Masters Theses

Date of Award

12-1999

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science

Major

Forestry

Major Professor

J. Mark Fly

Committee Members

W. K. Clatterbuck, R. G. Waters

Abstract

Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land is a significant resource in the Southeastern United States. Private, nonindustrial sources own approximately 77% of the forested land in the Southern Appalachian Region. A high percentage of these ownerships are 400 acres or less in size (Barrett 1995). Because of the increase in small land ownerships and issues like high-grading, regulation of land-use, and pressure from special interest groups, there is a pressing need for good stewardship of private lands.

Extension education and outreach programs are one way to facilitate a working relationship between forestry and wildlife professionals and the private sector. However, without an understanding of the impact of educational programming directed toward NIPF landowners, and direct knowledge about whether or not NIPF landowners are even being reached by intended programming, our best efforts to reach NIPF landowners may miss the mark, resulting in the inefficient use of money, time, and resources.

The Extension Service has used forestry, wildlife, and fisheries (FWF) field days as one vehicle for information transfer. A methodology for the evaluation of FWF field days was developed, tested and used at three field days in Tennessee in the spring, summer, and fall of 1998. This research model evaluated the human dimensions of FWF Extension field days by analyzing participant characteristics, behaviors, perceptions, and attitudes.

The evaluation model formulated for this project is divided into two integral parts, process and content The process deals with the implementation of the survey instrument. A successful implementation process requires (1) Full integration of the evaluation into the field day plan, (2) Good communication with personnel, (3) Evaluator involvement in the registration process, (4) A field tour with van transportation for participants, (5) Van driver involvement with the implementation procedure, and (6) Central location for registration.

The content deals with the survey instrument used, data collection, and the resulting analysis. Specific educational programs at each of the three field days were evaluated using a pre/post survey format to measure knowledge. The pre-test was distributed in the field before participants viewed the programs. The post-test was distributed as part of a mail survey sent out six weeks after the field day event. Mail surveys were conducted using the Dillman four-wave method (1978). Questionnaires were sent to all participants who filled out a pre-test. Of the 320 participants originally involved in the field day evaluation, 222 retumed completed mail questionnaires for a final response rate of 69.4%. Descriptive statistics were used to organize the data.

Most respondents were Tennessee residents (98.2%), and male (79.7%). The majority of respondents had a college degree, (65%) and most annual incomes averaged over $30,000 per year (79%). The highest percentage of respondents (19.2%) was retired, 18.6% were foresters, 10.2% were teachers, and 7.8% were students. Just over half (52.1%) of all respondents were forest landov\/ners, 35.2% were resource professionals, and 1.4% were timber contractors. Over half (58.3%) of the field day participants reported that they were involved in forest management on their land, 25% on other private land, 16% on public land, and 5% on industry land. Less than half (37%) of respondents indicated that they or someone in their household worked in a forestry or wildlife related field.

Most respondents leamed about the FWF field days through University of Tennessee personnel (36.1%), or from "Other" sources (28.7%). A small percentage (13.0%) said they would change their management practices, some respondents (31.5%) indicated that they might change their management, and 26.9% said they would not change their management practices as a result of attending the FWF field day. When asked whether or not they expected to attend future field day events, 85.8% of respondents said they would. Some respondents (34%) had not attended a field day program before. Field days were the type of forestry education program of most interest to participants (84.3%), followed by demonstrations (64.4%), on-site visits with forestry professionals (60.2%), and seminars (29.2%).

Pre-post tests indicated that most participant knowledge levels were not affected as a result of exposure to the educational programs. A large percentage of participants who were landowners were also resource professionals. This indicates that the reason why most people did not learn new information as a result of the field day may be because they already had a good deal of background knowledge about the educational topics and were not leaning anything new. In order to test this, landowners that were not resource professionals were separated from the general data set, but results for this group did not differ greatly from the entire population who filled out both surveys.

The reason there was no change in knowledge level is still unclear. It is possible that the Extension Service is missing the true target population of NIPF landowners who have not been previously exposed to educational programs. This may explain why there was little knowledge change in landowners that were not also resource professionals. However, results also indicate that most participants are enjoying themselves at FWF field days and want to continue attending the events. The model for evaluation developed for this study was successful in rendering valid results, and can be used to gain further understanding into FWF field day participants and relative program success.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS