Considerations in the collection and analysis of private forest owner personal network data

Eli SagorUniversity of Minnesota Extensionesagor@umn.edu

Social networks perspective

Individuals and relationships among them

Theories, models, and applications that are expressed in terms of relational concepts or processes

Assumes importance of relationships-Wasserman and Faust 1994

Insights

Sources of information, adviceRoles of strong and weak tiesTiming, type of information: how info

moves through population Diffusion of innovations

Networks

= respondent= peer= forester or logger= cons / env group

Networks

= respondent= peer= forester or logger= cons / env group

F

L

Why networks matter

Most landowners harvest relatively rarely

Access to informationStrong and weak ties, diversityInfluence / pressureLocal knowledge

Networks and private forest conservation

Diffusion of innovations (Rogers 2003)Flow of information within and beyond a small forest owner co-operative (Rickenbach

2009)Peer influence on Michigan forest owners (Schubert and Mayer 2012)Typical network structures in Finnish timber sales (Korhonen et al. 2011)Relationships between personal networks and BMP implementation in Wisconsin (Knoot

and Rickenbach 2011)Challenging the traditional Extension model: Open forums in Massachusetts (Ma et al.

2012)Communication and information diffusion strategies for NIPF owners (West et al. 1988)Social networks and community resource adaptive capacity (Bodin et al. 2006) Models of peer exchange in landowner outreach (Kueper et al. in press)Evaluating impacts of a master volunteer program (Allred et al. 2011)

(Also Kittredge, Ruseva, and many others)

Common data collection methodsInterviewSelf-administered written surveyObservationRecords

Research questions

Does data collection method affect results?

Should results be interpreted differently based on collection method?

Focus on network size and composition

2010 surveyMinnesota’s heavily

forested northern counties

Written survey: 8+ ha. of wooded land (20 ac.)

Follow-up telephone survey

A few results from written survey

Mean overall network size: 2.92

More active land managers had larger and more diverse networks

Larger-acreage owners had larger and more diverse networks

Resident and absentee owners: No differences in network size or composition

Follow‐up telephone survey

Subset: 61 respondents to written survey

Reviewed sources named on survey

Prompted for additional sources by category (e.g. family member, public forester, logger, Extension, …)

Ties among alters

Results: n=61 respondents to both written and phone surveysWritten:# alters named: 169

Mean network size: 2.77 (SE=0.336)

Telephone:# alters added: 164

Mean number added: 2.67 (SE=0.324)

Mean total network size:5.48 (SE=0.473)

Comparison

Written only:

Written + phone:

Network composition

Composition by source categoryM

ean

Composition by source categoryM

ean

Network composition

Written vs. telephone: Few differences in types of alters named

by category

Network composition: Generic networks

Based on generic categories:

“Have you received woodland information from a family member?”

…public agency forester?…Extension agent?

Generic networks

Conclusions

Generic networks and self-administered mail surveys both underestimate network size, but relatively consistently

Conclusions

Telephone surveys enrich dataNumber of sources namedTies among sources (density)Meaning

Conclusions: Language matters

Limits of quantitative data(trust, decision process, when and how information is obtained, …)

Eli Sagoresagor@umn.edu(612) 624-6948