Exploring Environmental Attitudes and Forest Program Uptake with Nonindustrial Private Forest Owners in Michigan

Abstract Government programs in the United States offer benefits and opportunities to help private landowners manage their forests; however, participation is very low. Currently, little is known about the barriers landowners may face in accessing information about these programs. Using a landowner survey across four counties in Michigan, we investigate this by (1) exploring current participation in forest programs and (2) analyzing if landowners experience barriers to learning more about the programs available. We find that landowners who are older, perceive themselves as active managers, and are members of a land management organization are more likely to participate in forest programs. Our results also indicate that those wanting to learn more about the programs available have more dominant environmental viewpoints (e.g. humans have the right to modify and rule over nature). We argue that targeted approaches, for example, partnering with private landowner organizations, may increase landowner participation in government forest programs.


Introduction
Nonindustrial Private Forests (NIPF) account for 35% of all forested land within the United States of America (herein United States) (Butler 2008).Given the vast extent of NIPF ownership, their management decisions and practices affect forest ecosystems and their sustainability.Private forests provide many public goods and services including clean water, recreation, wildlife habitat and a significant supply of timber and nontimber forest products.Therefore, national, state and local government entities seek to influence private landowner behavior to maximize the provision of public goods from private forests.Governments have two primary mechanisms to influence private landowner behaviorregulatory or voluntary.Regulatory approaches include federal environmental laws like the Clean Water Act (1972), Endangered Species Act (1973) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (1947).Many states regulate private landowner behavior through forest practice acts that require permitting or reporting for harvesting timber and other common forestry practices.Most states also have voluntary or mandatory "Best Management Practices" to implement the federal Clean Water Act on public and private forests.
The United States Forest Service (USFS) established its division of State and Private Forestry in 1908 to assist private landowners in sustaining their forests, through a variety of methods, for example general advice, management plans or government led programs (Bramwell 2013).The USFS initially favored regulating private forests to prevent poor management of private forests.The Weyerhaeuser forest products company started the American Tree Farm System in 1941 in part to avoid government regulation and showcase responsible management of private forests.Since the 1940s, the USFS has strongly favored the voluntary approach to incentivizing private landowner behavior.Many other federal, state and local government entities have followed suit and emphasized voluntary incentives to influence landowner behavior on private forests.
As the dependence on forests for economic security has decreased, forest landowners now have other management priorities such as improving the environment or providing recreational activities (Nordlund and Westin 2010).Historically voluntary incentive programs sought to prevent poor forest management by people who used the land unsustainably before the development of modern land ethics of sustainability and forest certification.By contrast, today, many voluntary incentive programs seek to encourage inactive landowners to do more active management of their private forests.
Whether or not forests are managed sustainably is dependent on landowners' environmental attitudes.For example, an individual's ecological worldview has been shown to correlate with pro-environmental behavior (Dunlap et al. 2000a).Ultimately, landowners' environmental values and attitudes are some of the many factors that influence the way in which they interact with and manage their land (Egan and Jones 1993).One such method of measuring these values is the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap et al. 2000b) providing a useful mechanism to link values with management practices.For example, a study in Sweden using the NEP, found that forest owners who have a strong view that preservation of their forests is crucial, also believe that the forest should be predominately used for timber production (Nordlund and Westin 2010).
Voluntary incentive programs (VIPs) are used to encourage landowners to change their behavior to promote sustainable forest management.Landowners receive financial benefits, typically in the form of cost shares or grants for VIP participation.Requirements for VIPs include activities that improve and protect native ecosystems, such as enhancing wildlife habitat, protecting wetlands and planting trees.Most VIPs also require landowners to develop a written forest management plan, outlining how these and other forest management activities will be implemented.Once enrolled, VIPs usually require landowners to complete the activities over a set amount of time (e.g. 5 years) or risk not receiving the benefit.Due to being voluntary, VIPs are highly dependent on enrollment rates (Schubert and Mayer 2012).Despite the economic benefits, most VIPs have enrolled less than 10% of family forest owners throughout the USA (Butler 2008).
