification program. This would indicate that new landowners could be as
receptive to joining a program which promotes sustainable forest certification.
Previous studies have identified gaps in the distribution of information. Ferranto
et al. (2012) found that most landowners are not reached by programs that assist
landowners to increase the sustainability in their forest management practices.
Rickenbach et al. (2005) found that only 20% of family foresters nation-wide have sought
out professional assistance. Ma et al. (2012) were more conservative in their assessment
and found that most of these programs have attracted less than 10% of family foresters
nationally. In surveying 670 family foresters across California, Ferranto et al. (2012)
found that individual organizations targeting family foresters collectively reached less
than 60% of this group, and that no individual organization reached more than 30% of
these foresters. Furthermore, the survey results showed that landowners having over 200
hectares were substantially more likely to receive advice for managing land from a
diversity of organizations and that family foresters having between 4 and 20 hectares and
were the least likely to receive advice (Ferranto et al., 2012). Given the shifting pattern of
forest ownerships, land size appears to be an important factor needing to be addressed for
increasing program awareness and participation.

20

The study by Ferranto et al. (2012) showed that almost all landowners are
interested in receiving land management information and identified factors that influence
landowner receptivity to information and advice. Landowners have reported varying
interests based on the size of their property (Ferranto et al., 2012). Owners with 20
hectares or fewer reported more interest in ecological topics such as native plants, water
quality, and pest management, whereas larger property owners reported more interest in
receiving land use information on laws affecting their land, taxes, conservation
easements, biofuels, livestock production, timber production, forest certification, and
agritourism. (Ferranto et al., 2012). Research has shown that landowners are managing
for a variety of goals and programs make a mistake by using only financial incentives as
a lure (Butler, Tyrrell, Feinberg, VanManen, Wiseman, & Wallinger, 2007).
In addition to what family foresters were interested in getting from programs,
researchers have looked at how family foresters prefer to receive this information. Family
foresters rated private forester consultants as being the most favorable sources of
information and that they preferred to receive mass distributed forms of information via
written newsletters instead of electronic correspondence (Ferranto et al., 2012). In
agreeance with this, a study by Butler et al. (2007), that examined the results of the
NWOS pertaining to how family foresters preferred to receive information, found that
while newspaper and television were also highly rated forms of communication for
receiving information, the internet was the least preferred method for landowners to be
informed. Butler et al. (2007) also found that effective outreach can bring more foresters
into programs which promote sustainable forest management, but reaching them through
the internet has shown poor results.

21

2.4 Economic Incentives
Current literature reveals a debate about the economic benefit of forest
certification. It is unclear whether this is a profitable endeavor for small landowners. In
theory, forest certifications should create an economic benefit for producers because the
market will assign additional value to timber originating from sustainably managed
forests. Green labeling allows supply chain stakeholders to sell a product that is socially
and environmentally well managed at a premium price (Overdevest & Rickenbach,
2006). Certification should offset the adoption costs by increasing revenues, improving
public image, and improving relationships with stakeholders which all potentially
increase a company’s competitive advantage (Bouslah, M’Zali, Turcotte, & Kooli, 2010).
Empirical research shows limited support for this conclusion. This section addresses the
research that has been documented on the economic factors that forestry operations
consider in obtaining certification and the benefits that have been reported.
Kilgore et al. (2007a) sought to identify how different financial incentive
programs performed in promoting sustainable forest management practices by family
foresters. These researchers surveyed federal incentive program administrators in all 50
states and conducted 8 focus groups divided equally between program participants and
non-participants from a pool of landowners across the United States representing the
north, south, east, and west regions. The results of this study showed that financial
incentives have limited influence on forest owners’ decisions regarding how they manage
their lands. Foresters reported that the most valuable incentive came in the form of
technical assistance from public and professional foresters that could walk their land with

22

them (Kilgore et al., 2007a). The authors reported that this was regardless of the time the
land had been in their possession or the level of forestry experience of the landowner.
When looking at programs that incentivizes forestland management geared
towards sustainable management, many studies reveal that financial incentives to
participate have weak appeal. Daniels et al. (2010) interviewed 8 NIPF focus groups as
part of a national study to learn how this group responds to incentives for sustainable
forest management. Their conclusion was that landowner purchase and management
decisions were motivated more strongly by an ethic of conservation than by a pursuit of
financial returns. The authors concluded that programs should avoid using financial
incentives as a lure because the motivations and goals of NIPF’s are much broader.
D'Amato, Catanzaro, Damery, Kittredge, and Ferrare (2010) tested their theory
that subdividing land resulted from rising property taxes impeding the ability of family
foresters to effectively manage their forestland. Using computer modeling to compare the
economic returns of timber sales in the most rural watershed in Massachusetts, using a
30-year time frame in the models, this study found that economic returns were not
enough to offset the property taxes imposed on their forestland. However, by comparing
economic returns from timber management with tools commonly available to assist with
the tax burden of managing timberland, the study found that either using a “current-use”
tax program or “conversion easements” resulted in a net positive monetary gain
regardless of the property size categories used in the study. This study is one example of
the limited financial benefit of timber management for family foresters not participating
in some form of assistance program. This study also suggests that programs to assist

23

foresters be designed to accommodate the infrequent harvesting of timber on family
forest land.
Another interesting side to this seemingly changing identity of forest landowners
comes from the harvesting side timber management. Kilgore, Leahy, Donnay, Hibbard,
and Blinn (2007b), performed a survey using mail questionnaires sent to loggers in
Minnesota which inquired about their attitudes toward the potential of participating in a
certification program focused on harvesting practices with a focus on sustainability. The
findings from this study indicated that although financial returns were the most important
element in a decision to join, and the benefits they perceived from participating would
not be economic, approximately 75% of respondents did say they would join (Kilgore et
al., 2007b). This may be an indication of an industry recognized shift in the logging
customer base and response toward their perceived environmentally sensitive values.
2.5 Conclusion
Research into sustainable forest certifications has suggested that they may not
benefit small forest landowners and questions whether this attribute adds value to the
sales of their forest products. Although price premiums for harvested timber have been
considered an incentive to join certification programs, previous research does not seem to
agree with this notion. Kilgore et al. (2008a) showed that economic gains do not motivate
landowners to certify. Kilgore et al. (2007a) found through surveying that financial
incentives were not a substantial motivating factor for landowners to certify their forest.
Little evidence exists that certification provides this type of economic benefit, especially
in the case of family foresters. Furthermore, there is little evidence that family foresters

24

are even motivated to join programs that promote sustainable forest management based
on financial incentives alone.
Programs that connect landowners to advice and support for carrying out
management objectives have been shown to be the most effective at reaching small
landowners (Sagor & Becker, 2014). Other evidence shows that landowners rely on a
variety of sources of information for managing their forests, with a higher value placed
on resources that can provide technical advice and assistance in carrying out their
management objectives (Schubert & Mayer, 2012). Programs with a focus toward
supporting non-economic motives for management, and that provide them with in person
assistance are reported by family foresters to be most appealing (Kilgore et al., 2007a).

25

3. Methodology
This research project looked at a sample population of American Tree Farm
System (ATFS) certified non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners and measured
the resulting combined economic changes, attitudes, and motivating factors towards and
resulting from forestry certification adoption. Through analyzing results from a survey, I
compared the intended outcomes of certification with the actual outcomes for this class of
forest producers. Using an inductive approach, I sought to unveil the motivations for why
small forest landowners chose to certify their land and how certification has measured up
to their expectations. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from NIPF
landowners certified under the ATFS with land holdings between 10-10,000 acres of
forest. This acreage-based group are considered “small” foresters under the ATFS.
To achieve the objectives of this research, 450 ATFS foresters were sent an
electronic survey. Each participant received an identical survey. Quantitative data
collected included property sizes, time of ownership, degree of operational changes made
to certify, attitudes towards certification, and benefits gained. Qualitative data collected
included attitudes, values, and perceptions towards the benefits of certification. The data
was used to identify causal relationships between certification and benefits, therefore
allowing me to perform an evaluation of its effectiveness in a socioeconomic framework.
A survey was chosen for to evaluate land owner motivations for becoming
certified and the benefits resulting from certification for NIPF landowners and in
Washington State. This method was used due to the ease and speed of collecting data
from the approximately 650 ATFS certified forest landowners across Washington State
that make up the WTFP. The survey was designed to collect both qualitative and

26

quantitative data that would be used to infer values, attitudes, and beliefs of ATFS
certified NIPF landowners across Washington State toward the perceived and realized
benefits of certifying their land.
The geographical scope of this study covered forest landowners in Washington
State that actively manage their forestland for sustainability. Only NIPF landowners
certified under the ATFS were included in this study. Although a small number of ATFS
tree farmers may have additional certifications, only landowners with the ATFS
certification standard were looked at in this study.
The survey was created with the WTFP, the representative branch in Washington
State of the ATFS. The questions for this research project were included in a
questionnaire which contained additional questions that sought to understand how
member farmer’s forest management practices were affected by certification and to
gather input from member farmers about what technological resources they would like to
help them manage their forestland.
The WTFP provided technical expertise and their member database so that
members could be sent the survey. My role was to design the electronic survey and
include both their research questions and my own questions which this thesis is based on.
I provided the WTFP with statistical results and a copy of my research.
My goal was to find out what benefits were anticipated when land owners first
became interested in certifying and what benefits they reported after having participated.
I compared their responses to the periods of time in which they had owned their farm and
the amount of acreage they owned. Ownership time was divided into 5 categories that
ranged from; 0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-25 years, 25-50 years and greater than 50 years.

