Who has my back (forty)?: Forest landowners and trust in the Maritime Provinces of Canada

Who has my back (forty)?: Forest landowners and trust in the Maritime Provinces of Canada | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Who has my back (forty)?: Forest landowners and trust in the Maritime Provinces of Canada Maxwell Kerr, Thomas M. Beckley, Monica Allaby This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094850/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Forest landowners in the three Maritime Provinces of Canada number of 80,000 and own/steward roughly 40% of the land base. A majority of forest owners require external help to identify management objectives and understand what resources and opportunities exist in their land. Often owners do not know which of several institutions might best provide advice or serve their needs. If harvests are required for any reason, owners often lack the necessary expertise and equipment to do the work themselves. They rely on foresters for advice and forest contractors to implement silviculture practices. This study analyzes data from interviews with both forest owners (n = 40) and forest and natural resource professionals (n = 29) that provide advice and services to landowners. It also includes data from four focus groups that involved 25 different individuals. Trust and mistrust between owners and foresters and contractors emerged as an important theme. Time spent developing a relationship and visiting the land are important in creating trust. Finding foresters and contractors with whom owners share values builds trust but also takes time. Impediments to trust include lack of time from one or the other party or both to invest in getting to know the land and the owner. Within organizations that provide advice, allowing owners to consistently deal with one individual with whom they have established a trusting relationship matters. forest owners foresters forest contractors industry government trust/mistrust INTRODUCTION Tens of thousands of citizens own forestland in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Forest or woodland owners consist of men, women, couples with joint ownership, residents on the land and absentee owners, blue-, white- and pink-collar workers, newer and multigenerational owners. The only variable on which landowners deviate significantly from the general population is that they tend to be slightly older. 1 Roughly 41,900 private landowners own an estimated 29% of New Brunswick’s forestland (Floyd et al., 2012 ; Nadeau et al., 2012 ), while 30,000 landowners own 51% percent of Nova Scotia’s forests (Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, 2008 ). In Prince Edward Island (PEI), 87% of forested land is owned by 16,000 private landowners (Nadeau et al., 2005 ). 2 Together, private forest landowners, sometimes referred to as family forests or woodlot owners, own roughly five million hectares of forest across the Maritime provinces (Allaby, 2022 ). These landowners vary dramatically in their reasons for owning the land as well as their future intentions for what activities may transpire on the land. Most of these individuals do not understand forest dynamics and ecology well enough to deploy silvicultural practices tightly linked with their management objectives. Landowners often share an attachment to the land and desire to “do the right thing,” but many forest owners are unsure of who to trust when recruiting help with forest planning. Moreover, they struggle with who to trust to carry out actions specified in such plans, particularly if those plans involve active silviculture (thinning, harvesting, planting, etc.). Most forestry service providers in the region are oriented toward commercial timber harvesting of fibre products. Many owners have heard stories of previous forest mismanagement, unscrupulous contractors, hungry mills, and a forest profession that historically was trained to see trees more than forests. There exists a myriad of institutional players in place to assist landowners with timber production, yet only a minority of forest owners place financial goals or timber management at the top of their hierarchy of management goals (Nadeau et al., 2012 ). Research has shown significant portions of Maritime landowners, namely small and medium-sized woodlot owners, are less inclined toward timber harvesting and are more motivated to protect forest ecosystems, enjoy wildlife and greenspace, and preserve land for future generations (Nadeau, 2011 , Nadeau et al., 2012 ). Organizations and cooperatives do exist in the Maritimes that attempt to assist landowners in these goals, but their reach is insufficient due to financial constraints and lack of human resource capacity. Similar sentiments exist throughout North America, although some research across the continent has highlighted methods to alleviate this ingrained wariness (Butler et al., 2018 ; Burger, 1999 ; Chhetri et al., 2018 ; Erickson et al., 2002 ; Jones et al., 2001 ). RESEARCH QUESTIONS This study addresses issues of trust among private forest landowners in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Specifically, we examine trust with regard to service providers, industry, and government as potential providers of advice or services. The following research questions were chosen to clarify the situation: From which organizations do landowners currently seek help? What degree of trust/mistrust exists regarding contractors, existing natural resource professionals, and others who might provide services to woodlot owners. and if so, what is fueling that distrust? What issues fuel mistrust and what measures enhance it? STUDY LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The majority of the forest in the Maritime provinces of Canada are transitional, temperate forests that are referred to as the New England/Acadian Forest or the Wabanaki Acadian Forest (Cox et al., 2023 ). In addition to encompassing most of the forests in the Maritimes, this forest extends north into Quebec and west into New England states (Noseworthy & Beckley, 2020 ). This forest is characterized by a mix of softwood and hardwood species, over 30 tree species are native to the region. The region has seen extensive harvesting over four centuries since European settlement, with some areas likely having been harvested 4–5 times. While the forest is similar in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, the social and institutional ecosystems within these provinces is quite varied. Each have a variety of types of forestry-oriented institutions that have focused on helping landowners find contractors, market their wood, and in the last half century, access government subsidy programs for reforestation. Coops and group ventures feature prominently in Nova Scotia, and historically three woodlot owner organizations that held collective bargaining rights with the major mills. Prince Edward Island’s support system for woodlot owners is more centrally organized and orchestrated by the province. New Brunswick has a system of seven marketing boards that until recently were linked through a single NB Federation of Woodlot Owners. In addition to these, each province has a unique set of conservation organizations, watershed organizations, a community forest, and traditional ENGOs that are interested in private woodland owners and which occasionally help them steward their land. Nova Scotia has recently experimented with an umbrella organization called the Family Forest Network – a group that has attempted to pull many of the private land organizations together. New Brunswick ENGOs are increasingly reaching out and interacting with woodlot owners, offering workshops on invasive species, managing deadwood, managing for carbon, etc. The array of groups, some with province-wide mandates, others narrower in scope due to geographical boundaries, can be quite daunting to a person new to woodland ownership seeking help for a particular problem. Often woodland owners don’t know quite where to turn whether they are trying to find a harvest or silviculture contractor, or if they have a wildlife issue, they are just curious to know what is notable or worth conserving on their land. New Brunswick formally dismantled its government run forest extension service at the turn of the last century, and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have very small government-run extension branches, but their funding and staffing levels are not sufficient to deliver “boots on the ground” services to many woodland owners. LITERATURE REVIEW Issues of trust between landowners and forestry professionals are not unique to the Maritime provinces. Various studies have addressed ways to improve levels of trust. This body of research has been conducted from varying angles but historically has mostly considered how private landowners can be engaged in ways that facilitate timber harvesting (Beckley, 2025 ). Trust is not only a catalyst for cooperation, it is a prerequisite (Putnam, 1995 ). When Rickenbach, Zeuli, and Sturgess-Cleek ( 2005 ) looked at why landowners chose to join a woodlot cooperative in Wisconsin, they found that landowners associated a higher level of risk with traditional timber harvests due to misalignment of their goals with those of foresters and contractors. Woodland owners are likelier to trust information providers whose values they feel align with their own (Siegrist et al., 2000 ; Vainio et al., 2017 , Vainio et al., 2018 ). When professionals put effort into learning the preferences of the landowner, this creates stronger working relationships (Johnson et al., 2007 ). Some mistrust arises from landowners being unaware of what services are available to them (Measells et al., 2006 ). This suggests a communication barrier between forestry professionals and landowners regarding acessing programs and services. There are, however, institutional constraints like the size of the forestry workforce relative to the number of woodland owners. Funding for subsidized plan writing and silviculture treatments may also be a limiting factor. Building trust allows with landowners takes time, and often time spent on the land. This is a lengthy process, however. Staff retention is therefore important for organizations the provide services to woodland owners (Davenport et al., 2007 ). Time, over years, allows trusting relationships to evolve (Downing & Finley, 2005 ; Erickson et al., 2002 ; Kittredge, 2004 ; Koshollek et al., 2020 ; Nadeau et al., 2005 ). Gradual relationship building needs to be prioritized, although professional foresters are not trained in how to foster such relationships (Koshollek et al., 2020 ). Forestry is an activity that involves long timeframes and significant periods of inactivity, but in those slow times, relationships and connections between professionals and landowners could be maintained. Engagement via smaller initiatives is frequently required to reach a level of trust through which more substantive management actions can occur (Koshollek et al., 2020 ; Sustaining Family Forests Initiative, 2019 ). Some of these ‘smaller initiatives’ include facilitating spaces for peer-to-peer learning and communication, allowing participant-driven free conversations to take place, and ensuring landowners are capable of receiving advice unique to their land and values (Huff, 2017 ; Huff et al., 2015 ; Koshollek et al., 2020 ). This process may be lengthy due to landowners’ capacity to devote time for nurturing these relationships. People are busy, and for some landowners, namely owners of smaller and medium-sized lots, relationship-building with forest professionals is not a priority (Downing & Finley, 2005 ; Sampson & DeCoster 1997 ). Time constraints among landowners may be counter intuitive given this is a population with a larger than average number of retirees. (Koshollek et al., 2020 ; Rickenbach & Kittredge, 2009 ; Downing & Finley, 2005 , Kekacs, 2017 ). Landowners across Europe and North America often seek advice from individuals they have long-established trusting relationships with, regardless of those individuals’ forest management expertise or qualifications. Friends, family, and neighbors are often called upon when considering forestland management decisions (Kaetzel et al., 2010 ). Andrejczyk et al. ( 2016 ) found that the prominent theme shared by landowners participating in their focus groups was self-actualization, i.e. conjuring a sense of belonging and fulfilling meaning to their life via their relationship to their the land. A fundamental component of self-actualization is family; there is a legacy they wish to continue (Andrejczyk et al., 2016 ). Most landowners are not driven by timber harvesting, and there is a tendency among owners to view foresters as timber-oriented (Jones et al., 1995 ). This perceived difference in values can impede trust building. This is especially true when landowners have people in their lives who intrinsically understand, and often share, their values. If they believe encouraging timber production is the underlying goal of foresters as opposed to conservation or ecological concerns, it is natural that trust will be more difficult to establish (Allaby, 2022 ; Hull et al., 2004 ; Kekacs, 2017 ). If foresters recommend partial harvests or other active silvicultural activities, this may raise the suspicion of ecologically-minded landowners interested in better recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, etc. Some contracts are written up in a way that gives foresters a percentage of the stumpage value, potentially incentivizing foresters to prescribe a larger harvest (Hitch et al., 2004 ). Nonetheless, there is evidence showing the number of positive relationships between foresters and forest landowners is increasing (Hull et al., 2004 ). Forestry companies have attempted to improve their reputation and reduce landowner hesitancy to engage by avoiding a ‘stereotypical’ appearance (flannel shirts and dirty jeans) and prioritizing tidiness. As well, foresters are being trained to use more dignified language and less forestry jargon in an attempt to enhance trust in their relationships with owners (Hull et al., 2004 ; Wyatt et al., 2011 ). Another factor that may contribute to the disconnect between landowners and forestry professionals is the increasing number of absentee landowners (Jones et al., 1995 ; Sorice et al., 2018 ). If owners only infrequently visit their land, it may be more difficult to schedule times when they can meet forestry professionals on the land in question. Seeing the land together and discussing goals and objectives and likes and dislikes on site can be key to establishing a common understanding. There is sometimes an assumption that absentee owners are less connected to their land but there is mounting evidence to the contrary (Allaby, 2022 ; Bergsten & Keskitalo, 2019, Beckley, 2025 ). Allaby ( 2022 ) found through interviews of landowners across the Maritime Provinces of Canada that absenteeism heightened some landowner’s attachments. One root cause of trust issues between landowners and forestry professionals is a lack of understanding of what service providers’ actual intentions are due to the language they use (Andrejczyk et al., 2016 ; Jamison & Muth, 2022 ). Surveys of woodlot owners sometimes receive low participation rates due to fear of misconception that “the government” wants to know about owners’ land and their intentions for it (Gwin & Pomeroy, 2015 ). Mistrust of government, and a related unwillingness to surrender autonomy in decision-making are major contributing factors to landowners’ hesitancy to engage in government programs with government sponsored or subsidized programs (Christian et al., 2013 ; Mitchell, 2001 ; Molnar et al., 2000 ). Allaby ( 2022 ) found that “landowners struggle to find forest professionals who listen properly and implement their vision for the forest; however, they also described difficulty finding contractors who have the proper equipment and training, especially with regards to doing “lighter-touch harvesting” (Allaby, 2022 :100). Many feel their desire to foster natural and healthy forests is impeded by a lack of trustworthy contractors who have equipment suitable for non-clearcut silviculture practices. Landowners foster relationships with people, not organizations, but how does that manifest regarding where landowners in the Maritimes are seeking advice and assistance? Surveys conducted by the Maritime Provinces looking at private forest landowners help contextualize the qualitative data that we present later. For example, A snapshot of New Brunswick non-industrial forest owners in 2011 found that 72% of the landowners who might harvest in the next decade would prefer themselves or a family member conduct the harvesting, and 8% said they would hire a crew that the landowner would then supervise (Nadeau et al., 2012 ). Of the 34% of respondents that had worked with loggers in the last decade, 34% were completely satisfied with the result, 39% were not entirely satisfied but would still recommend their services, and 24% were not satisfied whatsoever. Of those who had not had any harvesting conducted in the last