Tomorrow's Woodland Owners
The research project: Key findings

The survey results provide a wealth of new information about the next generation of Wisconsin family woodland owners. Key findings include:

• Male and female offspring interact differently in the Wisconsin family structure when it comes to participation in the management of family forests. Only 29% of female offspring in Wisconsin said they were involved in the management of the family forest (through discussion, decision-making, and/or direct labor), while almost 50% of Wisconsin male offspring stated they were involved (see data). An equal number of male and female offspring who were not currently involved in the family forest management wanted to be (47% males vs 44% females).

  More than 80% of male offspring believed their parents had talked with them about the future of the family forests, but only 65% of female offspring stated that was so (see data).

  More than 50% of male offspring appeared aware of programs or agencies that could assist them with the management of the family forests compared to 38% of female offspring. Perhaps it then is not surprising that one-quarter (25%) of all female offspring interviewed for this study identified "lack of knowledge" as a key challenge in assuming ownership and management of the family forests compared to only 13% of their male counterparts (see data).

• No matter the gender, Wisconsin offspring expect to inherit the family forestlands (see data) and they expect that they will be required to manage the lands jointly with their siblings (see data). Sixty-one percent of all offspring interviewed for this study said so, and women offspring thought so more than male offspring (67% vs 57%) . Age of offspring made no difference to the response outcome for this question. Lack of parity between male and female participation in management of the family forest might not be of such concern if one assumes that males and females think the same about important management issues. Survey results, however, suggest that this would be unlikely (see below).
• Depending on gender, income generation may or may not be important for the next generation (see data). Almost 60% of male offspring stated they did desire to receive income off the forestland, but only 38% of female offspring stated the same desire. Age of offspring did not alter this result. If family forestlands are to be managed jointly between offspring, issues like sustainable management and income generation can pose significant problems to siblings looking for common ground and agreement.
• Sibling disagreement may already be more advanced than one might think. According to survey results, siblings were most in agreement on what will happen to the land at transfer time (they agreed that they would inherit the land), but 50% or more families with multiple children interviewed for this study had siblings who disagreed with each other in three critical areas:
• wanting to be involved in the management of the family forest (see data)
• knowing how the family forestlands will be transferred (joint sibling ownership? divided among siblings? Single sibling ownership? Even though overall offspring believed they would jointly own the land, multiple siblings within the families that were part of the study did not agree on this) (see data)
• identifying what conditions would force them to sell the family forests; identifying payment for biomass removal as an important or very important tool to help manage the family forests (see data)

These three factors are fairly significant benchmarks in gauging how smooth land transfer and next generation forestland management will occur. Forget tax relief, spouses agreeing, and kids agreeing -- according to survey results, at the end of the day siblings being able to agree with each other on what to do with the family forests trumped the whole lot on what's important to this generation.

• Don't look to the next generation for excitement about biomass removal off the family forest for energy or biofuel production. It may be a hot topic for the energy and forestry arena, but this next generation gives it low marks as being important for family forest ownership and management. Next to steady timber prices, which ranked last, payment for biomass ranked next to last on the list of conditions or tools that would be considered important or very important to Wisconsin offspring in helping to maintain forestlands in family hands (see data). And gender and age did not alter these findings. This may have significant ramifications as new biomass-to-energy and biomass-to-biofuel efforts currently underway in the US appear to rely more heavily on private forestlands for woody biomass feedstock. If Wisconsin offspring results are similar to offspring thinking across the US, industry and policy-makers alike may have uphill challenges in reaching new owners who do not recognize that the woody biomass they walk on may have energy and fuel value.
• Payment for woody biomass may not be hot, but payment for ecosystem services ranks at the top with the next generation. But both genders agree that payment for ecosystem services -- especially payments for storing carbon (carbon banking) in trees that are part of the family forests -- will be an important new tool for managing the family forests. And female offspring may take the lead on this. In the financial tools arena, Wisconsin offspring ranked payment for ecosystem services second only to tax relief (48% vs 62%) as a very or most important tool for managing the family forest (see data). Age of offspring did not alter this result, and female offspring actually ranked this higher than their male counterparts (51% vs 46%). One might conclude that there is a bright future for payments for ecosystems services -- especially carbon banking -- with the next generation of Wisconsin family forestland owner.
• Forest health and human health: no longer disconnected. Regardless of gender, offspring across the board said the high cost of health care might someday force them to sell the family forest. Outside of "need for cash" for some unforeseen situation (51%), money to pay for medical expenses ranked next on the list of conditions that would force family forestland conversion and/or sale (37%) (see data). Taxes even ranked below costs for medical expenses as a force condition (31%). And both male and female offspring were equally concerned about this.

  In light of these results, finding a way to connect human health with forest health is just plain smart. But how to do it? If offspring are interested in carbon banking, perhaps it would be possible to work with a national health care provider like Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield (the largest insurance provider throughout rural America) to offer individual health savings accounts (HSAs) to the next generation of forestland owners in exchange for keeping the family forestlands in forest and storing carbon. Regence might then serve as an administering agent, setting up and administering these HSA's through funding provided by the Chicago Climate Exchange. There is more to this thinking, but interest is already there to take the next steps to see if pilot programs can be developed around this concept.

• If you want to really connect with the next generation of landowners, figure out what they tune into and what they tune out. According to survey results, the next generation of Wisconsin offspring tune out verbiage like the term "stewardship." It's not necessarily the substance of the word they tune out, but rather the word itself. For example, when asked what parents manage their family forestlands for, almost 60% of Wisconsin offspring stated "fish and wildlife," but "'stewardship of the land" fell at the bottom of the list at 13% (see data). This was true for all ages of offspring (see data).

  When asked what reasons offspring would give for wishing to own the family forest, "stewardship" again ranked at the bottom of the list. This was true overall and true for both male and female offspring. Clearly, new messaging is necessary to reach this next generation of forestland owner. So if offspring don't tune in to stewardship, what does grab their attention? Best to look to higher powers for that answer. According to survey results, more than 60% give money on an annual basis to their churches. Children and health organizations follow, but at half the level of commitment compared to religious affiliation giving. Environmental organizations were second to last, with forestry organizations right at the bottom (see data).

• Offspring look to the DNR and extension. When it comes to whom Wisconsin offspring consult with if they have questions about the family forest, both the DNR and university extension rank well with the next generation, but female offspring particularly rely on the DNR as a go-to source for information (by almost 2 to 1) (see data).
• The MFL program is important. According to offspring responses, having the family forests in the MFL program produced the largest differences in sensitivity analysis responses in the survey. It made a difference as to whether offspring wanted to be involved in the management of the family forests; it made a difference in understanding what offspring think their parents manage the family forests for; it made a difference in offspring awareness of programs that can assist them in the management of the family forests; it made a difference in offspring understanding of how the family forestland will be transferred (joint sibling ownership); it made a difference in offspring desire to obtain income off the land; and it made a difference in whether offspring identified stewardship of the land as a top benefit to owning the family forest. Ironically, it also was more correlated with offspring who had less of a decision-making role in the management of the family forest, if they were currently involved.
• Finally, it's important to note that Wisconsin and Pennsylvania offspring are not cut from the same cloth. Results of the 2007 Pennsylvania Offspring Study show that Pennsylvania offspring belong to more environmental organizations than Wisconsin offspring; they are less involved in the decision-making roles if they are involved in the management of the family forests; they desire more to be involved in the management of the family forest before land transfer; they rely substantially less on their state DNR for information and assistance but also rely substantially more on their state forestry organizations; and they are more desirous of obtaining income off the family forests.