Elsevier

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volume 188, August 2019, Pages 80-92
Landscape and Urban Planning

What are family forest owners thinking and doing about invasive plants?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.024Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Studying Indiana FFOs can help understand how FFOs control invasive plants broadly.

  • FFOs are moderately familiar with and concerned about invasive plant control.

  • FFOs learn to manage invasive plants on their own without much professional input.

  • Government-NGO partnerships may be useful to promote FFO invasive plant management.

  • Strategies are needed to promote FFO collective actions to control invasive plants.

Abstract

Effectively managing invasive plants across forested landscapes requires voluntary control by 10.7 million family forest owners (FFOs) who own 36% of forestlands in the USA. The literature on individual and collective invasive plant management has focused on farmers, ranchers, urban gardeners and community residents, with less attention on forestlands and the role of FFOs. By analyzing survey data from 1422 FFOs in Indiana, USA, we provide a thorough assessment of their awareness, perceptions, behaviors and intentions towards invasive plants; as well as their needs and challenges. In our study, FFOs reported moderate familiarity with, concern about, and interest in invasive plant control on and around their properties. Despite a lack of confidence in their ability to manage invasive plants, FFOs reported having taken actions on the ground, including inspecting their woodlands, talking to their families and other landowners, and removing invasive plants, all without much input from natural resource professionals. Most FFOs relied on self-directed learning and social networks for invasive plant-related information and advice. They generally had little or no experience or interest in interacting with natural resource professionals. This suggests a need for natural resource professionals to refocus their efforts on developing communication strategies to target specific segments of FFOs, stronger online presence to facilitate self-directed learning, and partnerships with non-profit organizations trusted by FFOs to encourage self-organization and sharing of information and resources. These results from Indiana provide important insights for engaging FFOs to manage invasive plants more broadly.

Introduction

Nearly half of the forests in the eastern United States are infested by invasive plants (Oswalt et al., 2015). Invasive plants can displace native plants; reduce wildlife habitat; decrease forest health, productivity and resilience; and reduce the provisioning of various ecosystem services such as water quality protection and recreation (Coyle et al., 2016, Fei et al., 2014, Paini et al., 2016, Pejchar and Mooney, 2009). Several invasive plants such as garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) can also alter soil composition, making it difficult for other seedlings to grow (Peters and Meyer, 2006, Simberloff, 2013). Previous research has focused primarily on the ecological processes of nonnative plants including their reproduction, dispersal, and invasion patterns (e.g., Catford et al., 2009, Richardson et al., 2000). Studies have also assessed the effectiveness of various control (removal and prevention) strategies in managing specific invasive plant species, mostly on federal and state-owned land (e.g., Mangold and Sheley, 2008, Miller et al., 2013).

Despite an increase in ecological understanding and public awareness about invasive plants (Burt et al., 2007), there is still limited understanding about the social dimensions of nonnative plant invasions (Pejchar and Mooney, 2009, Simberloff, 2013), as evident from the fact that less than 1% of journal articles published from 1980 to 2013 on invasion biology and management examined human values, risk perceptions, resource management behaviors, and the history of invasive plant management (Estévez, Anderson, Pizarro, & Burgman, 2015). A growing number of researchers have recognized that managing invasive species is “as much a social issue, encompassing political and human factors, as it is a scientific one” (Bremner and Park, 2007, Kueffer, 2010, Reaser, 2001). As such, it becomes imperative to incorporate the social sciences and humanities to analyze people’s conceptualization of invasive versus native plants; their attitudes, values and practices associated with invasive plant management; and the politics and policies underlining such management (Head, 2017). Indeed, in recent years an increasing number of studies have incorporated theories and methods from the social sciences and humanities to examine invasive plant management in the United States and beyond (e.g., Epanchin-Niell et al., 2010, Ervin and Frisvold, 2016, Hershdorfer et al., 2007, Niemiec et al., 2016, Niemiec et al., 2018, Sullivan et al., 2017, Sullivan et al., 2017, Yung et al., 2015).

Specifically, private landowners have been the focus of many such studies. This is because the success of invasive plant prevention and control relies on not only actions of public resource managers, but thousands of private individuals taking actions on their own properties. Failing to engage private landowners will compromise the overall effectiveness of invasive plant management on a landscape scale. Generally, previous landowner studies have highlighted the importance of raising landowner awareness and communicating invasive plant-related information in a way that resonates with landowners and their management objectives (Aslan et al., 2009, Fischer and Charnley, 2012, Ma et al., 2018, Niemiec et al., 2017, Niemiec et al., 2017, Steele et al., 2006, Steele et al., 2008). Several studies show that landowners may have widely different perceptions of invasion risks, ranging from a lack of concern, to the belief that nonnative plants can be effectively controlled, to the view that invasions have gotten out of control (Fischer and Charnley, 2012, Yung et al., 2015). Many previous studies have also highlighted a need for locally adapted programs that provide education, technical assistance, and financial incentives to encourage invasive plant management by private landowners (e.g., Epanchin-Niell et al., 2010, Graham, 2013, Hershdorfer et al., 2007, Howle et al., 2010, Larson et al., 2011).

