Private Lands in the Midwest: Exploring Landowner Views on Collaboration, Community, & Social Capital

1. Private Lands in the Midwest: Exploring Landowner Views on Collaboration, Community, & Social Capital Kenli A. Schaaf, Shorna R. Broussard, PhD, & William L. Hoover, PhD Department of Forestry & Natural Resources Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

2. Research Questions • How can we form, sustain, and evaluate collaborative natural resource management efforts on private lands? • How do the antecedents to collaboration influence the process and the outcomes of collaboration, &, how does the process of collaboration influence the outcomes of collaboration? • Is collaboration an effective means of engaging private landowners in natural resource management and conservation in two watersheds of north-central Indiana?

3. Research Goals • Explore how landowners relate to their land, community, and place • Understand the components of sense of place and social capital • Examine landowners’ views on working collaboratively • Antecedents • Process • Benefits • Obstacles • Relate these findings to the second phase of this research—participatory action research

4. Collaboration • Definedas“a process in which those parties with a stake in the problem actively seek a mutually determined solution…they join forces, pool information, knock heads, construct alternative solutions, and forge an agreement.” (Gray, 1989) • Providesa framework • Involves a process of joint decision-making

5. Sense of place, community, & social capital Antecedents • Crisis • Broker • Mandate • Common vision • Existing networks • Leadership • Incentives • Issue and interest Outputs & Outcomes • Programs • Impacts • Short-term & long-term • Tangible & intangible • Benefit to resource Process Problem-Setting  Direction-Setting  Structuring • Recognize interdependence • Identify stakeholders • Consensus on legitimate stakeholders • Common problem of definition • Perceived salience to stakeholders • Forming & storming •Formalize relationships • Assign roles • Elaborate & perform tasks • Monitor • Performing • Establish goals • Set ground rules • Joint info. search • Explore options • Organize subgroups • Norming Theoretical Framework for Collaboration Modified from Selin & Chavez, 1995

6. Definitions • Social capital • “…features of social organization such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.” (Putnam, 1995) • Sense of place • “…the collection of meanings, beliefs, symbols, values, and feelings that individuals or groups associate with a particular locality.” (Williams & Stewart, 1998) • Sense of community • “…a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together.” (McMillan & Chavis, 1986)

7. Hypotheses • Social capital is an antecedent to, a component in the process of, and an outcome of the collaborative natural resource management process on private lands. • Having a sense of place is an antecedent to, a component in the process of, and an outcome of the collaborative natural resource management process on private lands. • Having a sense of community is an antecedent to, a component in the process of, and an outcome of the collaborative natural resource management process on private lands.

8. Sense of community Collaboration Sense of place Social capital Hypothesized Relationship among Place, Community, Social Capital, & Collaboration

9. Methodology Research Design: Multiple Case Studies (Qualitative) • Semi-structured interviews • Field notes • Participant observation • Focus groups • Photo elicitation • Reflective journal

10. * * Study Site Watersheds (Middle-Wabash/Little Vermillion & Wildcat)

11. Warren County — Kramer, IN Part of the Middle-Wabash/ Little Vermillion Watershed Clinton County — Mulberry, IN Part of the Wildcat Watershed Study Sites

12. Interviews • 81 taped & transcribed interviews (111 participants total) • Topics • Land use • Ownership • Place • Community & social capital • Natural resource issues & solutions • Working collectively • Information sources • Future for land & community

13. Sense of place, sense of community, social capital Outputs & Outcomes Antecedents Process Problem  Direction  Structuring

14. Analysis • Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis • Using Atlas.ti, Version 4.2 • Grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) • Code qualitative data for emergent themes • Open coding-labeling major categories and themes • Axial coding-examining categories in greater detail • Selective coding-synthesizing major codes to finds underlying relationships; leads to/informs theory • Presentation of major themes in each of the topical areas & illustrative quotes follows

15. Data Analysis The Quote: “I guess around here, one of the biggest things is growth and development, acres and acres are getting eaten up each year. I can’t believe the changes in the community.” The Coding Process: -I guess around here, one of the biggest things is growth and development, acres and acres are getting eaten up each year. I can’t believe the changes in the community. -I guess around here, one of the biggest things is growth and development, acres and acres are getting eaten up each year. I can’t believe the changes in the community. -I guess around here, one of the biggest things is growth and development, acres and acres are getting eaten up each year. I can’t believe the changes in the community. The Codes: -Issue: growth & development -Ramification of issue: Loss of land -Ramification of issue: Change in community

16. Sense of Place • Special areas (creeks & wooded spaces) • Shared places (views and neighborhoods) • Pride in owning land & taking care of it (stewardship ethic) • How place shapes & is shaped by identity • Places to share experiences with family, friends • Importance in heritage and legacy • Deep knowledge and familiarity with own land • Nested sense of place Antecedents Process Outputs & Outcomes

17. Sense of Place • Relationship between rationale for ownership “If we want to go and just wander around we can do that. If we just want to get away, leave the confines of this small little town, we have a place to go and do it. If we want to go put our feet in the creek, we can do that. There’s just so many benefits to being a landowner.” • Profession & identity • Farmers—place described in terms of productivity • Special places & shared places • Creeks • Experiences or activities that this place provided for

18. Sense of Place • Nested sense of place • Individual’s property • Nearby property • Interaction between them “When we walk around there’s a huge oak tree, gosh, how many feet in diameter do you think that tree is? Five feet, it’s big. It’s beautiful, and it’s one of the many things that we just fell in love with when we walked on this land, not to mention just the whole lay out of it, this meadow down here, and…the creek.”

