uid=HFR,o=lter,dc=ecoinformatics,dc=org all public read doi:10.6073/pasta/5fe2319bec50de07fc35f26b54e3ce9d David Kittredge https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8527-0370 Mark Rickenbach 2023 English

We begin with a simple premise: Social and ecological systems are interconnected in complex ways. Forests are, perhaps, one of the most intriguing examples of this interconnectedness--particularly those in private ownerships. Forested landscapes are essential in maintaining human systems through the provision of multiple ecosystem services that span public (e.g., clean water, nutrient cycling) and private (e.g., fiber, maple syrup, home sites) goods. However, the majority of forestland in the Eastern United States is a mosaic of small landholdings (less than 20 ha) where property management is largely uncoordinated. On such landscapes, decentralized, ownership-centric decision-making defines the mix of ecosystem services provided and the landscape patterns present now and in the future. While somewhat effective for less spatially sensitive ecosystem services (e.g., fiber production), this ownership-centric approach is ill suited to spatially sensitive ones (e.g., water quality) and may, in some cases, be detrimental to them (e.g., habitat fragmentation). Improving the ecological and landscape sensitivity of private forest conservation and management is a major challenge facing researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in sustaining forest ecosystems. Central to unraveling this challenge is a fundamental understanding of how landowners simultaneously fit within their social and bio-physical landscapes. Despite their importance to broader forest sustainability, our collectively understanding of forest landowners has been primarily concerned with individual landowners and/or individual properties. For example, most research surrounding private forest landowners centers on primarily agent-based theories of behavior or decision-making (e.g., rational actor, theory of planned behavior). This perspective is useful in predicting and effecting behavior at broad scales, but lacks the specificity needed to address local landscape concerns and/or opportunities. Other studies have begun to unpack the social and ecological connections at landscape scales to provide useful insights and suggestions, but often take case study and/or qualitative approaches and do not adequately separate confounding contextual drivers (e.g., threat of regulation) that make application to other settings with different contexts difficult. The purpose of this exploratory study is to formally investigate the social networks of private landowners and the connection of those networks to the bio-physical landscape. Our work will specifically consider the networks of information sources and the specific role played by resource professionals in key land management decisions (i.e., harvest timber from, place conservation easement on the land) that can fundamentally alter/preserve landscape patterns. Our specific objective is to characterize and compare the egocentric networks that inform landowner decision-making related to two land management decisions, and assess relative satisfaction with the outcomes of those decisions. Landowners can acquire (directly or indirectly, through publications or other media) information about forests from "experts", "peers", or a combination of both. Experts would include those with professional training (e.g., foresters, ecologists, land trust staff, etc.,) or equivalent experience (e.g., loggers). In many cases, landowners may pay experts to carry out portions of the forest management practice. However, experts are not always directly employed by the landowner, but are instead employed by others to work with them (e.g., foresters employed by public agencies or sawmills, land trust staff). Peers usually do not have equivalent training, but may (or may not) be knowledgeable on aspects salient to the decision. Experts and peers are important sources of information in decision-making and this is true in the private landowner context (see e.g., Sisock 2007; West et al 1988). In evaluating experts and peers, past research has shown that decision-makers may consider and weigh several dimensions of the source including expertise, homophily, accessibility, information quality, trust, and cost (e.g., Borgatti and Cross 2003; Rogers 2003; Cross and Sproul 2004; Levin and Cross 2004). With experts, additional concerns may arise from oversight challenges described in agency theory due to asymmetric information and/or misaligned objectives (e.g., Eisenhardt 1989). Recent studies (e.g., Rickenbach et al 2005; Gass et al, In review) indicate that landowners face some agency concerns in dealing with professional foresters. And, some perspectives perceive that landowners "underutilize" experts in decision-making regarding their property (Butler and Leatherberry 2004).

conservation humans management timber harvest LTER controlled vocabulary disturbance human-environment LTER core area Harvard Forest HFR LTER USA HFR default

This dataset is released to the public under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (No Rights Reserved). Please keep the dataset creators informed of any plans to use the dataset. Consultation with the original investigators is strongly encouraged. Publications and data products that make use of the dataset should include proper acknowledgement.

Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html CC0-1.0 https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/exist/apps/datasets/showData.html?id=hf173 Central Massachusetts. Coordinates based on WGS84 datum. -71.92306 -72.47918 +42.72851 +42.30162 50 400 meter 2008 2008 genus Homo species sapiens human complete Information Manager Harvard Forest

324 North Main Street Petersham MA 01366 USA

(978) 724-3302 hf-im@lists.fas.harvard.edu Harvard Forest

324 North Main Street Petersham MA 01366 USA

(978) 724-3302 (978) 724-3595 https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu

In order to develop a list of people that had timber harvested from their land in the last (2) years, the state Forest Practice Act (Massachusetts General Laws chapter 132) approved Forest Cutting Plans for 18 towns in the North Quabbin study area were accessed. Those towns were Athol, Orange, New Salem, Petersham, Royalston, Phillipston, Montague, Northfield, Hubbardston, Shutesbury, Erving, Templeton, Winchendon, Wendell, Warwick, Hardwick, Barre and Pelham. For each name of a woodland owner, an address and phone number were found, using the phone book or websites such as anywho.com. To get a list of people who had recently done conservation restrictions, we accessed the registry of deeds online for the counties in which the towns of interest fell. As with the timber sale subjects, the addresses and phone numbers were found. Next, using a random sequence generator, we chose 20 people from each list to send letters to in the first wave. If the person selected did not have an address, we moved on to the next person in the sequence, until we had 20 people. We then sent out a letter to the selected people explaining our project. After about three days, we contacted the people by phone and, if they were interested, scheduled an interview time with them. If we did not have a phone number for them, we sent the letter regardless, with the hope that perhaps they would contact us. If the person was known to be a forester or logger, they were not contacted. In soliciting participation, 47 letters were originally sent to people that have completed a conservation restriction and 75 to people that have done a timber sale on their land. We phoned 35 people from the CR list, and 55 people from the timber sale list. If we did not have their phone number, we did not call them. If we had an address and no phone number, we still sent a letter.

The interviews generally took about 30 minutes. One person would ask the questions, while the other recorded the answers. After the interview, the interviewee was assigned a number, and thus when their data were entered into the computer, it was referred to solely by that number thereby ensuring anonymity of each interview subject. The worksheet with the names and corresponding numbers was kept separate from the data. If we interviewed a couple, the procedure changed slightly. Their answers were recorded separately, either on separate scripts or using different notations. Generally, they brainstormed a list of alters (i.e., contacts in the social network) together. Then, if many of their answers had been different, they filled out the contact response forms separately. If however, most of their answers had been the same or agreed upon, they filled out the contact response forms jointly. When the data were entered, couples were entered with the same identification number, distinguished with a letter, for example, 7a and 7b. If the interviewee was unwilling to provide alters or fill out contact response forms, yet it was evident that alters did exist, the interview data were discarded. If the timber sale or CR had not actually been completed, the interview was also discarded. We used NA when there was no data for that question. Interviews elicited data on information sources through a series of "name generator" questions being sensitive to the potential pitfalls of this technique (Marsden 2005). Interview participants were given a blank piece of paper and asked to write down the names of people who might have a relationship to them in the context of their woodlands, and were prompted with these questions: Who do you talk to about your land? Who do you get information or help from? Did anyone talk to you about your land? Was there anyone that was involved in or influenced the decision or process of the timber sale/easement? Did you talk to anyone or did anyone talk to you about the timber sale/easement? Participants were then asked to indicate on their list of people those that were either involved in the timber sale / easement, assisted them with an understanding of completing the timber sale/easement, or otherwise influenced how they approached the timber sale/easement; hereafter termed "influentials". It was stressed that involvement may not be limited to knowledge or actual effort. It could reflect someone’s “moral support” or assistance in helping them "think through" the process. It could also be technical advice from a resource professional, or an important suggestion they received from a neighbor or a friend. As part of the interview process, participants quantitatively evaluated each influential's expertise, similarity of opinions and attitudes, contribution to the decision, and other basic background information (e.g., peer/expert status, how they were acquainted, where they live/work). Interviewees were also asked to provide an overall assessment of the particular decision (e.g., positive/negative outcome, fit with expectations) and basic personal demographic information.

