Forest Landowners and Advisor Relationships: Creating Collaborative Connections to Care Well for Forests

Abstract

Northeastern U.S. forests are predominantly owned by people identifying as intrinsically linked to their land. Yet, with many privately-owned forests, management often occurs without the oversight of a trained forester. This disconnect is often due to landowners’ and foresters’ mismatched relational expectations within their interactions. Consequently, landowners turn to known others, less likely to have training in forestry, to share experience and knowledge situated in a connection forged by shared perspectives. To understand these communicative differences and landowner experiences, this study explored landowner-advisor interactions for elements that led to learning and collaborative connections. Interviews with landowners revealed their intense value for creating interpersonal relationships with advisors. These relationships were gateways to learning and action. Findings highlight the importance of intentional relationship cultivation as vital for natural resource management, detailing the value of peer networks and expansion of collaborative natural resource management discourse to the realm of private forests.

Keywords:

• Consulting foresters
• experience
• peer network
• private forest landowners
• relationships
• trust

Introduction

Natural resource management as a whole is not a solitary act; it is interactional. Research has demonstrated that learning (Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003), connections (Bodin and Crona 2009), and trust (Coleman and Stern 2018) may be vital for creating and supporting collaborative use and management of shared natural resources. Globally (Beitl 2011; Fisher et al. 2020) and nationally (Selin et al. 2007; Bothwell 2019), research has outlined successful, sustainable governance of common pool resources by communities engaging in collective action, wherein trust and relationships are vital (Ostrom 2009). Much less is known of the genesis, structure, and outcomes for collaborative management of privately governed resources, wherein landowners can impact the broader ecosystem. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. forestland is privately owned by non-corporate individuals, and more than half have not consulted a professional to help care for their land (Butler et al. 2021). To understand this phenomenon and begin remedying any disconnects between landowners and advisors who can be collaborators in management action, it is important to understand the interaction between them. Using a Pennsylvania narrative, this exploratory research worked to uncover important interactional elements between landowners and advisors and relate how their use can potentially lead to engaged forest management on private land. This work is set in the theoretical and practical background of components identified in interactions and the development of collaborative connections within natural resource management—social learning and social capital.

Social and Collaborative Learning

For decades, academics and practitioners have studied the impact of learning (e.g., Bandura, Piaget, Dewey, Mezirow) (Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner 2007) and established a foundation for the concept of social learning. Of particular interest among the theories it embraces are those grounded in constructionism, seeing knowledge as created when people interact while engaging in tasks (Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner 2007).

Previous research has taken various approaches to provide insight into the role and success of social learning in natural resource management (Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003; Levesque et al. 2017). According to Rodela (2011), regardless of the approach, this literature illustrates the role of social learning for creating solutions, as well as trust and relationships, through collaboration. Much of this work focuses on collaborative management of international and domestic common pool resources—those defined by the difficulty of excluding people from their use and benefit, and to what degree use of the resource by one subtracts from the benefit and use derived by another (e.g., fisheries in Ecuador (Beitl 2011), trails in National Forests (Selin et al. 2007)). Current understanding of social learning and its incitation of collaborative action between private landowners and professionals is limited. This gap is imperative to inform because privately-owned resources—when cared for well—also provide an array of benefits (e.g., clean air and water, flood mitigation, climate regulation, contributions to local economy) to communities and society (Stein et al. 2009). Just as social learning has proven important in collaborative care of common pool resources, learning-rich engagement between landowners and advisors can potentially carry similar importance for private resources. Therefore, this work expands social learning to private forest management by framing the interactions between forest landowners and their advisors using collaborative learning, an application of constructionist social learning theory.

Collaborative learning is the process by which people make sense of the world around them and create new solutions together (Peters and Gray 2005). Through dialogue, individuals engage in creating new practices and ideas while uncovering each other’s experiences of the situation. This is followed by cyclical implementation of new practice or knowledge, accompanied by reflection about that implementation. Beyond just learning about practice and one another’s experience, collaborative learning creates space for fellowship that is vital to understanding others' perspectives. Fellowship develops the social capital necessary to create space to be vulnerable and honest about different perspectives and values (Muth, Frumento, and Reid 2019).

We postulate that collaborative learning, as an application of social learning theory, is the mechanism by which landowners and natural resource management professionals can develop and implement action together. Asking experts to be participants in the learning process, collaborative learning requires dialogue as well the validation and importance of various perspectives, forms of knowledge, skills, and the need for cyclical reflection upon what they are learning (management from each other’s perspective) and the practice through which they are acting (the actions of management). As this learning occurs, individuals are recursively creating and utilizing social capital that serves as building blocks to their collaboration and developing relationship (Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003).

