Wisconsin Forestland Owner Offspring Study Results: What Does the Next Generation Think? Presented by: Catherine M. Mater Senior Fellow —The Pinchot Institute President — Mater Ltd. Corvallis, OR Tel: 541-753-7335 Fx: 541-752-2952 E-mail: catherine@mater.com www.pinchot.org ; www.mater.com August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Funding provided by the US Forest Service and the State of Wisconsin A project conducted for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with Funding provided by the US Forest Service and the State of Wisconsin August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

“Drill-down” offspring interviews (n=260 per state) Wisconsin and Pennsylvania: 260 offspring per state. 100% of interviews completed. Analysis now completed for both states. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Forestland locations of offspring interviewed (n = 260 per state) 76% of all counties 46% of all counties August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Over 500 landowners in Wisconsin initially contacted to ascertain whether they had children Landowner listings provided by WI DNR from four different sources: MLF and ATF (56%) WISCLAND database (28%) ATF sans MFL (3%) Non-joiner listings (13%) Only 10% of landowners with children declined to allow their offspring to be interviewed. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Protocol used Landowner contacted; Permission obtained from NIPF parents to interview their offspring; Offspring contacted to set up interview time; Telephone interviews conducted with offspring. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater Five key categories: Demographics: typical demographic questions Affiliations: questions regarding memberships and organization affiliations for both offspring and parents Perceptions: questions regarding offspring perceptions on why the family owns forestland; what’s happening around the family forestland; what the parents consider the most valuable characteristics of owning the forests. Forest management: questions regarding offspring involvement in the management of the family forests; offspring views on management of the forests; offspring awareness of programs to assist forestland owners, etc. Decision-making: questions regarding what the offspring think will happen to the family forests in the future and what role they think they will play, if any. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

were open-ended, with responses then grouped Mixture of questions: required yes/no were open-ended, with responses then grouped required ranking (1 to 5) of specific choices allowed for multiple answers August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

(bubble,bubble, boil, and trouble!) Survey analysis included: Gender analysis (do males and females think differently?) Age analysis, and . . . for the first time Sibling analysis . . . where Shakespeare and forestry unite (bubble,bubble, boil, and trouble!) August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Let’s see what the kids said . . . Study also includes new segments for analysis: Larger (>100 acres) vs smaller acreage ownership Lands were originally inherited vs purchased Offspring raised (or not) on family forestland Family lands are (are not) in state’s MFL program Offspring are (are not) members of environmental/forestry organizations Let’s see what the kids said . . . August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Demographics August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Demographics: Wisconsin Offspring Study Acres represented: 10-49 acres = 29% 50-99 acres = 29% 100-499 acres = 31% Gender: Males = 59% Females = 41 % Age: <20 yrs = 8% 20-40 yrs = 50% 41-60 yrs = 41% 60+yrs = 1% (20) (131) (106) (3) # of years forestland owned: 10-30 years = 32% 31-50 years = 28% 50+ years = 33% # of families where multiple siblings interviewed: 87 families August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Wisconsin offspring line-up . . . professionals (vs blue collar workers). 43% 65% 66% 78% earn more than $50,000 per year. were not raised on family forestland. live out-of-state or not near the family forestland. won’t live on the family forests in the future August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Affiliations August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Are Wisconsin offspring and their parents members of forestry and/or environmental organizations? % Yes 23% 49% If yes, which?: % forestry 29% 66% % environmental 58% 32% Siblings 13% 29% 44% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Overall –– 74% of offspring do donate annually Who do WI offspring donate money annually to (ie what’s really important to them)? Overall –– 74% of offspring do donate annually church = 65% environmental = 15% health = 32% But where? Forestry? = 3%! August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Perceptions August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Reasons that parent(s) currently own the land: Top of the list: Personal use 62% Home/legacy 52% Bottom of the list: Investment 21% Stewardship 16% “It’s mine” 6% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Wisconsin 2007 Study: Offspring Perceptions 18% 45% 34% % of sibling disagreement August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Forest Management August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Are offspring satisfied with management of family forests? 97% yes! but . . . . . . 32% of offspring didn’t know if parents had a written forest management plan August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

According to the kids - What do their parents manage land for? Top 3 fish/wildlife (57%) personnel use (49%) income (38%) stewardship – 13% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Have parents had to deal with challenges in maintaining the family forest? % yes overall 49% males 52% females 45% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Top 3 challenges faced by parents What challenges? Males Females Top 3 challenges faced by parents labor (35%) time (27%) dev. pressure (29%) taxes (21%) August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Knowledge of MFL program? Yes & No! % don’t know Family lands listed: overall 34% males 41% 47% females 24% 69% If in the MFL – are you familiar with MFL obligations? <20 yrs 33% 20-40 yrs 61% 41-60 yrs 75% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

% of families with siblings who disagreed with each other Have parents have discussed future plans with offspring?: 2007 Wisconsin study Overall 75% Male Offspring 81% Female Offspring 65% % of families with siblings who disagreed with each other 31% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Age & gender appear factors for parents discussing future of family forestlands. % yes males females <20 yrs old 69% 29% 20-40 yrs old 83% 66% 41-60 yrs old 81% 71% Have parents discussed? August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

% of families with siblings who disagreed with each other More than half of all offspring interviewed had not been involved with the management of the family forests! 2007 Wisconsin study Male Offspring 51% Female Offspring 71% . . . but offspring who are members of associations more likely to be involved % of families with siblings who disagreed with each other 33% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

% of families with siblings who disagreed with each other For majority of offspring, if currently not involved - don’t wish to be! 2007 Wisconsin study Male Offspring 53% Female Offspring 56% . . . but kids raised on the family forest and who come from MFL-listed lands do wish to be! % of families with siblings who disagreed with each other 54% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

But if involved, it was at a good level: Offspring from inherited lands and non-MFL lands more likely to be in decision-making role. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

No difference in offspring segments Reasons for offspring not involved in the management of family forests, but wish to be: Top 3 overall 56% proximity to forest 42% no time 23% it’s not mine No difference in offspring segments August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Are WI offspring aware of programs/agencies to help private landowners to manage forestlands? Over 50% said NO, but females particularly not in the know (62% vs 48% for males); age seemed a significant factor . % aware males females <20 yrs old 31% 29% 20-40 yrs old 44% 30% 41-60 yrs old 66% 50% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

If offspring aware, which programs? It’s pretty clear – the DNR plays a central role, but . . . August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Offspring from MFL lands and those not raised on the family forest most aware of DNR. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

According to the kids, who do they and their parents consult with for information? University/extension 34% 38% Consulting foresters 39% 35% State forestry association 13% 8% National associations 5% State Dept. of Natural Resources 59% Offspring from inherited lands, family forests >100 acres, and non-members of environmental or forestry organizations were more likely to consult with DNR August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Decision-making August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

% of families with siblings who disagreed with each other Clear majority wish to own family forest when transfer time occurs 2007 Wisconsin study Male Offspring 92% Female Offspring 85% % of families with siblings who disagreed with each other 22% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

% of families with siblings who disagreed with each other Wisconsin Offspring: 87% of males and females plan to inherit the land, but how???? % of families with siblings who disagreed with each other 15% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

But . . . . . . offspring raised on the family forestland have a higher expectation that the family forestland will be sold. . . . and offspring from non-MFL-listed lands have a lower expectation of joint ownership between siblings, and a higher expectation of joint ownership with other family members. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

58% 89% 33% True for all offspring segments Home/family legacy a top reason to own the land .. . but this one gender-driven. 2007 Wisconsin study Male Offspring 58% Female Offspring 89% True for all offspring segments % of families with siblings who disagreed with each other 33% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Reasons to own the family forestland: Personal Use – most often noted by offspring from <100 acre forestlands and lands that had been purchased. Love of land - most often noted by offspring from lands that had been purchased. Investment/timber - most often noted by offspring who belong to environmental or forestry organizations. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

% of families with siblings who disagreed with each other And income generation off the land may or may not be important, also depending on gender! 2007 Wisconsin study Males Offspring 56% Females Offspring 38% % of families with siblings who disagreed with each other 40% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Offspring who desire income off the land: <100 acre forestlands belong to MFL program belong to environmental or forestry organizations. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

76% 68% 35% Where will income come from? It’s pretty clear! Timber 2007 Wisconsin study Male Offspring 76% Female Offspring 68% This was especially true for offspring from MLF-listed lands! % of families with siblings who disagreed with each other 35% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Benefits to owning the land? And the kids? Benefits to owning the land? 2007 Wisconsin study Male Offspring Income – 39% It’s mine – 40% Personal use – 72% Female Offspring Income – 28% It’s mine – 42% Personal use – 52% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Benefits to owning the family forestland: Personal Use – most often noted by offspring from <100 acre forestlands and lands that had been listed with the MFL program. Home/legacy - most often noted by offspring from lands that had been inherited and non-members of environmental or forestry organizations. Stewardship -most often noted by offspring with lands listed with the MFL program. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Disagree among siblings Have you discussed future land ownership with your . . . Male Offspring Female Offspring Disagree among siblings Spouse 80% 70% 43% Siblings 59% 42% Children 41% na August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Offspring from inherited lands communicate more with their siblings. On closer look: Offspring who are members of environmental or forestry organizations communicate more to spouses Offspring from larger acreages and non-MFL lands communicate more with their children Offspring from inherited lands communicate more with their siblings. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