One large barrier to adoption of VIPs is that many NIPF owners are unaware of the programs available (Kilgore et al. 2007).For example, researchers in New York found that landowners had a lack of knowledge about the conservation easement opportunities available to them (Kelly, Germain, and Stehman 2015).Most landowners find out about programs through necessity (e.g. the land they purchased is already enrolled in a program) or through word of mouth (e.g.neighbors, peer networks).In the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, NIPF owners have been found to be influenced by peer networks either directly or indirectly (Schubert and Mayer 2012).This influence of peer networks can impact land management strategies (Kueper et al. 2014;Lind-Riehl et al. 2015), and should be considered when disseminating program information.Research has found that different types of NIPF owners are interested in having more information about VIPs relative to their land (Finley et al. 2006;Schubert and Mayer 2012) preferably from natural resource professionals (Schubert and Mayer 2012).However, research has found that trust plays a large role in whether landowners engage or enroll in VIPs.Further, there is also an ongoing, generalized distrust of government agencies (Rouleau et al. 2016), highlighting the complexity of landowner enrollment in VIPs.
VIP enrollment rates have also been identified to be influenced by landowner characteristics (Frey et al. 2019).For example, education has been reported to have a positive relationship with enrollment (Ma et al. 2012).Further to this, NIPF landowners and subsequently current VIP enrollees are likely to hand over their property to the next generation (Butler et al. 2016).Butler et al. (2018) hypothesize that female owners, given that their life expectancy is longer than men, will be the ones to have final land use decisions (e.g.selling or bequeathing land) and that their heirs are more likely to be female.Research has found that female forest owners are less likely to manage their property and be enrolled in any programs (Butler et al. 2018).Therefore, research that targets these aging landowners and heirs, particularly women, is critical.Further to this, near term land transfers and landowner characteristics have been found significant.For example, those that are older are more likely to sell their land (Markowski-Lindsay, Butler, and Kittredge 2017), again highlighting the need for information dissemination that targets these aging landowners.A landowner's values may also be one such mechanism for engagement.(Floress et al. 2019) suggest that attitudes and perceptions of management can be an opportunity for more targeted stakeholder outreach.
Outreach to NIPF landowners is challenging for VIPs and their managers due to inadequate resources, funds for staff, and ineffective contact with potential enrollees (Rouleau et al. 2016).Rouleau et al. (2016) argue that program managers assume that financial assistance is a landowner's primary motivator, rather than their desire to learn more and gain confidence in their management decisions.Recent improvements for programs are centered around administration design and increasing program visibility and availability (Kilgore et al. 2007).Other forms of engagement exist through extension forestry, where a variety of educational methods are used to suit different learners, mainly through expert instruction.However, efforts have moved away from this model of expert instruction to one that relies more on peer approaches (Kueper et al. 2014).
Existing literature on forest programs within the US have mainly focused on awareness and perceptions of programs, assessing program outcomes on forest management, and identifying problems and strategies to improve programs (Ma et al. 2012).Within this large body of research, we know that participation rates in VIPs by NIPF owners is low and that more targeted approaches should be utilized to improve them as landowners face barriers to enroll.
However, there is currently little information about potential barriers that landowners may face in trying to learn more about the programs available to them.We aim to build upon this existing research using landowners in four Michigan counties and the Michigan Forest Stewardship Program as a case study.First, we identify what percentage of landowners are enrolled in a VIP and if environmental attitudes or characteristics are associated with this.Second, we explore the associations between the characteristics and attitudes of forest landowners and desire to learn more about forest programs, using continued participation rates in our study.The overall goal of this research is to understand the extent to which environmental attitudes and characteristics are associated with landowner participation and interest in VIPs throughout Michigan.

