IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v163y2024ics1389934124000583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do male and female family forest landowners have different training needs? A case study from Georgia, United States

Author

Listed:
  • Balasubramanian, Kanchana
  • Mook, Anne
  • Kadam, Parag
  • Dwivedi, Puneet

Abstract

In the southern United States, female forest landowners (FeFLs) are an important stakeholder group as they make up 27% (about 450,000) of family forest landowners and hold 21% (about 30 million acres) of the total forestlands. Despite FeFLs' increasing role in forestry, they are less actively involved in forest management than male forest landowners. This could be attributed to a general lack of understanding about gender-based training needs in sustainable forest management. In this context, we surveyed 246 forest landowners in Georgia, a major forestry state in the United States, to gauge the levels of perceived knowledge and interest in learning about 12 forest management topics. We determined the competency gaps in forest management using the Borich's Needs Assessment Model. Our results indicate that the priority topics of training needs were consistent regardless of the landowners' forest management objective. Gender-based disparities highlighted that FeFLs had a significantly lower perceived knowledge level across 11 out of 12 topics than their male counterparts. Further, FeFLs required training in all 12 topics of forest management. The top five priority topics, in order, were tree disease management, forest insect pest management, timber taxes, nuisance wildlife management, and environmental education. To bolster the competency and capacity of FeFLs in sustainable forest management, we suggest implementing targeted training, encouraging peer-to-peer learning, and elevating female forestry professionals in Georgia and other states in the region.

Suggested Citation

  • Balasubramanian, Kanchana & Mook, Anne & Kadam, Parag & Dwivedi, Puneet, 2024. "Do male and female family forest landowners have different training needs? A case study from Georgia, United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:163:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124000583
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000583
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103205?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Umaerus, Patrik & Högvall Nordin, Maria & Lidestav, Gun, 2019. "Do female forest owners think and act “greener”?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 52-58.
    2. Sullivan, Jay & Amacher, Gregory S. & Chapman, Sara, 2005. "Forest banking and forest landowners forgoing management rights for guaranteed financial returns," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 381-392, March.
    3. Kristina Johansson & Elias Andersson & Maria Johansson & Gun Lidestav, 2020. "Conditioned openings and restraints: The meaning‐making of women professionals breaking into the male‐dominated sector of forestry," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(6), pages 927-943, November.
    4. Sun, Xing & Sun, Changyou & Munn, Ian A. & Hussain, Anwar, 2009. "Knowledge of three regeneration programs and application behavior among Mississippi nonindustrial private forest landowners: A two-step sample selection approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 187-204, August.
    5. Sicelo Ignatius Dlamini & Wen-Chi Huang, 2020. "Towards Intensive Co-operated Agribusiness: A Gender-Based Comparative Borich Needs Assessment Model Analysis of Beef Cattle Farmers in Eswatini," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Piper Coutinho-Sledge, 2015. "Feminized Forestry: The Promises and Pitfalls of Change in a Masculine Organization," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 375-389, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xufang Zhang & Changyou Sun & Jason Gordon & Ian A. Munn, 2020. "Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, May.
    2. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Quang-Loc Nguyen & Ruining Jin & Minh-Hieu Thi Nguyen & Thi-Phuong Nguyen & Viet-Phuong La & Minh-Hoang Nguyen, 2023. "Increasing Supply for Woody-Biomass-Based Energy through Wasted Resources: Insights from US Private Landowners," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Johansson, Kristina & Johansson, Maria & Andersson, Elias, 2023. "All talk and no action? Making change and negotiating gender equality in Swedish forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Lawrence, Anna & Deuffic, Philippe & Hujala, Teppo & Nichiforel, Liviu & Feliciano, Diana & Jodlowski, Krzysztof & Lind, Torgny & Marchal, Didier & Talkkari, Ari & Teder, Meelis & Vilkriste, Lelde & W, 2020. "Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Vokoun, Melinda & Amacher, Gregory S. & Sullivan, Jay & Wear, Dave, 2010. "Examining incentives for adjacent non-industrial private forest landowners to cooperate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 104-110, February.
    6. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    7. Yuanyuan Zhu & Yukuan Wang & Bin Fu & Qin Liu & Ming Li & Kun Yan, 2021. "How Are Rural Youths’ Agricultural Skills? Empirical Results and Implications in Southwest China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    8. Donna Bridges & Larissa Bamberry & Elizabeth Wulff & Branka Krivokapic‐Skoko, 2022. "“A trade of one's own”: The role of social and cultural capital in the success of women in male‐dominated occupations," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 371-387, March.
    9. Haeler, Elena & Bolte, Andreas & Buchacher, Rafael & Hänninen, Harri & Jandl, Robert & Juutinen, Artti & Kuhlmey, Katharina & Kurttila, Mikko & Lidestav, Gun & Mäkipää, Raisa & Rosenkranz, Lydia & Tri, 2023. "Forest subsidy distribution in five European countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    10. G.C., Shivan & Mehmood, Sayeed R., 2010. "Factors influencing nonindustrial private forest landowners' policy preference for promoting bioenergy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 581-588, October.
    11. Nana Tian & Neelam Poudyal & Fadian Lu, 2021. "Assessments of Landowners’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Participating in Forest Certification in Shandong, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Kilham, Philipp & Hartebrodt, Christoph & Schraml, Ulrich, 2019. "A conceptual model for private forest owners' harvest decisions: A qualitative study in southwest Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Favada, Ibrahim M. & Kuuluvainen, Jari & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2007. "Optimal timber stock in Finnish nonindustrial private forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 527-535, January.
    14. Adhikari, Saroj & Joshi, Omkar & Sorice, Michael G. & Fuhlendorf, Samuel D., 2023. "Factors affecting the adoption of patch-burn grazing in the southern Great Plains in the US," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    15. Kilgore, Michael A. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Schertz, Joseph & Taff, Steven J., 2008. "What does it take to get family forest owners to enroll in a forest stewardship-type program?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 507-514, October.
    16. Sullivan, Jay & Aggett, Jonathan & Amacher, Greg & Burger, James, 2005. "Financial viability of reforesting reclaimed surface mined lands, the burden of site conversion costs, and carbon payments as reforestation incentives," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 247-258, December.
    17. Cathal Buckley & Stephen Hynes & Tom van Rensburg & Edel Doherty, 2008. "Access to farmland for walking in the Republic of Ireland – The attitude of landowners," Working Papers 0814, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    18. Simon Irving & Jenny Helin, 2018. "A World for Sale? An Ecofeminist Reading of Sustainable Development Discourse," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 264-278, May.
    19. Ovaskainen, Ville & Hujala, Teppo & Hänninen, Harri & Mikkola, Jarmo, 2017. "Cost sharing for timber stand improvements: Inducement or crowding out of private investment?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 40-48.
    20. Elena Casprini & Tommaso Pucci & Lorenzo Zanni, 2023. "From growth goals to proactive organizational resilience: first evidence in women-led and non-women-led Italian wineries," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1017-1036, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:163:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124000583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.