27

Acreage was divided into 4 categories that included; 10-49 acres, 50-99 acres, 100-299
acres, and 300 or more acres.
This section will discuss begin by discussing the population and sample the data
came from. The next part will cover the survey design. After this, the data collected will
be described. I will go on to describe validity issues with the data. Lastly, I will discuss
how this thesis analyzed the data collected.
3.1 The population and sample
Data for this study were collected through electronic self-administered surveys
sent to all WTFP NIPF landowners in Washington State. Surveys were emailed to 450
participants who previously indicated that they use email to communicate. These were
sent out in mid-February 2017.
The ATFS made the member database available to me for this project. I requested
a survey from each member directly through a newsletter and electronic mail making this
a single-stage sampling procedure. Nonprobability sampling was used and subjects
responded based on their availability to answer the survey or participate in an interview.
Members who chose to not respond to either the online or mail in survey were excluded
from providing data and contributing any meaning to the research. Because the sample
was comprised entirely of the members volunteering to respond, this research is
investigating landowner perceptions using a convenience sample, and therefore the
methods presented in this project make it unable to determine how representative this
sample is of the whole population.
Recruiting a probability sample was not the point of this research however. This
survey was of an exploratory nature to gain insight about the attitudes of small forest

28

landowners certified through ATFS. The perceptions of this group could yield valuable
insight as to how certification programs can better conform to meet the needs of their
forest landowner members. The methodology was designed to evoke an understanding of
their perceptions as to the benefits of certification and how in practice they were
benefitting from certification. The point of the research is to discover what motivating
factors exist for recruiting landowners into certifying their forestland and how do they
benefit from what this program offers.
3.2 The survey design
To construct this survey, I reviewed academic literature on surveying small forest
landowners and looked at survey instruments used in other studies which collected data
from NIPF landowners. I used these studies to learn what had been effective for gathering
data on landowner attitudes, beliefs, and learning what motivated them. Some ideas for
the survey design came out of a National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) conducted
by the USDA to assess forest landowner’s perceptions about their forests (Butler et al.,
2005).
The NWOS used an open-end question format which allowed respondents to use
their own words to answer questions designed to understand woodland owners’ values
and motivations for owning forest land (Butler et al., 2005). The logic behind this method
was that using pre-determined fixed response questions would prevent researchers from
learning about other dimensions of ownership values that would be missed if respondents
could not provide their own answers. The NWOS highlighted the importance of using
qualitative data for gauging attitudes and values from NIPF landowners.

29

I included both open-ended and closed-ended items in the survey instrument used
for this study because this form of mixed-methods research that has the potential to
realize the benefits of both qualitative and quantitative research and there is some
evidence that the reliability and validity of open-ended questions exceeds that of closedended questions in some cases, resulting “in a deeper and more nuanced understanding of
the social phenomenon being studied” (Butler et al., 2005).
To gather the data needed to conduct this study, a survey template was developed
to be used for an online survey to be emailed to ATFS members who previously indicated
that they use email. With respect to the WTFP, my role was to design and build this
survey and develop the questions to help answer my research question. There was a total
of 44 questions in the survey and 10 of the questions pertained directly to the scope of
this thesis project. The other questions were provided by the WTFP to answer their own
questions pertaining to how tree farmers use technology to manage their forests. I had
complete autonomy to design and ask my research questions, but received technical
expertise, feedback, and expert guidance about certification to help me create questions
that addressed certified forest land owners.
The survey template was constructed with the expert help and input of the
executive board and technical committee of the WTFP. After the questions were initially
developed, based on previous studies, literature, and survey instruments, the draft survey
questions were sent to half a dozen WTFP board members, professional foresters and tree
farmers for comment. The survey went through several drafts and 4 test surveys were
sent out to ensure there were no technical issues. Feedback was incorporated into the
final survey template. From this, an online survey (see appendix A) to be emailed to tree

30

farmers was created using SoGo Survey software. An almost identical paper survey was
also created using word processing software to be mailed to tree farmers that requested
one as indicated in the WTFP Winter newsletter and did not previously indicate to the
WTFP that they used email. Only 1 paper survey was requested, but not returned. Of the
80 respondents, only one person contacted the organization about a technical issue.
Due to time and budgetary constraints with this project, to administer the online
survey I used a slightly modified standard Dillman Method (Dillman, Tortora, & Bowker,
1998). My method involved the WTFP sending a quarterly newsletter to ATFS members
via email which included an announcement about the survey, an explanation and
invitation to take the survey, and a hyperlink to begin the survey. Two weeks later the
WTFP sent a follow up direct email which introduced and explained the survey again,
and provided the link to the survey. The data analyzed in this paper was collected from
the approximately 80 family forest owners who participated in this survey in the
Washington State between February and March, 2017.
The online survey used SoGo Survey software which had professional tools and
survey analysis features. To include the results of both versions of the survey together,
the software had a feature that allowed me to import survey data from the paper
responses into the software to incorporate all the results from both surveys for the same
analysis. The software enabled me to create my survey and embed a link in an electronic
newsletter and email a link directly to respondents. The software was also used to
generate descriptive statistics and create visual graphs depicting the results of my survey
for both the online and paper responses.

31

The survey was comprised of varying types of questions. These questions
included dichotomous, multiple choice, rank order, closed- and open-ended questions.
The survey questions revolved around tree farmer perceptions of what they valued about
certification both before and after certifying and how their forestry practices changed
because of certification. The survey also asked questions designed to measure the
benefits which tree farmers reported to gain because of certifying their forests. The
survey was designed to identify and measure drivers of certification adoption including
the social forces, economic benefits, and alternative benefits of certification adoption.
The survey contained questions designed to eliminate selection bias in certifying forest
and account for the influence of economies-of-scale, hypothesized in previous studies to
be influenced by the size of forest property size owned (Nussbaum, Garforth, Scrase, &
Wenban-Smith, 2000).
The measurement scales used in the questions included continuous scales where
respondents were asked to indicate the degree that benefits motivated them to certify their
lands along a three-point Likert scale. The measurement scale also included categorical
scales which asked for yes/no responses and to rank items in an order from highest to
lowest importance.
3.3 The data
Data collected in this study included (a) property size (b) number of years as a
tree-farm owner (c) owner management practices prior to and post-certification (d) selfreported owner motivations to certify (e) self-reported owner benefits gained from
certifying (f) topics which owners valued pertaining to managing their land (g) how they

32

preferred to receive information from the ATFS, and (g) where they got their information
from.
To facilitate a comparative analysis of the perceived and realized benefits of
certification across a complete temporal scale of pre- and post-certification, participants
were asked both how long they had long they had owned their tree farms. To reduce
selection bias, participants were asked dichotomous-type questions about management
practices pre- and post-certification. Participants were asked open-ended questions about
changes prior to certification to identify potential selection bias contributing to their
obtaining certification.
To measure and understand learning as a benefit resulting from certification,
participants were asked a dichotomous-type question about the changes they had made
since becoming certified. Additionally, participants were asked an open-ended question
about what kinds of changes they had made since becoming certified to gauge their
degree of altering forestry practices because of knowledge gained as a benefit of
certification. Rank order-style questions in the online version of the survey were asked to
ascertain which aspects of certification they valued. The responses were randomized to
eliminate selection bias in the first questions being answered at higher frequency then the
options lower on the list.
Influencing forces in certifying were obtained by asking 3-point Likert scale
questions about how specific factors affected landowner decisions. Respondents could
rate the influence as being: “Not at all”; “Somewhat”; and “Greatly”. Influences were
assessed using the following categories: “Demand for certified forest products”; “Higher
prices paid for certified forest products”; “Public pressure to certify from community or

33

groups”; “Access to information and support for managing their operation”; “A personal
sense of responsibility”; “Access to new markets to sell timber products”; and “Public
recognition for responsible forest management”.
A 3-point Likert scale was chosen to investigate respondent’s beliefs and simplify
the questionnaire. Using a larger 5-point Likert scale would show intensity of belief, but
would not allow me to make as clear an inference as to whether each factor was either
influential or not influential. The 3-point Likert scale was reliable in this case because
what I was asking for would be more likely to be understood and not bog the respondents
down with analyzing the difference between degrees on a larger scale and possibly losing
interest in the survey altogether. This was also done to avoid introducing extra variance
between choices which could introduce error by creating a higher level of confidence in
unreliable data. Knowing if each factor was substantially influential was the purpose of
using the Likert scale. A 3-point Likert scale also did not force a choice between extreme
options like using a 2-point Likert scale would have.
Participants were also asked an open-ended question about what additionally
influenced their decision to obtain certification beyond what they were given as choices.
These were designed to elicit landowner motivations and perceived benefits for certifying
that this study would otherwise not account for. Respondents could fill this in using their
own words rather than pre-selected options.
Measuring the perceived benefit of obtaining certification was addressed by
asking survey participants using questions with the same 3-point Likert scale response
format. Survey responses to the question of degree of benefit provided by certification
included: “Access to new buyers of forest products”; Higher prices paid on certified