decade, 18% said it was due to hearing other people’s negative experiences, and 17% said it was due to not being able to find a trustworthy crew. Only 13% of landowners surveyed had undertaken or were in the process of developing a formal forest management plan and the majority of those that had were owners of large parcels (100 + ha) and/or multiple woodlots. Another 25% expressed interest in having a plan created. In the last ten years, 85% of New Brunswick landowners had not received financial support from either the provincial government or the provincial forest product marketing boards (Nadeau et al., 2012 ). Landowners and the silviculture contractors that might do work on their land may often have different goals and values, or they may differ on the means to achieving goals, particularly around harvesting timber. However, landowners are not only hesitant to engage industry representatives. New Brunswick forest landowners are hesitant to collaborate on shared management initiatives at a rate of three to one (Nadeau et al., 2012 ). Money is quite a polarizing factor in incentivizing individuals to trust industry on their land. Half (50%) of respondents said they were unlikely to accept government funding for forest management activities if the tradeoff was the trees must be harvested once they were mature. When asked if they would accept management services from a forest products company in return for lumber sales, 62% said that was unlikely. Financial incentives do not act as an immediate trust-building tactic (Nadeau et al., 2012 ). Similar forest landowner surveys were conducted in Prince Edward Island (PEI) in 2002 and 2009. This revealed some trends with regard to trust (Nadeau et al., 2005 ; Nadeau et al., 2012 ). In 2009, a majority (53%) of respondents had no interest in management plans, a 6% decrease from 2002. Independent contractors were hired to do the harvesting on 32% of the harvested private woodlots, while 52% were conducted by the landowner or a family member. Nearly half (45%) of PEI woodlot owners had experience with logging contractors, with 50% totally satisfied and 19% unsatisfied. Looking specifically at where the PEI landowners are likely to seek advice, 69% said yes to a PEI Forest Service technician, followed by logging contractors (26%), family members (22%), and private consultants (19%). They also rated talking with foresters as the most useful group with the potential to assist owners, followed by logging contractors, then members in a landowner group. Only 1% of PEI private woodland owners are members of landowner organizations as of 2009, but 39% said they would consider it. METHODS This study is based on interviews with forest landowners in the Maritime Provinces of Canada and professionals from various institutions that provide services to those owners. Interviews took place during COVID-19 restrictions, and as such, we conducted all interviews via Microsoft Teams. Three different individuals conducted surveys. Most often, however, the project PI and a Masters student was both involved in conducting these interviews. Interviews lasted 45 to 90 minutes. The interviews were semi-structured, which allowed researchers to get desired information on core themes. Respondents were also encouraged to elaborate and add observations they felt were relevant to our research goals. Our interviews fall broadly into two categories; resource professionals that interact with forest owners and private forest owners themselves. In both cases, we used purposive sampling to identify respondents. With resource professionals we were concerned with selecting respondents that represent a variety of institutions (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Our list of potential interviewees evolved once we commenced conducting interviews. With professional respondents, we originally intended to only select staff from marketing boards, cooperatives, environmental non-government organizations and watershed associations. It became clear, however, that to fully capture the players in the woodlot policy and management system, we also needed to include government officials (4 individuals) and industry representatives (3 individuals) that buy wood and sell services to forest landowners. We mostly used our personal networks to identify appropriate individuals, including several who are actively involved in our research partnership. In total, in the professional category, there were 29 interviews that involved 32 individuals. With forest landowners we were looking for diversity in the sample relative to province, absentee versus resident owners, and a host of demographic variable including age, gender, education, language group, etc. We sought landowners that we felt were thoughtful and engaged with their forest. That is, landowners who we felt could spend an hour in thoughtful conversation about their goals, their forest values and their experience with stewardship. We also sought individuals with a wide range of forest experience and knowledge. Altogether we interviewed 45 individuals in 40 separate interviews.Seven of our landowner respondents have professional forest credentials and work in the sector. Fourteen were retired and many retirees have turned woodland management into a post-employment vocation. The remaining owners included engineers, publishers, financial planners, insurance agents, ENGO staff, social workers, unemployed individuals and more. The average age of respondents was 56 years, with a range of age 26 to 78. The average size of land holding was 244 acres (99ha), with a range of 32 to 2000 acres. The average length of tenure was 17.5 years. With forest landowners we collected data until we reached saturation (Bowen, 2008 ; Marshall et al., 2013 ). There was diversity in forest values and forest uses. People had quite different ideas about their objectives and things they would encourage versus things they would not allow (or as we described them, “red lines”). By the fortieth interview, we were not obtaining a lot of new insight. With professional respondents, the interviews were more variable and questions were sometimes specific to their institutional affiliation. We did not achieve saturation within all the different categories of professionals, but we achieved significant scope in perspectives and positions. Finally, some material was drawn from four focus groups. Each lasted about 90 minutes and consisted of between 6–7 participants. One focus group was held virtually with landowners from PEI. The other three were in person, two conducted in New Brunswick, and one in Nova Scotia. In both New Brunswick focus groups, at least one individual joined online via Microsoft Teams). We had a diverse group of woodlot owners belonging to different age groups, professional backgrounds, and gender. Overall, in the 4 focus group interviews, we had 25 participants, 7 females and 18 males, with ages ranging from 30s to 80s. Transcripts of the focus groups were transcribed for later analysis. This study required approval by the Research Ethics Board at the University of New Brunswick. Participants were assigned a code for privacy protection. Codes are replicated in the results section. Acronyms were used to distinguish interviews conducted between representatives from watershed groups (WS), woodland groups (WG), conservation organizations (CO), government (GV), industry (IN), focus groups (FG), as well as woodland owners (WO). They also include the province where the participant’s forest land or profession is located and a two-digit number (e.g., NS01). We also removed any information that could identify participants, such as their name, the exact location of their woodlands, or their professional affiliation to protect their identity. RESULTS In our interviews and focus groups with forest landowners and institutional players in the woodland sector the topic of trust surfaced numerous times. A common thread was the notion that relationships are formed person-to-person, regardless of institutional affiliations. (GV-PEI1; WG-NS2). Given the difficulty in growing such relationships, once a healthy, trusting rapport is established between a landowner and a forester or contractor, there is an inclination to stick with them regardless of their affiliation. When we talked to [], the forester at [] he had the same values that we did, he felt that he did, we felt that his value system personally was as much aligned with us as anyone could be. So, if we were going to have somebody come onto our land we wanted to have somebody who personally felt the same way about things. Yeah, not necessarily because of- I mean I’m sure [] or any one of the other ones would have come in and done what we wanted, it was more a sense of we weren't sure what we wanted, right, we wanted to have somebody who was making the decisions who felt the same way we did about things (WO-NS4). Advice is also sought from friends and family; relationships that carry love and trust even if sometimes those providing advice lack ecological or forestry expertise (WO-NS 13; FG-NS-3; FG-NS-1). Often advice is provided by someone familiar as well, using a forester who was a friend first (FGNS-01). This dynamic allows a fluidity between the forester and the landowner. The professional providing advice must establish an understanding of the landowner’s desires and comfort levels (WO-NB 11, WO-NS 13, WO-PEI 5). Relationships take more than a single interaction to develop. It takes several back-and-forth exchanges of ideas before trust grows. It also requires a common understanding of the woodlot in its present condition and its future potential. However, many landowners, primarily owners of smaller parcels, need work done so infrequently that a paradox forms. Investing the necessary time as a forest manager to gain trust when time is such a precious commodity and smaller landowners are only looking for work or advice once a decade, or longer, can present a problem in forming long-term relationships. (CO-NB3, WG-NS5, FG-PEI-4, FG-NB2-6, FG-NB1-01). Woodlot owners of small and medium-sized properties are often nervous about the equipment needed to conduct harvesting. Most contractors in the region are set up for clear cutting, and many woodlot owners prefer less intensive harvesting practices, if any. Owners raised concerns regarding the excessive damage that large-scale machinery may cause to their land (WO-NB 19, WO-NB 10, WO-NB 6/7, FG-NS-5, FG-NS-07, FG-NB2-5, FG-NB1-3). Many landowners are comfortable doing partial harvests of their property, but they wish for some forest to remain. Some are worried that this preference would not be respected by contractors. WO-NS11 echoed this sentiment: So, I was very concerned about clear-cutting… I didn’t want the environment for the animals to change. I didn’t want to have the soil degradation and by having clear-cutting, and then I know once you do that then you have wind damage, and you have like erosion, and you have other problems, so I made it very clear…, but what was really important to me was that we managed it in a way that was sustainable and small-scale as possible. Some owners of smaller woodlots expressed a preference for small-scale harvests on their land but they were unable to secure a contractor because it would not be worth the cost of bringing the machinery to the land (WO-NB19; WO-NB8/9; FG-NS-5). WO-NB8/9 felt that small-scale commercial harvesting is a rare occurrence. But the reality is, you know, other than what I do myself, there is no such thing as a small-scale commercial harvest, right, like for a contractor to come set their foot on the property is probably $ 1,000 to move their equipment. And, you know, if I said, well, I want you to take out every tenth tree here, right, they’d laugh….. Many silvicultural practices in the region are subsidized by government due to the lengthy timelines for such practices to provide a return on investment. Planting and precommercial thinning is subsidized with the rationale that a given owner may not live long enough to see a return from those activities, but industry and society benefit from the renewal of the forest (or at least a tree crop). Historically, this has meant favouring commercial softwood species over other tree species. Financial incentive programs highlight conflicting ideals and intentions regarding forest management tactics between landowners and policymakers (Allaby, 2022 ; Davis & Fly, 2010 ; Kittredge, 2004 ). Financial incentive programs do not appeal to the landowners who presently do not prioritize capital gain (WO-NB12). In New Brunswick, landowners have expressed distrust towards their government resulting from the perception that the provincial government has been unable or unwilling to enforce legislation on industrial forestry interests. WO-NB13 vocalized this frustration in their interview: I mean, they had legislation, I don't know how much it's been bastardized but, you know, [a] primary source of supply 3 all that. Again, that's an overused phrase but you know they had legislation in place and they didn't enforce it and industry continues to walk over them. And so, the hands and feet are tied and their mouth is half taken over in those organizations because of that. There is some suspicion that the government’s programs for woodland owners may be of greater benefit to the forest industry than forest owners themselves (WO-NS5, WO-NS17). However, industrial forestry companies in New Brunswick perceive their work as management based on landowners’ objectives and values (IN-NS1, IN-NB2). Representatives from an industrial forestry company during an interview explained how they wholeheartedly believe their management efforts are meeting the satisfaction of their landowner clients. One industrial respondent claimed that their satisfaction rate is 97% (IN-NB11). This self-reported level of satisfaction by a purveyor of harvesting and silviculture services is vastly superior to the success rates reported in A snapshot of New Brunswick non-industrial forest owners in 2011 (Nadeau et al. 2012 ). This could be because woodland owners who work with this company come with an expectation of certain kinds of silviculture practices. This is the essence of the challenge with woodland owners in the region, finding professional advisors and contractors whose values and practices match well with the owners’ objectives. Several woodlot cooperatives in Nova Scotia place emphasis on trust building efforts with landowners (WG-NS2, WG-NS3, WG-NS4). They designate time to meet in person, either walking through the landowner’s woodland property or showing the landowner examples of work they have previously undertaken (WG-NS2, WG-NS4). As well, staff from cooperatives acknowledge the landowners’ drive to ‘do the right thing’ (WG-NS2, WG-NS3, WG-NS4, WG-NS5). There is an awareness that the language use can help foster trust, veering away from anything that could be considered coercion: There's a few people I know that have come in recently that were approached by [mill name] when it was running and [] and [] had all approached them and they ended up going with us because they had some inclination about honesty and like the other ones were telling them things that weren't quite right. …after two or three years, they finally joined with [us] because they said … ‘You guys basically didn't try to pressure us in and you didn't lie, you just asked if you could look at the forest for us…. They’re now [co-op] members with us so there's a lot of dynamics and stories, but I think trust and respect is probably the biggest one. (WG-NS4) Honest language benefits the Nova Scotian woodland owner cooperatives, and so does a realistic approach to how long building trust takes (FG-NB2-6). As a result, many market-oriented and mixed-value landowners have placed trust in them. Multiple landowners expressed issues with previous work done on their land by contractors already aligned with mills but were pleased with the advice and subsequent work done by cooperatives’ managers and contractors (WO-NS4, WO-NS13, WO-NS16, WO-NS18). They appreciated that their values aligned, that they were supporting local industry, and that they were recommended via word-of-mouth (WO-NS4, WO-NS13). Several of the seven Forest Products Marketing Boards in New Brunswick feel their ability to facilitate trusting relationships with landowners is dependent on their budget (WG-NB1; WG-NB4; WG-NB5; WG-NB6). The amount they receive from the provincial government changes periodically, and their ability to reach forest owners changes accordingly (WG-NB1). Smaller woodland owners coming to marketing boards for advice on harvesting their land are sometimes not passed on to contractors because it is often uneconomical to build a road and move in gear given the amount of wood available (WG-NB3, WG-NB6). Landowners approach the marketing boards but the marketing boards also reach out to landowners via cold calls. This can create a poor first impression regarding trust if landowners feel the marketing boards are simply trying to find logging chances for contractors (WG-NB6). Conservation-oriented and some mixed-value landowners have an aversion towards contractors