Legible Landscapes: Incentivizing Forest Knowledge and Action in Southern Ontario

Provincial Forest Management

The ongoing provincial management of private forested lands in Ontario has mobilized different planting strategies to counter environmental crises (Smachylo 2021). From the late 19th through to the early 20th century, the clearing of forests and resulting environmental degradation of the region spurred more direct provincial intervention in managing private lands to address soil erosion and promote regeneration (Zavitz 1976). During this time, the province of Ontario took an active role in the management of forests on private lands—especially in regions that faced a risk of ecological collapse (Aird 1996). For instance, Armson and Taylor (2001) point to the increase of Ministry advisory services during the 1970s amounting to 40,000 inquiries and 5,000 inspections on privately owned woodlands by ministry staff.

However, in the 1980s in Canada, there began a marked transition from big government and central regional development strategies associated with environmental management. During this period, the rise of neo-conservative politics ushered in a new environmental management regime, one that cut funding and transitioned forest management on private lands to individuals and community groups (Barnes and Hayter 1994; Logan and Wekerle 2008). With the private land forestry programs of the 70s and 80s, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) staff had provided services to private landowners, including tree planting, marking, and timber sale notice. However, between 1996 and 1998, two-thirds of the province’s MNR forestry field inspection staff providing complementary management services to private landowners were laid off, which impacted the capacity of provincial agencies engaged in environmental management to carry out their roles and responsibilities (Winfield 2012). This labor shortage resulted in the government’s transition from engagement out in the field to an office-based policy and administration focus. In addition, environmental incentive programs and grants for private land management became popular, with programs administered by government bodies as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) at the national, provincial, and local levels. As a result, these resources no longer exist at the MNR, there is no longer the support for these staff, and this work is now facilitated through plan approvers and consultants (Interviewee 2).

In Ontario, forested lands have experienced pressure from urbanization and climate change. Here, woodlots are exposed to greater public use, encroaching development, infiltration by invasive species, and agricultural expansion, which has resulted in their conversion to other uses (OMNRF 2019; Strobel and Bland 2000). To counter these trends, public agencies, conservation authorities, and NGOs addressing forest management and conservation have encouraged private landowners to participate in sustainable management (MNR 2012; Conservation Ontario 2023b). In addition, to address the impacts of climate change on the region, the province has recently launched a 2-billion trees initiative as part of the country’s climate plan, “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy” (ECCC 2020). This initiative leverages the abilities of existing and planted trees on both private and public lands as a means to draw down and anchor carbon using nature-based climate solutions (PMO 2021). Thus, it is in the interest of the province to retain and support the health of forested lands that already exist in the region and plant new trees.

Incentivized Forest Management: The Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program

The Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP) has been recognized as one of the most successful forest conservation programs offered in Canada (Cockwell 2012). At the provincial level, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) administers the program and sets the parameters for sustainable forest management. Forest consultants associated with a private service or a Conservation Authority called Managed Forest Plan Approvers (MFPAs) are independent contractors licensed by the province. MFPAs assess forested land and submit a Managed Forest Plan to the province, which directs the actions of private landowners. NGOs, such as Forests Ontario and the Ontario Woodlot Association, provide additional landowner resources and support (Forests Ontario 2020; Ontario Woodlot Association 2023). Lastly, private landowners, or in some cases Conservation Authorities, are responsible for the active management of the land tied to their Managed Forest Plan.

Since the mid-90s, participation in the MFTIP program has grown, with approximately 20,100 properties covering almost 1,925,000 acres in 2022 (MFTIP Administrator, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, personal communication). To qualify, landowners are required to have at least 4 hectares of eligible forestland and must submit an approved Managed Forest Plan every 10 years. Once in the program, landowners are taxed at 25% of the municipal tax rate set for residential properties, and the land is converted to the managed forest property land classification (MNR 2023). The tax reduction garnered by a particular landowner in the MFTIP program corresponds with the assessment of regulated rates per acre based on similar properties in the vicinity (MNR 2023; MPAC 2023). The required management plan involves both a written report and mapping component and can be audited by the province during the approval period. The amount of detail in these plans depends on the landowners and their objectives. A Managed Forest Plan includes the following information: property information, such as the land’s legal description, landowner details, location, and the history of the property; mapping that shows the local and surrounding context, types of forest cover, natural, and physical features; landowner objectives and goals for the next 20 years that align with financial ability, knowledge level, time and property features; as well as a detailed property inventory that maps environmental compartments such as land cover, wildlife, and other vegetation (MNR 2012). Figure 1 shows a partial example of a Managed Forest Plan.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1.