Social Capital

Social capital represents resources developed through relationships that provide benefit to individuals and the collective and serve to sustain these relationships (Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1988; Putnam 2000). Common forms of social capital cited in natural resource management literature are trust, reciprocity, and connectivity (i.e., relationships) (Plummer and FitzGibbon 2006; Muro and Jeffrey 2008; Hitchner et al. 2019). Individuals assess an associated risk they are willing to accept when choosing to engage with another (Ostrom 2009). When the costs of engagement are high, acceptable risk is low, and, in Ostrom’s (2009) theory, trust is the tool for mitigating that risk. Research has defined various forms of trust in natural resource management (Coleman and Stern 2018) and has uncovered affinitive trust—borne of shared experiences, values, and similarities—as integral in establishing relationships and collaboration (Coleman and Stern 2018). Collaborative learning occurs via reciprocal sharing, allowing for emergence of new resource management knowledge (Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003). This new knowledge is mobilized toward common goals through connectivity.

Scope of This Work

The literature demonstrates that communication and interaction between a landowner and an advisor may impact development of relationships vital for forest management practices to occur. Collaborative learning and social capital may inform how such relationships develop, as seen in natural resource management literature. The purpose of this research, however, was to explore the nature of landowners’ experiences with their advisors, rather than hypothesize about them. To understand what was important in that experience, our research investigated the differences in landowner interactions with two types of advisors (peers and foresters), and what characteristics of said interactions were important to the creation of a relationship between them.

A Focus on Pennsylvania Landowners

In Pennsylvania, nearly 70% of 16.5 million forested acres is privately-owned (Metcalf et al. 2012). These forests are owned for a variety of reasons, (e.g., wildlife, solitude, enjoyment). The least prevalent reason landowners indicate is to receive income from timber and non-timber products (Metcalf et al. 2012). Nonetheless, Metcalf et al. (2012) found that while only 5% of Pennsylvania forest landowners indicated owning land to grow trees for sale, nearly 31% had conducted a commercial harvest. Of these, 20% received no advice prior to harvest. Among individuals who had received advice or had a hired a manager, only a quarter hired a forester (Metcalf et al. 2012). Importantly, when asked about their perceived connectedness to nature, nearly 60% of landowners identified as having an almost complete overlap of nature and self (Metcalf et al. 2012), suggesting they are a part of their land and their land is a part of them. Together, these details indicate that the management occurring on many Pennsylvania privately-owned forests may be driven by benevolent owner intent to care for the land as they do themselves, yet it is often practiced without professional oversight.

Prior research indicates that this absence of oversight is connected to the perception and delivery of professional expertise. As technically trained professionals, foresters typically assess the validity of new information based on scientific content accuracy and the conveyor’s credibility (Fischer et al. 2010; Gootee et al. 2010). This is the common expectation foresters have for landowners who receive and assess the forest management knowledge they offer. When these attempts fail and landowners reject the forester’s expertise, it is not related to scientific validity or professional credibility alone; rather, landowners apply different, additional criteria when choosing to accept and adopt new information (Rickenbach, Zeuli, and Sturgess-Cleek 2005; Fischer et al. 2010; Gootee et al. 2010; Kittredge et al. 2013). They often initially rely upon their impressions of the person delivering the information rather than the content. This is particularly important for novice landowners (i.e., those who have never received any formal or informal forest management training) who may not be readily able to assess the forester’s management knowledge but can assess the individual’s attitude and intent. To welcome a forester’s knowledge, landowners must first perceive the individual respects them as a client or colleague, does not act in a hierarchical way, is reciprocal in exchanging perspectives, is willing to validate the landowners’ knowledge and experience, and is willing to teach the rationale behind complex practices and regulations (Rickenbach, Zeuli, and Sturgess-Cleek 2005; Gootee et al. 2010).

The landowners’ self-nature connection (Metcalf et al. 2012) discussed earlier amplifies the importance of connecting with professionals. With a deep land connection, selecting a forester is not only about finding a qualified expert; it is about finding someone who shares a connection to the land and understands the landowner’s goals borne out of it (Gootee et al. 2010). Foresters have not traditionally been taught to perceive landowners or management this way. The Society of American Foresters (SAF), a leading professional organization, has designed and implemented accredited training programs at universities and colleges since 1935 (Redelsheimer, Boldenow, and Marshall 2015). Not until 65 years later did SAF begin to address curricula changes to prepare foresters to interact with a changing society (Block 2000). Other research has demonstrated that students recently graduating from forestry programs were technically capable of succeeding in business and implementation but were unprepared to function in the relational component of practice (Sample et al. 2015).

When foresters are trained under traditional curricula prioritizing technical skill, business-thinking, and scientific understanding for good forest management, they view their connection to the land as the contracted management applied to it. On the other hand, landowners desire to work with someone who understands and validates their deeply internal connection to their land (Gootee et al. 2010), a conundrum between training and expectation that influences how landowners expect to work with professionals and vice versa.