in the Maritimes. There is a disconnect when dealing with non-timber goals, and it is amplified if there is no previous relationship with the contractor (WO-NS18, WO-PEI3, FG-NB1-01). Many landowners are concerned with keeping their forest functioning as a forest and hope to cause as little disruption as possible in achieving their woodlot goals and objectives (W-NB16, WO-NS8/9, WO-NS15, WO-NS18, WO-PEI3). It is difficult to find a contractor that aligns with these values when “we’re not training anybody to think about what is going on in the woods” (WO-NS17). However, larger industry representatives interviewed claimed high satisfaction rates (IN-NB2, WO-NS5). Some landowners are wary of contractors going door to door offering unsolicited advice or waving a hefty lump sum of cash under a landowner’s nose in an attempt to entice them to clear cut the land (WO-NB1, IN-NB1, FGNS-03). This approach neglects a trust building process and often results in landowners feeling scammed, confused or it makes them unwilling to consider any harvesting (WO-NS2, WO-NS3, WO-NS15). Four focus groups revealed similar themes related to trust. Participants shared their frustration in being unable to find trustworthy forest management advice (FG-NS-4) or contractors that do smaller harvests or non-timber management (FG-NS-5, FG-PEI-3, FG-NB1-1). The landowners are instead drawn to advice from family, friends, and neighbours not only because it is a relationship founded on years of trust, there is no attempt to make a profit causing a “financially unstable situation” (FG-NS-1). Landowners are uneasy dealing with unknown contractors who have an interest in making a profit from the landowner’s woodland. (FGNS-07, FG-NS-4, FG-NS-1, FG-PEI-4) The unease is amplified if their approach is showing up at the landowner’s door with an offer prepared (FG-NS-3, FG-NS-7, FG-NB1-1). A forester for one of the forest cooperatives in Nova Scotia spoke to this during their interview: …having the first interaction that most landowners have with a contractor that's there to offer the money to harvest wood is a problem. That there is no way to lead them in or no concerted effort to lead them into a successful path to meet their values or aspirations from the outset. They only wind up bumping into somebody like me after that initial harvest has taken place and they either have had a bad experience or follow up and do what should have been done previously. (CO-NB7) Contractors know fluctuating market prices and wholesale options and outlets much better than the average woodlot owner. Also, previous negative experiences or hearing stories about unscrupulous contractors impedes trust with new contractors. There was a story about contractors being careless with property boundaries and crossing the property lines to cut trees beyond what was prescribed (FG-NB2-3, FG-NB2-5, FG-NB2-6). One landowner provided context to why they believed contractors act the way they do in the Maritimes: …they have got this hangover from the 80s and 90s and 2000s when there was federal development money and there was lots of opportunity to do different stuff then. But when the federal money dried up and the provincial budget was cut back considerably, and it's fairly modest now, and they fell into this regime, I guess what’s called chasing clearcuts, where there was a lot of land being clear cut (FG-PEI-5). There was praise for several forestry industry professionals and acknowledgement that it is a unique relationship dynamic that takes considerable time and energy to foster trust (FG-PEI-4, FG-NB2-6, FB-NB1-7). Curiously, for each province there was an individual forest professional that the focus group participants praised as highly trustworthy for aligning closer to their values. Several contributors acknowledge that most contractors they have had discussions with can be trusted but everything should be taken with a grain of salt, and the advice does not need to be accepted wholly. Landowners that harvest and intend to harvest in the future are usually still concerned about maintaining a healthy, productive forest. However, given that their values align closer to the contractors available they generally spoke more favorably of them (WO-NS1, WO-NS16, WO-NS18). In Nova Scotia, these landowners showed varying levels of trust towards woodland owner co-ops, with some praising cooperatives for carving a learning path for alternative treatments, even though, in the woodland owner’s words they are “not an environmentalist” (WO-NS18). Even the owners of large parcels had reservations about working with some of the industrial forestry companies based on their reputation and knowledge imbalances between the owner and contractor regarding the true value of the wood harvested (WO-NS18). DISCUSSION This study examines the role trust plays in garnering satisfactory management support for non-industrial forest landowners on their land in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Data was collected from interviews with both landowners and industry professionals that outlined understandings of their role, how they fit in the bigger picture, and their interactions with various other players in the sector. Most landowners are well-motivated to ‘do the right thing’ but often do not know how to translate those intentions into specific management actions on their land. What “the right thing” is looks different to different categories of landowner. All landowners fall somewhere along a continuum between being conservation focused (with no interest in harvesting timber) to being primarily interested in harvesting and income from selling fibre products. Most, however, wish to derive a balance between a variety of values from their land. Relationships matter. There exists a need for trust in frequent and ongoing relationships that involve natural resource professionals and landowners seeking advice. The stakes are even higher when market transactions are involved. In such situations, there are often more than two players involved – a landowner (or co-owners), a forester that might write a plan or make a prescription, and a third party that might carry out the work. For satisfactory outcomes for all, there likely needs to be clear communication and a certain level of trust between all the parties. Given many woodland owners’ desire to “do the right thing,” it is also important for them to trust advisors that may occur in less of a market context. The results of this research illustrate challenges in relationships between landowners and forest service providers in the Maritimes due in part to the difficulty in matching like-minded service providers and landowners. The data from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and PEI suggest that many landowners opt for advice from familiar sources like friends and family regardless of knowledge or qualifications because shared values in these relationships are already well established (Siegrist et al., 2000 ; Vainio et al., 2017 , Vainio et al., 2018 ). Landowners’ preferences to accept advice from friends and family members should make trust building high on the list of priorities for service providers to woodland owners (Kaetzal et al., 2010). Some trust issues can be resolved with communication channels for institutional players helping landowners’ with non-timber goals, such as informal events (Huff, 2017 ), and workshops that provide adequate time for participants to receive advice tailored to them rather than attend typical presentation-heavy workshops put on by resource professionals (Koshollek et al., 2020 ). The three distinct “social ecosystems” around private land forestry in the three Maritime provinces are rooted in a past where timber values dominated policy development. Selling wood is not as high a priority for many owners as it once was but the institutional response to this gradual values change has been slow (Allaby, 2022 ; Hull et al., 2004 , Nadeau et al., 2012 ). There are a variety of organizations that may have the expertise to advise landowners on non-timber goals such as wildlife, invasive species, ecological diversity and forest health, water quality and carbon, but these groups are mostly project-funded and do not have the capacity to do direct outreach to or respond to all advice requests from interested owners. Furthermore, these organizations do not have much history of reaching out to landowners to provide advice or services. For example, the mandate of nature trusts or the Nature Conservancy Canada (which has a regional office for the Atlantic Canada), has historically involved taking ownership of properties. Recently, some of these groups have begun to build capacity to create relationships with owners around stewardship concerns whether or not such interaction may ultimately lead to a donation or sale of land. Still, these types of organizations typically do not have extensive resources to do outreach and to run programming on sustainable forest management for landowners. If owners know what resources are available, and who is providing them, they can more readily find individual and institutions that share their values. With shared values, the prospect for trusting relationships increases, and when trusting relationships are in place, owners are more likely to act on advice and undertake various kinds of work on their land. (Andrejczyk et al., 2016 ; Gwin & Pomeroy, 2015 ). Our interview results confirm that there is a broad spectrum of goals held by the tens of thousands of forest landowners in the Maritimes. Consequently, these owners have varying levels of interest in having active timber management undertaken on their land. Maritimers across the political spectrum accept subsidies for silviculture work but simultaneously have some skepticism of government motives due to the historical context of putting industrial forestry first (Parenteau, 2013 ). With the woodland sector, governments have used financial incentives in an effort to ensure a sustainable supply of fiber coming from private land. If landowners and contractors are collaborating on thinning, planting, etc. and those activities are subsidized with taxpayer funds, one would think it might make relationship building easier. But most private forest landowners across the Maritimes report that conservation values are more important to them than financial return (Nadeau, 2011 ; Nadeau et al., 2012 ). Studies from other jurisdictions confirm that landowners do not own their plots primarily for capital gain (Jones et al, 2001 ; Hull et al, 2004 , Rabotyagov & Lin, 2013 ). There is an assumption on behalf of some policymakers that woodland owners are motivated primarily by commodity-oriented values (Andrejczyk et al., 2016 ; Bliss, 2000 ). If the initial interaction most landowners have with contractors is when the contractors arrive at their door offering money to harvest wood, this may raise issues of trust. If a landowner’s perception of contractors is that they strictly are motivated by profit, and that financial returns are not at the top of the landowner’s objectives, it can be difficult for the two parties to find common ground. Previous research has demonstrated forest landowners in the Maritimes hold conservation values in high regard (Nadeau et al., 2012 Nadeau, 2011 ). With this comes concern regarding overharvesting and clear-cutting, and the subsequent impacts these activities could have on their forests. Landowners from our sample typically strive to make informed, conscious and conscientious land management decisions that mitigate ecological harm and foster healthy forests. Contractors in the region are mostly built for speed, efficiency and maximum return (read clear cutting). This makes many landowners wary. They would prefer slow, careful work with appropriately-sized equipment, especially holders of smaller parcels of land. If they cannot find foresters to advise such action or contractors to undertake it, the least risk option is often to do nothing. Allaby ( 2022 :100) highlighted this, stating “Landowners struggle to find forest professionals who listen properly and implement their vision for the forest; however, they also described difficulty finding contractors who have the proper equipment and training, especially with regards to doing lighter-touch harvesting”. Forest landowners interests can extend beyond tree and fibre management, and can include aesthetics, protecting rare species, conservation of habitat, hunting, and occasionally non-timber products such as mushrooms, maple products, etc. With the exception of aesthetics (owners likely know what they like and don’t like in terms of visual appeal), advice from professionals can likely help owners enhance these other values. As well, many of these values may co-exist simultaneously. Conversely, in a context where it is difficult to find non-clearcut harvesting contractors, harvesting often results in a trade-off with many of these desired values. Vainio et al. ( 2018 :15) presented similar findings, stating that “owners who had made a conservation agreement perceived environmental and forestry actors' goals as similar to theirs, trusted in them most often, and sought information from them more frequently than owners who did not have any contract.” CONCLUSION There is both diversity and cohesion in the values Maritime woodlot owners hold for their land. Owners fall along a spectrum of having purely utilitarian values for their land to deep concern with preserving land for family, the health of nature, and society. Most owners hold a complex array of values and aspirations. Matching professionals and landowners with aligned beliefs and congruent goals will help landowners obtain desirable outcomes in the stewardship of their land (Vaino et al., 2018). Successful relationships that yield active stewardship on the part of owners will create a virtuous cycle that will see landowners returning to those same professionals for additional advice or action on their land. Time is a premium for many professionals, whether foresters or contractors. They need to invest their time in such a way that it provides a financial return to them, unless they are subsidized by governments for their time. Conversely, many woodland owners are challenged to prioritize time for looking after or even investigating options for their woodland. Nurturing trust should be the very first step in any interaction between natural resource professionals and landowners. The recipe for increasing trust in the sector is to devise ways to match landowners with forest planners and contractors that are a good fit in terms of styles of forestry, values, equipment, and services offered. Currently, in the region of the Maritime Provinces of Canada, there is a quite a bit of diversity in woodland service providers, including nature-based interest groups, nature trusts, watershed groups, woodland owner cooperatives, marketing boards, government, and the forest industry. Woodland owners may have reasons to trust or distrust actors affiliated with these institutions, but often they do not know which institution might best serve their needs. Even when they do, they need to find individuals within those institutions whom they trust. The owners of private forests, the forests themselves, and society at large could all benefit from more professional expertise being applied to the 40% of Maritime forests owned by roughly 90,000 private owners. The challenge is to align such owners with the most appropriate service providers so that all actors in the sector benefit. Declarations Funding for this research was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant number 890-2019-0044). The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The research underwent an Ethics Review through the University of New Brunswick’s Research Ethics Board. All research participants were provided an information packet and consent letter and we received consent from all interviewees. Author Contribution MK lead the data analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript text.TB participated in 80% of the interviews, and had an equal contribution to the manuscript text.MA lead and participated in all of the landowner interviews. All authors reviewed the manuscript Acknowledgement We would like to thank our research respondents, both landowners and natural resource professionals, for participating in this study. We also thank Daniel Nunes, who co-conducted the interviews with natural resource professionals and Piyushi Sharman who organized and helped facilitate the four focus groups. We would also like to thank the institutional and individual partners in the project Partnership for Acadian Forest Restoration on Private Land in the Maritimes. References Allaby, M (2022) The life of the land: The stewardship experiences of forest landowners in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. MSc. Thesis. Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick. Andrejczyk, K, Butler, B J, Tyrrell, M L, & Langer, J (2016) Hansel and Gretel walk in the forest, landowners walk in the woods: A qualitative examination of the language used by family forest owners. Journal of Forestry , 114(1):52-57. Beckley, T M (2025) What’s love got to do with it?: Theorizing emotional attachments to land through the concept of terraphilia. Society and Natural Resources. [issue and page numbers pending]. Bergstén, S, Keskitalo, E C H (2019) Feeling at home from a distance? How geographical distance and non-residency shape sense of place among private forest owners. Society & Natural Resources , 32(2):184–203. Bliss, J C (2000) Public perceptions of clearcutting. Journal of Forestry , 98(12):4-9. Bowen, G A (2008) Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research , 8(1):137–152. Burger, J M (1999) The foot­in­the­door compliance procedure: A multiple­process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 3(4):303–325. Butler, B J, Butler, S M, Dennings, K, & Knoot, T G (2018). What influences whether family forest owners participate in outreach campaigns? The Journal of Extension , 56(7):1. Chhetri, S G, Gordon, J S, Munn, I A, & Henderson, J E (2018) Factors influencing the use of consulting foresters by non-industrial private forest landowners in Mississippi. The Forestry Chronicle , 94(3):254-259. Christian, C S, Fraser, R, & Diop, A (2013) African-American land loss and sustainable forestry in the Southeast: An analysis of the issues, opportunities, and gaps. The Journal of Extension , 51(6):3. Cox, E, Beckley, T M, & de Graaf, M (2023) Carbon sequestration and storage implications of three forest management regimes in the Wabanaki-Acadian Forest: A review of the evidence. Environmental Reviews , 32(1):1-15. Davenport, M. A., Anderson, D. H., Leahy, J. E., & Jakes, P. J. (2007). Reflections from USDA Forest Service employees on institutional constraints to engaging and serving their local communities. Journal of Forestry , 105(1):43-48. Davis, M L E S, & Fly, J M (2010) Do you hear what I hear?: Better understanding how forest management is conceptualized and practiced by private forest landowners. Journal of Forestry , 108(7):321–328. Downing, A K, & Finley, J C (2005) Private forest landowners: What they want in an educational program. The Journal of Extension , 43(1):14. Erickson, D L, Ryan, R L, & De Young, R (2002) Woodlots in the rural landscape: landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case study. Landscape and Urban Planning , 58(2-4):101-112. Floyd, D W, Ritchie, R, Rotherham, T (2012) New approaches for private woodlots: Reframing the forest policy debate. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources. http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/232019 Glaser, B, & Strauss, A (2017) Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Routledge. Gwin, L, & Pomeroy, A (2015) Linking agricultural landowners with payments for ecosystem services in the interior northwest: Resources for extension. The Journal of Extension , 53(4):25. Hitch, K L, Ross, W, & Masters, R (2004) Selling your timber . Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Huff, E S (2017) A national perspective on women owning woodlands (WOW) networks. The Journal of Extension , 55(2):8. Huff, E S, Leahy, J E, Hiebeler, D, Weiskittel, A R, & Noblet, C L (2015) An agent-based model of private woodland owner management behavior using social interactions, information flow, and peer-to-peer networks. PloS one , 10(11): e0142453. Hull, R B, Robertson, D P, & Buhyoff, G J (2004) “Boutique” forestry: New forest practices in urbanizing landscapes. Journal of Forestry , 102(1):14–19. Johnson, J E, Creighton, J H, & Norland, E R (2007) An international perspective on successful strategies in forestry extension: a focus on extensionists. The Journal of Extension , 45(2): 9. Jamison, A, & Muth, A B (2022) Forest Landowners and Advisor Relationships: Creating Collaborative Connections to Care Well for Forests. Society & Natural Resources , 35(8): 856–874. Jones, S B, Glover, G R, Finley, J C, Jacobson, M G, & Reed, A S (2001) Empowering private forest landowners: Lessons from Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Oregon. Journal of Forestry , 99(3):4-7. Jones, S B, Luloff, A E, & Finley, J C (1995) Another look at NIPFs: Facing our “myths.” Journal of Forestry , 93(9):41–44. Kaetzel, B R, Fly, J M, & Hodges, D G (2010) Non-industrial private forest landowner use of information sources concerning management of their woodland on the Tennessee Northern Cumberland Plateau. The Journal of Extension 48(4), 19. Kekacs, A (2017) Gifts to a Future World: Conversations with Woodland Owners in Nova Scotia. MSc. Thesis, School or Resources and Environmental Management, Dalhousie University. Kittredge, D B (2004) Extension/outreach implications for America's family forest owners. Journal of Forestry 102(7), 15-18. Koshollek, A, Thostenson, K, & Shaw, B (2020) Bridging the Gender Gap in Forest Stewardship: Facilitating Programs for Women Landowners. The Journal of Extension 58(2):17. Marshall, B, Cardon, P, Poddar, A, & Fontenot, R (2013) Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in is research. Journal of Computer Information Systems 54:11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667 Measells, M K, Grado, S C, Hughes, H G, & Dunn, M A (2006) Educational needs of southern forest landowners. The Journal of Extension 44(5):13 Mitchell, T W (2001) From reconstruction to deconstruction: undermining black landownership, political independence, and community through partition sales of tenancies in common. Northwestern University Law Review . IL: Northwestern University School of Law. Molnar, J J, Bitto, A, Brant, G, & Hoban, T (2000) Core conservation practices: Paths and barriers perceived by small and limited resource farmers. Staff paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. Nadeau, S (2011) Prince Edward Island woodlot owners: current trends regarding their forest uses, management, and values. Canadian Forest Service Information Report M-X-225E . Atlantic Forestry Centre, Fredericton, NB, Canada. Nadeau, S, Beckley, T M, McKendy, M, & Keess, H (2012) A snapshot of New Brunswick non-industrial forest owners in 2011: Attitudes, Behaviour, Stewardship and Future Prospects. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, Fredericton, NB. ISBN 978-1-55471-964-8 Nadeau, S, Short, R, & Beckley, T M (2005) The woodlot owners of Prince Edward Island: a survey of their forest use, management and values Canadian Forest Service Information report. M-X series1195-3799M-X-218E. Atlantic Forestry Centre. Fredericton, NB, Canada. Noseworthy, J, & Beckley, T M (2020). Borealization of the New England–Acadian Forest: a review of th evidence. Environmental Reviews 28(3):284-293 Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (2008) State of the Forest Report 1995- 2005: Nova Scotia Forests in Transition (FOR 2008-3) https://novascotia.ca/natr/forestry/reports/State-Of-Forest-Report-April-2008.pdf Parenteau, W M (2013) Looking backward, looking ahead: history and future of the New Brunswick forest industries. Acadiensis 42(2):92-113 Putnam, R D (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. The City Reader (pp. 188-196). Routledge Rabotyagov, S S, & Lin, S (2013) Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA. Journal of forest economics 19(3):307-330 Rickenbach, M., & Kittredge, D. B. (2009). Time and distance: comparing motivations among forest landowners in New England, USA. Small-Scale Forestry 8 : 95-108 Rickenbach, M, Zeuli, K, & Sturgess-Cleek, E (2005) Despite failure: The emergence of “new” forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 20(6):503-513. Sampson, R N, & DeCoster, L A (1997) Public programs for private forestry A reader on programs and options. Washington, DC. American Forests . Siegrist, M, Cvetkovich, G, & Roth, C (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk analysis , 20(3): 353-362 Sorice, M G, Rajala, K, & Kreuter, U P (2018) Understanding management decisions of absentee landowners: more than just presence-absence. Rangeland Ecology & Management 71(2): 159-162 Sustaining Family Forests Initiative (2019) Engaging landowners in conservation: A complete guide to designing programs and communications [PDF file] Vainio, A, Paloniemi, R, & Varho, V (2017) Weighing the risks of nuclear energy and climate change: Trust in different information sources, perceived risks, and willingness to pay for alternatives to nuclear power. Risk analysis 37(3): 557-569. Vainio, A, Paloniemi, R, & Hujala, T (2018) How are forest owners' objectives and social networks related to successful conservation? Journal of Rural Studies 62:21-28 Wyatt, S, Rousseau, M H, Nadeau, S, Thiffault, N, & Guay, L (2011) Social concerns, risk and the acceptability of forest vegetation management alternatives: Insights for managers. The Forestry Chronicle 87(2), 274-289 Footnotes Owners tend to come into ownership in middle age or older whether they have purchased land or inherited it. It is important to note that the three provinces have significantly different definitions of who constitutes a woodlot owner. In New Brunswick, the threshold is 10 ha or roughly 25 acres. In Nova Scotia, it is 4 ha, or roughly 10 acres, and in Prince Edward Island, the cut off is 1 ha, or about 2.5 acres. Primary source of supply refers to a policy in existence from 1982 to 1993 in New Brunswick whereby industry had to agree to a certain volume and price for wood from private land before they could access Crown (public) wood. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 27 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 26 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 30 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Jul, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 14 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 12 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 12 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 10 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7094850","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":485867875,"identity":"7fcd0844-845a-48d3-a106-ffcc46922ed6","order_by":0,"name":"Maxwell Kerr","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Dalhousie University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maxwell","middleName":"","lastName":"Kerr","suffix":""},{"id":485867876,"identity":"e40ee967-5a9a-4af1-8a6e-b34f36083886","order_by":1,"name":"Thomas M. Beckley","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of New Brunswick","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thomas","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Beckley","suffix":""},{"id":485867877,"identity":"bbe592f0-ffa5-423c-b830-6e017a70cc5f","order_by":2,"name":"Monica Allaby","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of New Brunswick","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Monica","middleName":"","lastName":"Allaby","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-10 16:08:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094850/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094850/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":86820022,"identity":"15102e2b-f806-4f4d-8638-39b9ee5304d0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-16 02:17:25","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":407491,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7094850/v1/990b927b-b871-4b70-add7-bcaf1cfaeff3.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Who has my back (forty)?: Forest landowners and trust in the Maritime Provinces of Canada","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eTens of thousands of citizens own forestland in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Forest or woodland owners consist of men, women, couples with joint ownership, residents on the land and absentee owners, blue-, white- and pink-collar workers, newer and multigenerational owners. The only variable on which landowners deviate significantly from the general population is that they tend to be slightly older.\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e Roughly 41,900 private landowners own an estimated 29% of New Brunswick’s forestland (Floyd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), while 30,000 landowners own 51% percent of Nova Scotia’s forests (Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). In Prince Edward Island (PEI), 87% of forested land is owned by 16,000 private landowners (Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e Together, private forest landowners, sometimes referred to as family forests or woodlot owners, own roughly five million hectares of forest across the Maritime provinces (Allaby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese landowners vary dramatically in their reasons for owning the land as well as their future intentions for what activities may transpire on the land. Most of these individuals do not understand forest dynamics and ecology well enough to deploy silvicultural practices tightly linked with their management objectives. Landowners often share an attachment to the land and desire to “do the right thing,” but many forest owners are unsure of who to trust when recruiting help with forest planning. Moreover, they struggle with who to trust to carry out actions specified in such plans, particularly if those plans involve active silviculture (thinning, harvesting, planting, etc.). Most forestry service providers in the region are oriented toward commercial timber harvesting of fibre products. Many owners have heard stories of previous forest mismanagement, unscrupulous contractors, hungry mills, and a forest profession that historically was trained to see trees more than forests. There exists a myriad of institutional players in place to assist landowners with timber production, yet only a minority of forest owners place financial goals or timber management at the top of their hierarchy of management goals (Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Research has shown significant portions of Maritime landowners, namely small and medium-sized woodlot owners, are less inclined toward timber harvesting and are more motivated to protect forest ecosystems, enjoy wildlife and greenspace, and preserve land for future generations (Nadeau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Organizations and cooperatives do exist in the Maritimes that attempt to assist landowners in these goals, but their reach is insufficient due to financial constraints and lack of human resource capacity. Similar sentiments exist throughout North America, although some research across the continent has highlighted methods to alleviate this ingrained wariness (Butler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Burger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Chhetri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Erickson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Jones et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRESEARCH QUESTIONS\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study addresses issues of trust among private forest landowners in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Specifically, we examine trust with regard to service providers, industry, and government as potential providers of advice or services. The following research questions were chosen to clarify the situation:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom which organizations do landowners currently seek help?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat degree of trust/mistrust exists regarding contractors, existing natural resource professionals, and others who might provide services to woodlot owners. and if so, what is fueling that distrust?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat issues fuel mistrust and what measures enhance it?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSTUDY LOCATION AND BACKGROUND\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe majority of the forest in the Maritime provinces of Canada are transitional, temperate forests that are referred to as the New England/Acadian Forest or the Wabanaki Acadian Forest (Cox et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to encompassing most of the forests in the Maritimes, this forest extends north into Quebec and west into New England states (Noseworthy \u0026amp; Beckley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This forest is characterized by a mix of softwood and hardwood species, over 30 tree species are native to the region. The region has seen extensive harvesting over four centuries since European settlement, with some areas likely having been harvested 4–5 times.