Increasing Practice of Sustainable Forestry Among Minority and Limited-Resource Forest Landowners in Georgia

Mail Survey: One set of research data were the returned survey results from a survey sent to a list of 472 African American forest landowners. The survey included questions related to the landowner, the forestland, decision making, management activities, interactions with professionals and professional advice, heirs’ property issues, goals, and obstacles. Seventy-five returned surveys were valid for analysis. We hypothesized 1) that African American forest landowners in Georgia would be similar to those in other states 2) that socioeconomic and demographic characteristics are good predictors of forest management activities, and 3) that heirs’ property would have a significant negative effect on management activities. We did not find that African American forest landowners in Georgia were like those in other states. Specifically, we found less gender diversity, lower education levels, smaller property sizes, and less engagement with forest professionals. However, a closer look at our sample reveled why that may have been the case. Our sampling frame was a list of landowners created by Fort Valley State University Extension. As such, there were more farmers and retired farmers in our respondents than in previous studies. When the non-farmers were isolated and only their characteristics were considered, they were a very close match for the results from other states. For future consideration, we found that farmers had significantly lower rates of heirs’ property issues than non-farmers, although if that is a result of being a farmer, or being a farmer is predicated on clear title is unclear. The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of African American forest landowners were overall fairly poor predictors of both management planning and management activities. Broken down by title status and residential status, forest landowners with clear title, heirs’ property issues, absentee, and residential landowners all had management plans at roughly the same rate. In our model only receiving external advice had a significant effect on planning, and the relationship between the two is still unclear; whether those who already wish to plan seek advice, or if getting advice inspire forestland owners to create a management plan. Demographic characteristics did have significant, though indirect, relationship to management activities. Older and male landowners were significantly more likely to have legacy goals for their land, intentions to transfer land to the next generation in the family, and legacy goals were a significant predictor of management activities, even though management goals were not. This finding suggests that African American forest landowners are motivated less by the traditional goals of forestland ownership, for example, income from timber, and more motivated by the cultural and familial significance of forest landownership. Despite substantial literature on the subject, we did not find a significant relationship between heirs’ property ownership and forest management, including the negative relationship we expected to find based on the literature. We have a strong idea about why, based on the above result. Title and residence status lack substantial effect on forest management activities. Instead, legacy goals are the more important variable. Heirs’ property owners (as we found in other parts of this project) have a complicated relationship with legacy. For some families, heirs’ property is an important piece of the family heritage and may even have been created intentionally as a way to preserve the property and keep the family tied to it. For other families, heirs’ property is a burden and something to be resolved and done with. Given that each family is so different, it seems impossible to draw any conclusion about the role of heirs’ property, at least for African American forest landowners in Georgia.

Qualitative Analysis:

Landowner Characteristics and Forestry Activities: Nearly all the interviewees were over age 50, and about one-third of them were over age 70, which conforms to the older age that is typical for forest landowners. About one-third of the interviews included a female owner, either alone or as a part of a couple. In terms of education, interviewees were nearly evenly split between those with a four-year college degree and those without; among those without a four-year degree, about half had some college, often a technical degree. More than three-quarters of the interviewees held more than 20 acres, with slightly less than two-thirds having greater than 50 acres. While the majority had title to their land, more than half had inherited land, and about one-third had heirs’ property. However, only 10% of the interviewees turned a profit from their land, with about 40% breaking even and another 40% paying more in taxes than they earned from the land. Involvement in forestry was modest, with about one-third of the interviewees having engaged in prescribed burning, and the same proportion having planted trees. More than half had sold timber through a thinning or other harvests in the past, and about half of the interviewees had used some sort of cost-share program.

Land Ownership Issues: Many African American landowners face complicated ownership situations as a legacy of discrimination and poverty, and heirs’ property has received considerable attention as a significant obstacle to forestry and conservation assistance programs. However, while heirs’ property was mentioned in our interviews, landowners talked more about the challenge of getting multiple owners from different family branches to agree on how to use and manage the land together regardless of whether the land was in heirs’ property or co-owned. Among heirs’ property owners, distrust within a family often impedes progress even when one family member is trying to bring the land into more active management. The seeds of distrust are often sown when heirs have different levels of presence on the land, with those physically closest to the land feeling they have more rights than others (even though they legally have equal shares). In other cases, one heir might illegally harvest timber on their own, neither obtaining consent from all heirs nor sharing the proceeds. When this occurs, it can create disharmony in the family that is very difficult to overcome. Outside assistance from forestry professionals is sometimes helpful in overcoming distrust. Regardless of ownership status, the fact that tracts of land have been in a family for several generations is often a significant factor in fostering a long-term perspective appropriate for forestry. Land ownership across generations makes land more important to people, inspiring them to hold on to land and to manage it together for the benefit of future generations. Many of these families were able to come together in various ways to manage their land as a family. Forestry fits in well with other long-term land management objectives, whether the land is being farmed or is primarily a family amenity. Family land often continues to be meaningful even when most of the family members have professional jobs. Forestry serves employed and absentee landowners well by providing income and savings over time while requiring a level of attention compatible with employment off the land. It also provides a place for family gatherings, opportunities for recreation, and a sense of stewardship.