34

forest products”; “Access to information and support for managing operation”; and
“Public recognition for responsible forest management”. Additionally, participants were
asked an open-ended question about what “other” benefits certification provided them.
Again, they could fill this in with a response using their own words rather than preselected options.
3.4 Validity issues
To address content validity, questions were written using principles from
Dillman’s Total Design Methodology (Dillman et al., 1998). Questions were written in
plain language and directions for answering survey questions were built into the
questions. Underlining of key words in the paper version was used to help ensure
questions were being answered in the way they were asked.
Because convenience sampling was used, the sample is neither stratified. The
sample was self-selected from the entire population of ATFS certified foresters in
Washington State. It cannot be known whether any possible strata are equally represented
in this study. Any correlations discovered through statistical analysis of relationships
between land size or time certified would be weak due to the convenience sampling
methodology. Determining the probability of small landowners seeking certification is
also outside of the scope of this research. The whole population of ATFS NIPF
landowners in Washington State were invited to participate in the survey. Therefore, as
the cooperation rate increased, the credibility of these results should also increase and
accuracy of inferring information about the whole group’s perceptions and values
towards the values of and benefits realized through becoming certified. The cooperation
rate for this study was 18%.

35

Other research on this subject discussed selection bias as a factor which may have
skewed the results of past studies. The cautionary element here is that landowners that
already meet the criteria for certification may choose to certify due to ease. I included
questions in this survey which asked respondents to indicate whether; (a) they managed
their land to certification standards prior to seeking certification, (b) they had to make
changes to their management practices to certify, and (c) they had made many changes to
their management practices post-certification.
For the online survey, the order of predetermined multiple choice answer
questions was randomized to avoid bias introduced by respondent tendency to answer the
first options given with more frequency. A main difference between the electronic and
paper survey was that randomization of answers could not be done with the mailed paper
survey. Only 1 paper survey was requested and was never returned.
3.5 Data analysis
From the responses to open-ended questions, a typology of the diverse and
multidimensional motivations expressed by respondents was developed. The relative
frequency of expression of these motivations was also examined. A secondary objective
was to compare the open-ended questions to the closed-ended questions to determine
whether responses from the open-ended question provide additional or different insights
into landowners’ reasons for certifying.
Open coding was used to identify and categorize ideas expressed by respondents.
This approach was used to capture themes and discover unanticipated ideas. Strauss and
Corbin (1998) defined open coding as “The analytic process through which concepts are

36

identified and their properties and dimensions are discovered in data.” (p. 101). This
method involves a multi-step analytical reading process to identifying recurring themes.
Many respondents listed several motivations, benefits, and values in the “other”
boxes. If multiple responses were given, they were all coded. Some responses consisted
of blended or intermingled reasons for certifying, rather than discrete reasons. In these
cases, the response was coded for each of the individual reasons.
Survey respondents were grouped by several key characteristics to assess whether
the perceived and realized benefits of certification and opinions and attitudes about
certification could be differentiated per certain characteristics about each tree farm. These
characteristics differentiated subpopulations by farm size and duration of ownership.

37

4. Results

This project collected data with the goal of understanding what forces are
motivating landowners to certify their NIPF land. Secondly, this project collected data on
the benefits that these landowners reported to gain through certification. Based on the
literature review, this study looked to validate that the benefits reported would be noneconomic in nature. This study also looked to identify whether the motivations of
landowners and the benefits reported would vary with acreage size and time of
ownership.
Based on the literature review, landowners with more acreage were expected to
have motivations siding toward an economic nature and experience more economic
benefit from certifying than landowners with smaller acreage. Smaller landowners were
anticipated to be motivated by non-economic factors and find more value in alternative
benefits. Newer owners were expected to be less motivated by economic reasons and
more motivated by alternative benefits also.
The data collected included profiles which were compared to ownerships of
varying acreage size classes and by time of ownership in years. Respondents were subdivided into 4 acreage classes (see Table 1) and 5 time categories (see Figure 1). These
categories were used to compare the varying attitudes, beliefs, and values of the land

Acres managed % of respondents
10 - 49
0.29
50 - 99
0.19
100 - 299
0.30
300 +
0.23

n
23
15
24
18

Table 1: Respondent profile by acreage (n, 80)
38

owners. Of the 450 surveys emailed out to Washington Tree Farm Program NIPF
landowners, 80 were completed and submitted.
35
29

30

26

Responses

25
20
15
15
10

7

5

2

0
0-5

6-10

11-25

26-50

50+

Length of ownership (years)

Figure 1: Time of ownership

4.1 General results
From this study, several patterns emerged. First, the data suggests motivations and
benefits correlate with the size of land managed. Secondly, the study suggests that small
landowners both make more changes to certify, and make more changes to their
management after becoming certified. Thirdly, this study suggests that large landowners
reported being motivated and benefiting more from economic factors than small
landowners. Fourth, this study suggests that small landowners were motivated and benefit
more from the support and educational factors that certification provides. Fifth, the
results of this study suggest that large landowner’s forest management practices are more
effected by pressure from the community than small landowners. Lastly, those acquiring
their land more recently responded similarly to those who had owned land for longer,
with the exception of being motivated and benefitting from information and management

39

support. New owners were more motivated and found more value from this aspect of
certification.
Speaking in general about the whole population of certified landowners, the
results from the open-ended questions revealed a motivational and beneficial factor not
addressed in the closed-response questions. Landowners reported a social aspect to being
a tree farmer in several of the questions that was often cited as a higher frequency
response.
4.2 Perceived benefits of certification
This section looks at the perceived benefits landowner’s anticipated by certifying
and compares their motivations to the size of property ownership.
4.2.1 Demand for certified forest products
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which these factors influenced your decision to become
certified: Demand for certified products.
The perceived demand for certified forest products in influencing their motivation
to certify was reported to be greater amongst land owners with 300 acres or more (see
Table 2). Additionally, proportionately fewer of these landowners reported that demand
for these products had no influence at all in their decision to certify. The results show an
increasing influence of this factor as the acreage size class increases. The results also
show a generally decreasing pattern of this factor not at all having an influence with
increased acreage.

40

Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.43
0.57
0.48
0.13
0.41

n
9
8
11
2

Somewhat
0.52
0.36
0.43
0.56
0.47

n
11
5
10
9

30

Greatly
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.31
0.12

n
1
1
2
5

35

9

Table 2: Influence of demand for certified forest products (n, 74)
4.2.2 Higher Prices Paid for Certified Forest Products
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which these factors influenced your decision to become
certified: Higher Prices Paid for Certified Forest Products.
The perceived economic benefit of certification for increasing premiums through
certifying forest products was reported to be greater amongst land owners with 300 acres
or more (see Table 3). This class of landowner reported this factor to have a larger
influence in their decision to become certified. Additionally, proportionately fewer of
these landowners reported garnering additional premiums had no influence at all in their
decision to certify. The smallest of acreage classes reported this factor to be not at all
influential. Conversely, the largest classification of landowners entirely reported this
aspect to be in the range of somewhat to greatly influential. The results show the
increasing influence of this factor as the acreage size class increases. The results also
show a generally decreasing pattern of this factor not at all having an influence with
increased acreage.
Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.43
0.43
0.61
0.00
0.39

n
9
6
14
0
29

Somewhat
0.57
0.50
0.26
0.76
0.51

n
12
7
6
13

Greatly
0.00
0.07
0.13
0.24
0.11

38

n
0
1
3
4
8

Table 3: Influence of higher prices paid for certified forest products (n, 75)
41

4.2.3 Influence of Public Pressure to Certify
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which these factors influenced your decision to become
certified: Influence of Public Pressure to Certify.
The influence of public pressure motivating landowners to certify was reported to
be greatest amongst land owners with 300 acres or more (see Table 4). This was an
almost entirely non-influencing factor for landowners with land sizes less than 300 acres.
It is interesting that more than half of largest landowner responses reported this factor to
be somewhat to greatly influencing in their decision to certify. There was an increasing
pattern of influence with increased land size, and a generally increasing pattern of this
being a not at all influencing factor with decreasing acreage.
Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.90
0.93
0.87
0.47
0.80

n
19
13
20
8
60

Somewhat
0.10
0.07
0.09
0.35
0.15

n
2
1
2
6

Greatly
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.18
0.05

n

11

0
0
1
3
4

Table 4: Influence of public pressure to certify from community or groups (n, 75)
4.2.4 Influence of Access to Information and Support for Managing Operation
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which these factors influenced your decision to become
certified: Influence of Access to Information and Support for Managing Operation.
Information and support was an influential perceived benefit for all land size
categories. Most classes considered this to be somewhat to greatly influencing in their
decision to become certified (see Table 5).