More recently, there has been increased effort to understand landowners’ interest and ability to engage in collective and/or cooperative management of invasive plants beyond individual property boundaries (e.g., Epanchin-Niell et al., 2010, Graham, 2013, Graham and Rogers, 2017, Marshall et al., 2016, Niemiec et al., 2016, Niemiec et al., 2017, Niemiec et al., 2017, Sullivan et al., 2017, Sullivan et al., 2017, Yung et al., 2015). Collective, and/or cooperative, invasive plant management tends to be more effective than individual, uncoordinated management (Epanchin-Niell and Wilen, 2015, Hershdorfer et al., 2007). So far, research has suggested that landowners’ willingness to collectively manage invasive species is influenced by their knowledge of invasive species; access to relevant information; joint learning about the interdependent social and ecological systems; as well as time, money, and other resources they must contribute (Graham, 2013, Ravnborg and Westermann, 2002). More importantly, their willingness to engage in collective and/or cooperative management also depends on their relationship with neighbors and a sense of community (Graham, 2013, Graham and Rogers, 2017, Marshall et al., 2016), past management by neighbors (Epanchin-Niell and Wilen, 2015, Hershdorfer et al., 2007, Klepeis et al., 2009, McKiernan, 2017, Yung et al., 2015), and social norms and community reciprocity (Graham, 2013, Marshall et al., 2016, Niemiec et al., 2016, Ravnborg and Westermann, 2002). In government-organized cooperative weed management programs, the level of trust landowners have towards government employees can be a significant deciding factor in terms of landowners’ decision to participate (Graham, 2013).

The aforementioned literature provides important insights into individual and collective invasive plant management on private lands; however, the majority of studies have focused on farmers, ranchers, urban gardeners, and community residents (Head, 2017). Few studies have investigated invasive plant management specific to forestlands, particularly the role of family forest owners (FFOs) in the United States. FFOs are an important group to study in the context of invasive plants management in forest ecosystems in the United States because a substantial portion of American forests (36%) are owned by 10.7 million FFOs, a subset of private forest landowners who are mostly forest-owning individuals, families, and family partnerships (Butler et al., 2016a). Although each FFO is only responsible for their property, they can have a strong cumulative influence on the outcome of invasive plant control efforts at the landscape scale. FFOs opting not to control invasive plants would allow their land to act as invader propagule sources, increasing control costs for neighboring private and public landowners (Daab and Flint, 2010, Epanchin-Niell et al., 2010, Hershdorfer et al., 2007).

To date, only a handful of studies have examined FFOs’ awareness, risk perceptions, and management intentions and behaviors regarding invasive plants. For example, Howle et al. (2010) reported qualitative results from focus groups with FFOs in South Carolina regarding how they perceived Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) management, particularly the feasibility of herbicide control and treatment efficiency. Steele et al., 2006, Steele et al., 2008 both focused on FFOs in West Virginia and found through their qualitative interviews and a mail survey that the majority of FFOs were aware of invasive plant problems, among which the majority had undertaken control measures. In a different study, Fischer and Charnley (2012) also reported results from a mail survey and qualitative interviews of FFOs in Oregon’s ponderosa pine zone. Specifically, they show that being aware or concerned about invasive plants and holding a wildlife or biodiversity ownership objective were both important predictors of whether a FFO would control invasive plants on her property. As such, there is a knowledge gap in understanding FFOs’ perceptions and actions regarding invasive plants, particularly in the Midwestern United States where no study of invasive plant management on family forests have been conducted.

Beyond invasive plant management, substantially more research has been conducted to identify factors influencing FFO behaviors and decision making in other contexts such as timber harvesting, wildlife habitat improvement, fire management, and participation in government-sponsored assistance programs. Factors include landownership characteristics such as acreage, landowner absentee status, length of land tenure, landownership objectives, having a written forest management plan, and landowner past management activities (e.g., Fischer, 2011, Gill et al., 2010, Joshi and Arano, 2009, Ma et al., 2012, Silver et al., 2015). Socio-demographic characteristics such as landowner age, education, gender, income, occupation, and membership in a landowner association or environmental organization have also been found to influence FFO behaviors and decision making in some contexts (e.g., Ma et al., 2012, Joshi and Arano, 2009). Finally, while knowledge and awareness is a precursor to taking actions, previous research has also shown that knowledge transfer to landowners is not sufficient to influence behavioral change (McLeod, Hine, Please, & Driver, 2015), and that other psychological, cognitive, social, economic, and institutional factors also play important roles such as environmental values (Farmer, Meretsky, Knapp, Chancellor, & Fischer, 2015), social norms (Karppinen & Berghäll, 2015), community structure and diversity (Paveglio, Jakes, Carroll, & Williams, 2009), and having access to financial and technical assistance (Kilgore et al., 2015).

