Personal networks and private forestry in Minnesota

Explaining gender differences in private forest risk management

“…Eagly and Chaiken 1993;Dietz et al 1998), gender differences in, for example, forest values and threat and coping appraisals may explain differences in management behaviour. Furthermore, social ties, perceived social norms, and support have been found to play important roles in management activities (Ruseva et al 2014;Sagor and Becker 2014), and women and men may belong to different social networks (Andersson and Lidestav 2016). Hence, less support together with normative pressure from their immediate social context may potentially explain women's lower levels of management activities.…”

Ghana's high forests : trends, scenarios and pathways for future developments

“…This result is contrary to the general view of several studies that show that tree planting activities of trusted peers are an important source of influence on farmer decision-making regarding on-farm tree planting (Ruseva et al 2014, Ruseva et al 2015, Sagor and Becker 2014. For example, Zubair and Garforth (2006) show that the decision to engage in on-farm tree planting is associated with farmers' perceptions of the opinions and suggestions of their peers and the motivation to comply with their approval and disapproval.…”

“…For example, Zubair and Garforth (2006) show that the decision to engage in on-farm tree planting is associated with farmers' perceptions of the opinions and suggestions of their peers and the motivation to comply with their approval and disapproval. Thus, Ruseva et al (2014) and Sagor and Becker (2014) show that information from trusted peers is often more important than advice from experts. However, we found the opposite.…”

Landowner conservation awareness across rural-to-urban gradients in Massachusetts

“…These partnerships can be very effective at elevating local conservation capacity and reaching local woodland owners with information to assist with conservation decisions. They can convene meetings of owners where they can exchange experience and learn from one another (e.g., Ma et al, 2012a,b), and otherwise increase the chances for owners to encounter one another informally through social networks (e.g., Rickenbach, 2009;Sagor and Becker, 2014;Kittredge et al, 2013;Knoot and Rickenbach, 2011;Korhonen et al, 2012). These kinds of investments in local conservation social capital are not expensive, and our results suggest they could result in elevated conservation awareness of owners.…”

“…Opportunities for landowners to meet and exchange information and experiences with one another have been shown to be effective arenas to overcome these obstacles of trust and informal channels (Ma et al, 2012a,b). Informal landowner social networks have been documented as effective means by which conservation information is transferred (e.g., Kittredge et al, 2013;Sagor and Becker, 2014).…”