Importantly, when seeking an advisor they trust, respect, and who holds a similar land connection, landowners often turn to peers. Existing since 1991, the Pennsylvania Forest Stewards Program has trained 750 landowners in good forest stewardship. This program cultivated a large, diverse, and expanding network of expert landowners (peers henceforth) who have strong experiential and technical understanding of forest management, are actively engaged in the management of their land, and are committed to sharing that understanding with other landowners. Prior research (Fischer et al. 2010; Gootee et al. 2010; Kittredge et al. 2013; Kueper, Sagor, and Becker 2013) has found that landowners choose to turn to their peers, like those in the Pennsylvania network¹, because they share similar experiences and connections to land.

In summary, forest landowners desire to interact and create a connection with advisors who understand or share the value they hold for their land.

Methods

To understand landowners’ interaction experiences with advisors, we implemented a qualitative, inductive study, utilizing phenomenological and semi-structured interviews.

Phenomenology, as a methodology, affirms that a person’s perceptions, behaviors, and realities result from experiences interacting through their body with the world, time, and others (Thomas and Pollio 2002). Particularly, what stands out in an experience, as related through its story, indicates what is meaningful to someone (Pollio, Henley, and Thompson 1997).

The phenomenological interview seeks to uncover those perceptions of meaning through a descriptive, facilitative conversation. While previous research has revealed the presence and status of relationships between natural resource advisors and landowners (Fischer et al. 2010; Gootee et al. 2010; Kittredge et al. 2013; Kueper, Sagor, and Becker 2013), this method allowed us to use stories to uncover what factors impacted the landowner’s experience, and the potential relationship.

Apart from a standard opening question meant to prompt the experiential story, interviews were unstructured and informal. Follow-up questions were elicited from within the stories shared and participants’ emphasis on various aspects of them (Thomas and Pollio 2002). The conversational, informal nature of the interview created space where participants felt comfortable sharing their stories, particularly when personal feelings, values, or concerns arose.

To complement the phenomenological interview, semi-structured interviews comprised of thirteen predefined questions followed immediately after. These questions uncovered land ownership demographics and level of prior knowledge, as well revealed elements of connection and characteristics within the interactional experience the participant described. This approach allowed the interviewer to ask directly about the experience, provided support for findings from the phenomenological portion, and created a potential opportunity for new insights.

Questions in both interviews were non-intrusive and asked simply about the experience without ascribing a negative or positive perception. Participants, themselves, had the power and opportunity to relay anything about the nature of their experience. While the recruitment strategy limited the ability to more adequately capture a body of completely negative experience with peers or foresters, some participants did relay negative or dissatisfactory elements of their overall experience.

As a triangulated method, interviewer field notes were recorded after each session. As members of the forestry community, we recognize that our experiences frame our perspectives. Qualitative research accounts for researcher positionality through reflexivity; the ethical recognition and self-awareness of our reactions, questions, and thoughts, and the affect we may have on participants or the work (Berger 2015). Therefore, these field notes were a tool for reflecting on the interview, collecting further data, and reflecting upon how our position might affect and be affected by our interaction with participants and the data.

Sample Selection

The sampling frame included novice forest landowners (NLOs henceforth) who have no formal, technical forest management training. These individuals were selected because, in their lack of technical training, their experiences may be more closely related to most landowners. These NLOs had, within the last year, interacted with one of two Pennsylvania forest management advisors: peers or consulting foresters. As noted earlier, peers are landowners trained to interact with NLOs, represent the sought-after peer interactions outlined in prior research (Gootee et al. 2010; Kittredge et al. 2013; Kueper, Sagor, and Becker 2013), and are often contacted to provide general assistance and knowledge. Out of the larger community of professional foresters, consulting foresters are private individuals who provide paid management services to attend to forest landowners’ specific needs (e.g., timber harvest, invasive plant treatment), supplying direct guidance to NLOs in and through management practices on their land. While a useful resource, landowners are not legally required to hire consulting foresters.

The sample was purposive, where landowner inclusion criteria involved recommendation from one of the advisor groups and willingness to participate in the interview. To attain the sample, we contacted, via letter, all consulting foresters on the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Consulting Forester Directory and all active Pennsylvania Forest Stewards. Advisors were asked to share a letter of invitation to landowners who met the selection criteria with whom they had had contact. These NLOs then could choose to participate by allowing the advisor to share their contact information or by contacting the interviewer directly. In total, the interviews involved thirty-three NLOs across two groups—seventeen NLOs had interacted with consulting foresters and sixteen had interacted with peers. These individuals, while considered novice per the sampling frame, represented diverse knowledge and experience regarding forest management and diverse personal backgrounds (see Table 1). Interviews occurred between May and September of 2020. According to our institution’s COVID-19 protocol, all interviews were conducted virtually (i.e., phone or Zoom), and were recorded with participant approval following IRB human subjects protocol (IRB# STUDY00014878).

Table 1. Demographics of NLOs by advisor type.