We draw upon findings from these studies that examined FFO behaviors, intentions and attitudes in a wide range of contexts to examine whether they are also instructive in helping to understand FFO perceptions and actions relative to invasive forest plants. With a focus on FFOs in Indiana, our study asks the following questions: (1) To what extent are FFOs aware of and concerned about invasive forest plants, including herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees? (2) What actions have FFOs taken to prevent and control invasive forest plants on their forestlands? (3) What are the challenges and opportunities FFOs face regarding invasive forest plant management? This study is descriptive in nature, designed to establish a foundational understanding of FFOs’ invasive plant-related awareness, risk perceptions, management intentions and behaviors, providing a basis for generating hypotheses for further quantitative investigations and for identifying gaps and tensions for future in-depth qualitative inquiries (Grimes & Schulz, 2002). We chose to conduct descriptive research in our study context because descriptive research “often illuminates knowledge that we might not otherwise notice or even encounter” and creates opportunities for producing “new knowledge about value systems or practices” that may have not been identified previously (Knupfer & McLellan, 1996, p. 1197).

Section snippets

Study site

Indiana has approximately 4.9 million acres of forestlands, comprising 20% of the state’s land (Gormanson, 2014). Of this land base, 3.6 million acres are owned by FFOs and the average size of family-owned forestlands that are 10+ acres in Indiana is 37.8 acres (15 ha) (Butler et al., 2016b). Hardwoods are the dominant species in Indiana’s forests, and oak/hickory forests are the most common, occupying 72% of all forestlands (Gormanson, 2014). Within the state, several federal and state

Profile of respondents

As shown in Table 1, 63% of the respondents were at least 61 years old. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents were male, almost half were retired (49%), and 36% had a Bachelor’s or graduate degree. On average, respondents reported that one percent of their annual household income was derived from their woodland. They also reported owning woodlands mostly for amenity reasons, such as enjoying scenery or protecting wildlife habitat, rather than for the purpose of producing timber products.

Discussion

Generally speaking, our survey respondents are similar to the average FFOs in Indiana and nationwide in terms of their socio-demographic characteristics with two possible meaningful differences (Table 2). First, a larger proportion of our respondents (21%) have a written management plan, in contrast to 13% nationally (for family forestlands that are 10+ acres; Butler et al., 2016b). We will discuss the potential implications of this difference later in this section. Second, a large proportion

Conclusion

The literature on individual and collective invasive plant management, so far, has largely focused on farmers, ranchers, urban gardeners, and community residents (Head, 2017). Relatively little is known about invasive plant management specific to forestlands, particularly the role of family forest owners (FFOs) in the United States. This paper provides a detailed description of FFOs’ awareness, concerns, past actions, future plans, needs, and challenges related to invasive plant management.

References (86)

  • M.E. Hershdorfer et al.

    Key attributes influence the performance of local weed management programs in the southwest United States

    Rangeland Ecology and Management

    (2007)
  • S. Joshi et al.

    Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2009)
  • H. Karppinen et al.

    Forest owners’ stand improvement decisions: Applying the theory of planned behavior

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2015)
  • P. Klepeis et al.

    Emerging amenity landscapes: Invasive weeds and land subdivision in rural Australia

    Land Use Policy

    (2009)
  • D.L. Larson et al.

    A framework for sustainable invasive species management: Environmental, social, and economic objectives

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (2011)
  • Z. Ma et al.

    Factors associated with landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the U.S.: Implications for policy design and outreach

    Land Use Policy

    (2012)
  • Z. Ma et al.

    Insights into individual and cooperative invasive plant management on family forestlands

    Land Use Policy

    (2018)
  • M. Markowski-Lindsay et al.

    Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets

    Ecological Economics

    (2011)
  • G.R. Marshall et al.

    Collective action in invasive species control, and prospects for community-based governance: The case of serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) in New South Wales, Australia

    Land Use Policy

    (2016)
  • N.A. Marshall et al.

    Considering the social dimension of invasive species: The case of buffel grass

    Environmental Science and Policy

    (2011)
  • L. McLeod et al.

    Applying behavioral theories to invasive animal management: Towards an integrated framework

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (2015)
  • R.M. Niemiec et al.

    Civic and natural place attachment as correlates of resident invasive species control behavior in Hawaii

    Biological Conservation

    (2017)
  • R.M. Niemiec et al.