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the forest is similar in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, the social and institutional ecosystems within these provinces is quite varied. Each have a variety of types of forestry-oriented institutions that have focused on helping landowners find contractors, market their wood, and in the last half century, access government subsidy programs for reforestation. Coops and group ventures feature prominently in Nova Scotia, and historically three woodlot owner organizations that held collective bargaining rights with the major mills. Prince Edward Island’s support system for woodlot owners is more centrally organized and orchestrated by the province. New Brunswick has a system of seven marketing boards that until recently were linked through a single NB Federation of Woodlot Owners. In addition to these, each province has a unique set of conservation organizations, watershed organizations, a community forest, and traditional ENGOs that are interested in private woodland owners and which occasionally help them steward their land. Nova Scotia has recently experimented with an umbrella organization called the Family Forest Network – a group that has attempted to pull many of the private land organizations together. New Brunswick ENGOs are increasingly reaching out and interacting with woodlot owners, offering workshops on invasive species, managing deadwood, managing for carbon, etc. The array of groups, some with province-wide mandates, others narrower in scope due to geographical boundaries, can be quite daunting to a person new to woodland ownership seeking help for a particular problem. Often woodland owners don’t know quite where to turn whether they are trying to find a harvest or silviculture contractor, or if they have a wildlife issue, they are just curious to know what is notable or worth conserving on their land. New Brunswick formally dismantled its government run forest extension service at the turn of the last century, and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have very small government-run extension branches, but their funding and staffing levels are not sufficient to deliver “boots on the ground” services to many woodland owners.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLITERATURE REVIEW\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIssues of trust between landowners and forestry professionals are not unique to the Maritime provinces. Various studies have addressed ways to improve levels of trust. This body of research has been conducted from varying angles but historically has mostly considered how private landowners can be engaged in ways that facilitate timber harvesting (Beckley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrust is not only a catalyst for cooperation, it is a prerequisite (Putnam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). When Rickenbach, Zeuli, and Sturgess-Cleek (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) looked at why landowners chose to join a woodlot cooperative in Wisconsin, they found that landowners associated a higher level of risk with traditional timber harvests due to misalignment of their goals with those of foresters and contractors. Woodland owners are likelier to trust information providers whose values they feel align with their own (Siegrist et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Vainio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, Vainio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). When professionals put effort into learning the preferences of the landowner, this creates stronger working relationships (Johnson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome mistrust arises from landowners being unaware of what services are available to them (Measells et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests a communication barrier between forestry professionals and landowners regarding acessing programs and services. There are, however, institutional constraints like the size of the forestry workforce relative to the number of woodland owners. Funding for subsidized plan writing and silviculture treatments may also be a limiting factor. Building trust allows with landowners takes time, and often time spent on the land. This is a lengthy process, however. Staff retention is therefore important for organizations the provide services to woodland owners (Davenport et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Time, over years, allows trusting relationships to evolve (Downing \u0026amp; Finley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Erickson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Kittredge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Koshollek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Gradual relationship building needs to be prioritized, although professional foresters are not trained in how to foster such relationships (Koshollek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Forestry is an activity that involves long timeframes and significant periods of inactivity, but in those slow times, relationships and connections between professionals and landowners could be maintained. Engagement via smaller initiatives is frequently required to reach a level of trust through which more substantive management actions can occur (Koshollek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Sustaining Family Forests Initiative, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Some of these ‘smaller initiatives’ include facilitating spaces for peer-to-peer learning and communication, allowing participant-driven free conversations to take place, and ensuring landowners are capable of receiving advice unique to their land and values (Huff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Huff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Koshollek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This process may be lengthy due to landowners’ capacity to devote time for nurturing these relationships. People are busy, and for some landowners, namely owners of smaller and medium-sized lots, relationship-building with forest professionals is not a priority (Downing \u0026amp; Finley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Sampson \u0026amp; DeCoster \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Time constraints among landowners may be counter intuitive given this is a population with a larger than average number of retirees. (Koshollek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Rickenbach \u0026amp; Kittredge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Downing \u0026amp; Finley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e, Kekacs, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLandowners across Europe and North America often seek advice from individuals they have long-established trusting relationships with, regardless of those individuals’ forest management expertise or qualifications. Friends, family, and neighbors are often called upon when considering forestland management decisions (Kaetzel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Andrejczyk et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) found that the prominent theme shared by landowners participating in their focus groups was self-actualization, i.e. conjuring a sense of belonging and fulfilling meaning to their life via their relationship to their the land. A fundamental component of self-actualization is family; there is a legacy they wish to continue (Andrejczyk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Most landowners are not driven by timber harvesting, and there is a tendency among owners to view foresters as timber-oriented (Jones et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). This perceived difference in values can impede trust building. This is especially true when landowners have people in their lives who intrinsically understand, and often share, their values. If they believe encouraging timber production is the underlying goal of foresters as opposed to conservation or ecological concerns, it is natural that trust will be more difficult to establish (Allaby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Kekacs, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). If foresters recommend partial harvests or other active silvicultural activities, this may raise the suspicion of ecologically-minded landowners interested in better recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, etc. Some contracts are written up in a way that gives foresters a percentage of the stumpage value, potentially incentivizing foresters to prescribe a larger harvest (Hitch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, there is evidence showing the number of positive relationships between foresters and forest landowners is increasing (Hull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Forestry companies have attempted to improve their reputation and reduce landowner hesitancy to engage by avoiding a ‘stereotypical’ appearance (flannel shirts and dirty jeans) and prioritizing tidiness. As well, foresters are being trained to use more dignified language and less forestry jargon in an attempt to enhance trust in their relationships with owners (Hull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Wyatt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother factor that may contribute to the disconnect between landowners and forestry professionals is the increasing number of absentee landowners (Jones et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Sorice et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). If owners only infrequently visit their land, it may be more difficult to schedule times when they can meet forestry professionals on the land in question. Seeing the land together and discussing goals and objectives and likes and dislikes on site can be key to establishing a common understanding. There is sometimes an assumption that absentee owners are less connected to their land but there is mounting evidence to the contrary (Allaby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Bergsten \u0026amp; Keskitalo, 2019, Beckley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Allaby (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) found through interviews of landowners across the Maritime Provinces of Canada that absenteeism heightened some landowner’s attachments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne root cause of trust issues between landowners and forestry professionals is a lack of understanding of what service providers’ actual intentions are due to the language they use (Andrejczyk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Jamison \u0026amp; Muth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Surveys of woodlot owners sometimes receive low participation rates due to fear of misconception that “the government” wants to know about owners’ land and their intentions for it (Gwin \u0026amp; Pomeroy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Mistrust of government, and a related unwillingness to surrender autonomy in decision-making are major contributing factors to landowners’ hesitancy to engage in government programs with government sponsored or subsidized programs (Christian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Mitchell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Molnar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Allaby (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) found that “landowners struggle to find forest professionals who listen properly and implement their vision for the forest; however, they also described difficulty finding contractors who have the proper equipment and training, especially with regards to doing “lighter-touch harvesting” (Allaby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e:100). Many feel their desire to foster natural and healthy forests is impeded by a lack of trustworthy contractors who have equipment suitable for non-clearcut silviculture practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLandowners foster relationships with people, not organizations, but how does that manifest regarding where landowners in the Maritimes are seeking advice and assistance? Surveys conducted by the Maritime Provinces looking at private forest landowners help contextualize the qualitative data that we present later. For example, \u003cem\u003eA snapshot of New Brunswick non-industrial forest owners in 2011\u003c/em\u003e found that 72% of the landowners who might harvest in the next decade would prefer themselves or a family member conduct the harvesting, and 8% said they would hire a crew that the landowner would then supervise (Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Of the 34% of respondents that had worked with loggers in the last decade, 34% were completely satisfied with the result, 39% were not entirely satisfied but would still recommend their services, and 24% were not satisfied whatsoever. Of those who had not had any harvesting conducted in the last decade, 18% said it was due to hearing other people’s negative experiences, and 17% said it was due to not being able to find a trustworthy crew. Only 13% of landowners surveyed had undertaken or were in the process of developing a formal forest management plan and the majority of those that had were owners of large parcels (100 + ha) and/or multiple woodlots. Another 25% expressed interest in having a plan created. In the last ten years, 85% of New Brunswick landowners had not received financial support from either the provincial government or the provincial forest product marketing boards (Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLandowners and the silviculture contractors that might do work on their land may often have different goals and values, or they may differ on the means to achieving goals, particularly around harvesting timber. However, landowners are not only hesitant to engage industry representatives. New Brunswick forest landowners are hesitant to collaborate on shared management initiatives at a rate of three to one (Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Money is quite a polarizing factor in incentivizing individuals to trust industry on their land. Half (50%) of respondents said they were unlikely to accept government funding for forest management activities if the tradeoff was the trees must be harvested once they were mature. When asked if they would accept management services from a forest products company in return for lumber sales, 62% said that was unlikely. Financial incentives do not act as an immediate trust-building tactic (Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilar forest landowner surveys were conducted in Prince Edward Island (PEI) in 2002 and 2009. This revealed some trends with regard to trust (Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In 2009, a majority (53%) of respondents had no interest in management plans, a 6% decrease from 2002. Independent contractors were hired to do the harvesting on 32% of the harvested private woodlots, while 52% were conducted by the landowner or a family member. Nearly half (45%) of PEI woodlot owners had experience with logging contractors, with 50% totally satisfied and 19% unsatisfied. Looking specifically at where the PEI landowners are likely to seek advice, 69% said yes to a PEI Forest Service technician, followed by logging contractors (26%), family members (22%), and private consultants (19%). They also rated talking with foresters as the most useful group with the potential to assist owners, followed by logging contractors, then members in a landowner group. Only 1% of PEI private woodland owners are members of landowner organizations as of 2009, but 39% said they would consider it.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study is based on interviews with forest landowners in the Maritime Provinces of Canada and professionals from various institutions that provide services to those owners. Interviews took place during COVID-19 restrictions, and as such, we conducted all interviews via Microsoft Teams. Three different individuals conducted surveys. Most often, however, the project PI and a Masters student was both involved in conducting these interviews. Interviews lasted 45 to 90 minutes. The interviews were semi-structured, which allowed researchers to get desired information on core themes. Respondents were also encouraged to elaborate and add observations they felt were relevant to our research goals. Our interviews fall broadly into two categories; resource professionals that interact with forest owners and private forest owners themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn both cases, we used purposive sampling to identify respondents. With resource professionals we were concerned with selecting respondents that represent a variety of institutions (Glaser \u0026amp; Strauss, 1967). Our list of potential interviewees evolved once we commenced conducting interviews. With professional respondents, we originally intended to only select staff from marketing boards, cooperatives, environmental non-government organizations and watershed associations. It became clear, however, that to fully capture the players in the woodlot policy and management system, we also needed to include government officials (4 individuals) and industry representatives (3 individuals) that buy wood and sell services to forest landowners. We mostly used our personal networks to identify appropriate individuals, including several who are actively involved in our research partnership. In total, in the professional category, there were 29 interviews that involved 32 individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith forest landowners we were looking for diversity in the sample relative to province, absentee versus resident owners, and a host of demographic variable including age, gender, education, language group, etc. We sought landowners that we felt were thoughtful and engaged with their forest. That is, landowners who we felt could spend an hour in thoughtful conversation about their goals, their forest values and their experience with stewardship. We also sought individuals with a wide range of forest experience and knowledge. Altogether we interviewed 45 individuals in 40 separate interviews.Seven of our landowner respondents have professional forest credentials and work in the sector. Fourteen were retired and many retirees have turned woodland management into a post-employment vocation. The remaining owners included engineers, publishers, financial planners, insurance agents, ENGO staff, social workers, unemployed individuals and more. The average age of respondents was 56 years, with a range of age 26 to 78. The average size of land holding was 244 acres (99ha), with a range of 32 to 2000 acres. The average length of tenure was 17.5 years.