Advisor Type	Peer	Forester
Number Interviewed	16	17
Gender
Male	14	13
Female	1	3
Married couple	1	1
Acreage owned (ac)
<10	1	3
10–100	8	6
100–1000	7	5
>1000	0	3
Prior Training (Self-Identified)
None	9	2
Some informal	7	14
Some formal	0	1
Land acquisition
Purchased independently	11	6
Purchased jointly	1	2
Purchased from family	2	5
Inherited	2	4
Had Prior Engagement with an Advisor (same or different type)	9	9

Analysis

Recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed separately, according to advisor group and interview type. Phenomenological interviews were analyzed both independently and collectively with a research group. This group functioned as a source of validity for this research (Thomas and Pollio 2002). Experienced in qualitative research, the group read, analyzed, and discussed findings within and across interviews, largely focusing on participants’ language and shifts therein. The individual researcher cross-analyzed independent findings with group findings and each interview with the larger body of interviews, revealing the broader, related meaning across all interviews. These broader findings represent what was meaningful to landowners’ interactional experiences. Similarities in this experiential importance gave rise to themes, developed based upon independent and collective analyses and presented to the research group, who approved of them as valid representations of their interpretations. Further validity was provided by sharing preliminary results of phenomenological interviews with participants who approved of these themes as representative of their experiences and stories.

Semi-structured interviews were analyzed using Nvivo software and a similar cross-analysis. Results further supported the themes that emerged in the phenomenological portion.

Study Limitations

This research only addressed NLO experiences with consulting foresters, and results cannot be reliably extrapolated to interactions between NLOs and county, state, federal, extension, or procurement foresters without further investigation. Also, the recruitment strategy generated a NLO sample that did not represent the average landowner, as the average landowner has not engaged an advisor or participated in informal forest management education (Butler et al. 2021).

Results

The structure themes for the two groups identified by advisor type resulted in four and five themes for peers and consulting foresters, respectively. While they share some elements that interrelate, the structure themes represent different experiences. Pseudonyms are used to protect participant identity. Table 2 provides a summation of the themes revealed in interviews with both groups of NLOs.

Table 2. Themes of interactional experience as described by NLOs who interacted with two advisor types.

Themes	Description	Participants Captured
NLO-Peer Group
Conversation Creates Connection	Casual nature of experience allowed for getting to know each other, sharing	13
Learning	NLOs sought peers to share their knowledge as a source of wisdom; allowed for new perspectives and plans of action	16
Value of Lived Experiences	Similar life experiences created a shared understanding of each other’s values and beliefs; trust in each other’s insights​	13
Value of a Personal Connection	Now have peer as a personal resource; created comfort to take mgmt. action	14
NLO-Forester Group
Behavior of the Forester	Forester's actions, language mattered: patience, listening, caring about NLO's goals	15
Meeting Expectations	Low expectations: hoped what forester said would happen did; satisfaction pivoted on this	14
Value of Multiple Roles	Important that forester filled multiple roles	17
Value of a Relationship with the Forester	Interpersonal relationship, developed out of NLO's assessment of forester's character, personal similarity; vital for hiring and working with forester	15
Trust	Vital for believing forester, let alone hiring; created when forester validated willingness to adopt NLOs goals in mgmt.	17

Landowners Who Interacted with Peers

Conversation Creates Connection

It was just friendly…like somebody’s dad coming to your house to help you out with a project. — Marcus

NLOs talked about how informally and casually walking properties and conversation with the peer allowed them to learn from and get to know one another. Conversation over shared love for the forest and other shared interests created fellowship. NLOs talked about seeing a peer’s kindness, sincerity, and humility in that conversation. All these components of the conversation created a sense of comfort and ease that served to open a willingness to ask questions, learn, and share their knowledge and stories.

Learning

One of the neat things that I took away from it was a different appreciation for…caring for the forest…I didn't have a…good appreciation of what ‘caring for the forest’ in this sense meant and what an important role this could have in having healthy forests. — Grant

The learning that occurred within these interactions was important to NLOs. They came seeking pragmatic knowledge and with a pre-established desire to learn from the peer, many feeling overwhelmed by the depth and breadth of forest management. They asked questions—and appreciated the peer’s patience—as they tried to understand new knowledge; however, the primary action that elicited learning was sharing knowledge and experience. In this, it was important that peers did not insist upon or tell NLOs what to do; rather, most effective was sharing their experience of actions, including handling similar challenges, resources, and connections. This sharing was a mutual process where both contributed, listening, working, and creating solutions together. As an outcome, many NLOs indicated comfort to undertake management projects, or to perhaps contact a forester. Others indicated their perspective of the forest and its care changed; they were able to clearly develop personal goals and take action upon them.