Respondent Selection
Our study encompassed the Alpena, Newaygo, Barry, and Washtenaw counties in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan.These counties were chosen after dialogue and analysis with staff at the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Michigan, where multiple counties were considered but discarded due to a lack of information of landowner addresses.This information was overlaid with information on the forested parcels.Landowners with >5 acres of forest were selected as potential participants (approx.14,000 prospective landowners).All communication was through written material, as previous research has found this to be the preferred method of communication of forest owners (Butler et al. 2016).Addresses were randomly selected proportional to the sample population size of each county.A random selection approach allows us to reduce biases with other forms of data collection methods.The final survey was sent to 6,000 landowners: 1032 in Alpena, 2868 in Newaygo, 1234 in Barry and 866 in Washtenaw.

Data Collection
The survey was developed in collaboration with forest management experts at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the University of Michigan.The survey underwent an Institutional Review Board (IRB) ethics approval at the University of Michigan (HUM00131061).The data were collected in two rounds by postal mail (January and April 2018).Two reminder postcards were sent to landowners who did not return the survey.The survey packet included details of our study, an information sheet on the Michigan Forest Stewardship Program, the full survey (including informed consent document to be signed), a copy of informed consent, and a business reply mail envelope.
The survey (supplementary material) consisted of five subsections: (1) continue participation in the study, (2) general information about the forested property, (3) changes in forests, (4) forest management and (5) landowner characteristics and environmental attitudes.
Within the forest management subsection, landowners were asked to identify themselves as passive or active managers.The following definitions were included to aid in their selection: "Passive management is infrequent or no alterations or modifications to the forestland (e.g. using land for recreation).Active management involves developing and implementing a plan for wildlife, water management, or plant species (e.g.tree planting, thinning, or harvesting; invasive species removal; working with a professional forester; sustainable tourism development)".Also within the forest management subsection, landowners were asked to list if they have been enrolled in any VIP on forest management (Table 1).The list of VIPs was developed with a member of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources familiar with public and private programs for NIPF owners.VIPs in our study include property tax incentives, wildlife habitat, forest certification, conservation easements, technical assistance and financial assistance programs.Landowners were also asked if they were members of one or more of eleven forestry wildlife or conservation organizations (Table 2) including the Michigan Forest Association, National Woodland Owners Association, Ruffed Grouse Society, Trout Unlimited, Quality Deer Management Association, etc.
To measure environmental attitudes and perceptions of the landowners, we used the revised new ecological paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap et al. 2000).To calculate the NEP, we split the measurement into intrinsic and dominant viewpoints, calculating the Cronbach's alpha for each (.88 and .86respectively) following (Kellert 1997;Knight 2008).Within the NEP, "dominant" viewpoint is sometimes referred to as "dominionistic", but since this is not an English word, we have used the term dominant.The intrinsic view holds that plants and animals have an equal right to exist as humans.The dominant view holds that humans have the right to modify and rule over nature.These terms are further defined in Table 2.
In the original offer letter for potential respondents to participate, we also informed respondents of and gave them an option to continue with a second phase of the study should they return the survey instrument.Respondents who indicated continued interest could receive more information at an evening workshop in their county about forestry programs or receive a $150 financial stipend for developing a Forest Stewardship Plan prior to the end of the study period.The option of receiving these benefits, was framed in the context of continuing involvement in the study.

Data Analysis
Mailed surveys often suffer from low response rates, resulting in bias (Mangione 2014).
To test for bias in our survey we assessed early and late respondents by their demographics (age, gender and education level) and the two variables of interest (participation in a forestry program and continued participation).
To determine what influences participation in VIPs, we created a binary variable of participating or not participating in a forestry program (based on survey response) and regressed this against landowner attitudes and characteristics as well as exploring descriptive statistics.To explore the characteristics and attitudes of landowners who want to learn more about forest programs, we used continued participation rates in our study as a proxy.Both models were a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) with binary dependent variables (enrolled in the program or want to continue in the study) against demographic data, environmental attitudes, plot characteristics/management and engagement with other programs (Table 3).
Due to low sample size, we faced issues of model convergence.To overcome this, we completed a stepwise variable selection removal process until the model could converge (Yamashita, Yamashita, and Kamimura 2007).To control for variation across counties, we included a random effect for county tested the two models.In both models, including county as a random effect worsened the model fit (model fit was determined using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) (Burnham and Anderson 2002).Therefore, the simpler model without county was used for the analysis.Guided by the literature, we chose predictor variables known to influence landowner management and participation in forest programs (Table 3).All models were run in the R programme (R Core Team 2020) and tested for multicollinearity using the VIF function in the "car" package.Regarding the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), if a variable has a value higher than 5 it should be discarded from the model and analysis (Akinwande, Dikko, and Samson 2015).In our case, no VIFs were higher than 1.5 for both models.