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith forest landowners we collected data until we reached saturation (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Marshall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). There was diversity in forest values and forest uses. People had quite different ideas about their objectives and things they would encourage versus things they would not allow (or as we described them, “red lines”). By the fortieth interview, we were not obtaining a lot of new insight. With professional respondents, the interviews were more variable and questions were sometimes specific to their institutional affiliation. We did not achieve saturation within all the different categories of professionals, but we achieved significant scope in perspectives and positions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, some material was drawn from four focus groups. Each lasted about 90 minutes and consisted of between 6–7 participants. One focus group was held virtually with landowners from PEI. The other three were in person, two conducted in New Brunswick, and one in Nova Scotia. In both New Brunswick focus groups, at least one individual joined online via Microsoft Teams). We had a diverse group of woodlot owners belonging to different age groups, professional backgrounds, and gender. Overall, in the 4 focus group interviews, we had 25 participants, 7 females and 18 males, with ages ranging from 30s to 80s. Transcripts of the focus groups were transcribed for later analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study required approval by the Research Ethics Board at the University of New Brunswick. Participants were assigned a code for privacy protection. Codes are replicated in the results section. Acronyms were used to distinguish interviews conducted between representatives from watershed groups (WS), woodland groups (WG), conservation organizations (CO), government (GV), industry (IN), focus groups (FG), as well as woodland owners (WO). They also include the province where the participant’s forest land or profession is located and a two-digit number (e.g., NS01). We also removed any information that could identify participants, such as their name, the exact location of their woodlands, or their professional affiliation to protect their identity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn our interviews and focus groups with forest landowners and institutional players in the woodland sector the topic of trust surfaced numerous times. A common thread was the notion that relationships are formed person-to-person, regardless of institutional affiliations. (GV-PEI1; WG-NS2). Given the difficulty in growing such relationships, once a healthy, trusting rapport is established between a landowner and a forester or contractor, there is an inclination to stick with them regardless of their affiliation.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen we talked to [], the forester at [] he had the same values that we did, he felt that he did, we felt that his value system personally was as much aligned with us as anyone could be. So, if we were going to have somebody come onto our land we wanted to have somebody who personally felt the same way about things. Yeah, not necessarily because of- I mean I\u0026rsquo;m sure [] or any one of the other ones would have come in and done what we wanted, it was more a sense of we weren't \u003cem\u003esure\u003c/em\u003e what we wanted, right, we wanted to have somebody who was making the decisions who felt the same way we did about things (WO-NS4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdvice is also sought from friends and family; relationships that carry love and trust even if sometimes those providing advice lack ecological or forestry expertise (WO-NS 13; FG-NS-3; FG-NS-1). Often advice is provided by someone familiar as well, using a forester who was a friend first (FGNS-01). This dynamic allows a fluidity between the forester and the landowner. The professional providing advice must establish an understanding of the landowner\u0026rsquo;s desires and comfort levels (WO-NB 11, WO-NS 13, WO-PEI 5). Relationships take more than a single interaction to develop. It takes several back-and-forth exchanges of ideas before trust grows. It also requires a common understanding of the woodlot in its present condition and its future potential. However, many landowners, primarily owners of smaller parcels, need work done so infrequently that a paradox forms. Investing the necessary time as a forest manager to gain trust when time is such a precious commodity and smaller landowners are only looking for work or advice once a decade, or longer, can present a problem in forming long-term relationships. (CO-NB3, WG-NS5, FG-PEI-4, FG-NB2-6, FG-NB1-01).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWoodlot owners of small and medium-sized properties are often nervous about the equipment needed to conduct harvesting. Most contractors in the region are set up for clear cutting, and many woodlot owners prefer less intensive harvesting practices, if any. Owners raised concerns regarding the excessive damage that large-scale machinery may cause to their land (WO-NB 19, WO-NB 10, WO-NB 6/7, FG-NS-5, FG-NS-07, FG-NB2-5, FG-NB1-3). Many landowners are comfortable doing partial harvests of their property, but they wish for some forest to remain. Some are worried that this preference would not be respected by contractors. WO-NS11 echoed this sentiment:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo, I was very concerned about clear-cutting\u0026hellip; I didn\u0026rsquo;t want the environment for the animals to change. I didn\u0026rsquo;t want to have the soil degradation and by having clear-cutting, and then I know once you do that then you have wind damage, and you have like erosion, and you have other problems, so I made it very clear\u0026hellip;, but what was really important to me was that we managed it in a way that was sustainable and small-scale as possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome owners of smaller woodlots expressed a preference for small-scale harvests on their land but they were unable to secure a contractor because it would not be worth the cost of bringing the machinery to the land (WO-NB19; WO-NB8/9; FG-NS-5). WO-NB8/9 felt that small-scale commercial harvesting is a rare occurrence.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut the reality is, you know, other than what I do myself, there is no such thing as a small-scale commercial harvest, right, like for a contractor to come set their foot on the property is probably \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1,000 to move their equipment. And, you know, if I said, well, I want you to take out every tenth tree here, right, they\u0026rsquo;d laugh\u0026hellip;..\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany silvicultural practices in the region are subsidized by government due to the lengthy timelines for such practices to provide a return on investment. Planting and precommercial thinning is subsidized with the rationale that a given owner may not live long enough to see a return from those activities, but industry and society benefit from the renewal of the forest (or at least a tree crop). Historically, this has meant favouring commercial softwood species over other tree species. Financial incentive programs highlight conflicting ideals and intentions regarding forest management tactics between landowners and policymakers (Allaby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Davis \u0026amp; Fly, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Kittredge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Financial incentive programs do not appeal to the landowners who presently do not prioritize capital gain (WO-NB12). In New Brunswick, landowners have expressed distrust towards their government resulting from the perception that the provincial government has been unable or unwilling to enforce legislation on industrial forestry interests. WO-NB13 vocalized this frustration in their interview:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI mean, they had legislation, I don't know how much it's been bastardized but, you know, [a] primary source of supply\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e all that. Again, that's an overused phrase but you know they had legislation in place and they didn't enforce it and industry continues to walk over them. And so, the hands and feet are tied and their mouth is half taken over in those organizations because of that.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is some suspicion that the government\u0026rsquo;s programs for woodland owners may be of greater benefit to the forest industry than forest owners themselves (WO-NS5, WO-NS17). However, industrial forestry companies in New Brunswick perceive their work as management based on landowners\u0026rsquo; objectives and values (IN-NS1, IN-NB2). Representatives from an industrial forestry company during an interview explained how they wholeheartedly believe their management efforts are meeting the satisfaction of their landowner clients. One industrial respondent claimed that their satisfaction rate is 97% (IN-NB11). This self-reported level of satisfaction by a purveyor of harvesting and silviculture services is vastly superior to the success rates reported in \u003cem\u003eA snapshot of New Brunswick non-industrial forest owners in 2011\u003c/em\u003e (Nadeau et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). This could be because woodland owners who work with this company come with an expectation of certain kinds of silviculture practices. This is the essence of the challenge with woodland owners in the region, finding professional advisors and contractors whose values and practices match well with the owners\u0026rsquo; objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral woodlot cooperatives in Nova Scotia place emphasis on trust building efforts with landowners (WG-NS2, WG-NS3, WG-NS4). They designate time to meet in person, either walking through the landowner\u0026rsquo;s woodland property or showing the landowner examples of work they have previously undertaken (WG-NS2, WG-NS4). As well, staff from cooperatives acknowledge the landowners\u0026rsquo; drive to \u0026lsquo;do the right thing\u0026rsquo; (WG-NS2, WG-NS3, WG-NS4, WG-NS5). There is an awareness that the language use can help foster trust, veering away from anything that could be considered coercion:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere's a few people I know that have come in recently that were approached by [mill name] when it was running and [] and [] had all approached them and they ended up going with us because they had some inclination about honesty and like the other ones were telling them things that weren't quite right. \u0026hellip;after two or three years, they finally joined with [us] because they said \u0026hellip; \u0026lsquo;You guys basically didn't try to pressure us in and you didn't lie, you just asked if you could look at the forest for us\u0026hellip;. They\u0026rsquo;re now [co-op] members with us so there's a lot of dynamics and stories, but I think trust and respect is probably the biggest one. (WG-NS4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHonest language benefits the Nova Scotian woodland owner cooperatives, and so does a realistic approach to how long building trust takes (FG-NB2-6). As a result, many market-oriented and mixed-value landowners have placed trust in them. Multiple landowners expressed issues with previous work done on their land by contractors already aligned with mills but were pleased with the advice and subsequent work done by cooperatives\u0026rsquo; managers and contractors (WO-NS4, WO-NS13, WO-NS16, WO-NS18). They appreciated that their values aligned, that they were supporting local industry, and that they were recommended via word-of-mouth (WO-NS4, WO-NS13).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral of the seven Forest Products Marketing Boards in New Brunswick feel their ability to facilitate trusting relationships with landowners is dependent on their budget (WG-NB1; WG-NB4; WG-NB5; WG-NB6). The amount they receive from the provincial government changes periodically, and their ability to reach forest owners changes accordingly (WG-NB1). Smaller woodland owners coming to marketing boards for advice on harvesting their land are sometimes not passed on to contractors because it is often uneconomical to build a road and move in gear given the amount of wood available (WG-NB3, WG-NB6). Landowners approach the marketing boards but the marketing boards also reach out to landowners via cold calls. This can create a poor first impression regarding trust if landowners feel the marketing boards are simply trying to find logging chances for contractors (WG-NB6).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConservation-oriented and some mixed-value landowners have an aversion towards contractors in the Maritimes. There is a disconnect when dealing with non-timber goals, and it is amplified if there is no previous relationship with the contractor (WO-NS18, WO-PEI3, FG-NB1-01). Many landowners are concerned with keeping their forest functioning as a forest and hope to cause as little disruption as possible in achieving their woodlot goals and objectives (W-NB16, WO-NS8/9, WO-NS15, WO-NS18, WO-PEI3). It is difficult to find a contractor that aligns with these values when \u0026ldquo;we\u0026rsquo;re not training anybody to think about what is going on in the woods\u0026rdquo; (WO-NS17). However, larger industry representatives interviewed claimed high satisfaction rates (IN-NB2, WO-NS5). Some landowners are wary of contractors going door to door offering unsolicited advice or waving a hefty lump sum of cash under a landowner\u0026rsquo;s nose in an attempt to entice them to clear cut the land (WO-NB1, IN-NB1, FGNS-03). This approach neglects a trust building process and often results in landowners feeling scammed, confused or it makes them unwilling to consider any harvesting (WO-NS2, WO-NS3, WO-NS15).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFour focus groups revealed similar themes related to trust. Participants shared their frustration in being unable to find trustworthy forest management advice (FG-NS-4) or contractors that do smaller harvests or non-timber management (FG-NS-5, FG-PEI-3, FG-NB1-1). The landowners are instead drawn to advice from family, friends, and neighbours not only because it is a relationship founded on years of trust, there is no attempt to make a profit causing a \u0026ldquo;financially unstable situation\u0026rdquo; (FG-NS-1). Landowners are uneasy dealing with unknown contractors who have an interest in making a profit from the landowner\u0026rsquo;s woodland. (FGNS-07, FG-NS-4, FG-NS-1, FG-PEI-4) The unease is amplified if their approach is showing up at the landowner\u0026rsquo;s door with an offer prepared (FG-NS-3, FG-NS-7, FG-NB1-1). A forester for one of the forest cooperatives in Nova Scotia spoke to this during their interview:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026hellip;having the first interaction that most landowners have with a contractor that's there to offer the money to harvest wood is a problem. That there is no way to lead them in or no concerted effort to lead them into a successful path to meet their values or aspirations from the outset. They only wind up bumping into somebody like me after that initial harvest has taken place and they either have had a bad experience or follow up and do what should have been done previously. (CO-NB7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eContractors know fluctuating market prices and wholesale options and outlets much better than the average woodlot owner. Also, previous negative experiences or hearing stories about unscrupulous contractors impedes trust with new contractors. There was a story about contractors being careless with property boundaries and crossing the property lines to cut trees beyond what was prescribed (FG-NB2-3, FG-NB2-5, FG-NB2-6). One landowner provided context to why they believed contractors act the way they do in the Maritimes:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026hellip;they have got this hangover from the 80s and 90s and 2000s when there was federal development money and there was lots of opportunity to do different stuff then. But when the federal money dried up and the provincial budget was cut back considerably, and it's fairly modest now, and they fell into this regime, I guess what\u0026rsquo;s called chasing clearcuts, where there was a lot of land being clear cut (FG-PEI-5).