Forestry Engagement: Most studies of African American forestry evaluate landowners’ engagement based on current technical forestry practices in the U.S. South that typically follow a set sequence: clearing land; using the proceeds from the harvest to plant pine trees from seedlings in single-species, even-aged stands; controlling competing vegetation with prescribed fire and/or herbicides; selectively thinning; doing a final harvest; and preparing the site to begin the process anew. These systems produce the highest volume of timber and economic returns per acre, although with considerable upfront investment. The history of African American forestry is quite different, in part because they were excluded from many aspects of technical forestry as it developed. It has historically been very common for African American landowners to allow land to regenerate naturally after a harvest. While this differs from technical forestry recommendations, it can be seen as a low-risk traditional forestry system that provides returns while minimizing investment costs. Landowners have also developed ways of working with naturally regenerated pine trees, sometimes including less intensive planting methods, to manage forests and improve yields over time. These traditional forest management methods have worked for some landowners, but often depended on the historical presence of small-scale logging operations owned by African Americans. If assistance is available, some landowners choose to transition to more technical forestry practices. Participation in conservation assistance programs varied considerably. Many farmers were already involved with farm service agencies and conservation programs, and forests played a role in their overall land management and economic strategies. Other farmers were switching to or adding forestry to their land use as a way of phasing out farming. Farmers often have a utilitarian perspective, are accustomed to active management, and are familiar with conservation assistance programs and the agencies that provide them. Owners who are retired or employed off the land but actively managing their land may be attracted to forestry but may need more guidance. Additionally, the interviews highlight the importance of opportunities to gain experience and trusted contacts to improving confidence in forest management. Landowners that engage in forestry often have experiences that they have learned from, such as timber sales, enrollment in conservation programs, and tree planting. This knowledge has often been learned from family members or through neighbors and other personal contacts who worked in forestry or were more experienced in forestry. Landowners who have a contact with expertise and experience in forestry, whether that is a consulting forester, extension agent, or neighbor, are much more likely to manage their forestland with confidence. The landowners we interviewed were often geographically dispersed, and very few belonged to any forestry or landowner organizations that could provide information about and support for forestry. Some landowners with limited experience have the ability and persistence to seek out, vet, and select public and private foresters to work with as they become engaged in forestry. This approach is more effective for those with large landholdings because higher timber value and more extensive holdings enable them to attract assistance and give them more opportunities to learn. Several people spoke about the importance of learning more about forestry through the process of actively engaging in it. Some landowners see many risks in forestry based on experience and stories of failures and lack of knowledge. We also found that individual landowners could have wildly divergent views on forestry, with some seeing significant risk and others seeing a safe investment. Several specifically mentioned risks associated with insects, lowered timber prices, and unscrupulous and greedy loggers who want to take everything at once. Other landowners, generally those more experienced with farming and forestry, saw trees and forests as a long-term investment. Landowners new to forestry may require time, experience, and social contacts to overcome negative experiences or stories they have heard.

