Attitudes Toward the Kansas Forest Service Conservation Tree and

Shrub Seedling Program

By

Brett Zollinger, Ph.D.

Docking Institute of

Public Affairs

Project Overview

Kansas Forest Service sought a quality assessment of their Conservation Tree and Shrub Seedling Program (CTP).

Populations surveyed :– purchasers– general population of landowners– cooperating agency personnel

KFS also sought to use survey findings in the design of a marketing effort to promote CTP.

Survey of Purchasers Methods

Telephone survey of 418 randomly selected 1996,1997,1998 CTP purchasers using CSR’s 15 station CATI system

Contacts = 434 Response rate = 96% Using 95% confidence level,

margin of error = +/-4.8% Survey instrument jointly developed by the

KFS and Docking Institute

Demographics of CTP Purchasers

Above average household income for Kansas– Modal sample hh income category = $70,000 +– Median hh income for Kansas = $36,700 (1998)

Above average educational levels for Kansas– College graduates in sample = 26%– Kansas population (over age 25) college

graduates = 14% (1990) 63% of sample have an agric operation

– Mean acres owned = 270– Median acres owned = 85

Type of CTP Plant Purchased by Quantity Purchased

DeciduousAll Purchases

N=407

EvergreenAll Purchases

N=413

ShrubsAll Purchases

N=407

None 41.8% 9.2% 55.0%

0 to 50 22.6% 29.5% 22.6%

51 to 100 15.0% 21.8% 8.6%

101 to 150 3.9% 8.7% 2.0%

151 to 200 3.9% 8.0% 4.4%

201 to 250 0.5% 2.7% 0.5%

More than 250 12.3% 20.1% 6.9%

TOTAL 100% 100% 100%

Demographic Factors Positively Associated with Number of Plants

Purchased

Agric operator (all types of plants) Number of acres in the operation (all) Number of acres owned (all) Educational level (for deciduous tree

purchases only) Total family income (for deciduous tree

purchases only)

Sources of Information About the CTP

Information Source

NewKS Dept W

Kansas Forest Se

Conservation Dist

NRCSExtension Office

OtherWord of Mouth

Trade Magazine

Television

RadiowspaperWildlife & Pervic

Percent

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Current Uses of CTP Plants

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Provide Christmas Trees

Control Water Erosion

Improve Wildlife Habitat

Beautify the Area

Provide a Woodlot

Provide a Windbreak for a Field*

Provide a Windbreak for Livestock*

Provide a Windbreak for a House

*Results shown for those with an agricultural operation (N = 260).

Plan to Purchase CTP Plants Within the Next Five Years

Uncertain (17.42%)

Yes (65.17%)

No (17.42%)

Reasons for Not Planning to Purchase CTP Plants Within the

Next Five Years (N=72)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Purchase Plants Out of State

Purchase Plants From Nursery

Plant Quality Too Low

Plant Investment Too Risky

Too Long for Plants to Grow

Too Much Maintenance

Too Much Work to Plant

Not Enough Cost-Share Assistance

Plants Cost Too Much

Do Not Need More Plants

Perceived Benefits of Windbreaks

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Attract Wildlife

Reduce Garden Damage

Reduce Crop Damage*

Reduce Livestock Feeding Costs*

Agree DisagreeDon't Know

*Results shown for those with an agricultural operation (N = 260).

Continued…

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Reduce Soil Blowing

Control Snow Drifting

Reduce Home Cooling Costs

Reduce Home Heating Costs

Agree DisagreeDon't Know

Perceived Value of CTP Plants

More Than Worth (43.20%)

Less Than Worth (1.50%)

Money's Worth (55.30%)

Interest in CTP Labor Assistance (N = 267)

“For a charge that depends on the number of trees or shrubs purchased, would you be very interested, somewhat interested, or not at all interested in assistance at preparing the site, planting, weed control, watering, and replanting dead trees and shrubs.”