19. Community & Social Capital • Satisfaction with rural character • General trust between landowners • General trust of local agency personnel • Examples of past community “unity” • Foster local leadership • Tap into information networks in community • Consider different stakeholder groups & how to facilitate interaction Antecedents Process Outputs & Outcomes

20. Community • Common responses • Rural community • Good people • Good place to live • Farming community “I wouldn’t go back to the city, I wouldn’t. I love raising my children here, and we love the community and part of that is just you know the ground, the farm, and the land, and the people.” • Geographic extent • County • Township • Neighborhood

21. Community • Actors • Identification of various groups within the community • Often related to variations in tenure • Farmers, new rural residents, life-time residents • “Blame game” • Values • Change • Positive and negative • Landscape • Loss of rural character • People • Shift to “bedroom community”

22. Social Capital • Concerns that social fabric of community is fraying • Lack of interdependence and networks • Attributed to changes in where people work and the increased mobility of people • Participation & involvement • Many not involved in community groups • Church served as major vehicle for involvement • Still felt as though they were a part of the community

23. Social Capital • Reciprocity • Many people discussed “rural reciprocity”—watching out for each other in the country • Frequently respond to crisis or need • Community will come together when necessary • Access to each other’s land “The bargain I offer the neighbors is you’re welcome to walk across our place anytime, and we’ll walk across yours, but don’t carry a gun, and don’t walk across during mushroom season.”

24. Social Capital • Trust • Individuals • In general, trust landowners to work towards clean water, or, at least not deliberately pollute • Agency personnel • Nearly all participants said they felt they could trust local natural resource agency personnel “I think the people in this county are pretty well aware of them and I think people trust them. They’re neighbors, you know them, they’re not strangers.

25. A history of working together Drainage ditches, tiles, fences “Yeah, you see landowners going and having meetings and stuff about how to get field tiles taken care of and stuff.” Response to crisis (i.e. water quality) Holds value, though it may be difficult to attain Belief in individual & group efficacy Necessary to work collectively “It’s pretty hard for me to clean up my water, and the next person not, and then end up with clean water, so I think it’s a collective thing. I think the trick to that is, how do you do that without economically causing adversity to those that you’re trying to get to do it?” Exploring the Possibility for Collaboration between Landowners

26. Antecedents • Individual • Starts with concerned and/or interested individuals “Probably a little bit of both, I think everybody needs to do their part, but I think it’s going to take a whole group to do the best job. But if people don’t start working on it themselves then it’s never going to be collectively…” • Institutional & social • Trust • Leadership “Yeah but people are close and they trust and know one another and so leadership, remember it has to be a respected member of the community I think to give the best turn out. It has to be somebody everybody likes. That guy has to be able to be a leader and there’s several people around like that.” • Education • Shared & clearly defined goals

27. Antecedents • Issue • Shared vision of the issue • Crisis “I was very much inspired because I knew if they had a bad spill it would be my first quarter of mile, it would be me, and I would be responsible for the clean up, according to the laws. I did research on the laws, and who’s responsible for the cleanup and everything. Yeah, so, it was in my best interest and the people of the community.” • Financial “My first instinct was to say funding. I really don’t know, it would have to be a common interest.”

28. Process • Start with individuals • Transparent process • A leader needs to provide that time & space “Well I think it would have to be some sort of a formal get- together, some one would have to lead it and explain to us what our objective is and then how we each landowner could work together to benefit, to reach that objective.” • Collective decisions, based on consensus “You start combining people’s thoughts and using consensus where people have to work together and appreciate people’s strengths and weaknesses.”

29. Process • Learning how to work together • Commitment to work together “You’ve got be willing to work together to come to a good agreement. You have to be open about it; you have to be informed and willing to give your time for it.” • Importance of efforts stemming from local people “I don’t think it’s successful if you have a bunch of outside experts come in and tell you what’s best. I think if it’s a ground roots, and people are involved and have each person have a say in it, and, there’s trust built up between them, then that group could call on an expert.”

30. Process • A summary by an absentee landowner: “You have to have clear communications with a good leader and good leadership, build that trust up, have each individual have a role. And as I said the big key is communications, you can’t have trust without knowing what’s going on…The first phase of that would be a lot of education, a lot of communications, familiarity with the situation so people feel comfortable. And then they join together and you set your goals and plans and move from there.”