    Scale-dependence of environmental and socioeconomic drivers of albizia invasion in Hawaii

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2018)
  • L. Pejchar et al.

    Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being

    Trends in Ecology and Evolution

    (2009)
  • H.M. Ravnborg et al.

    Understanding interdependencies: Stakeholder identification and negotiation for collective natural resource management

    Agricultural Systems

    (2002)
  • M. Sandberg et al.

    Trees are all around us: Farmer’s management of wood pastures in light of a controversial policy

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (2018)
  • R. Sharp et al.

    Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management

    Biological Conservation

    (2011)
  • A. Sullivan et al.

    How does perception at multiple levels influence collective action in the commons? The case of Mikania micrantha in Chitwan, Nepal

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2017)
  • H.S. Thomas et al.

    Factors affecting NIPF landowner participation in management programs: A Massachusetts case study

    Journal of Forest Economics

    (2002)
  • J.S. Armstrong et al.

    Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (1977)
  • Authors. (In review). Where farm and forest meet: Comparing agricultural and non-agricultural National Woodland Owner...
  • M. Barrett et al.

    Carrots and sticks: Incentives and regulations for herbicide resistance management and changing behavior

    Weed Science

    (2016)
  • J. Burt et al.

    Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: Potential efficacy of voluntary initiatives

    Biological Invasions

    (2007)
  • B.J. Butler et al.

    Family forest ownership in the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA Forest Service’s national woodland owner survey

    Journal of Forestry

    (2016)
  • B.J. Butler et al.
  • J.A. Catford et al.

    Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework

    Diversity and Distributions

    (2009)
  • J. Cohen

    Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (1988)
  • D.R. Coyle et al.

    Landowner and manager awareness and perceptions of pine health issues and southern pine management activities in the southeastern United States

    Journal of Forestry

    (2016)
  • M.T. Daab et al.

    Public reaction to invasive plant species in a disturbed Colorado landscape

    Invasive Plant Science and Management

    (2010)
  • D.A. Dillman et al.

    Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method

    (2014)
  • S. Donaldson et al.

    Sustaining Cooperative Weed Management Areas in the long-term

  • R.S. Epanchin-Niell et al.

    Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes

    Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

    (2010)
  • R.S. Epanchin-Niell et al.

    Individual and cooperative management of invasive species in human-mediated landscapes

    American Journal of Agricultural Economics

    (2015)
  • Cited by (21)

    • Understanding invasive plant management on family forestlands: An application of protection motivation theory

      2021, Journal of Environmental Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      While research on the human dimensions of invasive plant management is increasing (Clarke et al., 2019; Head 2017), few studies have addressed the psychological factors affecting landowners' decisions to manage invasive plants beyond social norms and perceived reciprocity (Niemiec et al. 2016, 2017b). Even fewer studies have examined how FFOs perceive invasive plants and the associated risks to their property, and how such perceptions shape their management intentions and behaviors (Clarke et al., 2019). This paper intends to contribute to the literature on invasive plant management on privately-owned forestlands by investigating the factors that influence FFOs’ likelihood to manage invasive plants using conceptual constructs from protection motivation theory (PMT; Rogers 1975) and other factors supported by previous literature, including social norms and sociodemographic characteristics.

    • The practice of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the Tropical Andes: Evidence from program administrators

      2020, Ecosystem Services
      Citation Excerpt :

      Meanwhile, service providers had evidence—in-kind support tailored to the local context and a clearly-stated development goal—that helped them trust that the program was considering their needs and not just focusing on the environment. Trust-related concerns are not unique to PES programs; they have been identified as important in other conservation programs worldwide (e.g., Clarke et al., 2019; Graham and Rogers, 2017; Hayes, 2012; Rouleau et al., 2016; von Hedemann and Osborne, 2016). Many such programs have experimented with various collaborative, community-based approaches to build trust between their programs and communities, and a few have further experimented with signing PES contracts with communities instead of households (Blay et al., 2008; Cranford and Mourato, 2011; Hayes et al., 2017; 2019).

    • Relationships between absenteeism, conservation group membership, and land management among family forest owners

      2020, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      This lower level of engagement in vegetation management among absentee family forest owners is an important finding given that both invasive plant control and forest fuel reduction require landscape-scale, multi-owner approaches. Individual absentee owners not controlling invasive plants on their properties could lead to their land becoming a source of invader propagule, increasing management costs for neighboring private and public landowners (Clarke et al., 2019; Daab and Flint, 2010; Epanchin-Niell et al., 2010; Hershdorfer et al., 2007). Similarly, individual absentee owners not reducing fire hazards would lead to increased fire risk for neighboring private and public landowners (Jakes et al., 2003; Petrzelka et al., 2013).

    • Landscape dynamics of family forest owners

      2019, Landscape and Urban Planning
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text