Socio-Economics and Technology Transfer:

Summary

SRS-4158 TAV SynthesisSeptember 11, 2012 - Atlanta

Topics Defined

Socio-economics ◦The societal and economic aspects of

managing and restoring longleaf pine ecosystems

Technology transfer◦Dispersing information to a wide range of

clients

Social Issues: what to addressFire and smoke

◦ Educate the public about LLP advantages◦ Emphasize differences between wildfire and prescribed fire

Selling the message◦ Create defined strategies for landowners to address

societal issues. Products that: Promote forest management and sustainability Aid visual acceptance of management activities Validate the use of herbicides Address landowner issues with ETS Nullify LLP myths Promote the value of risk reduction: arson, poor sites,

insects Involve the skeptics – citizen monitoring of active

management sites

Economic Issues Addressing small and large landowner needs

Cost/benefit analyses of:◦Groundlayer restoration – will it be shaded out?◦Site preparation choices◦Fire vs fire surrogates (herbicides)◦Restoring a diverse system◦Multiple revenue streams

Wildlife, pine straw, tourism, carbon market◦Proper planting procedures and use of

container stock◦Stand conversion vs clearcutting

Economic Issues cont.

Developing markets and new outletso LLP economics and products compared to loblollyo Markets for • High-value niche products –flooring, paneling• Green building products, points for local production• Secondary products – wildlife, water, etc.• Invasives on LLP sites – like sand pine

• Separate grade instead of “southern pine”o Reward for wood quality

• The landowner’s perspectiveo Incentiveso Taxeso Trust fund issueso REITs, TIMOs

Technology Transfer

Publicationso Ranged from refereed journals to pamphletso A strong call for synthesis papers

Joining the 21st centuryoWebsites with links to publicationsoLinks to Wikipedia and GoogleoFacebook, Twitter, mobile apps, blogsoAlerts when new articles are postedoMake old keystone publications electronically availableoLink referenced research/study sites to geographical

locations so relevant info can be easily accessed

Technology Transfer cont.Close the loop between research and partners

◦ Workshops, tours, seminars, field days, meeting presentations◦ Meet with landowners, organizations at public meetings◦ Team with university extension, CFEOR, etc. on outreach efforts◦ Tailor outreach to specific demographics

Demo sites◦ Catalog existing federal and state sites• Tie them in to Garmin GPS• Mark with informative signs

• Use visually different approacheso Thermal images of wildfires when they reach a managed stando YouTube 360º views of managed stands

Technology Transfer cont.

Management tools◦Decision Support System (expert system)◦Habitat Assessment tool for RCW◦Information network to meet diverse objectives

of private landowners◦Region-wide database network◦Make RLGS model user-friendly

General comments/problems1. Unit does too much basic research – leave

that to the universities2. No incentives for scientists to perform

practical research and tech transfer3. All RWU research must link to NFS or

cooperator work4. DoD can’t access our website and research on

bases doesn’t make it back to field people5. Need an interpreter for the public – a scientist

and/or tech transfer specialist6. Hard to search our websites for publications

Pearls of Wisdom

Economics comes down to what people value: if they understand the benefits, they can assign a value

Research is less appreciated if you can’t relate it to the public in an understandable mannerWe are not advocates: rather, we factually inform the public