42

Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.14
0.07
0.22
0.24
0.17

n
3
1
5
4

Somewhat
0.55
0.40
0.39
0.59
0.48

n
12
6
9
10

13

Greatly
0.32
0.53
0.39
0.18
0.35

n
7
8
9
3

37

27

Table 5: Influence of access to information and support for management (n, 77)
4.2.5 Influence of a Personal Sense of Responsibility
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which these factors influenced your decision to become
certified: Influence of a Personal Sense of Responsibility.
All size classifications reported personal responsibility for sustainable forest
management practices as being highly influential (see Table 6). This was not surprising
given the nature of certification is to put this management philosophy into action, and the
respondents were almost entirely certified as sustainably managing foresters. Personal
bias to self-report positive self-motivations would likely also contribute to the way that
respondents reported their behavior in this closed-type question.
Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.00
0.05

n
1
1
2
0

Somewhat
0.24
0.27
0.35
0.33
0.30

n

4

5
4
8
6

Greatly
0.71
0.67
0.57
0.67
0.65

n

23

15
10
13
12
50

Table 6: Influence of a personal sense of responsibility (n, 77)
4.2.6 Influence of Public Recognition for Responsible Forest Management
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which these factors influenced your decision to become
certified: Influence of Public Recognition for Responsible Forest Management.
43

The perceived benefit of public recognition for responsible forest management
practices was reported highest amongst land owners with 300 acres or more (see Table
7). The results also show a generally decreasing pattern of this factor not at all having an
influence with increased acreage and a generally increasing pattern of this aspect having
“somewhat” of an influence. This class of landowner as well as the “10 – 49 acres” class
both reported this factor to have a proportionately higher influence in their decision to
become certified. However, only 6% of the “300+ acre” class reported this factor to be
non-influencing, whereas 33% of the “10 – 49 acres” class reported this to be “not at all”
influencing. The “50-99 acre” reported this the least as a “greatly” motivating aspect of
certification.
Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.33
0.50
0.26
0.06
0.28

n
7
7
6
1

Somewhat
0.29
0.43
0.48
0.53
0.43

21

n
6
6
11
9

Greatly
0.38
0.07
0.26
0.41
0.29

n

32

8
1
6
7
22

Table 7: Influence of public recognition for responsible forest management (n, 75)
4.2.7 Influence of New Markets to Sell Timber Products
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which these factors influenced your decision to become
certified: Influence of New Markets to Sell Timber Products.
The relevancy of new market opportunities increases as the land size category
increases and there is a general decreasing pattern of it “not at all” being a factor in
influencing land owner’s decision to certify their land (see Table 8).

44

Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.52
0.64
0.39
0.35
0.47

n
11
9
9
6

Somewhat
0.43
0.29
0.43
0.35
0.39

n

35

9
4
10
6

Greatly
0.05
0.07
0.17
0.29
0.15

n

29

1
1
4
5
11

Table 8: Influence of new markets to sell timber products (n, 75)

4.2.8 Perceived values from open-ended question
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
What other factors influenced your decision to become certified?
The results from the open-ended question about what tree farmers valued varied
(see Figure 2). A category I refer to as “Land ethic, appears to also play a significant role
as a motivating force to certify. This term to describe his holistic view of humans as a
part of the landscape and interact with it to “preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of
the biotic community” (Leopold, 1949). Tree farmers overwhelmingly responded
answering this question with phrases such as, “be the best stewards we can be, right thing
to do, forests for future generations, got to teach the daughters, etc.”.
A second category rated most frequently by landowners as a motivating force was
“Social networking”. This category included response phrases such as, “benefit of being
with like-minded people, comradery, recommended by forester, validation of practices,
etc.”. Interestingly, this aspect was not addressed in the closed-ended questions about
what tree farmers sought to gain through certifying their land, but appears to play a
significant role in motivating this group in general to become certified.
The concept of “Recognition” was the third most frequently mentioned
motivational factor to certify. Respondents answered with phrases such as, “recognition,

45

seen by others as high quality, maintains public license to operate, liked the sign of
recognition, etc.”.
Although economic benefit was a category in the closed-ended questions on
perceived value in certifying, many tree farmers mentioned it again and were specific
about the type of economic benefit they anticipated gaining through certification.
Examples of the responses included phrases such as, “cost-sharing, reduced taxes,
lowered property taxes, hoping to earn a premium, etc.”.

Ease of certifying

Influence

Educational and support
Economic benefits
Recognition
Social network
Environmental value
0

5

10

15

20

Responses

Figure 2: What free farmers reported to value in certifying
4.3 Actual benefits reported
This section looks at the perceived benefits landowners reported to gain by
certifying and compares these benefits to the size of and time of property ownership.
4.3.1 Reported benefit of access to new buyers of forest products
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which you find these aspects of certification to be beneficial:
Access to new buyers of forest products.
The actual benefit of certification in facilitating a new market for tree farmers to
sell sustainably managed forest products was low in general and lowest with the smallest
land-owners (see Table 9). Large landowners were the least to report this benefit as not at
46

all being a factor though. Although slight, the reported benefit of this does increase with
acreage.
Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.38
0.36
0.50
0.25
0.39

n
8
5
12
4

Somewhat
0.52
0.57
0.38
0.63
0.51

n

29

Greatly
11
8
9
10

n
0.1
0.07
0.13
0.13
0.11

2
1
3
2

38

8

Table 9: Reported benefit of access to new buyers of forest products (n, 75)
4.3.2 Reported benefit of higher prices paid for forest products
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which you find these aspects of certification to be beneficial:
Higher prices paid for forest products.
The results of this question show that certification is not effective at providing the
benefit of increased premiums on forest products with an exception in the largest
landowner category (see Table 10). The pattern that emerged from this question shows an
increase in benefit with acreage size. Thirty percent of tree farmers listed this as “greatly”
beneficial, whereas only 24% of them listed this as “not at all” beneficial. The results
from this benefit are consistent with the other results about economic benefits. The
benefit increases as the acreage increases.
Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.38
0.50
0.58
0.24
0.43

n
8
7
14
4
33

Somewhat
0.52
0.43
0.29
0.47
0.42

n

Greatly
11
6
7
8

n
0.10
0.07
0.13
0.29
0.14

32

2
1
3
5
11

Table 10: Reported benefit of higher prices paid for forest products (n, 76)

47

4.3.3 Benefit of access to information and support
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which you find these aspects of certification to be beneficial:
Access to information and support.
The results of this question show that everyone is finding some benefit from the
support that certification provides (see Table 11). Small landowner’s with less than 100
acres reported to benefit the most from this aspect. Large landowners having 300+ acres
reported this benefit substantially lower than all other landowner classes. One can
conclude from this data that large landowners may have access to support for managing
their operation outside of what the certification program provides.
Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.09
0.00
0.17
0.11
0.10

n
2
0
4
2

Somewhat
0.36
0.33
0.38
0.67
0.43

8

n

Greatly
8
5
9
12

n
0.55
0.67
0.46
0.22
0.47

34

12
10
11
4
37

Table 11: Reported benefit of access to information and support (n, 79)
4.3.4 Benefit of public recognition for responsible forest management
This subsection will present the findings from the following survey question:
Please rate the degree to which you find these aspects of certification to be beneficial:
Public recognition for responsible forest management.
The benefit of recognition shows a pattern of increasing with acreage while
simultaneously the degree to which this is not considered a benefit drops (see Table 12).
With increased land size come increased visibility which might explain this factor. The

48

class of 50-99-acre tree farmer’s dips but there is also a lower population size in this
subgroup which might explain this result. Overall, the patterns are consistent with size.
Acreage size
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% for all acreage sizes
Total n

Not at all
0.19
0.29
0.21
0.06
0.19

n
4
4
5
1
14

Somewhat
0.48
0.5
0.42
0.38
0.44

n

Greatly
10
7
10
6

n
0.33
0.21
0.38
0.56
0.37

33

7
3
9
9
28

Table 12: Reported benefit of public recognition for responsible forest management
(n, 75)
4.3.5 Reported benefits of certification from open-ended question
This subsection will present the findings from the following open-ended survey
question: What other aspects of certification have been beneficial?
Tree farmers were asked open-ended questions which they could self-report
benefits not listed in the closed-ended questions what they found beneficial about being
certified (see Figure 3). The 4 categories that were reported as being most beneficial
were; community support, professional support, making a difference forest management
with an emphasis on good “land-ethic”, and recognition for what they were doing.
While these responses confirm what the results from the closed questions show in
the data tables, they also capture a benefit not initially considered in the set of question.
The social benefit of certification through the interaction tree farmers get with other tree
farmers was a frequently mentioned benefit of certification (see Figure 3). The second
most frequently reported benefit was also social in nature, that is, learning from
professionals. The results show that tree farmers receive substantial benefit from learning
from each other and the professional services that certification provides them access to.

