The Effect of Data Collection Technique on Estimated Landowner Personal Network Attributes

AbstractSocial network analysis, focusing on the role of interpersonal relationships on the flow of information, trust, and service delivery, is increasingly recognized as a valuable approach to understanding landowner behavior. Landowner personal networks are central to Diffusion of Innovations theory and the Theory of Planned Behavior, both of which are commonly invoked in the design of interventions to encourage sustainable private forest management. However, personal network data can be difficult to obtain for a large sample. We tested the effect of three different personal network name generators on estimates of Minnesota landowners’ forestry information networks: a list of generic alter categories, an open-ended written survey, and a combination of written survey and follow-up telephone survey. Generic network data provided a relatively accurate baseline. Personal network data from a written survey provided more detailed data but underestimated network diversity and failed to account for potentially influential weak ties. A combination of written and follow-up telephone survey both doubled estimated average network size from 2.8 to 5.5 alters and increased estimated network diversity from 2.3 alter categories per respondent to 3.7. Network data from the written survey revealed a bias in favor of strong ties that was largely overcome through additional prompting during the telephone survey. A combination of written surveys and telephone or in-person interviews may be the best strategy to balance the benefit of a large sample with the cost of more intensive, yet more reliable, data collection methods.

[1]  T. Hujala,et al.  Boosters of and barriers to smooth communication in family forest owners’ decision making , 2008 .

[2]  P. Killworth,et al.  The Problem of Informant Accuracy: The Validity of Retrospective Data , 1984 .

[3]  M. Hammer,et al.  Explorations into the meaning of social network interview data , 1984 .

[4]  M. Rickenbach,et al.  Best management practices and timber harvesting: the role of social networks in shaping landowner decisions , 2011 .

[5]  Claude S. Fischer,et al.  A Procedure for Surveying Personal Networks , 1978 .

[6]  Devon D. Brewer,et al.  Forgetting in the recall-based elicitation of personal and social networks , 2000, Soc. Networks.

[7]  D. Kittredge,et al.  Challenging the Traditional Forestry Extension Model: Insights from the Woods Forum Program in Massachusetts , 2012, Small-scale Forestry.

[8]  Dennis R Becker,et al.  Personal networks and private forestry in Minnesota. , 2014, Journal of environmental management.

[9]  T. Hujala,et al.  Reaching forest owners through their social networks in timber sales , 2012 .

[10]  S. Allred,et al.  Evaluating Peer Impacts of a Master Forest Owner Volunteer Program , 2011, Journal of Extension.

[11]  D. Blahna,et al.  The Communication and Diffusion of NIPF Management Strategies , 1988 .

[12]  Dennis R Becker,et al.  Learning from Landowners: Examining the Role of Peer Exchange in Private Landowner Outreach through Landowner Networks , 2013 .

[13]  K. Campbell,et al.  Name generators in surveys of personal networks , 1991 .

[14]  E. Weber,et al.  Choosing What to Believe About Forests: Differences Between Professional and Non-Professional Evaluative Criteria , 2010, Small-scale Forestry.

[15]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  NETWORK DATA AND MEASUREMENT , 1990 .

[16]  Thomas W. Valente Network models of the diffusion of innovations , 1996, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[17]  M. Brunson,et al.  Benefit-Based Audience Segmentation: A Tool for Identifying Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Owner Education Needs , 2006, Journal of Forestry.

[18]  I. Ajzen The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[19]  M. A. Dunn,et al.  Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowner Characteristics and Use of Forestry Services in Four Southern States: Results from a 2002–2003 Mail Survey , 2005 .

[20]  A. Mayer,et al.  Peer Influence of Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan , 2012 .

[21]  Extension Forestry in the United States: Master Volunteer and Other Peer- Learning Programs , 2014 .

[22]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[23]  Mikko Kurttila,et al.  Diffusion of voluntary protection among family forest owners: Decision process and success factors , 2013 .

[24]  Ray Reagans,et al.  Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range , 2003 .

[25]  H. Davies,et al.  Learning from the past, prospects for the future , 2000 .

[26]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[27]  J. Bliss,et al.  Identity and private forest management , 1988 .

[28]  L. Lönnstedt,et al.  From the small woodland problem to ecosocial systems: the evolution of social research on small-scale forestry in Sweden and the USA , 2010 .

[29]  Extension forestry in the united states: A national review of state-level programs , 2014 .

[30]  Alexandra Marin,et al.  Are respondents more likely to list alters with certain characteristics?: Implications for name generator data , 2004, Soc. Networks.

[31]  Maggi Kelly,et al.  Consider the source: the impact of media and authority in outreach to private forest and rangeland owners. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[32]  A. Egan From Timber to Forests and People: A View of Nonindustrial Private Forest Research , 1997 .

[33]  L. Freeman,et al.  Cognitive Structure and Informant Accuracy , 1987 .

[34]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  R. J. Moulton,et al.  Evaluating the forest stewardship program through a national survey of participants , 2000 .

[36]  M. Rickenbach Serving members and reaching others: The performance and social networks of a landowner cooperative , 2009 .

[37]  S. Allred,et al.  It's Who You Know: Social Capital, Social Networks, and Watershed Groups , 2011 .