Value of Lived Experiences

[referring to what the peer’s experiences mean to him]…It puts him as an expert…the fact that he had…done so many things and tried so many things…with his property and timber and things like that. So that puts his experience at a very, very high credibility level. — Zack

NLOs held their own and the peer’s experience in high regard, citing these as sources of credibility. Further, when the NLO recognized that the peer had similar identities, experiences, and backgrounds caring for land and in personal or occupational roles (e.g., hunter, religious, construction worker, parent), they felt a shared understanding of one another’s values and beliefs, and trusted each other’s insights and actions. Even with mutual experience, NLOs placed higher value on the peer’s experiences.

Value of a Personal Connection

Well, again, it is a level of trust and comfort. So, if someone that you know well and you see has done a good job with this sort of thing…tell[s] you that they have that experience and then they transmit it to you, it's more meaningful…than if a stranger just started talking to me about hiring a forester. Personal connection, I think is important. — Kelly

NLOs valued the personal connection experienced with their peer. This personal connection was vital to a successful interaction. In particular, the element of trust fostered through the prior three themes was essential in establishing the personal connection. Other elements contributing to this personal connection created through conversation were similar management goals, as well as understanding each other’s personal concerns and values for life and for land. For individuals who knew each other, acknowledged and enhanced connections resulted. Others spoke of a new relationship and friendship with the peer. An additional outcome was comfort to move forward with caring for their land, knowing the peer would be a resource throughout.

Landowners Who Interacted with a Consulting Forester

Behavior of the Forester

I just think the fact that it's almost like once he signed on as my forester, he owned it. He owned the care of the land. — Dennis

The forester’s behavior throughout the interaction had an impact on NLOs’ experiences. Many appreciated how responsive their forester was to calls or emails, and how upfront they were about management process details. NLOs appreciated that their forester asked about their goals and values, and it was important that the forester’s language reflected they placed priority on the owner’s values rather than a perception of economic gain. This language gave NLOs a sense that the forester adopted their land and values as their own, instilling confidence that the forester understood and desired to uphold those values. Throughout the interaction, it mattered that the forester was patient, listening and guiding the NLO’s understanding and respecting the NLO’s knowledge and perspectives by not disregarding them as inferior or wrong. As well, foresters did not convey they were too busy for the NLO.

Meeting Expectations

…he's had a lot of experience and what he told me was going to happen, was pretty much how it happened. — Jeff

An NLO’s experience was positively impacted when the forester met their expectations. Primarily they hoped that what the forester said would happen in the management process occurred in a professional and timely manner. Satisfaction with the interaction often pivoted on this expectation; however, dissatisfaction or disappointment occurred when there were misunderstandings or expectations unmet. Examples included missed deadlines and incompatible project timelines, misunderstood objectives for management plans and deliverables, and failure to advocate on the NLO’s behalf, particularly in interacting with logging crews.

Value of Multiple Roles

He understood very early in the discussion that I was going to be involved in the process…I was going to put a lot of time [into participating], at least until I was certain that he understood what my goals were and…if I had conflicting goals…he would put enough time into explaining things to me from a professional aspect…to come to a path that worked for both of us. — Frank

NLOs valued the multiple roles their forester filled. First, NLOs saw foresters as professionally trained and experienced experts. Second, they deeply valued foresters as educators, and acknowledged the cost of time foresters spent providing guidance, explaining process and rationale, and answering questions. Further, they appreciated their forester advocating for their goals and values in developing the management and harvesting plans, mediating contracts, and guiding logging crews. Lastly, NLOs often spoke of their forester as a partner, using “we” rather than “they,” to detail their interactions, discussions, and co-created solutions. NLOs expressed that working together established an interactive relationship with their forester. This relationship deepened when they uncovered more interpersonal connections, seeing and valuing each other as people.

Value of a Relationship with the Forester

It's the small, little things that you can pick up on…you try to read the man, the caliber and the integrity of the man. And I think…that’s worth some effort before you get involved with somebody that's working [on your land]. — Dennis

NLOs often moved beyond partnerships to a deeper relationship with a forester. Before choosing a forester, let alone creating the relationship, many NLOs expressed a need to understand the individual’s character—integrity, humility, kindness, and passion—in the first few contacts. A character match was important to the NLOs who had compatible work or life philosophies with their foresters and similar experiences that established this character (e.g., parent, hunter). These personal elements emerged through casual, mutual conversation and personal story sharing, which often occurred while working or walking the property. NLOs cited that understanding one another’s personal nature created confidence in the forester’s abilities.