Survey Response
Out of the 6,000 surveys sent out to landowners, we had 195 returned due to incorrect addresses or the landowner was deceased.Of the 5,805 who received the survey, we had 409 surveys returned, and 16 surveys were removed due to incomplete answers.In total, we analyzed 393 respondents equating to a 7% response rate.We found no statistically significant differences between the demographics of early and late responders and the two variables of interest.Parcel characteristics (Table 4) and landowner demographics (Figure 1) varied between each county surveyed.For example, in rural Alpena County, 48% have their forested parcel as their primary residence, compared with 81% of suburban Washtenaw County.Across all counties, most participants were over 51 years of age and male.

Enrollment in Programs
Landowners who are enrolled in a forest management program (Table 5), are most likely to be in the Qualified Forest Property Act (32%), the Conservation Reserve Program (24%), the Forest Stewardship Program (24%), and the American Tree Farm System (21%).Most of the programs listed in Table 4 are federal programs, although they may be implemented in partnership with state and local agencies.For example, the   the American Tree Farm System and Forest Stewardship Council forest certification programs.
In the GLM regression (Table 6, Figure 2), we find that if landowners are members of an organization (e.g.Michigan Forest Association, National Woodland Owners Association, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Ruffed Grouse Society, etc) they are more likely to participate in a forestry incentive program.There is also a positive relationship between those that perceive themselves as active managers and their involvement with a forest program.A smaller positive relationship is found with the number of parcels owned.

Continued Participation in the Study
Our study offered landowners an opportunity to continue in our study with either attendance at a workshop to learn more about forestry programs or obtain a $150 financial incentive to develop a Forest Stewardship Plan after they returned the survey.We find that those with graduate-level education or higher and those who are younger are more likely to continue in our study (Table 7, Figure 3).Further, the model suggests that those who have less than a four-year high school education and who are older than 71þ years are less likely to continue.We also find a small positive relationship with environmental attitudes.A dominant viewpoint of the environment had a larger positive relationship with seeking more information or a financial incentive when continuing with the study.Further, the results indicate that being already enrolled in a VIP does not influence a landowner's decision to continue with our study.