Very Interested (30.30%)Somewhat Interested (23.60%)

Not Interested (46.10%)

Information on Internet Would be Helpful

No (47.70%)Yes (52.30%)

Would be Interested in Placing Orders on the Internet (N=215)

No (15.60%)

Yes (84.40%)

Survey of General Landowner Population Methods

Three wave mail survey of 532 landowners from Kansas Agricultural Statistics Service lists– Deliverable surveys = 1246– Response rate = 43%

Telephone survey of 205 metro adjacent “Rural Route” residents as listed by telephone directory– Contacts = 297– Response rate = 69%

698 completions after screening for those who did not own both their home and lot (important for CTP decision-making).

Using 95% confidence level, margin of error = +/-3.7%

Awareness of CTP WithinRegion of State

90% 78% 77%

Percentage Purchasing CTP Plants Within Each Region (N=272)

59% 36% 34%

Demographics of General Landowner Population: Non Purchasers and Purchasers Analyzed Separately

39% of general landowners sample have purchased CTP trees

Household income of purchasers tends to be greater than non purchasers

Level of education tends to be much higher among purchasers than non purchasers

The mean and median sizes of agricultural operations tends to be much higher among purchasers than non purchasers

Plan to Purchase CTP Plants Within the Next Five Years (N=427, non purchasers)

Yes (36.50%)

Uncertain (22.00%)

No (41.50%)

Non purchasers were read a brief description of the CTP in

order for them to have some basis for answers.

Important Reasons for Planning to Purchase CTP Plants Within the Next Five Years (N=146, non purchasers)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Provide Christmas Trees

Control Water Erosion

Improve Wildlife Habitat

Beautify the Area

Provide a Woodlot

Provide a Windbreak for a Field*

Provide a Windbreak for Livestock*

Provide a Windbreak for a House

*Results shown for those with an agricultural operation (N =127).

Reasons for Not Planning to Purchase CTP Plants Within the Next Five Years (N=166, non purchasers)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Need More Information on ProgramPurchase Plants Out of State

Purchase Plants From NurseryPlant Quality Too Low

Plant Investment Too RiskyToo Long for Plants to Grow

Too Much MaintenanceToo Much Work to Plant

Not Enough Cost-Share AssistancePlants Cost Too Much

Do Not Need More Plants

Very similar to findings among purchasers, but slightly more concern with maintenance and risk of investment among non purchasers.

Perceived Value of CTP Plants (N= 427, non purchasers)

Very similar to purchasers

More Than Worth (37.30%)

Less Than Worth (2.50%)

Money's Worth (60.20%)

Interest in CTP Labor Assistance (N=146, non purchasers)

Larger percentage with an interest (72%) than among purchasers (54%)

Very Interested (25.74%)

Somewhat Interested (45.54%)

Not Interested (28.71%)

Survey of Agency Personnel Methods

Two wave mail survey of 276 agency personnel

Contacts = 349 Response rate = 79%

“In general, are you satisfied with…?”

0% 20%40%60%80%100%

Quality of KFS CTP Services

Quality of Own Agency's Services

Quality of CTP Plants

DK

No

Yes

An open-ended follow up to those expressing dissatisfaction with quality of plants shows that by far the majority of complaintsinvolve poor quality of red cedar right now.

Summary Purchasers of CTP plants tend to be of

higher socioeconomic status than non purchasers surveyed and the population of Kansas in general.

Level of CTP awareness is quite high (80%) among general landowner population; highest rate of awareness is in the Plains.

More than half (61%) of landowners have purchased CTP plants; higher rate of purchasing in the Plains

Satisfaction with the CTP plants and program aspects are quite high.

Summary Continued…

Most (65%) of purchasers expect to purchase again within next five years.

Over a third (37%) of non purchasers would consider purchasing within next five years.

By far the most common reason for not expecting to purchase is lack of need for more plants.

A solid majority feel that people get their money’s worth or more in CTP plants.

About half of all respondents would benefit from CTP information delivered via the web, and about 85% of those would place orders via the web.

Some Actions Taken by KFS Encourage private contractors to offer planting

assistance Encourage increased governmental cost share Working with nurseries to solve eastern red cedar

problem Keep prices low Develop website ordering capabilities Implement new web address: www.kansasforests.org capitalize on strengths of program in marketing efforts

The Docking Institute of Public AffairsCenter for Survey Research

Fort Hays State University600 Park StreetHays, Kansas 67601

785-628-5881www.fhsu.edu/docking