Harvard Forest

324 North Main Street Petersham MA 01366 USA

(978) 724-3302 (978) 724-3595 https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu https://ror.org/059cpzx98 pointOfContact The Harvard Forest Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program examines ecological dynamics in the New England region resulting from natural disturbances, environmental change, and human impacts. National Science Foundation LTER grants: DEB-8811764, DEB-9411975, DEB-0080592, DEB-0620443, DEB-1237491, DEB-1832210. hf173-01-ease-interview.csv easement interview hf173-01-ease-interview.csv 4199 33902dba9a2c153da112a69be0b501a4 1 \r\n column , https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/data/p17/hf173/hf173-01-ease-interview.csv code code code gender gender 1 female 2 male year.land what year did you acquire your land? YYYY acquire how did you acquire your land? 1 inherit 2 purchase 3 other acres how many acres? acre 0.1 real NA missing value acres.cr number of acres on the CR acre 0.1 real NA missing value current.home.site reason for owning land: current home site 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important NA NA income reason for owning land: income 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important NA NA recreation reason for owning land: recreation 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important NA NA legacy reason for owning land: legacy 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important NA NA protect.wildlife reason for owning land: protect wildlife 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important NA NA protect.enviro reason for owning land: protect environment 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important NA NA enjoy.scenery reason for owning land: enjoy scenery 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important NA NA other reason for owning land: reason for owning land: other birth.year birth year YYYY NA missing value distance how far from land/harvest do you live 1 on or beside 2 0-10 miles away 3 11-25 miles away 4 26-50 miles away 5 51-100 miles away 6 more than 100 miles away time.land how often do you spend time in your woodlands? 1 once or more/week 2 once or twice/month 3 once or twice/3 months 4 once or twice/year 5 less than once/year school highest level of schooling 1 grade 11 or less 2 diploma or GED 3 some college 4 college grad 5 grad or professional school income.2007 total household income in 2007 1 less than 25K 2 25k-49999 3 50k-74999 4 75k-99999 5 100k-149999 6 150k or more profession what is/was primary profession what is/was primary profession retired retired? 1 yes 2 no circumstances circumstances circumstances management.plan was there a written management plan at time of sale? 1 yes 2 no 3 don't know financially rate easement outcome: financially (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) rate easement outcome: financially (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) ecologically rate easement outcome: ecologically (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) rate easement outcome: ecologically (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) effort rate easement outcome: effort (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) rate easement outcome: effort (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) recommend rate easement outcome: recommend (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) rate easement outcome: recommend (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) overall rate easement outcome: overall (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) rate easement outcome: overall (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) difficulty describe the process: difficulty (range -3 to 3, where -3 is difficult and 3 is easy) describe the process: difficulty (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) negative describe the process: negative (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) describe the process: negative (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) over.again over again? 1 exactly the same 2 mostly the same 3 differently (explanation) 4 not again (explanation) alters number of alters number 1 natural NA missing value vip number of VIPs number 1 natural NA missing value dummy VIP professionals 1 all professionals 2 professionals and other (friend, neighbor, family..) 25 hf173-02-ease-influentials.csv easement interview influentials hf173-02-ease-influentials.csv 2574 6fc560bd277b46089904a5d0bd43a6bf 1 \r\n column , https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/data/p17/hf173/hf173-02-ease-influentials.csv code code code related related to related to expertise contribution to decision: expertise (range -3 to 3, where -3 is low and 3 is high) contribution to decision: expertise (range -3 to 3, where -3 is low and 3 is high) trust contribution to decision: trust (range -3 to 3, where -3 is untrustworthy and 3 is trustworthy) contribution to decision: trust (range -3 to 3, where -3 is untrustworthy and 3 is trustworthy) accessibility contribution to decision: accessibility (range -3 to 3, where -3 is difficult and 3 is easy) contribution to decision: accessibility (range -3 to 3, where -3 is difficult and 3 is easy) info.quality contribution to decision: info quality (range -3 to 3, where -3 is useless and 3 is useful) contribution to decision: info quality (range -3 to 3, where -3 is useless and 3 is useful) overall contribution to decision: overall (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) contribution to decision: overall (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) similarity similarity (range -3 to 3, where -3 is dissimilar and 3 is similar) similarity (range -3 to 3, where -3 is dissimilar and 3 is similar) payment payment 1 yas 2 no relative relative 1 yes 2 no close.friend close friend 1 yes 2 no frequency frequency of contact 1 once or more/week 2 once or twice/month 3 once or twice/ 3 months 4 once or twice/year 5 less than once/year 6 contact only during process own.forestland own forestland 1 yes 2 no neighbor neighbor 1 yes 2 no local local 1 yes 2 no forester forester 1 yes 2 no logger logger 1 yes 2 no role.easement role in easement role in easement 40 hf173-03-timber-interview.csv timber sale interview hf173-03-timber-interview.csv 2709 46880e4e3fc34b4e20ebf2ed2e23d302 1 \r\n column , https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/data/p17/hf173/hf173-03-timber-interview.csv code code code gender gender 1 female 2 male year.land what year did you acquire your land? YYYY NA missing value acquire how did you acquire your land? 1 inherit 2 purchase 3 other