Discussion
The strongest association with VIP participation was with those who are involved in an organization and those that are older.Interestingly, our results also show that continued participation rate is partially explained by environmental attitudes, education level, and age.However, it is the landowners who hold a dominant viewpoint, rather than the landowners with intrinsic viewpoints, who are more interested in further participation.Our study provides further insights into how characteristics and environmental attitudes of landowners influence their involvement in forest management programs and their willingness to learn more about them.We find that those who are more likely to be enrolled in forest management programs are already members of some other conservation, wildlife or environmental organization.This result is supported by the literature, whereby research has found that participation in wildlife programs had a positive relationship with forest conservation behavior (Dayer et al. 2016).This result ties into the concept and influence of peer networks in landowner decision making.Research has found that social networks have increased landowner applications of best management practices (Knoot and Rickenbach 2011).Utilizing landowner networks has been suggested as one mechanism to improve information exchange for technical assistance (Kueper, Sagor, and Becker 2013).Further, those with more social ties have been found to be more active land managers (Ruseva, Evans, and Fischer 2014).Learning through observing neighbors has been found to lead to the adoption of conservation behavior, building on the theory of Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers 2004).Conservation organizations provide information about VIPs to their members through magazines, newsletters, websites, meetings and field days.
Our results follow a similar trend to other researchers, whereby those that actively manage their land are more likely to be involved in forest management programs (Kauneckis and York 2009).Ownership and sociodemographic characteristics are common predictors of landowner behavior and management strategies; for example, those with larger landholdings are more likely to be active managers (Ruseva, Evans, and Fischer 2014).Our research finds that landowners with a higher number of individual land parcels and those that are enrolled in a forest management program, perceive themselves as active land managers.However, it is important to note that this is only a landowner's self-perception of how they manage their land.We find that even though some landowners are partaking in active land management actions like cutting down trees on their land, they still perceive themselves as passive managers.This self-perception may cause issues where landowners do not partake in management programs because they do not believe they are active managers.Therefore, forest management programs need to do more to ensure that those who consider themselves passive managers are engaged as potential participants.Further to this point, active forest managers have more streamlined network communications with other landowners, as compared to passive managers.Also active managers have larger and more diverse social networks (Ruseva, Evans, and Fischer 2014).If the opposite holds true for those that perceive themselves as passive managers and have smaller, less diverse networks, it will be harder for program managers to provide information to passive landowners without strong networks.Targeted outreach to landowners is not new in relation to VIPs and NIPFs (Stroman and Kreuter 2015).Drescher et al. (2019) report that program managers use environmental threats such as invasive species to encourage passive landowners to become active managers.Most forestry VIPs have a bias toward active land managers or a stated desire to influence passive managers to become active managers.Outreach for VIPs may be less effective if passive landowners are aware of their self-perception and do not want to change their values or management practices.The majority of NIPF own their land for esthetic reasons rather than the economic activities promoted by many VIPs (Kilgore et al. 2007;Ma, Kittredge, and Catanzaro 2012).
Our results found no significant difference within the environmental viewpoint variables (intrinsic, dominant) and the probability of participating in a VIP.Previous research on this is mixed with no one precise mechanism to suggest that environmental viewpoints are a good indicator of participation (Liordos et al. 2017;Moon, Marshall, and Cocklin 2012;Rauwald and Moore 2002).More frequently, other demographic factors such as education or gender are better at indicating participation in a conservation or land management program.

Continued Participation in the Study
Previous research has found that landowners prefer to receive information from government officials, extension agents or through other landowners (Schubert and Mayer 2012).In our study, education and age were barriers for landowners offered the opportunity for continued participation in our study.These barriers parallel those that the landowners face if they continue to try and participate in forest management programs.We find that those who wanted to continue in our study to obtain information or monetary contributions toward forest are more likely to have a higher education level.Conversely, those who have less education and are older were less likely to continue in the study.A negative relationship between those opting to continue in the study and age or education is in accordance with prior research finding that these characteristics influence level of forest management and activity (Beach et al. 2005;Joshi and Arano 2009).For example, Butler et al. (2018) that found those with higher education levels are more likely to engage in educational outreach programs.Therefore, as other studies have called for, more targeted approaches for delivering information about forestry programs need to be adopted when considering older landowners with high school level or lower education.This targeted approach is critical given that the majority of NIPF are unengaged with only 4% having a management plan and only 14% have received advice about their land (Ma, Kittredge, and Catanzaro 2012).
Interestingly, our results also indicate that landowners with a dominant view are more likely to continue in our study than those with an intrinsic view.The NEP provides a unique way to explore if landowners' environmental attitudes will influence their land management and their willingness to learn more about and engage with forest stewardship.We find that landowners with more dominant or utilitarian viewpoints are more likely to seek more information about forest management or desire a $150 financial incentive to develop a forest management plan.There are a few possible explanations for why this may be the case.Landowners who believe they have a right to control nature (Knight, 2008) may be interested in learning more about how to manipulate their natural environment to achieve their goals for their woods.Dominant landowners may also be more confident in their capacity to make changes in their environment and therefore willing to join VIPs.VIPs often seek to manipulate ecosystems by incentivizing tree harvesting or tree planting (Alig, Lee, and Moulton 1990;Beach et al. 2005), which may appeal to those who hold dominant environmental viewpoints.It is important to highlight that if a respondent decides to seek more information or a financial incentive to develop a forest management plan through our study, it does not indicate that they implemented any new forest management practice.
By contrast, intrinsic landowners may believe that nature does not need their assistance or should not be interfered with.Research has found that when a forest is managed for esthetic or legacy reasons, landowners are willing to forgo economic benefits (Fischer and Charnley 2010).Also, government incentives have been shown to influence tree harvesting and planting (Alig, Lee, and Moulton 1990;Beach et al. 2005) which could be seen as more controlled management styles and therefore may appeal to those who hold similar, dominant environmental viewpoints.Importantly, a divergence in attitudes and views between those that favor protection or production can influence management perceptions (Ribe 2002).On average, our respondents are older landowners (over 50 years of age), and previous research has found that younger landowners are more likely to practice intrinsic forest management such as recreation or esthetics (Tarrant and Cordell 2002).Therefore, our results may be simply reflecting the demographics of our survey.