Trust

…like any other relationship [where you] work with [someone] over several years…[I] developed a trust in his character and his judgment and then felt comfortable [that] any advice he gave me was based on his knowledge…of the area and…in my interest or the interest of the projects we were doing. — Ron

A component of the interaction, vital to the experience, was trust. While trust was created by and contributed to the four prior themes, NLOs felt a need to establish it quickly. Without it, the interaction would not have advanced past the first or second contact. This is related to a NLO’s desire to do no harm to the land while meeting their goals—working with a trusted person ensured this. NLO trust occurred when the forester respectfully valued and validated their goals; that is, spoken and written words conveyed their commitment to the NLO, their land, and science. In sum, a perception that the forester cared for their land as they, the landonwers, do created trust. Trust was vital for NLOs to believe the forester’s science and logic about management. This trust led NLOs to implement further management on their land following their interactions. Once trust was established, NLOs felt they could place their confidence in their forester and begin to create the relationship.

Skepticism as Context for Thematic Experiences

Across both NLO groups, an additional element textured experiences and subsequent relationships; however, there was greater impact on those working with foresters. These NLOs reflected on their experience relative to prior perceptions of forestry professionals. These perceptions involved skepticism relating to honesty, motives, and practice of loggers, foresters, and the broader forestry community. Ron, who hired a consultant, relates this skepticism:

But there are some…[that] just want to get the lumber…to the mill and collect their check and that's it…They don't care what happens to your property once they're gone…some of them I think [are] plain, downright dishonest in terms of calculating values and…the offers they make. And I think a lot of times they take advantage of people.

For some NLOs this skepticism and apprehension led them to seek recommendations from peers before hiring a professional. For NLOs who interacted with foresters, this skepticism was the backdrop against which their interaction occurred.

This skepticism was founded on past primary and secondary experiences. Primary experiences entailed varied interactions with professionals. Many NLOs talked about receiving communications from multiple loggers or foresters which presented divergent, and, at times, nonsensical, monetary offers for their timber. Some shared about past discussions with foresters and loggers who regarded management in primarily economic terms, and not in terms of the NLO’s goals. Others spoke of foresters and loggers suggesting unlawful operations, like using equipment in wetlands or during poor weather conditions. Dennis shared that he had worked with a forester who did just that. To quote him, these direct experiences,

…painted the picture that most of the people in the timber business are crooks…[this] caused me to be very wary…[and] very apprehensive about even thinking about cutting, because you almost know that you’re opening up a vulnerability to being ripped off or being taken advantage of.

Secondary experiences involved indirect exposures to the result of unfavorable interactions, such as stories from neighbors or friends or seeing examples of outcomes on other properties and feeling they “didn’t want that to happen on my land.” The consensus among NLOs of secondary experience was that, if not careful, a person could be easily taken advantage of by a professional.

Prior experiences, skepticism, and apprehension further amplify a NLO’s desire to quickly establish trust and connection with their forester. When they were able to establish this and hire a forester, satisfaction in the forester’s work was overwhelming when contrasted against the prevalent backdrop. Will summarized how his forester, compared to others he had known, stood out:

They [other foresters, loggers] just don't talk the same language. They're more interested in how fast, how much money you're going to make, and ‘I'll get it done in so many days, …It's a night and day between what [my forester] believes in, what we wanted, and what the others all wanted to do.

Discussion

We sought to understand the nature of peer-NLO and forester-NLO interactions and to uncover differences, as well as interactional characteristics important to establishing relationships. Both NLO groups thematically valued creating a personal connection and shared understanding with their advisor wherein learning and action could occur. Regarding interactional characteristics that catalyzed connection, groups cited personal similarities, life experiences, and shared forestland values. There were differences in the interactional context (i.e., what NLOs came to advisors for) and the positionality of the advisor (i.e., stake in management) that textured the experience and creation of interpersonal relationships. To discuss this, we draw on the self-nature relationship shared earlier. If NLOs perceive an intrinsic link to their land and base their value in this connection, then willingness and desire to create a relationship with an advisor of similar value anchors in seeing the intrinsic link in them as well.

Someone like Me: NLOs and Their Peers

A peer’s enthusiasm for and knowledge of forests, evidenced in conversations, was valuable for NLOs. Through conversation, NLOs recognized in their peers something they see in themselves—deep value and land connection that drives their desire to manage it well. Recall that the land-self connection is common among landowners (Metcalf et al. 2012). Peers are a part of this demographic. Therefore, the ability to communicate easily about forest management, create fellowship, and recognize shared connections to land served to catalyze a relationship between NLOs and peers (Muth, Frumento, and Reid2019). This corroborates Gootee et al.’s (2010) assertion about why landowners turn to each other for guidance—similar land connections mean they can understand and appreciate each other’s actions in caring for it. These similar connections were a resource for trusting information the peer shared (Coleman and Stern 2018).

If we recognize that NLOs identify as being linked to their land and that who they are often intersects with what the land means to them, then we understand that engaging with the land is a personal activity. So, when peers shared experiences of their own engagements, NLOs were willing to trust that experience as a source of credible knowledge because they recognized what it means to act in that space, to be the one with “firsthand knowledge,” and to want to care for the land as they would themselves. This serves as an example of affinitive trust; the peer shares similar experience and so NLOs trust the peer to relay considerate, complete knowledge (Coleman and Stern 2018). That trust was thus imperative for creating the comfort to engage in collaborative learning.