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere was praise for several forestry industry professionals and acknowledgement that it is a unique relationship dynamic that takes considerable time and energy to foster trust (FG-PEI-4, FG-NB2-6, FB-NB1-7). Curiously, for each province there was an individual forest professional that the focus group participants praised as highly trustworthy for aligning closer to their values. Several contributors acknowledge that most contractors they have had discussions with can be trusted but everything should be taken with a grain of salt, and the advice does not need to be accepted wholly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLandowners that harvest and intend to harvest in the future are usually still concerned about maintaining a healthy, productive forest. However, given that their values align closer to the contractors available they generally spoke more favorably of them (WO-NS1, WO-NS16, WO-NS18). In Nova Scotia, these landowners showed varying levels of trust towards woodland owner co-ops, with some praising cooperatives for carving a learning path for alternative treatments, even though, in the woodland owner\u0026rsquo;s words they are \u0026ldquo;not an environmentalist\u0026rdquo; (WO-NS18). Even the owners of large parcels had reservations about working with some of the industrial forestry companies based on their reputation and knowledge imbalances between the owner and contractor regarding the true value of the wood harvested (WO-NS18).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines the role trust plays in garnering satisfactory management support for non-industrial forest landowners on their land in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Data was collected from interviews with both landowners and industry professionals that outlined understandings of their role, how they fit in the bigger picture, and their interactions with various other players in the sector. Most landowners are well-motivated to \u0026lsquo;do the right thing\u0026rsquo; but often do not know how to translate those intentions into specific management actions on their land. What \u0026ldquo;the right thing\u0026rdquo; is looks different to different categories of landowner. All landowners fall somewhere along a continuum between being conservation focused (with no interest in harvesting timber) to being primarily interested in harvesting and income from selling fibre products. Most, however, wish to derive a balance between a variety of values from their land.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelationships matter. There exists a need for trust in frequent and ongoing relationships that involve natural resource professionals and landowners seeking advice. The stakes are even higher when market transactions are involved. In such situations, there are often more than two players involved \u0026ndash; a landowner (or co-owners), a forester that might write a plan or make a prescription, and a third party that might carry out the work. For satisfactory outcomes for all, there likely needs to be clear communication and a certain level of trust between all the parties.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven many woodland owners\u0026rsquo; desire to \u0026ldquo;do the right thing,\u0026rdquo; it is also important for them to trust advisors that may occur in less of a market context. The results of this research illustrate challenges in relationships between landowners and forest service providers in the Maritimes due in part to the difficulty in matching like-minded service providers and landowners. The data from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and PEI suggest that many landowners opt for advice from familiar sources like friends and family regardless of knowledge or qualifications because shared values in these relationships are already well established (Siegrist et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Vainio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, Vainio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Landowners\u0026rsquo; preferences to accept advice from friends and family members should make trust building high on the list of priorities for service providers to woodland owners (Kaetzal et al., 2010). Some trust issues can be resolved with communication channels for institutional players helping landowners\u0026rsquo; with non-timber goals, such as informal events (Huff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), and workshops that provide adequate time for participants to receive advice tailored to them rather than attend typical presentation-heavy workshops put on by resource professionals (Koshollek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe three distinct \u0026ldquo;social ecosystems\u0026rdquo; around private land forestry in the three Maritime provinces are rooted in a past where timber values dominated policy development. Selling wood is not as high a priority for many owners as it once was but the institutional response to this gradual values change has been slow (Allaby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e, Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). There are a variety of organizations that may have the expertise to advise landowners on non-timber goals such as wildlife, invasive species, ecological diversity and forest health, water quality and carbon, but these groups are mostly project-funded and do not have the capacity to do direct outreach to or respond to all advice requests from interested owners. Furthermore, these organizations do not have much history of reaching out to landowners to provide advice or services. For example, the mandate of nature trusts or the Nature Conservancy Canada (which has a regional office for the Atlantic Canada), has historically involved taking ownership of properties. Recently, some of these groups have begun to build capacity to create relationships with owners around stewardship concerns whether or not such interaction may ultimately lead to a donation or sale of land. Still, these types of organizations typically do not have extensive resources to do outreach and to run programming on sustainable forest management for landowners. If owners know what resources are available, and who is providing them, they can more readily find individual and institutions that share their values. With shared values, the prospect for trusting relationships increases, and when trusting relationships are in place, owners are more likely to act on advice and undertake various kinds of work on their land. (Andrejczyk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Gwin \u0026amp; Pomeroy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur interview results confirm that there is a broad spectrum of goals held by the tens of thousands of forest landowners in the Maritimes. Consequently, these owners have varying levels of interest in having active timber management undertaken on their land. Maritimers across the political spectrum accept subsidies for silviculture work but simultaneously have some skepticism of government motives due to the historical context of putting industrial forestry first (Parenteau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). With the woodland sector, governments have used financial incentives in an effort to ensure a sustainable supply of fiber coming from private land. If landowners and contractors are collaborating on thinning, planting, etc. and those activities are subsidized with taxpayer funds, one would think it might make relationship building easier. But most private forest landowners across the Maritimes report that conservation values are more important to them than financial return (Nadeau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Studies from other jurisdictions confirm that landowners do not own their plots primarily for capital gain (Jones et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Hull et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e, Rabotyagov \u0026amp; Lin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). There is an assumption on behalf of some policymakers that woodland owners are motivated primarily by commodity-oriented values (Andrejczyk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Bliss, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). If the initial interaction most landowners have with contractors is when the contractors arrive at their door offering money to harvest wood, this may raise issues of trust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf a landowner\u0026rsquo;s perception of contractors is that they strictly are motivated by profit, and that financial returns are not at the top of the landowner\u0026rsquo;s objectives, it can be difficult for the two parties to find common ground.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrevious research has demonstrated forest landowners in the Maritimes hold conservation values in high regard (Nadeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e Nadeau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). With this comes concern regarding overharvesting and clear-cutting, and the subsequent impacts these activities could have on their forests. Landowners from our sample typically strive to make informed, conscious and conscientious land management decisions that mitigate ecological harm and foster healthy forests. Contractors in the region are mostly built for speed, efficiency and maximum return (read clear cutting). This makes many landowners wary. They would prefer slow, careful work with appropriately-sized equipment, especially holders of smaller parcels of land. If they cannot find foresters to advise such action or contractors to undertake it, the least risk option is often to do nothing. Allaby (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e:100) highlighted this, stating \u0026ldquo;Landowners struggle to find forest professionals who listen properly and implement their vision for the forest; however, they also described difficulty finding contractors who have the proper equipment and training, especially with regards to doing lighter-touch harvesting\u0026rdquo;. Forest landowners interests can extend beyond tree and fibre management, and can include aesthetics, protecting rare species, conservation of habitat, hunting, and occasionally non-timber products such as mushrooms, maple products, etc. With the exception of aesthetics (owners likely know what they like and don\u0026rsquo;t like in terms of visual appeal), advice from professionals can likely help owners enhance these other values. As well, many of these values may co-exist simultaneously. Conversely, in a context where it is difficult to find non-clearcut harvesting contractors, harvesting often results in a trade-off with many of these desired values. Vainio et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e:15) presented similar findings, stating that \u0026ldquo;owners who had made a conservation agreement perceived environmental and forestry actors' goals as similar to theirs, trusted in them most often, and sought information from them more frequently than owners who did not have any contract.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThere is both diversity and cohesion in the values Maritime woodlot owners hold for their land. Owners fall along a spectrum of having purely utilitarian values for their land to deep concern with preserving land for family, the health of nature, and society. Most owners hold a complex array of values and aspirations. Matching professionals and landowners with aligned beliefs and congruent goals will help landowners obtain desirable outcomes in the stewardship of their land (Vaino et al., 2018). Successful relationships that yield active stewardship on the part of owners will create a virtuous cycle that will see landowners returning to those same professionals for additional advice or action on their land. Time is a premium for many professionals, whether foresters or contractors. They need to invest their time in such a way that it provides a financial return to them, unless they are subsidized by governments for their time. Conversely, many woodland owners are challenged to prioritize time for looking after or even investigating options for their woodland. Nurturing trust should be the very first step in any interaction between natural resource professionals and landowners. The recipe for increasing trust in the sector is to devise ways to match landowners with forest planners and contractors that are a good fit in terms of styles of forestry, values, equipment, and services offered. Currently, in the region of the Maritime Provinces of Canada, there is a quite a bit of diversity in woodland service providers, including nature-based interest groups, nature trusts, watershed groups, woodland owner cooperatives, marketing boards, government, and the forest industry. Woodland owners may have reasons to trust or distrust actors affiliated with these institutions, but often they do not know which institution might best serve their needs. Even when they do, they need to find individuals within those institutions whom they trust. The owners of private forests, the forests themselves, and society at large could all benefit from more professional expertise being applied to the 40% of Maritime forests owned by roughly 90,000 private owners. The challenge is to align such owners with the most appropriate service providers so that all actors in the sector benefit.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003efor this research was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant number 890-2019-0044). The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The research underwent an Ethics Review through the University of New Brunswick\u0026rsquo;s Research Ethics Board. All research participants were provided an information packet and consent letter and we received consent from all interviewees.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMK lead the data analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript text.TB participated in 80% of the interviews, and had an equal contribution to the manuscript text.MA lead and participated in all of the landowner interviews. All authors reviewed the manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank our research respondents, both landowners and natural resource professionals, for participating in this study. We also thank Daniel Nunes, who co-conducted the interviews with natural resource professionals and Piyushi Sharman who organized and helped facilitate the four focus groups. We would also like to thank the institutional and individual partners in the project Partnership for Acadian Forest Restoration on Private Land in the Maritimes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAllaby, M (2022) The life of the land: The stewardship experiences of forest landowners in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. MSc. Thesis. Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAndrejczyk, K, Butler, B J, Tyrrell, M L, \u0026amp; Langer, J (2016) Hansel and Gretel walk in the forest, landowners walk in the woods: A qualitative examination of the language used by family forest owners. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, 114(1):52-57.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeckley, T M (2025) What\u0026rsquo;s love got to do with it?: Theorizing emotional attachments to land through the concept of terraphilia. \u003cem\u003eSociety and Natural Resources.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[issue and page numbers pending].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBergst\u0026eacute;n, S, Keskitalo, E C H (2019) Feeling at home from a distance? How geographical distance and non-residency shape sense of place among private forest owners. \u003cem\u003eSociety \u0026amp; Natural Resources\u003c/em\u003e, 32(2):184\u0026ndash;203.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBliss, J C (2000) Public perceptions of clearcutting. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, 98(12):4-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBowen, G A (2008) Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note.\u003cem\u003eQualitative Research\u003c/em\u003e, 8(1):137\u0026ndash;152.