Implications for Practitioners
Our results indicate that not many landowners in four Michigan counties are participating in voluntary forestry incentive programs.This finding is in line with previous research of landowners that finds a small number of forest owners have engaged in forest management programs or have management plans (Butler et al. 2016).More specifically, only some landowners in Michigan with ten or more acres engage in forest management activities (Butler and Butler, 2016;Pugh, Paulson, and Butler 2016).Inadequate communication by VIP managers in Michigan is a significant contributor to low enrollment (Rouleau et al. 2016).
Therefore, government agencies and private organizations that seek to influence private forest landowner behavior should consider multiple strategies to accomplish this objective rather than assuming landowners want to participate in their forestry programs.For instance, in Michigan, inadequate communication by program managers is a large contributor to the low enrollment in VIPs (Rouleau et al. 2016).Public agencies should consider that very different VIPs often achieve similar results at dissimilar costs to taxpayers and program administrators.Butler et al. 2014 found that inexpensive site visits, moderately expensive Forest Stewardship Plans and costly financial assistance to implement conservation practices all had similar results in motivating active forest management (Butler et al. 2014).
Proponents of active management should explore innovative and inclusive methods to engage and educate landowners instead of using the same ineffective methods for decades in their unchanged VIPs.For example, social media and other forms of marketing could be used to encourage landowners to learn more about the VIPs of interest to them.Program managers need to identify messaging that appeals to and empowers both passive and intrinsic landowners instead of assuming everyone should become an active or dominant landowner.For instance, Andrejczyk et al. (2016) find that family forest owners prefer to talk about "woods" rather than "forests".The messaging used needs to carefully consider landowners values and already existing knowledge, as most messaging to influence behavioral change assumes an information deficit (Kidd et al. 2019).Finally, government agencies and private organizations need to offer additional resources to guide landowners in their process of moving from awareness to engagement and then to action (Butler et al. 2007).
Public-private partnerships between government agencies and private organizations can increase participation in VIPs.If "joiners" are more likely to be active managers and interested in forestry programs, then public agencies should find ways to partner with landowner and conservation organizations for a targeted approach to more successful advertising.Public agencies should invest in the capacity of private sector landowner and conservation organizations to achieve mutual goals of informed and successful land managers.Landowner organizations are cultural institutions that provide opportunities for peer networks to develop, grow and influence each other and society.Landowner and conservation organizations are truly voluntary and more likely to be trusted than government programs that may include mandatory legal requirements of its voluntary participants.Public-private partnerships are most effective when all parties benefit, and our data suggest that the success of various landowner and conservation organizations might influence participation in publicly funded VIPs.
Program managers could partner with various organizations to provide targeted messaging to landowners who perceive themselves to be passive or active land managers.Our study does not have data to show a correlation between the types of organizations and the types of landowners and is an opportunity for further research.However, program managers might partner with environmental organizations like Sierra Club or The Nature Conservancy who promote the protection of forests to reach passive or intrinsic landowners.Program managers might partner with wildlife and forestry organizations like the Michigan Forest Association or the Ruffed Grouse Society associated with more direct use of natural resources to reach active or dominant landowners.
Program administrators should also consider the type of information they are using to potential targeted participants and how this aligns with management values.How forest management is approached with targeted landowners needs to incorporate ecological, recreational and economic strategies, accounting for these multiple types of landowners and their motivations (Serbruyns and Luyssaert 2006).For example, researchers found that in Michigan, most private woodlots are being managed for esthetics and not economic values (Erickson, Ryan, and De Young 2002).Some have argued that government programs promoting financial assistance and tax breaks for active management are not relevant to most of their intended audience because NIPF values on forest management have shifted toward more intrinsic motivation (Bengston 1994;Ruseva, Evans, and Fischer 2015).Targeted information today should include landowners that have environmental or restoration views.VIP managers need to enable participants to manage their land in a program that aligns with their management philosophy (i.e.multi-use benefits, recreational beauty, habitat restoration).