31. Benefits • Impact on resource • Greater ability to improve quality of resource “I think you just get a better result when people work together than when you do when people work by themselves.” • Social & institutional • Increased community • More power & influence “…I believe multi-voice is always heard louder than a single voice.” • Shared knowledge & learning • Individual • Sense of satisfaction • Non-participants may join if they see benefits & progress

32. Salient Aspects of Collaboration Sense of place,, community, & social capital Outputs & Outcomes • Tangible & intangible • Benefit to resource Antecedents • Start with individuals • Common vision • Leadership • Incentives • Issue and interest Process Problem-Setting  Direction-Setting  Structuring • Recognize interdependence • Common problem of definition • Perceived importance, interest and benefit to stakeholders • Taking action • Establish goals • Collective decisions • Commitment

33. Conclusions • Place: Landowners expressed strong attachment, both to their land and the nearby land. • Use a geographic focus to convene collaborative efforts • Community: Descriptions of community vary among landowners, however, there is commonality in their satisfaction with rural community • Consider how to facilitate interactions among groups that perceive each other as different (farmers v. new rural residents)

34. Conclusions • Social Capital: Many people explained that they felt as if they were part of the community and that norms of reciprocity were present, especially for particular occurrences. In general they trusted fellow landowners. • Examine the ways the community members have successfully worked together in the past. Build from some of these experiences. • Process: A transparent process will be necessary from the inception • Discuss property rights at initial meetings • Work to uncover common interests in natural resources (in these study sites—water quality and wildlife habitat)

35. Conclusions • Overall: Working collaboratively is viewed favorably by the majority of interviewed landowners. • Social and institutional factors important • Local leader • Trust

36. Future Directions • Continued analysis of interviews (Phase 1) • Host natural resource community forums (Phase 2) • Participatory action research • Relate interview findings to process & output/outcome findings of the participatory action research

37. Acknowledgments & Funding • Research Assistants: Dina Carravetta, Stephanie Garrett, Jaclyn McClead • Graduate Students: Rajendra Chaini, Karen Cox, Amy Ross-Davis • Major Professor: Shorna Broussard, PhD • Professors: Janet Ayres, PhD & Bill Hoover, PhD • Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, USDA • U.S. Community Forestry Research Fellowships, Ford Foundation & UC Berkeley • Department of Forestry & Natural Resources, Purdue University

38. Private Lands in the Midwest: Exploring Landowner Views on Collaboration, Community, & Social Capital Kenli A. Schaaf Department of Forestry & Natural Resources, Purdue University kschaaf@fnr.purdue.edu (765) 496-1216

39. Warren County Study Site

40. Warren County Study Site

41. Clinton County Study Site

42. Obstacles • Blame game • New rural residents v. farmers • Differing goals & objectives “Different goals, different goals—if you get one landowner that wants to, has a certain objective in mind maybe down the road he wants to make a nice place for a housing development and you get somebody else that wants to make a nice place for a hog farm and you get somebody else that doesn’t want anybody to live—it’s tough, you have to have similar objectives why you’re doing whatever project you’re on and you can’t be pulling both ways.” • Conflicting personalities & opinions • Difficulty transitioning from ideas to action • Lack of time & busy lifestyles

43. Obstacles • Typical team weaknesses “Difference in opinion, lack of leadership, bad organization, maybe a lack of resources. Typical kinds of things that make any team fail could affect it.”

44. Property Rights • Many people thought “concerns” over property rights would not prevent collaborative efforts “I think ‘round here pretty much people know what they own and they don’t own and it’s okay…I don’t think that would be a problem, I think if that was a problem the guy wouldn’t be involved anyway. People around here aren’t real bashful about being able to say I’m not interested.” • Some people did indicate that concerns over property infringement may prevent collaboration “That could be some people might have the opinion, it’s my land I’ll do what I want on it whether or not it affects someone else … I’d say that could possibly be a problem just feelin’ like hey this is my land I’m gonna do what I want.” • Provision of adequate information on how collaborative efforts would/would not affect property rights necessary

45. Involving Others in Working Together • Education “Probably guidance…ever since we’ve lived out here, there’s not a lot of anything that’s been in front of me to say ‘hey, what about, what do you think?’ that’s never come up…It’s just never really been an option. So guidance and education. I’m sure education has been said to you, always.” • Recognition of personal benefits & interests “I think you’d have to show them what could happen if they got involved. I guess you’d have to show them what the benefits would be, show them how they can bring wildlife back cause a lot of people do like the wildlife.”

46. Involving Others in Working Together • Financial incentives “Have some sort of monetary incentive something, there is a lot of interest in tree planting, if the government or someone could come out with incentives and supplement the planting of trees.” • Provide the time & place to discuss natural resources “Just let them know what some of the results are gonna be, have some kind of a community meeting and discussion or something like that…just to discuss what the issues are and give them the information and what could possibly come of it.”

47. Future Directions Sense of place, sense of community, social capital Antecedents Outputs & Outcomes Process Problem  Direction  Structuring

48. References Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multi-party problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 329 p. McMillan, D. & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. American Journal of Community Psychology. 14(1): 6-23. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy. 6(1): 65-78. Selin, S. & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management. 19(2): 189-195. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Williams, D. & Stewart, S. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry. 96(5): 18-23.