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBurger, J M (1999) The foot\u0026shy;in\u0026shy;the\u0026shy;door compliance procedure: A multiple\u0026shy;process analysis and review. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, 3(4):303\u0026ndash;325.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eButler, B J, Butler, S M, Dennings, K, \u0026amp; Knoot, T G (2018). What influences whether family forest owners participate in outreach campaigns? \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Extension\u003c/em\u003e, 56(7):1.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChhetri, S G, Gordon, J S, Munn, I A, \u0026amp; Henderson, J E (2018) Factors influencing the use of consulting foresters by non-industrial private forest landowners in Mississippi. \u003cem\u003eThe Forestry Chronicle\u003c/em\u003e, 94(3):254-259.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChristian, C S, Fraser, R, \u0026amp; Diop, A (2013) African-American land loss and sustainable forestry in the Southeast: An analysis of the issues, opportunities, and gaps. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Extension\u003c/em\u003e, 51(6):3.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCox, E, Beckley, T M, \u0026amp; de Graaf, M (2023) Carbon sequestration and storage implications of three forest management regimes in the Wabanaki-Acadian Forest: A review of the evidence. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, 32(1):1-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavenport, M. A., Anderson, D. H., Leahy, J. E., \u0026amp; Jakes, P. J. (2007). Reflections from USDA Forest Service employees on institutional constraints to engaging and serving their local communities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, 105(1):43-48.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavis, M L E S, \u0026amp; Fly, J M (2010) Do you hear what I hear?: Better understanding how forest management is conceptualized and practiced by private forest landowners. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, 108(7):321\u0026ndash;328.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDowning, A K, \u0026amp; Finley, J C (2005) Private forest landowners: What they want in an educational program. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Extension\u003c/em\u003e, 43(1):14.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eErickson, D L, Ryan, R L, \u0026amp; De Young, R (2002) Woodlots in the rural landscape: landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case study. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, 58(2-4):101-112.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFloyd, D W, Ritchie, R, Rotherham, T \u0026nbsp;(2012) \u003cem\u003eNew approaches for private woodlots: Reframing the forest policy debate.\u003c/em\u003e New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources. http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/232019\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGlaser, B, \u0026amp; Strauss, A (2017) \u003cem\u003eDiscovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eresearch\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGwin, L, \u0026amp; Pomeroy, A (2015) Linking agricultural landowners with payments for ecosystem services in the interior northwest: Resources for extension. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Extension\u003c/em\u003e, 53(4):25.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHitch, K L, Ross, W, \u0026amp; Masters, R (2004) \u003cem\u003eSelling your timber\u003c/em\u003e. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuff, E S (2017) A national perspective on women owning woodlands (WOW) networks. \u003cem\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eJournal of Extension\u003c/em\u003e, 55(2):8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuff, E S, Leahy, J E, Hiebeler, D, Weiskittel, A R, \u0026amp; Noblet, C L (2015) An agent-based model of private woodland owner management behavior using social interactions, information flow, and peer-to-peer networks. \u003cem\u003ePloS one\u003c/em\u003e, 10(11): e0142453.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHull, R B, Robertson, D P, \u0026amp; Buhyoff, G J (2004) \u0026ldquo;Boutique\u0026rdquo; forestry: New forest practices in urbanizing landscapes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, 102(1):14\u0026ndash;19. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJohnson, J E, Creighton, J H, \u0026amp; Norland, E R (2007) An international perspective on successful strategies in forestry extension: a focus on extensionists. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Extension\u003c/em\u003e, 45(2): 9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJamison, A, \u0026amp; Muth, A B (2022) Forest Landowners and Advisor Relationships: Creating Collaborative Connections to Care Well for Forests. \u003cem\u003eSociety \u0026amp; Natural Resources\u003c/em\u003e, 35(8): 856\u0026ndash;874.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJones, S \u0026nbsp;B, Glover, G R, Finley, J C, Jacobson, M G, \u0026amp; Reed, A S (2001) Empowering private forest landowners: Lessons from Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Oregon. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, 99(3):4-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJones, S B, Luloff, A E, \u0026amp; Finley, J C (1995) Another look at NIPFs: Facing our \u0026ldquo;myths.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, 93(9):41\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKaetzel, B R, Fly, J M, \u0026amp; Hodges, D G (2010) Non-industrial private forest landowner use of information sources concerning management of their woodland on the Tennessee Northern Cumberland Plateau. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Extension\u003c/em\u003e 48(4), 19.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKekacs, A (2017) Gifts to a Future World: Conversations with Woodland Owners in Nova Scotia. MSc. Thesis, School or Resources and Environmental Management, Dalhousie University.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKittredge, D B (2004) Extension/outreach implications for America\u0026apos;s family forest owners. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forestry\u003c/em\u003e 102(7), 15-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKoshollek, A, Thostenson, K, \u0026amp; Shaw, B (2020) Bridging the Gender Gap in Forest Stewardship: Facilitating Programs for Women Landowners. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Extension\u003c/em\u003e 58(2):17.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMarshall, B, Cardon, P, Poddar, A, \u0026amp; Fontenot, R (2013) Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in is research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eComputer Information Systems\u003c/em\u003e 54:11\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeasells, M K, Grado, S C, Hughes, H G, \u0026amp; Dunn, M A (2006) Educational needs of southern forest landowners. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Extension\u003c/em\u003e 44(5):13\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMitchell, T W (2001) From reconstruction to deconstruction: undermining black landownership, political independence, and community through partition sales of tenancies in common. \u003cem\u003eNorthwestern University Law Review\u003c/em\u003e. IL: Northwestern University School of Law.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMolnar, J J, Bitto, A, Brant, G, \u0026amp; Hoban, T (2000) Core conservation practices: Paths and barriers perceived by small and limited resource farmers. Staff paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNadeau, S (2011) Prince Edward Island woodlot owners: current trends regarding their forest uses, management, and values. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Forest Service Information Report M-X-225E\u003c/em\u003e. Atlantic Forestry Centre, Fredericton, NB, Canada.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNadeau, S, Beckley, T M, McKendy, M, \u0026amp; Keess, H (2012) A snapshot of New Brunswick non-industrial forest owners in 2011: Attitudes, Behaviour, Stewardship and Future Prospects. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, Fredericton, NB. \u0026nbsp;ISBN 978-1-55471-964-8\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNadeau, S, Short, R, \u0026amp; Beckley, T M (2005) \u003cem\u003eThe woodlot owners of Prince Edward Island: a survey of their forest use, management and values\u003c/em\u003e Canadian Forest Service Information report. M-X series1195-3799M-X-218E. Atlantic Forestry Centre. Fredericton, NB, Canada.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNoseworthy, J, \u0026amp; Beckley, T M (2020). Borealization of the New England\u0026ndash;Acadian Forest: a review of th evidence. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Reviews\u003c/em\u003e 28(3):284-293\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (2008) State of the Forest Report 1995- 2005: Nova Scotia Forests in Transition (FOR 2008-3) https://novascotia.ca/natr/forestry/reports/State-Of-Forest-Report-April-2008.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParenteau, W M (2013) Looking backward, looking ahead: history and future of the New Brunswick forest industries. \u003cem\u003eAcadiensis\u003c/em\u003e 42(2):92-113\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePutnam, R D (1995). Bowling alone: America\u0026rsquo;s declining social capital. \u003cem\u003eThe City Reader\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 188-196). Routledge\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRabotyagov, S S, \u0026amp; Lin, S (2013) Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA. \u003cem\u003eJournal of forest economics\u003c/em\u003e 19(3):307-330\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRickenbach, M., \u0026amp; Kittredge, D. B. (2009). Time and distance: comparing motivations among forest landowners in New England, USA. \u003cem\u003eSmall-Scale Forestry\u003c/em\u003e 8\u003cem\u003e:\u003c/em\u003e95-108\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRickenbach, M, Zeuli, K, \u0026amp; Sturgess-Cleek, E (2005) Despite failure: The emergence of \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo; forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. \u003cem\u003eScandinavian Journal of Forest Research\u003c/em\u003e 20(6):503-513.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSampson, R N, \u0026amp; DeCoster, L A (1997) Public programs for private forestry\u0026nbsp;A reader on programs and options. Washington, DC. American Forests\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSiegrist, M, Cvetkovich, G, \u0026amp; Roth, C (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. \u003cem\u003eRisk analysis\u003c/em\u003e, 20(3): 353-362\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSorice, M G, Rajala, K, \u0026amp; Kreuter, U P (2018) Understanding management decisions of absentee landowners: more than just presence-absence. \u003cem\u003eRangeland Ecology \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e 71(2): 159-162\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSustaining Family Forests Initiative (2019)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Engaging landowners in conservation: A complete guide to designing programs and communications\u003c/em\u003e [PDF file]\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVainio, A, Paloniemi, R, \u0026amp; Varho, V (2017) Weighing the risks of nuclear energy and climate change: Trust in different information sources, perceived risks, and willingness to pay for alternatives to nuclear power. \u003cem\u003eRisk analysis\u003c/em\u003e 37(3): 557-569.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVainio, A, Paloniemi, R, \u0026amp; Hujala, T (2018) How are forest owners\u0026apos; objectives and social networks related to successful conservation? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Rural Studies\u003c/em\u003e 62:21-28\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWyatt, S, Rousseau, M H, Nadeau, S, Thiffault, N, \u0026amp; Guay, L (2011) Social concerns, risk and the acceptability of forest vegetation management alternatives: Insights for managers. \u003cem\u003eThe Forestry Chronicle\u003c/em\u003e 87(2), 274-289\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Owners tend to come into ownership in middle age or older whether they have purchased land or inherited it.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e It is important to note that the three provinces have significantly different definitions of who constitutes a woodlot owner. In New Brunswick, the threshold is 10 ha or roughly 25 acres. In Nova Scotia, it is 4 ha, or roughly 10 acres, and in Prince Edward Island, the cut off is 1 ha, or about 2.5 acres.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Primary source of supply refers to a policy in existence from 1982 to 1993 in New Brunswick whereby industry had to agree to a certain volume and price for wood from private land before they could access Crown (public) wood.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"small-scale-forestry","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ssfo","sideBox":"Learn more about [Small-scale Forestry](http://link.springer.com/journal/11842)","snPcode":"11842","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ssfo/default2.aspx","title":"Small-scale Forestry","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"forest owners, foresters, forest contractors, industry, government, trust/mistrust","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094850/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094850/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eForest landowners in the three Maritime Provinces of Canada number of 80,000 and own/steward roughly 40% of the land base. A majority of forest owners require external help to identify management objectives and understand what resources and opportunities exist in their land. Often owners do not know which of several institutions might best provide advice or serve their needs. If harvests are required for any reason, owners often lack the necessary expertise and equipment to do the work themselves. They rely on foresters for advice and forest contractors to implement silviculture practices. This study analyzes data from interviews with both forest owners (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40) and forest and natural resource professionals (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29) that provide advice and services to landowners. It also includes data from four focus groups that involved 25 different individuals. Trust and mistrust between owners and foresters and contractors emerged as an important theme. Time spent developing a relationship and visiting the land are important in creating trust. Finding foresters and contractors with whom owners share values builds trust but also takes time. Impediments to trust include lack of time from one or the other party or both to invest in getting to know the land and the owner. Within organizations that provide advice, allowing owners to consistently deal with one individual with whom they have established a trusting relationship matters.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Who has my back (forty)?: Forest landowners and trust in the Maritime Provinces of Canada","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-16 02:01:21","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094850/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-08-27T13:03:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-26T20:15:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-30T20:29:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"217750636280751046592966129675470621809","date":"2025-07-15T15:24:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"77699032939755803091837148333376131127","date":"2025-07-14T13:54:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-14T12:53:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-12T09:09:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-12T09:06:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Small-scale Forestry","date":"2025-07-10T16:05:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"small-scale-forestry","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ssfo","sideBox":"Learn more about [Small-scale Forestry](http://link.springer.com/journal/11842)","snPcode":"11842","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ssfo/default2.aspx","title":"Small-scale Forestry","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b99d04c2-d66a-4fae-9cfc-08c5106dd5bd","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 16th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-28T13:12:34+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-16 02:01:21","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7094850","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7094850","identity":"rs-7094850","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}