This occurred through new knowledge creation (e.g., “I realized they were more than trees”) based upon what the peer was sharing, asking questions about their experiences, and finding solutions to problems through conversation (Peters and Gray 2005). In this, NLOs emphasized the value of the peer not dictating what they should do; rather, peers detailed what they have done on their land to serve as an example. This respectful sharing validated the personal nature of caring for the forest and allowed the NLO their agency to learn and reflect upon what would be best for them and their land.

NLOs did reflect. Many indicated they went away from their interaction with abundant knowledge to sort through to create plans. Some indicated they acted swiftly, others indicated they had plans to act, and several engaged a consulting forester as a result. Regardless of what they did or did not do, NLOs described the peer connection they created as invaluable—because they knew that in acting, they had a trusted person, partner, or friend with whom to reflect upon challenges, obstacles, or options (Peters and Gray 2005). It is thus clear that successful interactions have potential to drive stewardship derived from relationships, borne out of interpersonal connections that are integral to learning, adopting, and acting toward the goal of healthy, sustainable forests.

Forestry Takes Three: NLOs, Their Land, and Their Forester

While NLOs who interacted with peers primarily sought learning opportunities, those who worked with a forester had a very specific management need that could be addressed by contracting with a professional. Because of this, money, large knowledge and skill disparities, prior skepticism, and the reality of possible negative impacts to the land textured this interaction differently. NLOs sought foresters for their expertise, but in doing so, were operating from the logic that expert practitioner is not always synonymous with trusted advisor. They were keenly aware of the potential for a conflict of interest—that the forester could use their expertise in a dishonest way, prescribing management more likely to result in greater personal economic gain at the expense of the land and the owner.

Based on their training, foresters learn to view their connection to the land as mostly external, occurring through the management they apply (Redelsheimer, Boldenow, and Marshall 2015). Unlike those who had peer interactions, NLOs understood the land would be directly impacted by the forester’s actions. As described earlier, NLO decisions to impact their land are deeply personal and heavily weighed against their recognition of altering something connected to them. NLOs also have experiences that have generated skepticism in forestry professionals. Their perceptions of possible harm can be situated in Ostrom’s theorizations of risk and trust (2009). NLOs’ threshold of acceptable risk associated with hiring a manager is low because, without trust and understanding, the potential costs to NLOs and their land are high. To reduce this risk—and subsequent costs—NLOs prioritized working with a forester who not only shared a deep connection to the land, but was willing to enter and work within the space where the NLO, their land—and now the forester—overlap.

This overlap is established by a working relationship between the forester and NLO. As described by this research and others (Gootee et al. 2010), NLOs worked to uncover the character, intent, and respect the forester had for their values through that individual’s behavior and conversation in the interaction. They wanted to know that the forester understood their values and would treat the land and their goals as if they were their own. This was essentially NLOs’ approach to validate their willingness to trust the forester. This affirms the importance of affinitive trust in the establishment of relationships and collaborative action out of these interactions (Coleman and Stern 2018). Beyond trusting that the forester is competent, assumed by their role as an expert, NLOs wanted to trust the forester to be honest and respectful in their role as a partner. Without this trust and the ability to identify character, no relationship would have formed, and likely no management or knowledge transfer would have occurred. Without that relationship-established overlap, the landowner has no assurance that the forester would apply their science and technical tools to care for them and their land, rather than manage a physical asset. Essentially, without the effort and willingness to connect interpersonally and create a relationship with landowners, foresters face the chance to have their sound science rejected and their services no longer requested (Gootee et al. 2010).

When that willingness is present and a relationship is formed—as was the case for these NLOs—the forester is drawn into the NLO-land connection, and the overlap occurs. While the relationship was the driver that pulled the forester into this connection, the work done together toward the NLO’s goal was central for maintaining it. In this work, collaborative learning occurred as the NLO asked the forester about their knowledge and rationale, as the forester asked the NLO about their experiences on the land, as they created fellowship over conversations related to similar backgrounds/interests (Muth, Frumento, and Reid 2019), and as they reflected on potential solutions or strategies throughout the management process (Peters and Gray 2005). It was also within this space that the NLO trusted and valued the roles the forester played because all expertise, education, advocation, and business-related activities prioritized the land and the owner.

In the end, these interactions, knowledge transfer, and NLOs’ satisfaction with forest management were made successful by met expectations, fulfilled roles, and active collaborative engagement in a relationship with the NLO and their land.

Implications

Results from this research suggest that relationships rich in social capital, and the learning that accompanies them, are essential to collaboration between private landowners and their advisors. This has several implications for theory and for practice of natural resource management advisors.

