Fifth Progress Report July 1991 - December 1992 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources College of Natural Resources, Berkeley Department of Forestry & Resource Management STATE of CALIFORNIA Resources Agency California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection California Depart of Fish and Game December 1992 |
IMPACTS OF EDUCATION: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A FOLLOW-UP SURVEY The California oak woodland can be thought of as an extensive ecosystem at risk. Although there are roughly seven and a half million acres of oak woodland in California (Ewing, et. a]. 1988), much of the value and character of this woodland has to do with its "extensive" character. The woodland is a vast contiguous acreage running through 38 of California's 52 counties. It is home to more wildlife than any other major habitat type in the state (Mayer, et al. 1986). Migratory and resident mule deer, mountain lions, raptors and a host of species can maintain viable populations in the unfragmented woodlands. Livestock production, and the oak woodlands produce roughly one-third of the state's rangeland forage (Ewing, et. al. 1988), flourishes in areas far from marauding dogs, heavy traffic, and vandals. In addition, the woodlands are the transition between the lowlands and the highlands of the state. Livestock and deer make the trek between low elevations and high elevations with the season, crossing through the woodlands and relying on the forage and cover they provide. The woodlands are an important refuge from city and cropland below, and an escape from winter's snowbound forests above. Whether one is thinking in terms of biodiversity, sustainability, productivity, or even beauty, the oak woodlands of California are so important because they are so big.  There are two major forces that most threaten the extensive oak woodland. In the early decades of the century millions of acres of oak woodland in valley bottoms were converted to cropland. Today, a different kind of land use is gobbling up woodland acres: conversion for residential use (Bolsinger, 1988). The oak woodlands are considered a desirable place to live. Planners, confronted with a choice of steering development to prime farmlands or forestlands, often settle on the woodlands as being marginal in economic value.The second major risk to oak woodlands is a perceived lack of regeneration of oak species (Muick and Bartolome, 1987). Scientists and lay people alike have noted a lack of mid-sized oak trees in many areas. Seedlings can be found, the older trees are obvious, but mid-sized or sapling-sized trees may be surprisingly sparse or absent. Concerns that some parts of the woodland will eventually disappear due to attrition are exacerbated by the harvest of oak woodlands for fuel and to increase forage production. In 1985, when the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program (IHRMP) was conceived, it was believed that this kind of oak removal was a serious problem in the woodlands. The goals of the IHRMP included reducing the loss of oaks in the state, researching ways to encourage appropriate management of the woodlands by landowners, and researching the causes of oak regeneration failure. The initiators of the Program were farsighted enough to realize that in order to develop effective education materials, and to guide the research effort, it was necessary to discern who the owners of oak woodlands were, what their goals were, and what types of incentives they would be most receptive to. In 1985, the first statewide survey of oak woodland landowners was conducted (Huntsinger and Fortmann, 1990 Huntsinger and Fortmann, 1986; Fortmann and Huntsinger 1987; Fortmann and Huntsinger 1989). The results described two archetypal oak woodland landowners, each owning at least a third of the woodlands (Table 1) (Huntsinger and Fortmann, 1990) and were used to develop education packages targeted to both types of oak woodland landowners statewide. This study used the same sampling frame in 1992 to once again sample oak woodland landowners. This re-survey allows examination of trends in management goals and practices over time, with an eye to evaluating the effectiveness of the IHRMP. The objectives of the 1992 survey were to:
Table 1. Two Oak Woodland Archetypes
Methods In spring of 1985 and 1992, after pre-testing with selected landowners not part of the study sample, private owners of oak woodland throughout the state were surveyed by mail, using the standard technique described by Dillman (1979). An introductory letter and questionnaire is followed by a postcard reminder if a response is not received within two weeks. If this fails to produce a response, another letter and questionnaire follows, then a registered letter, and finally the potential respondent is telephoned. The objective is to achieve a high response rate. The greater the response rate, the less "self-selection" influences responses and hence the greater the representativeness of the sample. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of land containing the Forest Inventory Assessment plots previously used to assess hardwood volume in California (Bolsinger, 1988). The plots were established at the intersection points of a randomly established eleven-square-kilometer grid overlaid on the state. Plots designated as "Hardwood Woodland Type," (USDA-Forest Service, 1981) were selected for this study if an overstory of 10% or greater canopy cover was predominantly Quercus spp. and the plot was on private land. By definition, these lands do not now, and show no evidence of ever having had, 10% or more cover of trees of industrial roundwood species and quality. Usable plots occurred in 38 of the states 58 counties, at elevations ranging from 260 to 5900 feet. Usable questionnaires were returned by 126 of 166 eligible respondents for a response rate of 76% in 1985, and 113 of 151 eligible respondents for a response rate of 75% in 1992. Of those who returned questionnaires in 1985, 87% filled them out again in 1992. More than 792,509 acres were owned by the responding landowners in 1985, and 956,953 acres were owned by the responding landowners in 1992, exceeding 10% of California's oak woodlands (Table 2). When addresses were found to be invalid, every effort was made to locate the relocated or new owner of the same property. This involved travel to the county assessor's office and an examination of plat maps and land transfers. There still remain some addresses to be researched; thus the results presented here cannot report fully on landownership turnover. However, the 1992 sample includes both those who owned their property in 1985 and many who purchased their property since then. About 30% of the respondents reported that they participated directly in the 1985 study. We will be doing further tests to see if they differ from the remainder of the sample. Table 2. Sample Characteristics: 1985 and 1992