acres how many acres? acre 0.1 real NA missing value harvest.acres how many acres is on the TS? acre 0.1 real NA missing value current.home.site reasons for owning land: current home site 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important income reasons for owning land: income 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important recreation reasons for owning land: recreation 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important legacy reasons for owning land: legacy 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important protect.wildlife reasons for owning land: protect wildlife 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important protect.enviro reasons for owning land: protect environment 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important enjoy.scenery reasons for owning land: enjoy scenery 0 not at all important 1 somewhat important 2 very important 3 extremely important other reasons for owning land: other reasons for owning land: other birth.year what year were you born? YYYY NA missing value distance how far from land/harvest do you live? 1 on or beside 2 0-10 miles away 3 11-25 miles away 4 26-50 miles away 5 51-100 miles away 6 more than 100 miles away time.land how often do you spend time in your woodlands? 1 once or more/week 2 once or twice/month 3 once or twice/3 months 4 once or twice/year 5 less than once/year school highest level of schooling? 1 grade 11 or less 2 diploma or GED 3 some college 4 college grad 5 grad or professional school income.2007 total household income in 2007? 1 less than 25K 2 25k-49999 3 50k-74999 4 75k-99999 5 100k-149999 6 150k or more profession what is/was primary profession? what is/was primary profession? retired retired? 1 yes 2 no circumstances circumstances circumstances management.plan was there a written management plan at time of sale? 1 yes 2 no 3 I don't know timber.sale.contract was there a written signed timber sale contract? 1 yes 2 no timber.sale.before have you had a harvest before this one? 1 yes 2 no contract.signed who signed the timber sale contract? 1 1 NA NA financially rate timber sale outcome: financially (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) rate timber sale outcome: financially (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) ecologically rate timber sale outcome: ecologically (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) rate timber sale outcome: ecologically (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) effort rate timber sale outcome: effort (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) rate timber sale outcome: effort (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) recommend rate timber sale outcome: recommend (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) rate timber sale outcome: recommend (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) overall rate timber sale outcome: overall (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) rate timber sale outcome: overall (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) difficulty describe the process: difficulty (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is difficult and 3 is easy) describe the process: difficulty (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is difficult and 3 is easy) negative describe the process: negative (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) describe the process: negative (range: -3 to 3. where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) over.again over again 1 exactly the same 2 mostly the same 3 differently (explanation) 4 not again (explanation) alters number of alters number 1 whole NA missing value vip number of VIPs number 1 whole NA missing value dummy VIP professionals 1 all professionals 2 professionals and other (friend, neighbor, family..) 17 hf173-04-timber-influentials.csv timber sale influentials hf173-04-timber-influentials.csv 1777 7dfd7369074a54c1a3688c263eb01e6e 1 \r\n column , https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/data/p17/hf173/hf173-04-timber-influentials.csv code code code related related to related to expertise contribution to decision: expertise (range -3 to 3, where -3 is low and 3 is high) contribution to decision: expertise (range -3 to 3, where -3 is low and 3 is high) trust contribution to decision: trust (range -3 to 3, where -3 is untrustworthy and 3 is trustworthy) contribution to decision: trust (range -3 to 3, where -3 is untrustworthy and 3 is trustworthy) accessibility contribution to decision: accessibility (range -3 to 3, where -3 is difficult and 3 is easy) contribution to decision: accessibility (range -3 to 3, where -3 is difficult and 3 is easy) info.quality contribution to decision: info quality (range -3 to 3, where -3 is useless and 3 is useful) contribution to decision: info quality (range -3 to 3, where -3 is useless and 3 is useful) overall contribution to decision: overall (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) contribution to decision: overall (range -3 to 3, where -3 is negative and 3 is positive) similarity similarity (range -3 to 3, where -3 is dissimilar and 3 is similar) similarity (range -3 to 3, where -3 is dissimilar and 3 is similar) payment payment 1 yes 2 no relative relative 1 yes 2 no close.friend close friend 1 yes 2 no frequency frequency of contact 1 once or more/week 2 once or twice/month 3 once or twice/ 3 months 4 once or twice/year 5 less than once/year 6 contact only during process own.forestland own forestland 1 yes 2 no Free text (unrestricted) .* neighbor neighbor 1 yes 2 no local local 1 yes 2 no forester forester 1 yes 2 no logger logger 1 yes 2 no role.easement role in TS role in TS 30 hf173-05-ease-notes.txt easement interview narrative notes hf173-05-ease-notes.txt 7207 5875ed6fa3e4b084e4412d975c46f2b9 text https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/data/p17/hf173/hf173-05-ease-notes.txt document hf173-06-ease-script.pdf easement interview script hf173-06-ease-script.pdf 62199 07e1081d80f88076c60f980b68ceb956 none pdf https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/data/p17/hf173/hf173-06-ease-script.pdf document hf173-07-timber-notes.txt timber sale interview narrative notes hf173-07-timber-notes.txt 6030 774ba393c0f58f3f3bf4c0ad25c77bea none text https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/data/p17/hf173/hf173-07-timber-notes.txt document hf173-08-timber-script.pdf timber sale interview script hf173-08-timber-script.pdf 173171 e0fa7cf4ce6703830fbf8d6b56088578 none pdf https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/data/p17/hf173/hf173-08-timber-script.pdf document conservation short-term measurement