49

This is speaking generally about the whole population. Responses to this question were
not sub-divided into varying acreage size classifications.
Recognition and “land-ethic” were also frequently cited (see Figure 3). Although
public recognition was reported to be more beneficial with increased acreage, this factor
was frequently cited in a question that asked tree farmers to provide their own responses
to beneficial aspects of certifying. This potential benefit was not included as a response
option in the closed-ended questions. Instead, tree farmers reported this to be a benefit
not considered in the question set but was frequently mentioned.
Economic benefit

Benefit

A voice in policy
Recognition
Land-ethic
Professional support
Community support
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Responses

Figure 3: Perceived benefits reported from open-ended question
4.4 The influence of time
4.4.1 Time of ownerships influence in certifying
This section briefly looks at the perceived benefits landowner’s anticipated by
certifying and compares their motivations to the time of property ownership. (See Table
13). The only factor included in this section was the influence of time on learning and

50

support. This comparison point did not reveal anything else of interest in the other
questions, and was therefore not included in this thesis.
Tenure (years)
0-5
6-10
11-25
26-50
50 or more
All lengths of time
Total n

Not at all
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.29
0.21
0.12

n
0
0
2
8
3

Somewhat
0.43
0.50
0.38
0.54
0.57
0.48

n
3
1
9
15
8

13

Greatly
0.57
0.50
0.54
0.18
0.21
0.40

n
4
1
13
5
3

36

26

Table 13: Influence of access to information and support with time (n, 75)
4.4.2 Time of ownerships effect on the reported benefit of certification
This section looks at the actual benefits reported by landowner from certifying
and compares these benefits to the time of property ownership. (See Table 14).
Tenure (years)
0-5
6-10
11-25
26-50
50 or more
All lengths of time
Total n

Not at all
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.17
0.14
0.07

n
0
0
1
5
2

Somewhat
0.29
0.50
0.32
0.52
0.57
0.44

8

n
2
1
8
15
8

Greatly
0.71
0.50
0.64
0.31
0.29
0.49

34

n
5
1
16
9
4
35

Table 14: Benefit of access to information and support with time (n, 77)
4.5 Tree farmer management goals
4.5.1 What tree farmers value in certification
Tree farmers were asked to rank in order aspects of certification they found valuable (see
Table 15). The results are generalized for all tree farmers and were not sub-divided by
acreage. The top 3 choices were closely ranked and all pertained to the learning benefit of
certification. Economic benefits, recognition, and a voice in policy making were rated as
less valuable than either of the educationally supporting options.

51

The responses collected about land owner values shows that learning and support
for management were valued over recognition and marketing forest products (see Table
15). This is about the values of the total population. These responses were not subdivided into various acreage size classifications. Looking back at Table 11, this statement
may apply less to landowners with 300 or more acres.
Answer
Developing management plan
Educational Opportunities
Technical assistance/site visit
Recognition of your tree farm
Marketing of your forest products
Voice in policy making

Rank 1

Rank 2

13
15
15
15
13
6

21
13
16
7
11
9

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Rank 6

19
16
14
12
7
9

8
20
16
14
12
7

8
9
10
9
17
24

8
4
6
20
17
22

Weighted Rank
(Score)
1 (307)
2 (301)
3 (300)
4 (253)
5 (248)
6 (208)

Table 15: Aspects of certification ranked as most valuable (n, 77)
4.5.2 How tree farmer practices have changed with certification
In general, 21% of tree farmers reported making changes to the way they manage
their land since becoming certified. These changes were entirely attributed to smaller
land owners (see Table 16). None of the land owners in the “300 acre or more” category
reported changing their practices at all since certifying. The percent of change increased
as the size classification decreased.

Acreage
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% of all acreage sizes

Yes (%)
0.38
0.38
0.15
0.00
0.21

n
6
5
3
0
14

No (%)
0.62
0.62
0.85
1.00
0.79

n
12
8
17
16
54

Table 16: Reported changes to operation since certifying (n, 79)

52

The largest change reported by tree farmers since becoming certified is following
a plan for managing their forest (see Figure 4). Beyond this, stand management activities
and managing for wildlife are frequently cited as activities that tree farmers are doing

Activity

differently since certifying.
Road maintenance
Water quality
Alternative forest products
Woring towards certification
Controlling weeds
Firewising
Promoting sustainability
Continuing education
Harvesting
Thinning
Managing for widlife
Planting
Actively using plan
No changes made
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Frequency reported

Figure 4: Activities tree farmers are reporting to engage in post-certification
4.5.3 Topics of interest to tree farmers
Looking at what topics are most valuable to tree farmers (see Table 17), this study
points to what tree farmers manage or aspire to manage their land for. Through openended questions, the topics respondents ranked highest are related to developing timber.
Although “maximizing timber value” was ranked second, “forest health” and “stand
development”, which were ranked first and third, support the management goal of
maximum timber value. The fourth ranked item, “developing management plan”, also
supports this. The bottom ranked items do not reflect economic goals of timber product
production. Answers to this question suggest the topics that tree farmers find of most
value relate to the economic value of timber.

53

Answer
forest health
maximize value of timber
stand development
developing management plan
wildlife habitat
legacy
harvesting systems
Total Responses

Rank 1

Rank 2

20
21
4
13
5
10
4

17
13
16
6
10
8
7

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Rank 6

15
6
25
10
12
6
3

11
8
16
17
15
8
2

6
15
8
13
7
13
15

3
10
6
13
21
7
17

Rank 7

5
4
2
5
7
25
29

Weighted Rank
(Score)
1 (390)
2 (356)
3 (351)
4 (315)
5 (285)
6 (258)
7 (201)
77

Table 17: Topics of interest to tree farmers.
Responses to the open-ended question show tree farmers in general are interested
in a variety of issues (see Figure 5). Topping the list are policy issues relating to business
management and economics. Ecological practices relating to forest management is also of
substantial interest to tree farmers.

GIS technical support

Topics

Estate planning information
Economic development issues
Forester, ecological services
Tax information
Regulatory and legal issues
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Frequency reported

Figure 5: Reported topics of value from open-ended question

4.6 Selection bias
Most certified tree farmers reported managing their farms to certification
standards prior to certifying (see Table 18). This value increased with acreage size. The
data shows a compelling trend that selection bias may play a role in choosing to certify.
The data suggests that becoming certified requires fewer changes to operational
management activities as the size of the farm increases, and therefore less effort on the
landowner’s part to become compliant. An alternative explanation is that larger land

54

owners manage to higher standards initially due to higher scrutiny they are under with
higher profiles due to property size.
Acreage
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% of all acreage sizes

Yes (%)
0.67
0.85
0.85
1.00
0.83

n
14
11
17
17
60

No (%)
0.33
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.17

n
7
2
3
0
12

Table 18: Tree farmers reporting to manage to certification standards prior to certifying
(n, 79)
In general, few tree farmers reported making management changes to become
certified (see table 19). The rate of compliance increased with acreage. The only
landowners that reported making changes to become compliant were those managing
under 100 acres of land.
Acreage
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 299
300 +
% of all acreage sizes

Yes (%)
0.12
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.05

n
2
1
0
0
3

No (%)
0.88
0.93
1.00
1.00
0.95

n
15
11
18
16
61

Table 19: Tree farmers reporting to have made lots of changes to become certified (n,
79)
The two most cited responses to making changes to become certified were either
developing or following a management plan—a essential criteria of ATFS certification,
or not having to make any changes (see Figure 6).

Planting diversity

Firewising
Riparian area management

Activity

Working to develop plan
Controlled weeds/invasives
Record-keeping

Thinning
Already eligble/no changes…
Developed/implemented plan
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Responses

Figure 6: Changes made to certify
55

5. Discussion
The aim of this thesis project was to discover what motivates non-industrial
private forest (NIPF) landowners to become certified, and how the benefits of
certification reinforce their values and attitudes. Based on the literature review, I
expected that the anticipated benefits of forest certification from this study would fall into
the categories of profit, recognition, and support for forest management, while reported
benefits would include only the second two of these, and that the results would vary in
proportion to the size of the landholdings and the duration of their participation.
I expected tree farmers with more land to be more economically motivated
whereas smaller landowners would be motivated by and benefit from alternative factors.
The following section will compare findings from this study to existing information that
has been collected and written about pertaining to small landowner values and attitudes
toward forestry certification. I will compare how the benefits exceeded or fell short of the
perceived benefit that motivated the landowner to seek certification. I will compare the
values and benefits reported between the open- and closed-ended questions. Lastly, I will
discuss the future implications based on the knowledge gathered from this project.
This project revealed components of certification that family foresters value. The
framework of this study was that landowners were presumed to find value in certification
through a combination of economic, learning, or recognition benefits. Through surveying
NIPF landowners, the results revealed that this group places great value on practicing
conservation, being part of a supporting network of tree farmers and forestry
professionals, and being recognized for this. The size of properties and the time of
ownership had varying influences on many aspects of forest certification for landowners.