The grid method used to establish Forest Inventory Plots means that larger properties have a greater probability of being selected for the sample (Wensel, 1983). While this resulted in a sample with good representation of landowners of each property size, it means that responses regarding land use practices cannot be directly extrapolated to the oak woodland as a whole. For this reason, responses to each question were evaluated in two ways. First, contingency table analysis was used to make comparisons of responses of landowners in three property size categories and between 1985 and 1992. Property size categories were determined by natural breaks in the data set for the variable "ownership size." The Chi-square statistic was then used to determine significance. Second, in order to estimate the amount of oak woodland potentially affected by certain landowner management practices or demographic characteristics, responses were weighted in inverse proportion to size of ownership. This mathematical adjustment, described in Wensel (1983), adjusts the distribution of ownership sizes in the sample to make it comparable to that of ownership's in the oak woodland as a whole, so estimates of the proportion of total oak woodland owned by landowners who claim certain practices and particular demographic characteristics can be developed. For example, after weighting, if 30% of the land in the sample is owned by landowners who carry out a certain practice, it can be estimated that 30% of all oak woodland is owned by landowners who carry out this practice. Analyses using the weighted sample are identified in the tables. Landowners were asked about their demographic characteristics, attitudes, land tenure, land use, and management practices. Questions are condensed in Tables 3 through 7. Results and Discussion Overall, the landowners still fall into the archetypes described as a result of the 1985 study (Huntsinger and Fortmann, 1990) (Table 1). However, there have been some changes in owner characteristics, management of oaks, and attitudes about oaks. Table 3. Why Oaks Are Valued
2 P<.1,X2, entire sample, 1985-1992 ( ) is 1985 sample Table 4. Oak Management Practices
2 P<.1,X2, entire sample, 1985-1992 ( ) is 1985 sample Table 5. Oak Cutting (percent of owners)
2 P<.1,X2, entire sample, 1985-1992 ( ) is 1985 sample Table 6. Water Management
Table 7. Attitudes Toward Regulation (Percent of Owners)
2 P<.1,X2, entire sample, 1985-1992 ( ) is 1985 sample Sample History and Characteristics Approximately 18% of the eligible respondents in 1985 had sold their property, and the new owners are part of the 1992 sample (Figure 1). However, the status of an additional 15% of the properties remains unknown. An augmentation of funding was required to support needed travel to county recorder's offices and this process is now underway. The characteristics of the 1992 sample, when compared to the sample in 1985 (presented throughout in parentheses), reveal a similar distribution of landownership sizes with a trend to smaller property sizes between 1985 and 1992 (Table 2). Note that the weighted sample shows a halving of the mean property size among the smallest category of landowners. The weighted sample compensates for a single huge property that came into the sample in 1992, raising the mean property size in that category inordinately.  Owner Characteristics and Rangeland Use There has been little change in landowner demographic characteristics such as residence on property, age, education, or length of ownership. But there was an exceptional and statistically significant increase in income in smaller landownership size categories relative to the largest category, which has remained static (Figure 2). This may represent urban flight to the woodlands, as families with high incomes move away from the city to escape crime, poor schools, and other problems. Telecommunications may be playing a role in allowing some professionals to work at their homes distant from the office. This change bears further investigation, including comparing the change in income levels over the same period for the state as a whole, and exploring whether it is the newer owners in the woodlands who have brought the income up, rather than a growth in income among all the owners of small properties.  Since 1985, there has been a general reduction in emphasis on livestock production: fewer owners produce livestock on their land, although livestock still graze on more than 2/3 of the woodlands. The livestock producer "culture" is shrinking though-fewer landowners in all categories report ranching as a major income source, or belong to a livestock-related association or group (Figures 3 and 4).   