1. 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: Fx: ;
August The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

2. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

3. “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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

5. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

6. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

7. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

8. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

9. (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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

10. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

11. Demographics
August The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

12. Demographics: Wisconsin Offspring Study
Acres represented:
10-49 acres = 29%
50-99 acres = 29%
acres = 31%
Gender:
Males = 59%
Females = 41 %
Age:
<20 yrs = 8% yrs = 50% 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: families
August The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

13. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

14. Affiliations
August The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

15. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

16. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

17. Perceptions
August The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

18. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

20. Forest Management
August The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

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

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

24. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

25. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

26. % 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

27. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

28. % 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

29. % 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

30. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

31. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

32. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

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

35. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

37. % 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

38. % 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

39. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

40. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

41. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

42. % 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

44. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

46. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

47. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

48. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

49. % 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

50. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

51. 53% What conditions would force you to sell?
% of families with siblings who disagreed with each other
53%
August The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

53. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

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

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

57. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

59. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

60. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

61. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

62. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

64. 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% %
More believe parents manage for stewardship
44% 13%
More want income off the land
66% 48%
August The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

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

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

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

68. 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 The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater

69. Senior Fellow —The Pinchot Institute President — Mater Ltd.
Catherine M. Mater
Senior Fellow —The Pinchot Institute
President — Mater Ltd.
Corvallis, OR
Tel: Fx: ;
August The Pinchot Institute Catherine M. Mater