% of families with siblings who disagreed with each other Offspring: top three challenges to owning the land? 2007 Wisconsin study Male Offspring Taxes Time to Manage Proximity Female Offspring % of families with siblings who disagreed with each other 40% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

On closer look: Offspring from purchased lands worry more about labor/time to manage. Offspring from inherited lands worry more about taxes. Offspring from purchased lands worry more about sibling rivalry. Offspring raised on the family forest worry more about encroaching development. Offspring from non-MFL listed lands appear far less concerned about costs to maintain forestlands. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

53% What conditions would force you to sell? % of families with siblings who disagreed with each other 53% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

On closer look on force conditions (overall): Need for cash (unanticipated) = 51% $ for medical expenses = 37% $ for taxes = 31% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Regarding concern over $ of medical expenses: Offspring from larger acreages are more concerned about $ for medical expenses Both male and female offspring older than 20 years of age equally concerned August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

What’s important to helping to keep the land in family hands? August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Here’s a hint. . . Guess what I’m doing, daddy?? August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater Sustaining Family Forests Initiative, 2006

What’s important to helping to keep the land in family hands? Offspring raised on family forestlands more desiring of tax relief August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Offspring from inherited lands communicate more with their siblings. On closer look: Offspring who are members of environmental or forestry organizations communicate more to spouses Offspring from larger acreages and non-MFL lands communicate more with their children Offspring from inherited lands communicate more with their siblings. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

But . . . when asked what trumps what . . . Offspring from MLF-listed lands especially concerned about kids agreeing August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

In Review: Siblings most in agreement on ( 20% disagree): . . . how the family forests were obtained. . . . what’s happened with property taxes and land prices surrounding the family forests. . . . knowing whether the family forests are listed with the MFL program. . . . being satisfied with the current management of the family forests. . . . knowing what will happen to the land at time of transfer. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

In Review: Siblings least in agreement on (50% disagree): . . . what’s happened with the local economy around family forestland. . . . wishing to be involved in the management of the forest. . . . knowing how the family forestland will be transferred (joint sibling ownership?; divided amongst siblings?, etc.). . . . determining what condition(s) would force offspring to have to sell or fragment the family forest. . . . making income off the land from $ for biomass. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

In Review: Sensitivity analyses for decision making questions Responses from offspring with parents who had lands listed in the MFL program elicited the largest percentage point spreads compared to responses from offspring from non-MFL listed lands (observed in 47% of all responses.) Size of forestland acreage (<100 acres) and how family forestlands were acquired (inherited) also seemed to correlate offspring responses where 15% points or more between offspring responses were observed. August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

In Review: Sensitivity analyses for forest management questions Responses from offspring with parents who had lands listed in the MFL program elicited the largest percentage point spreads compared to responses from offspring from non-MFL listed lands (observed in 56% of all responses.) How family forestlands were acquired (purchased) and offspring who were members of environmental and/or forestry organizations also seemed to correlate with offspring responses where 15% points or more between offspring responses were observed.      August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

So, do Wisconsin offspring reflect a national trend? Don’t bet the forest on it ! Here’s what PA offspring look like . . . August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater Differences in Offspring Thinking between Pennsylvania and Wisconsin: PA WI More belong to environmental organizations 72% 58% Less are involved in decision-making roles if they are involved in the management of the family forest (especially female offspring) 49% 59% More want to be involved right now in the management of the family forest if not currently involved 59% 45% Less view “personal use” as a key reason for owning the family forest 23% 41% Less use their state DNR as a go-to source for information and assistance … …………..but more use state forestry organizations 14% 38% 33% 8% More believe parents manage for stewardship 44% 13% More want income off the land 66% 48% August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

So, if not this . . . . . . then what?? August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Perhaps policy and outreach adjustments from two venues: Message Messenger August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Guess what I’m doing, daddy?? Just counting carbon banks! Way cool, huh??? August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater Sustaining Family Forests Initiative, 2006

Ecosystem services (carbon banking) is new kid on the block … and offspring are interested!! Less labor, more money. Pushing a ‘green’ message works best with female offspring. Males offspring require income approach. Stewardship may play well with parents, but does not resonate well with the kids. Verbiage needs to change! With so many offspring assuming joint ownership, messaging needs to be with family as a unit, not the individual landowner. Costs for medical care on minds of all offspring. Do unique partnerships await?? August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

Senior Fellow —The Pinchot Institute President — Mater Ltd. Catherine M. Mater Senior Fellow —The Pinchot Institute President — Mater Ltd. Corvallis, OR Tel: 541-753-7335 Fx: 541-752-2952 E-mail: catherine@mater.com www.pinchot.org ; www.mater.com August 2008 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater