Info access: - Networking power

1. Key Findings: Information Flow Info access: - Networking power

2. “…we never feel uncomfortable anymore because we know where to direct the question. … I mean don’t be … nervous if you don’t know the answer because somebody’s gonna know the answer and there’s always … enough help around.” [1-8]

3. Key Findings: Information Flow Info access: - Networking power Info type: - Local focus - “Hands-on” learning opportunities

4. “We make a lot of field trips out to various places when we're going through the program, we went to all the different class members' properties … we'd talk about stuff in class, but then we'd go out and do it on the ground, or look at it, and that was probably the part that seemed the most important to me.” [1-6]

5. Key Findings: Information Flow Influence of info: - Refine and achieve goals - Increased awareness - Increased interest/involvement * Foundations for potential behavior change

6. Key Findings: Peer Exchange Not explicit goal of groups product Diversity in member background and experience

7. “Some of the members are very knowledgeable about the woods. Twice, three times as much as I am. So … every time I go to a meeting, I just try to sit by a new one, so I can learn something.” [2-1]

8. Key Findings: Peer Exchange Comparing benefits of ‘peer’ knowledge vs. ‘pro’ knowledge • Peer • “Practical” information • Management tips, on-ground experience, demonstration • Opportunistic knowledge gain • Group events = forum • Pro • “Technical” information • Research, legal guidance, financial assistance, technical mgt. advice • Seek out for specific questions, direct • answers

9. Key Findings: Peer Exchange Two sources of info: mutual support and clarification ‘Great Equalizer’ • Similar levels of comfort between peers and pros • Blurring of traditional roles

10. Take Home Message • Credible, comfortable learning environment • Localized, experientialknowledge and technicalknowledge • Network • Influenced: awareness, involvement, goals.

11. Take Home Message Alternative information channel for reaching family forest owners

12. References Butler, B.J. & E.C. Leatherberry (2004). America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry. Oct/Nov 2004. pp 4-9. Catanzaro, P. et al. (2008) What is peer-to-peer learning? Woodland Owner Networks Blog entry dated 25 June 2008. http://woodlandownernetworks.wordpress.com/2008/06/25overview/. Gootee, R. S., Blatner, K. A., Baumgartner, D. M., Carroll, M. S., & Weber, E. P. (2010). Choosing what to believe about forests: differences between professional and non-professional evaluative criteria. Small-scale Forestry, 9(2), 137-152. Rickenbach, M., Serving members and reaching others: The performance and social networks of a landowner cooperative, Forest Policy and Economics (2009). Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Ed. New York: The Free Press. Sagor, E. S. (2003). Nonindustrial private forest landowners and sources of assistance. In P. Jakes, Proceedings from "Forestry cooperatives: what today's resource professionals need to know." Nov. 18, 2003. (pp. 3-12). St. Paul, MN. Photo credit: All photographs are property of Amanda Kueper

13. Acknowledgements • Research Team: Eli Sagor, Dr. Dennis Becker • Funders: United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service; Council of Graduate Students; International Programs in Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences; the Organization of Tropical studies; Sigerfoos Fellowship • Committee: Dr. Kristen Nelson, Dr. Dan Philippon • Organizations: Interviewees; Case contacts: Nicole Strong, Paul Bader, Dr. Jerry Moles, John Nicholas, and Barbara Lanskey • Transcribing Assistants: Sheena Ahrar, Sarah Olson, Tacy Kraus, Mohamed Elaby, Erich Kern, Eli Sagor

14. Questions?kuepe011@umn.edu Interested in woodland owner peer networks? woodlandownernetworks.ning.com