Oak Management and Cutting Practices Oaks are valued more than before as wildlife habitat, for holding soil, for property values and for providing browse and mast (Table 3). Among the largest category of landownership, there has been a dramatic increase in the valuing of oaks for property values, from around a third to more than half of these landowners. This may indicate that large property owners are becoming more inclined to sell their properties or at least think about it. These changes in values have translated into changes in behavior. There has been a dramatic reduction in cutting living oaks for any purpose and in selling firewood, and an increase in improvement of wildlife habitat (Table 4). This can be directly tied to program goals. Considerable IHRMP research was targeted to finding out how wildlife management could offer incentives to landowners to keep oaks through the marketing of hunting opportunities and habitat management. The reasons and relative importance of reasons for cutting oaks have changed (Table 5). Cutting oaks to increase waterflow and forage production has decreased significantly, especially among the largest category of landownership. Those in the smaller property size categories have significantly reduced harvest for home firewood use. These again reflect program efforts to publicize the benefits of oaks for forage production at the lighter canopy densities, and for preventing erosion. These trends also reflect program efforts directed at smaller property owners, who tend not to cut oaks for economic reasons such as increasing forage production, but instead to cut them for home use and landscaping. Realistically, the fact that cutting firewood for home use has not changed among the largest category of landowners probably reflects the fact that on large properties cutting oaks at a low level is probably quite sustainable, while it is not on small parcels. The different reasons given for cutting oaks reflect the different kinds of goals held by the owners of large vs. small properties (Figure 5). Unfortunately, owners of small properties are twice as likely to clear oaks for development as those in the larger size classes, indicating that these already relatively small properties are continuing to fragment or be built out.  On the other hand, there has been little change in the proportion of landowners in all categories who clear oaks for development. This probably indicates that development continues apace in the woodlands. Cutting oaks for firewood sales continues among a small proportion of landowners in each category. Clearing oaks to improve access for livestock or vehicles has become the most frequent reason the owners of large properties cut oaks, while forage production, which used to be the major reason, now trails. Among owners of small properties, cutting firewood for home use was once the most important reason to cut oaks, while today it is improving access. The affects of these changes are more widespread than it appears from the relative proportion of landowners in the table. Clearing of oaks for increased forage, to increase waterflow, or to sell firewood seems likely to take place over greater acreage per owner than removing a few oaks to put in a road or trail for better access. On the other hand, experts agree that in cases where oak densities are high, or where the species are mostly live oaks, thinning of oaks for enhanced forage production, wildlife habitat, and amenity values, can be part of a conservative resource management program. Further investigation of the data is needed to evaluate the landowner characteristics and goals related to cutting oaks. Perhaps more indicative of how landowner values affect behavior is to examine whether or not landowners actively promote the maintenance of their oak stands. Using a scale developed by summing the frequency of carrying out five oak-promoting management practices we can compare the behavior of those who value oaks for certain purposes to those who do not. The five practices are planting oaks, protecting oak sprouts, maintaining a fixed oak stocking level, thinning softwoods to promote oak growth, and cutting mistletoe out of trees. Using a t-test, landowners who value oaks for wildlife habitat, browse, erosion control, and beauty are more likely to carryout oak promoting activities (p <.05). Valuing oaks for fuelwood, property values, or water conservation had no such affect. Water Management and Riparian Grazing Practices About two-thirds of the oak woodland (estimated by using the weighted sample) is owned by people who have perennial sources of surface water. Analysis of the weighted sample reveals that a little less than a fifth is owned by people who have only intermittent surface water sources. About 8% of the woodland is owned by people who have no surface water. Most livestock producers get some forage from riparian areas, but the majority get less than 10% of their forage from riparian grazing lands. Of course a full valuation of these forage resources is not possible without considering seasonal values. Owners of large properties in particular are active managers of their water resources (Table 6). More than half divert some water and stabilize streambanks. About a third channelize streams and/or stabilize streambanks. More than two-thirds of the owners in the largest property size class report that they graze riparian areas seasonally; almost half claim to fence and manage riparian areas separately from the rest of their woodlands. Attitudes Toward Regulation In both 1985 and 1992 some standard questions about regulation were included in the survey. In 1985, landowners in all property size categories were in the majority unreceptive to the idea of regulation of resource use and regulations in general. This sentiment has continued over the last seven years, with the overwhelming majority of landowners agreeing that regulation leads to a loss of liberties and freedom and around half agreeing that regulations lead to socialism (Table 7). This concurs with a general observation made by those in education and advisory agencies that the feelings of rural residents are somewhat more hostile to government interference and regulation of late. When a more specific question about oak loss is asked, it is apparent that landowner concern about the loss of oaks has increased. More landowners in each property size category agree that oaks are being lost in California. However, change in receptivity to possible regulation of oak use has been negligible, with a majority of landowners in all categories against the idea (Figure 5). Again using the scale of oak-promoting practices, landowners receiving advice about oaks from University of California advisory services within the last two years, and in fact from any public advisory service, were significantly more