56

Using both fixed response and open-ended questions, the findings from the survey
revealed some insight into the reasons for certifying. In looking at the responses, it
seemed logical and useful to group certain responses to motivating factors and benefits as
“social, learning, etc.”. Many responses to questions orbited around concepts like these
and this allowed me use general themes to discuss and compare to other studies on this
subject.
5.1 Main findings
The results of the 80 surveyed NIPF landowners suggest that improving the
ecological quality of forests and the social aspect to tree farming are the strongest
motivating forces and greatest benefits realized by certified landowners. From the fixed
response questions, “personal responsibility”, “support”, “learning”, and “recognition”
were rated as the most “greatly” influential categories. From the open-ended responses,
social networks and environmentally-conscious management themed answers were cited
overwhelmingly in the responses.
Data from my study suggests there is a relationship between motivations for
certifying and land size. Public scrutiny was reported to increase along with acreage.
While landowner’s economic motivations also increased with acreage, other benefits
appeared to increase with shrinking property size. Smaller tree farmer’s responses
produced a general increase in motivations for, and benefits from, factors relating to
learning and support.
The survey results point toward a bias potential in certification for larger
landowners. This selection bias identifies circumstances in which larger landowners are
not required to put in the same effort to achieve certification as small landowners. The

57

implication is that certification could be of a purely economic value or result from image
consciousness and require no actual changes be made in practice. This idea implies that
certification may not be effective in creating any real change in this group. While on one
hand, they are meeting the goals of sustainable forestry, the bias this may introduce to
this study does not help identify areas for creating incentives and facilitating others
outside of those parameters to become certified, but instead skews them.
Although few tree farmers reported to have made changes to their management to
become certified, tree farmers in the smallest acreage classification size reported to have
made most of the changes. This suggests that larger tree farms are more actively
managing their forests prior to certification. Reasons for this difference could have to do
with varying access to resources. Larger tree farms may indeed be more sustainable in
that their production may require, while offsetting the cost of professional services, which
may have facilitated management to certification standards prior. Thus, larger tree farms
may have an inherent greater degree of selection bias to certify than smaller tree farms. If
this is the case, motivations for certification may be skewed due to the ease of
certification for larger landowners. If there is no cost to bear, due to existing management
practices meeting standards, then one can reason that to not become certified would be
wasting a free opportunity to communicate to the market and public that responsible
forest management is being practiced.
The changes that farmers were required to make were small however. Only 5% of
respondents reported having to make “lots of changes” to certify. The 3 which reported
making the changes were all respondents with fewer than 100 acres. The implication
from this may be that tree farmers with smaller patches may require more technical

58

assistance to meet certification standards than larger farms. Most responses to this openended question about changes required pertained to implementing a management plan.
In a comparison of the responses from closed- and open-ended questions, other
values emerged in possibly explaining the values that are important to tree farmers. These
forces are both internal and external. Economically, tax benefits were mentioned as a
benefit to operating a tree farm. Not only does this benefit vary by property size, but it
also varies by the management activities on the land. Internally, a strong desire to manage
“sustainably” was identified as being of major importance to tree farmers. This emotional
attachment to land is the basis for using “land-ethic” as a theme with sub-categorical
responses from tree farmers grouped under this heading. This term, “land-ethic”, is based
on a concept of managing land with respect for it and the ecological communities it is
composed of. Lastly, a revelation of this study is the social value and benefit reported by
tree farmers through their responses to the open-ended questions.
5.2 Values, motivations, and benefits with time and space
Reported motivations of landowners were categorized into both economic and
non-economic values. Economic values included motivations to certify due to demand for
certified forest products, higher premiums earned on certified forest products, and access
to new buyers of certified forest products. Non-economic values were further categorized
as either being a desire for support, communicating an image to others, or meeting a selfactualization needs. Support values included certifying to gain knowledge and/or support
for property management. Self-actualization meant that respondents rated the degree in
which certification contributed to them meeting a personal responsibility to manage for
environmental concerns.
59

5.2.1 Economic values
The demand for certified forest products and access to new markets as influencing
factors were rated as more influencing for large landowners. This could be a result of
larger landowners harvesting more regularly. There was a trend in the resulting data
showing an increase in demand as the acreage increased. On the other hand, small
landowners may only plan on a harvest once in a lifetime for their tree farm and this
would therefore be less of a factor. The influence of higher prices paid for certified forest
products as a motivational factor increased with land size. This implies there may be a
perceived economic gain resulting from certification which could potentially increase
with size.
Differences in results between smaller versus larger tree farms as reported in the
perceived benefit of learning and support through certification carried over to values that
could be considered both economic and non-economic, depending on the management
goals. Small landowners appear to find more value in access to information and support
for managing their tree farms. Having an “on-site” forester is likely does not make
economic sense for smaller tree farmers. This may be a necessity for larger property
owners. While larger acreage farms might find less benefit because they have the
resources, small landowners may instead opt to use the free services provided through
their certification program for assisting with implementing management strategies for
their tree farms.
Economic gains have been found through prior research to not be much of an
incentive in NIPF landowners (Kilgore et al., 2008a). Kilgore et al. (2007a), found
financial incentives had limited influence on landowner decision making. This research

60

on certified forest landowners would agree that the motivation for certifying because of
anticipated gains is low. However, this research finds the degree of influence of this value
appears to be substantially affected by property size.
From the economical aspect of certifying, there was an increasing trend in its
influence and benefit for landowners as the size of their property increased. This
pertained to the influence of their perceived “demand for certified forest products” and
“higher prices paid for certified forest products.” Of respondents, 31% of landowners
with 300 acres or more, indicated that demand was a greatly influencing factor as
opposed to only 5% of the smallest size category. The influence of perceived higher
prices paid for their forest products was 0% for small landowners, whereas this
progressively increased by size class to 24% of the largest acreage class finding this to be
“greatly” influential.
Owners of larger properties were also more influenced by access to new markets
to sell certified forest products. Reinforcing this idea of brand identity as a motivation are
the results on public recognition for certification. Of the “300-acre or more” respondents,
41% ranked “public recognition” as a greatly motivating factor in their decision to
become certified. In looking at motivations for certification, Butler and Ma (2011) found
market-pressure as a significant influence among landowners that also included industrial
foresters.
Using certification to communicate an image has been referred to in previous
literature as “signaling” (Overdevest & Rickenbach, 2006). Signaling includes a desire
for public recognition of responsible forest management. Signaling could also be
considered an economic value in that it communicates qualities and values about a
61

product through forestry practices. Both the smallest and largest size classification of tree
farmer rated this as a greatly influencing factor. The 300 + acres landowners group both
reported public recognition as being most influencing for and rated this the lowest as “not
at all” being a benefit.
Not everybody may desire recognition. Privacy may also be an issue in which
people might not want their neighbors to know what they are doing. For example, a
landowner growing trees for maximum timber value with plans to clear cut it all in the
future may be conscious of neighborly objections to this aesthetic alteration of the
landscape.
With increasing land size comes greater visibility, which may be a factor
responsible for this result. The appearance of a large clear cut is certainly more noticeable
and transformative of a view or sense of place than a small one. People are increasingly
building homes and communities next to forests and these become part of a place’s
identity. With higher visibility comes more scrutiny from neighbors and this could
explain the results.
Sustainably managed forests may also be a point of pride for the “10-49 acre”
class of tree farmers and they may enjoy communicating this to others. Tree farmers
regularly conduct farm tours in which they discuss management practices. This could
explain why the smallest size class also gave a high rating to recognition as being a
“greatly “influencing force. The middle category “50-99 acre” landowners rated
recognition as a factor of very low influence. Only 1 out of 14 rated this as a “greatly”
influencing factor and half rated this as “not at all” influencing.

62

The economic benefit of certification was reported low across all categories of
property size in this study, especially with the smallest classes. Only 13% of the largest
acre owner class found this to be “greatly” beneficial at accessing new markets.
However, 29% of those with 300 acres are more found this to be “greatly” beneficial in
providing higher premiums for their forest products. This second part is promising
because it implies there may be a profit-bearing incentive to certifying and a public that is
aware and embracing of this concept.
Based on the literature review, there is not much evidence to suggest there exists
an increased forest product premium benefit for many tree farmers. The results from this
study reinforce that notion. The evidence of economic benefits reported by tree farmers
were limited to tax benefits. One respondent summed this view by claiming, “Tree farm
publicity is positive for the industry, but there is little financial incentive when there are
fewer and fewer mills and monopolies by those remaining.” Another tree farmer backed
this attitude saying that higher prices for certified timber are a “myth.”
Although certifying to add premiums to forest product sales doesn’t appear to be
beneficial presently, farmers did report a desire to earn more through selling certified
wood. When asked to rank the topics most valuable to them, the top choices were related
to managing their timber stands. After forest health, maximizing the value of timber and
stand development were listed as the 2nd and 3rd topics which tree farmers valued most.
Maximizing timber value was ranked the #1 most frequently chosen value, but resulted as
the #2 value when accounting for the weighted score of the 7 choices presented in the
survey. Butler et al. (2007) identified idiosyncrasies in landowner attitudes compared to
their actual practices. Although commercial harvest was listed as a low-interest, Butler et
63

al. (2007), found that 41% of family foresters surveyed in the NWOS, that collectively
own 70% of the NIPF forestland, reported harvesting for commercial purposes in the
past. Evidence from this research project reveals an unmet desire for certification to
improve the bottom lines for tree farms.
5.2.2 Non-economic values
Larger landowner reported public pressure to certify as more motivating than
smaller landowners. Of the landowners with 300 or more acres, 18% reported this as
greatly motivating influence to certify. Reduced property sizes might imply that the
public with be less influential in promoting sustainable forest management. Ferranto et al.
(2012) showed through landowner surveys that smaller property owners are less likely to
be targeted by outreach programs. Landowners in California with over 200 hectares were
substantially more likely to receive land advice from diverse sources whereas those with
4-20 hectares were far less likely to receive any advice (Ferranto et al., 2010).
Many studies have reported that NIPF landowners desire information, and from
multiple sources of support to help them manage their properties (Sagor & Becker, 2014;
Schubert & Mayer, 2012). Kilgore et al. (2007a) found that both experts and peers were
considered important sources of information. The NWOS shows that NIPF’s seek advice
from neighbors, friends, family, peers, and professionals (Schubert & Mayer, 2012).
Research by Sagor and Becker (2014) demonstrated that these landowners valued public
forester input over that of their peers. Alternatively, Schubert and Mayer (2012), found
that although public forester advice was reported as preferred, that peer advice was more
often applied.