First, this work has filled a gap in collaborative natural resource management literature by contributing an understanding of the possibility and process of collaboration over privately governed resources. Social learning theory, applied through the practice of collaborative learning, can successfully engage owners with advisors by more equally distributing the locus of knowledge and power as well as a consideration for multiple values to inform management decisions that are correct for the owner and the broader ecosystem. This research has identified that trust is a particularly salient form of social capital when private landowners engage with resource professionals whom they are directly paying—trust in who the professional is as a person is imperative for establishing a relationship, wherein the landowner can believe that the professional will be honest, considerate, and fulfill their responsibilities.

It also sheds light on the value and importance of a peer landowner network. Through their training and own experience, peers can nurture, support, and guide learning and active engagement of NLOs. Often, they are the first point of engagement for many NLOs because they are neighbors, friends, community members, and present in places and ways that many professionals are not or cannot be. From these engagements, they can develop supportive relationships with NLOs that provide necessary clarity and comfort to inspire action. Through connectivity and trust, peer networks also embody the success of collaborative private resource management; many individuals who own and utilize parcels of land are learning and impacting that land, thereby impacting the collective landscape (Sisock 2009). In Pennsylvania, where landowners far outnumber professionals, peers can be effective at reaching, teaching, and motivating others to action in care of that landscape. Continued support for this network and additional support for the creation of networks in other states/regions, via state and federal institutions, is imperative to sustain such a vital community of advisors.

Regarding practicing natural resource managers, these results highlight the importance of intentionally cultivating a relationship with an NLO as a part of the management process. This implies the need to create time and space during initial meetings to engage in interpersonal conversations—sharing personal stories and anecdotes—that allow NLOs to see and accept managers as people who can safely enter into their land connection. Further, successfully engaging NLOs in this way requires an understanding of their deep personal connection to their land, as well as the values, behaviors, and perceived risks associated with it. Lastly, we see that any effort to achieve these things—relationships, trust, learning, understanding a NLO’s land connection—would benefit from a manager’s recursive self-reflection. As members of the professional community, we recognize that people most often pursue natural resources careers because of personal connection to or enjoyment of them. From experience and literature, it is clear that professional specialization and training, while highly important, can impact the display of that connection. Therefore, there is value in individuals continuously reflecting on their own connection to the natural world. The personal is not independent of the professional; thus, the person’s ability to reflect on and discern their own natural connections and values will enhance the professional’s ability to better understand, respect, and appreciate NLOs who operate primarily from personal connection.

We highlight these implications, while recognizing current economic forest management realities in the northeastern U.S., as well as other factors not accounted for in this research. This research demonstrates successful cases where foresters had the tools and capacity to establish relationships with landowners who primarily sought to care for their forest’s health and vitality. Yet there are private consulting firms wanting to cultivate relationships and sustainable forest management but are constrained by the need to attain some level of economic return to remain solvent. This points to faults in the tools available to NLOs and foresters to finance sound management; while many cost-share programs exist to fund traditional management on private lands, policy should consider the value of time allocated to relationship building in generating sound management and seek to generate funds to support this.

Conclusion

In conducting this research, we sought to understand what NLOs identified as important when they interacted with forest management advisors and what contributed to successful collaborative engagement. Our results revealed that the relationships were key, whether interacting with a peer or consulting forester. These relationships—an element of social capital—were built by the additional capital of trust as well as common values and goals, and were saturated in elements of learning, equal sharing, collaboration, expectation, and fellowship. Relationships were different when formed with a consulting forester, including a perceived element of risk associated with action. To place confidence in the forester as well as to offset a perception of “risk,” NLOs sought to create an interpersonal connection with foresters to demonstrate a commitment to the owner and their land during their interaction. This connection depended on learning, mutual conversation, and sharing, and, from within it, new knowledge was created and action was taken in care of the forest.

While this research provides a new perspective of engaging with landowners, it also creates space for learning about our collective practice. Regarding the professional natural resource management community, work should investigate how the profession can adopt a different frame of itself—shifting from an expert, technical provider frame to a service-oriented frame wherein the work is not about achieving some sustainability outcomes, but rather it is to care for the land in a scientifically correct way that honors and values the people intrinsically connected to it. To achieve this and all other endeavors taken on behalf of people who care for natural resources, there is a need for collaborative connection—using relationships and learning as tools that create space for managing resources together.

Acknowledgments

We thank the forest landowners who participated in this research and the Pennsylvania Forest Stewards and consulting foresters who recruited them. We thank our colleagues who took the time to review, support, and better this work; with particular thanks to peer reviewers, Barb Sellers, and Dr. Jim Finley, whose memory we now hope to honor here.

Additional information

Funding

Funding was provided by the Penn State Department of Ecosystem Science and Management and the James C. Finley Center for Private Forests Endowment Fund.

Notes

1 Other states have similar networks (c.f., New York’s Master Forest Owners, Massachusetts’ Keystone Cooperators, Oregon’s Master Woodland Managers)