likely to carry out oak promoting practices (t-test, p<.05). Conclusions Landowner behavior and attitudes can be changed through applied research and extension. Several of the behaviors targeted by the IHRMP, including cutting of oaks for waterflow, forage production, and home firewood, have shown dramatic reductions. Selling of firewood is also less frequently done, although its importance as a reason to cut oaks has not changed. Landowners more often value oaks for a diversity of reasons, including for wildlife habitat. The program has been quite successful in reaching both archetypal landowners: ranchers and other owners of large properties, as well as the owners of small properties whose goals do not include livestock production (Figure 6). Landowners who have been in contact with University of California and other public advisory services about oaks are more likely to carry out management practices that encourage the sustainability of oak woodlands.  The owners of large properties have demonstrated a receptiveness to the Program's education efforts. Ranching and livestock production, by maintaining large open space areas in private, productive ownerships, can play a critical role in conserving California's natural resources. By linking reserve areas and parks, the privately owned woodlands can magnify their effectiveness in protecting wildlife populations many times. The landowners, however, tend to be adamant about protecting their own rights to use their land as they see fit, including selling the land at a profit for real estate development. Often the land represents the majority of a family's financial assets and they feel threatened by the public's tendency to view the state's remaining open space as having an implicit "public" character. Working through this dilemma will challenge Californians in decades to come. While a program of research and extension can help reduce land use change by contributing to the economic well-being of ranchers through better or more diverse management, it cannot hope to prevent massive land use change as California's popula-tion grows exponentially. There continues to be a fairly rapid turnover of properties in the woodlands, and an increase in small parcel sizes. The fragmentation of the wood- lands is by all accounts haphazard, the result of development opportunities that do not take into consideration conservation biology principles such as the protection of migra-tion corridors and critical habitat, much less the imperatives of rangeland livestock production. Even livestock grazing for fire hazard reduction, as in common in many Cali-fornia urban-rural interface areas, may become infeasible if land use change makes it impossible to sustain the supporting livestock industry. It is clear that the research and extension aspects of the IHRMP must be complemented by some effort to influence the course of land use change in the oak woodlands we wish to conserve in California. Literature Cited Bolsinger, C. 1988. The hardwoods of California's timberlands, woodlands, and savannas. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, PNW-RB-148. Portland, OR. 148 pp. Dillman, D. A. 1975. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley and Sons, New York. 325 pp. Ewing R.A., N. Tosta, R. Tuazon, L. Huntsinger, R. Marose, K. Nielson, R. Motroni and S. Turan. 1988. Growing Conflict Over Changing Uses. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Anchor Press, Sacramento, CA. 348 pp. Fortmann, L.P. and L. Huntsinger. 1989. The effects of non-metropolitan population growth on resource management. Society and Natural Resources 2(l):9-22. Fortmann, L. P. and L. Huntsinger. 1987. Managing California's oak woodlands: a sociological study of owners. In: Plumb, T. and N. Pillsbury (tech. coords.). Symposium on multiple-use management of California's hardwood resources. November 12-14, Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, CA. General Technical Report, PSW-100. p. 379-384. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA. 462 pp. Huntsinger, L. and L. P. Fortmann. 1990. California's privately owned oak woodlands: owners, use, and management. Journal of Range Management 42(3):147-152. Huntsinger, L. and L. P. Fortmann. 1986. Landowner attitudes and wildlife management practices in the California oak woodland. Transactions, Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Vol. 22: 126-132. Sparks, Nevada, Jan. 23-25. James, J.W. 1966. A modified Koeppen classification of California climates according to recent data. The California Geographer 7:1-12. Mayer, K. E., P.C. Passof, C. Bolsinger, W. W. J. Grenfell, and H. Slack. 1986. Status of the hardwood resource of California: a report to the Board of Forestry. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 126 pp. McClaran, M. P. and J. W. Bartolome. 1985. The importance of oaks to ranchers in the California Foothill Woodland. Rangelands. 7(4):158-161. Muick, P. C. and Bartolome, J. W. 1987. An assessment of natural regeneration of oaks in California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 101 pp. Romm, J., C. Washburn, R. N. Tuazon and J. Bendix. 1985. Forest owners and the state: California policy for growing forests on non-industrial land. University of California Department of Forestry and Resource Management, Berkeley, CA. 220 pp. Sudworth, G. B. 1908. Forest trees of the Pacific slope. U.S. Forest Service, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 441 pp. USDA-Forest Service. 1981. Resources evaluation field instructions for California, 1981- 1984. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 231 pp, Wensel, L. C 1983. Estimators for use in California forestland ownership studies. University of California Department of Forestry and Resource Management, Biometrics Note #8. Berkeley, CA. 20 pp.
|
back to top | IHRMP Home | Purpose | Personnel | Oak Assistance | Publications | IHRMP Funded Research | Other Links
University of California Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program, UC Berkeley. Last modified: 7/5/02
©Copyright, 2001. The Regents of the University of California. For questions and comments, contact webmaster.