64

The educational aspect of certification has been shown to have high value for
smaller landowners (Hayward & Vertinsky, 1999). This research agrees with those
conclusions. The motivation of access to information and support was reported lowest by
the largest acreage class. The “50-99 acre” landowners reported the benefit at 53%
selecting “greatly” indicating they benefit from the support the most. This size may be
too large to not manage, but too small to have other internal forestry resources operating
at a more industrial-like scale making for a self-sustaining operation. The “100-299 acre”
category was the next highest to report this “greatly” as a motivating factor, but this value
dropped off precipitously beyond 300 acres.
The smaller 2 categories of property owners assigned this category the most
beneficial out of the sample population. While only 22% of owners with 300 or more
acres reported this to be “greatly” beneficial, 55% of the “10-49 acre” class and 67% of
the “50-99 acre” class favored this as a benefit. Comparatively, only 18% of the largest
owner size class were motivated to certify by this category, whereas 32% of the “10-49
acre” group, and 55% of the “50-99” acre” group reported this as a motivating factor.
This shows that both the smaller groups had their expectations of how this would benefit
them exceeded. This demonstrates evidence that the strength and virtue of forest
certification may be its potential to connect landowners with support to manage their
forests in ways which promote its continued function as forest.
Landowners that I surveyed in this study were found to have strong environmental
values. Based on past research, this is not surprising. The NWOS identified the top values
of NIPF’s in owning land were recreation, privacy, nature, and wildlife (Schubert &
Mayer, 2012). Bengston et al. (2010) found “recreation” and “home” to be top reasons

65

for owning property in the forest. Bliss and Martin (1989) also found through surveys
that this group values the preservation and conservation of forests. Results from this
research would agree that these landowners share a commitment for caring for the
forested environments they make their homes, which they demonstrate and receive
recognition for forest stewardship by participating in the Washington Tree Farm
Program.
The greatest commonality in the responses of landowners that responded to this
survey were that they shared a sense of responsibility which they indicated as a greatly
influential factor in their decision to certify. This reinforces the idea of NIPF’s as
conservation-minded. Regardless of how respondents answered the survey about the
economic motivation or benefit of certification, or how much property they had, or how
long they had owned it, environmental responsibility was listed the highest through out of
any category. The range based on property size ranged from 57-71% responding that this
was a “greatly” motivating factor. NIPF’s with 300 or more acres responded at 65%
claiming this “greatly” influencing and the smallest landowners responded similarly at
71% claiming this “greatly” influencing. The greatest commonality discovered through
the responses to fixed answer questions suggests that personal responsibility is an allaround motivating factor regardless of acreage. Most respondents reported the motivation
to certify being influenced by a sense of personal responsibility to manage for
“sustainability”. Motivations for meeting this virtue were high throughout all the classes
and only 4 of the 77 respondents rated this as “not at all” influential.

66

5.3 Open-ended responses
Responses to the open-ended questions about land owner values and benefits
revealed a variety of results which both matched with fixed responses and revealed new
aspects. Open-ended questions can reveal more insight into a topic by allowing
respondents to express their own frame of reference using their own words as opposed to
choosing pre-determined and fixed responses (Bengston et al., 2011).
The frequencies in which concepts were mentioned as perceived benefits showed
general categories that indicated benefits beyond what the closed-ended survey questions
presented as options. Survey respondents when asked about what they found to be of
benefit from becoming certified gave a variety of responses that coalesced around 4
major themes. The concepts cited in order from most mentioned involved “community
support,” “learning through professional support,” “making a difference,” and
“recognition” for practicing responsible forest stewardship.
Frequencies of concepts reported in the motivating factors showed 2 dominating
themes that emerged from the responses to the open-ended question about the perceived
value of certification. These themes were categorized as “social values” and
“environmental values”. Statement related to conservation and environmental protection
were identified 18 times. Statements regarding social networks were cited 10 times. The
third most frequently cited theme involved recognition, also a social concept, and was
cited 7 times.
When asked to respond to open-ended questions about the experienced benefits
respondents get from being certified, the most frequently given answers were 14 replies
about community support, 9 replies about technical support from professionals, 7 replies
67

regarding land-ethic or making an environmental difference, and 7 responses for
receiving recognition from others. There seems to be an obvious social benefit from
being in this group if you are a tree farmer with a smaller property.
Based on the reported motivations and benefits of tree farmers, the findings imply
that ATFS certified NIPF landowners manage for non-economic benefits. This suggests
that family forester relationships with their land is of a social nature and forests are
perhaps maintained for both personal and altruistic reasons. The activities tree farmers
are managing for included “planting” and “wildlife.” These were 2 of the most commonly
cited examples of topics farmers have made changes regarding in their management
activities. When asked about the changes they have made since certifying, other than not
making any changes, farmers are reporting to be managing for their stand health and for
wildlife mainly. These activities point toward NIPF forest landowners taking on a
“landscape perspective” by seeing beyond their own economic interests (Erickson et al.,
2002).
Schubert and Mayer (2012) demonstrated in analyzing results from the NWOS
that open-ended questions revealed more depth and caught subtleties that closed-ended
question missed. A study by Bengston et al. (2011) found that closed-ended questions
failed to capture many motivations in NIPF landowners. From the open-ended question
about motivation to certify in this thesis, landowners revealed motivating factors that the
closed-ended questions failed to identify. Conservation values were addressed in the
fixed-responses, and recorded as the most common response to open-ended values, but
second to this was a concept not included in the fixed-response questions. The value of
social interactions was made apparent through the coding of responses during the data

68

analysis phase of this research, making this an inductive process. The results from the
concept of social value went beyond just a learning benefit and included context
indicating an exchange of ideas and a focus on 2-way communication—a social network.
This is perhaps the most valuable and beneficial component of forest certification for not
just landowners, but from perpetuating ecosystem services for everyone into the future.
5.4 Implications for sustainable forest management
The influence of property size is significant because of the trend in land being
subdivided and fragmentation. Larger landowners reporting economic activity as greatly
beneficial would imply that they are actively harvesting timber regularly. Studies have
shown that owners with more land are more likely to harvest (Butler & Leatherberry,
2004; Knoot & Rickenbach, 2011). A correlation with size and harvesting would imply
that as property parcels are reduced that landowners are less inclined to harvest timber,
and potentially less likely to seek assistance and therefore unlikely to utilize programs
such as forest certification, which have been shown to increase the quality of forest
management through landowner education. Research by Butler and Ma (2011) provides
evidence that smaller parcel size makes sustainable forest management more difficult to
practice.
This would however contradict research by Kilgore, Snyder, Schertz, and Taff
(2008b) that found through surveys that large landowners were no more likely to certify
than small landowners. However, Knoot and Rickenbach (2011) demonstrated that
owning more land correlated with more involvement in sustainable forest management
programs.

69

Prior research provides evidence that larger social networks provide a greater
diversity of information to landowners (Sagor & Becker, 2014) and greater awareness is
related to increased participation in certification programs, which ultimately increases the
quality of forest management (Kilgore et al., 2008b).
The benefit of access to information and support for managing their tree farm was
also reported higher by newer landowners. This benefit that certification offers
landowners appears to be a strength of the ATFS certification program, especially due to
the forecasted influx of new landowners as the aging majority of NIPF landowners
continues to transfer land to successors. With an increase of new owners, with potentially
different management goals, certification could connect new cohorts of owners with
resources to assist and positively influence these individual owners that combine to make
the landscape US forests.
Kilgore et al. (2008b) found that landowners who had heard of certification were
more likely to participate. Sagor and Becker (2014) showed evidence that diverse
networks were positively correlated with increased best management practices and that
certification programs increased peer-to-peer networks for landowners, thereby
increasing the knowledge and awareness of management options. Kilgore et al. (2007a)
found that landowner participation in programs that offered technical assistance and
planning assistance consistently elevated the quality of forest stewardship.
The increased quality of forest management may relate to a well-known theory in
landowner conservation education. Everett Rodgers Diffusion of Innovations Theory
states that learning by observing the behavior of neighbors and through interactions with

70

trusted people can increase the technical skills of the observers and ultimately lead to
adoption of conservation behaviors (Sagor & Becker, 2014).
The only substantial difference this research found between new landowners and
those who had their farms longer was the desire for information and support. Newer
landowners were more motivated to certify and reported a higher benefit from “access to
information and support.” Although Knoot and Rickenbach (2011) found that time of
ownership was associated with best management practices, tenure was not associated
with participation in sustainable forest management programs. This news is hopeful,
because the impending shuffling of land from an older generation to the next could imply
a loss of this type of quality in a large percentage of forests under this assumption that
tenure equates to positive practices. Given that new owners are interested to seek out
programs to assist them, which also have the potential to guide their management in a
positive direction, then certification should indeed target the growing category of new
owners that are less likely to be tree farmers (Butler & Ma, 2011) to offset the shifting
patterns in ownership structure and changing social values (Butler & Leatherberry, 2004),
which will likely have a great impact on the quality of forests and the services they
provide. Because new landowners are less likely to be influenced by neighbors (Schubert
& Mayer, 2012), certification has the potential to connect them with a network that has
the resources that can positively influence their management goals and practices. This
research shows that 21% of landowners had made changes in their forest management
practices since becoming certified. These were all reported by the smaller of the NIPF
categories.

71

6. Conclusion
A detailed understanding of tree farmer values and the benefits they experience
from certification is needed to continue to support and grow the number of certified
forests and increase the quality of forests across Washington State. Using open-ended
survey questions to collect qualitative data both reinforced the quantitative data collected
and provided a deeper level of understanding about what tree farmers are motivated by
and manage for. This approach could be used in future surveys that seek to understand
issues relating to increasing sustainability in forests.
This survey both identified motivating factors and attempted to measure the
strength of each motivation. Motivations can change depending on person’s life
circumstances. This survey captured attitudes about what motivated farmers to certify
with a program that has been around for over 75 years. In some cases, farmers who have
been part of the tree farm program for over 50 years, reported their perceived value about
certification from when they joined. This study presumes that the values reported in this
survey still reflect the values tree farmers held when they initially certified.
From the research, a trend was shown in the degree of change tree farmers make
to adjust their management to the standards required to become certified. Tree farmers
reported making changes more frequently as the size of their farms decreased. This size
selective pattern brings into question potential of differences in both resource access and
knowledge between small and large landowners.
The implications for the difference in changes made to certify reported between
small and large landowners suggests there are more barriers to certifying forest land as
acreage is reduced. If so, there is a potential that as land is passed down, inherited by the

72

heirs of tree farm acres, or sold off, it will subject to division. By this logic of increasing
barriers to certification with reduced acreage, certification may become more challenging
for programs like these to achieve.

73

Works Cited
Bengston, D. N., Asah, S. T., & Butler, B. J. (2011). The diverse values and motivations
of family forest owners in the United States: an analysis of an open-ended
question in the National Woodland Owner Survey. Small-Scale Forestry, 10(3),
339-355.
Blackman, A., & Rivera, J. (2011). Producer‐level benefits of sustainability certification.
Conservation Biology, 25(6), 1176-1185.
Bliss, J. C. (2003). Sustaining family forests in rural landscapes: Rationale, challenges,
and an illustration from Oregon, USA. Small-Scale Forestry, 2(1), 1-8.
Bliss, J. C., & Martin, A. J. (1989). Identifying NIPF management motivations with
qualitative methods. Forest Science, 35(2), 601-622.
Bouslah, K., M’Zali, B., Turcotte, M.-F., & Kooli, M. (2010). The impact of forest
certification on firm financial performance in Canada and the US. Journal of
Business Ethics, 96(4), 551-572.
Butler, B. J. (2008). Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep.
NRS-27. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research
Station, 72.
Butler, B. J., & Leatherberry, E. C. (2004). America's family forest owners. Journal of
Forestry, 102(7), 4-14.
Butler, B. J., Leatherberry, E. C., & Williams, M. S. (2005). Design, implementation, and
analysis methods for the National Woodland Owner Survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE336. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research
Station.
Butler, B. J., & Ma, Z. (2011). Family forest owner trends in the Northern United States.
Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 28(1), 13-18.
Butler, B. J., Tyrrell, M., Feinberg, G., VanManen, S., Wiseman, L., & Wallinger, S.
(2007). Understanding and reaching family forest owners: lessons from social
marketing research. Journal of Forestry, 105(7), 348-357.
Cashore, B., Auld, G., & Newsom, D. (2003). Forest certification (eco-labeling)
programs and their policy-making authority: Explaining divergence among North
American and European case studies. Forest Policy and Economics, 5(3), 225247.
D'Amato, A. W., Catanzaro, P. F., Damery, D. T., Kittredge, D. B., & Ferrare, K. A.
(2010). Are family forest owners facing a future in which forest management is
not enough? Journal of Forestry, 108(1), 32-38.
Daniels, S. E., Kilgore, M. A., Jacobson, M. G., Greene, J. L., & Straka, T. J. (2010).
Examining the compatibility between forestry incentive programs in the US and
the practice of sustainable forest management. Forests, 1(1), 49-64.
Dillman, D. A., Tortora, R. D., & Bowker, D. (1998). Principles for constructing web
surveys. SESRC Technical Report, 98-50.
Egan, A., & Jones, S. (1993). Do landowner practices reflect beliefs? Implications of an
extension-research partnership. Journal of Forestry 91(10): 39-45.
Erickson, D. L., Ryan, R. L., & De Young, R. (2002). Woodlots in the rural landscape:
Landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case
study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(2), 101-112.
74

Ferranto, S., Huntsinger, L., Stewart, W., Getz, C., Nakamura, G., & Kelly, M. (2012).
Consider the source: The impact of media and authority in outreach to private
forest and rangeland owners. Journal of Environmental Management, 97, 131140.
Hayward, J., & Vertinsky, I. (1999). High expectations, unexpected benefits: What
managers and owners think of certification. Journal of Forestry, 97(2), 13-17.
Jones, S. B., Luloff, A. E., & Finley, J. C. (1995). Another Look at NIPFs: Facing Our.
Journal of Forestry, 93(9), 41-44.
Kilgore, M. A., Greene, J. L., Jacobson, M. G., Straka, T. J., & Daniels, S. E. (2007a).
The influence of financial incentive programs in promoting sustainable forestry
on the nation's family forests. Journal of Forestry, 105(4), 184-191.
Kilgore, M. A., Leahy, J. E., Donnay, J. S., Hibbard, C. M., & Blinn, C. R. (2007b).
Evaluating logger certification attitudes and preferences: A Minnesota case study.
Forest Products Journal, 57(1/2), 84.
Kilgore, M. A., Snyder, S., Taff, S., & Schertz, J. (2008a). Family forest stewardship: Do
owners need a financial incentive? Journal of Forestry, 106(7), 357-362.
Kilgore, M. A., Snyder, S. A., Schertz, J., & Taff, S. J. (2008b). What does it take to get
family forest owners to enroll in a forest stewardship-type program? Forest Policy
and Economics, 10(7), 507-514.
Knoot, T. G., & Rickenbach, M. (2011). Best management practices and timber
harvesting: The role of social networks in shaping landowner decisions.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 26(2), 171-182.
Ma, Z., Butler, B. J., Kittredge, D. B., & Catanzaro, P. (2012). Factors associated with
landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the US: Implications
for policy design and outreach. Land Use Policy, 29(1), 53-61.
Moore, S. E., Cubbage, F., & Eicheldinger, C. (2012). Impacts of forest stewardship
council (FSC) and sustainable forestry initiative (SFI) forest certification in north
America. Journal of Forestry, 110(2), 79-88.
Nussbaum, R., Garforth, M., Scrase, H., & Wenban-Smith, M. (2001). An analysis of
current FSC accreditation, certification and standard-setting procedures
identifying elements which create constraints for small forest owners. Proforest.
Oxford, UK.
Oswalt, N. S., & Smith, W. B. (2013). US forest resource facts and historical trends. FS1035. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 56pp.
Overdevest, C., & Rickenbach, M. G. (2006). Forest certification and institutional
governance: An empirical study of forest stewardship council certificate holders
in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(1), 93-102.
Rametsteiner, E., & Simula, M. (2003). Forest certification—an instrument to promote
sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental Management, 67(1),
87-98.
Rickenbach, M., Zeuli, K., & Sturgess-Cleek, E. (2005). Despite failure: The emergence
of “new” forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research, 20(6), 503-513.
Sagor, E. S., & Becker, D. R. (2014). Personal networks and private forestry in
Minnesota. Journal of Environmental Management, 132, 145-154.

75

Sampson, N., & DeCoster, L. (2000). Forest fragmentation: Implications for sustainable
private forests. Journal of Forestry, 98(3), 4-8.
Schubert, J. R., & Mayer, A. L. (2012). Peer influence of non-industrial private forest
owners in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Open Journal of Forestry,
2(03), 150.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks.
Washington Tree Farm Program. (2017). Who we are. Retrieved from watreefarm.org.
Washington Tree Farm Program. (2017). Get certified. Retrieved from watreefarm.org
Zhang, Y., Zhang, D., & Schelhas, J. (2005). Small-scale non-industrial private forest
ownership in the United States: Rationale and implications for forest
management. Silva Fennica, 39(3), 443.

76

Appendices
Appendix A: Washington Tree Farm Program Survey

77

78

79

80

81

82

Appendix B: Invitation to participants

83

Appendix C: Research subject consent form to participate

84

Media

Andersen_PMESthesis2017.pdf