Q Method: Two sets of data were collected when we conducted two similar surveys with forest landowners using Q methodology. Q methodology is exploratory, and so we did not generate any hypothesis, except for those implicit in the make up of the survey instrument. Instead, Q Method explores the diversity of viewpoints on a topic, in this case forest land ownership. We considered this especially important with African American forest landowners, as they are often treated as monolithic in the forest landowner literature. The first survey explored viewpoints on forest management, and the second explored viewpoints on forestland bequests. We identified five forest management viewpoints: Sustainable Harvester, Back 40er, Land Use Pragmatist, Recreationist, and Undecided. The first three make up a spectrum emphasizing cultural and economic values, with the Sustainable Harvester seeking a balance, the Back 40er emphasizing economic potential, and the Land Use Pragmatist focusing purely on economic objectives. The Recreationist and Undecided landowners are opposites in the model; the Recreationist is primarily interested in personal enjoyment over what we call cultural or economic goals. The Undecided also has neither cultural nor economic goals. However, unlike the Recreationist, they do not have personal goals, and are instead seeking the best way to management their land. These land owners may be open to, or even seeking, professional advice, and we expect they would be classified as Sustainable Harvesters, Back 40ers, or Land Use Pragmatists in the future. The immediate value of these results is demonstrating to forest professionals the diversity of goals of African American forest landowners, and explicating what those goals are, and showing that there is an opportunity to guide a large group of landowners who are still attempting to understand what it means to be a forest landowner. We identified three forest bequest viewpoints: Manager, Investor, and Steward. Managers emphasized the role that family, and even racial, struggle to acquire and retain forestland has had on their desire to manage their land well for the future. Investors were openly skeptical of the idea of land transfer to the next generation, seeing a stark generational divide, and were primarily interested in using their land as an investment for the future. Stewards actively rejected the idea that forestry could be profitable for them and their family, and instead emphasized the need to keep land in the family as a bridge between the future and the past. We believe that these three very distinct outlooks all emphasize the important role that intergenerational communication has in the future of family forest ownership, and that that communication is something that forest professionals must be cognizant of and even facilitate, if family forestry is to become truly sustainable. In addition to surveying African American forestland owners about forest bequests, we also surveyed white landowners, and found the following viewpoints: Managers, Investors, and Skeptics. Overall, there were more similarities than differences among the two races, especially between the Managers and Investors. In the former case the only substantial difference was that African Americans were motivated to retain and pass on land by the historical struggle of other African Americans, even if their family was never previously landowners. On the other hand, for white forest landowners the drivers to keep land in the family was exclusively about personal experiences, especially experiences inheriting land of their own. Among Investors, white forest landowners made the point that forestry is not a particularly good investment option, but that it was one they preferred over other types of investments, because of the enjoyment it provided to them. Where white forest landowners really differed from African American forest landowners, was among the skeptics, who viewed forest ownership as a burden, one they didn’t want to pass on to their children. The key takeaway for us here, was that the skeptics technically had what we consider family land, but that they did not consider it as such, because it was land that had belonged to (a deceased) spouse. A follow up research question generated from this result is whether the absence of skeptics is a direct result of the degree to which African American forest landowners consider landownership at the racial level when thinking about legacy, or if the dynamics among African American families more quickly blur the line between whose family the land belongs to. We believe these results add nuance to our understanding of the differences between forest management by white and African American forest landowners that have not previously been captured in studies that only examine socioeconomic and demographic characteristics.

Case Studies: One set of data were collected through a combination of interviews, site visits, and secondary data, which together were turned into four case studies that explored the economic potential of African American forestland. It is clear from the literature that African Americans have lost enormous amounts of land since the turn of the 20^th century, including through voluntary sales and heirs’ property issues. The premise is also clear in the literature, that profitability through forestry should be a path to increased land retention. With our case studies we sought to answer the questions 1) Can we quantify the way in which heirs’ property issues lead to low profitability and the potential for land loss and 2) Can tax program enrollment explain the difference between profits and net loss for heirs’ property owners (in Georgia, forest landowners pay a reduced fair use tax rate, but clear title is essentially a prerequisite for enrollment in the program). Each case study yielded two scenarios, business as usual (no management) and active forest management. Each scenario was considered with two iterations, with best use and fair use taxes. Throughout the four case studies we found that active forest management is profitable, regardless of title status, although the clear title scenario was dramatically more profitable. Business as usual was never profitable for heirs’ property owners. For landowners with clear title, profitability varied depending on factors like forest size, forest cover, and hunting lease opportunity. Our study made several important contributions to the literature. First, in real world scenarios, it highlighted that property taxes may be an important factor in land retention and loss. In addition to this finding, was demonstrated in our case studies that current estimates of property tax rates for family forest landowners are often serious underestimates. Finally, much of the heirs’ property literature has highlighted the difficulty heirs’ property owners have in enrolling in cost share and similar programs, and propose it is a serious barrier to profitability, all the while ignoring tax programs. However, other literature indicates enrollment in cost share among African Americans is low regardless of title status, and so we believe that taxes offer a strong alternative explanation. Second, we believe this study made an important methodological contribution for how we assess the economic outlook of private forestland. By including the taxes on non-timberland our scenarios more accurately reflect the situations of real landowners, who may depend on income from timber to cover the taxes for their entire property, not just the forested portion. For forest professionals, these case studies offer compelling evidence that even without clearing title, heirs’ property owners can make forestry profitable, if they are able to overcome the challenges that heirs’ property presents to any type of land management.