Limitations of the Study
Our low sample size is similar to that found in educational outreach programs targeting NIPF owners, where only 3-14% of those contacted participated (Butler et al. 2018).As with other studies, due to the low response rate, there is a possibility of response bias (Joshi and Arano 2009).However, after testing, we found no significant difference between the demographics of early and late responders.
In some sections, our survey was long and may have overburdened the respondents.For example, only 10% of 393 respondents (n ¼ 38) answered the question about their participation in forest management programs.It is possible that respondents skipped the question because they did not want to think about the long list of 14 programs on the survey form.NIPF often have the very same response in the woods when talking with a forester who is trying to explain the confusing "alphabet soup" of the many forestry programs available to them.It is easy for NIPF landowners to be overwhelmed by their many choices and complicated forestry programs.Those seeking to educate landowners may want to limit the number of programs described and target their presentation to the types of landowner present.
Furthermore, within our survey materials, we included an information sheet on the Forest Stewardship Program which included a logo of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.This may have unintentionally biased and lowered our response rate.Research has found that landowners concerned about their property rights and land autonomy are not willing to participate in VIPs even when receiving a financial incentive (Fischer and Charnley 2010).Distrust of government agencies is a core reason for landowners not joining VIPs in Michigan (Rouleau et al. 2016).Future research could consider this when designing and analyzing government forest programs.

Conclusions
Our study finds that a small number of landowners are enrolled in VIPs throughout the four counties surveyed.In our analyses, we explore how this may be due to owner characteristics such as age, education and if they are a member of landowner or conservation organizations.We also find that those who perceive themselves as active managers are more likely to be a participant in a VIP.When exploring what influences NIPF owners to seek more information or accept a financial incentive, we find that landowners with more dominant environmental viewpoints are more likely to continue than those with intrinsic views.Similar to other studies, characteristics such as age, education and management type also influence their decision to seek more information or accept a financial incentive.We argue that public-private partnerships using messaging targeted to specific audiences may increase participation of NIPF owners in voluntary incentive programs.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Landowner demographic characteristics across the four surveyed counties.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Predicted effect of landowner characteristics and attitudes on the probability of participation in a Voluntary Incentive Program (VIP), with 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Predicted effect of landowner characteristics and attitudes on the probability of continuing in survey, with 95% confidence intervals.

Table 1 .
Details of VIPs available to Michigan landowners.

Table 2 .
Landowner and conservation organizations for NIPF in Michigan.

Table 3 .
Predictor variables included in regression analyses.

Table 4 .
Descriptive and mean summary statistics of the survey across the four participating counties, percentages represent yes responses.
the Qualified Forest Program, but other types of private ownership are eligible.Corporate and industrial forest owners are the primary audience for the Commercial Forest Program, but NIPF are eligible.The only private sector programs in Table 5 are

Table 5 .
Percentage of respondents enrolled in forest management programs that exist in Michigan.Forest management program (n ¼ 38)Current/Past enrollment?

Table 6 .
GLM model results for if respondents are already enrolled in a forest management program (VIP).

Table 7 .
GLM model results for if survey respondents want to continue in the study.