Tomorrow's Woodland Owners
The research project: Interview questions

Five key areas of survey questions were employed for this study.

1. Offspring were asked for demographic information
2. Offspring were queried regarding their affiliations (what organizations they and their parents belonged to, such as Ducks Unlimited, Forest Landowners Association, etc.)
3. Offspring were asked what perceptions they had regarding land use and commuinity economic conditions surrounding the family forests
4. Offspring were asked questions regarding their involvement in family forest management and their awareness of organizations that could assist them in forest management.
5. Decision-making questions focused on respondents' interest in owning the family forests and identifying conditions that might affect their ability and willingness to keep the land in family hands.

Separate from evaluation of the baseline questions referenced above, sensitivity analyses of offspring responses in the "family forest management" and "decision-making" sections of the survey were conducted to address the following:

• Did size of family forestland ownership make a difference in offspring response?  (<100 acres ownership vs >100acres ownership) 
• Did offspring respond differently if parent(s) had inherited the family forestland vs. purchased the land? 
• Did offspring response differ if they were raised on the family forestland?
• Did responses differ with offspring who thought the family forestland was listed with the Wisconsin Managed Forest Law Property Tax Program (MFL)?  and
• Did offspring who were members of a forestry and/or environmental organization provide differing answers compared to their “non-joiner” offspring counterparts? 

For the sensitivity analyses, it was determined that a 15% point difference between answers in a same response category would be defined as notable.  Example:  87% (225 of 260) of offspring stated that they thought they would inherit the family forest at the time of land transfer (vs family forestland would be sold).  Of those 225 offspring who thought they would inherit the land, 59 thought their family forestlands had been inherited and 196 thought their family forests had been purchased (multiple responses possible).  Of the 59 offspring who thought their family forests had been inherited, 58 (or 98%) thought they would inherit the family forests at the time of transfer.  Conversely, of the 196 offspring who thought their family forests had been purchased, 163 (or 83%) thought they would inherit the family forests.  The 15% point spread (98% vs 83%) between offspring who thought they would inherit the family forest based on how they thought the family forest was acquired was determined to be notable.

Finally, for 87 families with forestland in Wisconsin, multiple siblings in the same family were interviewed.  Responses from siblings within the same family were analyzed in order to determine sibling areas of agreement and disagreement.  Sibling agreement/disagreement was determined by use of the following criteria:

• All siblings in the same family had to either agree or disagree in their response to the same question.  Example:  if only two out of three siblings in the same family provided the same response to a question (one ‘yes’ and the other two ‘no’), it was determined that sibling disagreement was evident in the family.
• Where open-ended questions were asked then grouping of responses employed, sibling disagreement was determined if all siblings did not identify at least one same response category.  Example:  offspring responses to benefits to owning the family forest were wide-ranging and included love of land, personal use, income generation etc.  Offspring usually had multiple answers for this question as well.  In order to be in ‘agreement’, all siblings within the same family had to identify only one same grouped response to this question.
• Where offspring were asked to rank in importance (on a scale of 1 to 5), siblings were determined to be in agreement if all siblings in the same family ranked a response category within a one (1) point difference.  Example:  importance of property tax relief as a tool to maintain family forests.  In a family with three siblings – all siblings had to rank the importance of property tax relief either equal or within a one-point difference.  If sibling #1 ranked at 3, sibling #2 ranked at 4, and sibling #3 ranked at 2, it was determined that sibling disagreement was evident in the family.