Example from a Managed Forest Plan.

Procedures: Research Design and Data Interpretation

This qualitative study using an exploratory case study method responds to scholarship that calls for research in conservation that investigates socio-ecological contexts (Bennett et al. 2016; Moon et al. 2016). This approach can provide a wide variety of evidence, add rigor to the study of complex environments (Yin 2017), and inductively build theory (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). This paper draws from qualitative evidence to offer new insight and develop the conceptual framework of state legibility. The results are based on document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and direct observation. Data collection began with an analysis of policy documents that are available from provincial websites, grey literature, and archival literature. The data included MFTIP program instructional literature, peer-reviewed articles on environmental and incentivized forest management, book chapters and articles on the history of forestry in Canada and Ontario, and archival policy documents and reports available from the Ontario Archives.

Conducting interviews with stakeholders for conservation research provides valuable data on the knowledge, values, and decision-making processes (Young et al. 2018). Semi-structured interviews were conducted from 2016–2020 with individuals involved in forest management in southern Ontario including: landowners (n = 12), managed forest plan approvers (n = 21), conservation authority representatives (n = 3), and program administrators/affiliates (n = 2). Interviewees were identified through their connection to forest management in southern Ontario and with the MFTIP program. Several sampling strategies were used. Key informant sampling was used for program administrators and forest consultants who were identified from the MNRF online contact list. In addition, snowball sampling was used to identify landowners. Interviewees were emailed an IRB (Institutional Review Board)-approved description of the study. If they expressed interest in participating, a more detailed outline of the research and the interview questions were provided before the interview.

Interviews lasted approximately one hour using semi-structured questions so the interviewer could follow-up and investigate interviewees’ knowledge. Young et al. (2018) suggest that the flexibility of a semi-structured approach is important in the investigation of complex conservation science-policy interfaces (See Appendix for interview questions). During the interview, the interviewer also elicited feedback on the initial findings. Interviews stopped once the new information reached a saturation point. In addition, the researcher conducted a visit to the landowners’ forests to gain insights into site management. Photography and video recordings documented the site context.

Data Analysis

Based on the data from the document analysis, interviews, and participant observation, the researcher identified and interpreted similar patterns and relationships within and across the sites of implementation to build theory (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). A review of the literature, policy, and government documents was used to position the MFTIP program within the legacy of forest management practices on private lands in the province to identify how the changes in administration impacted stakeholders. Interviews were transcribed and coded as a heuristic device to analyze the data and synthesize it into meaningful categories and themes.

It is important to note the strengths and limitations inherent in this qualitative research design. One constraint was the challenge of acquiring a representative sample of landowners in the MFTIP program, as there is no public database of participants. As a result, to gain access to this population, a snowball sampling strategy was necessary. Program participants generally were those in good standing in the program, as opposed to those who were less dedicated to the active management criteria. In addition, the author’s disciplinary background in urban and landscape design, urban theory, and geography, as well as professional experience, shaped the approach to and analysis of the research findings (Easterby-Smith et al. 2008) and may have also filtered how the data is transformed into knowledge (Saldaña 2021).

Legibility at a Regional Scale

In MFTIP, Managed Forest Plan Approvers are the educational gatekeepers who have provincial training in forest stewardship. They can read the ecological context of the site and co-construct the plan based on landowner values and provincial requirements. The presence of MFPAs differentiates MFTIP from previous provincial in-house management. They are the primary educational instrument of the state and are monitored through grading sheets that highlight specific objectives that are then translated to the field. As one interviewee states: “They are looking for certain specific things to be passed on, so that the landowner is getting that knowledge. I don’t think that the province is as concerned with possessing that knowledge as they are with that knowledge being passed on to the landowner” (Interview 2). Landowners’ knowledge about their property and forest management varies widely, and MFPAs identify management opportunities that should or could be carried out on the property. In this sense, MFPAs support Rodríguez-Muñiz’s (2017) argument that nonstate actors play a role in the orchestration and construction of state legibility. Here, MFPAs are part of the process of passing management knowledge on to the landowner, which has become a key outcome of the program.

All of the MFPAs working with this program in this study mentioned that preparing the management plan was important in regard to reciprocal education between the landowner and consultant. When drafting the plan, MFPAs most often meet with landowners and walk the property, which provides an opportunity for both parties to exchange important knowledge. Walking the land is especially pertinent to the management of invasive species, where it is up to the approver to identify these and refer the landowner to programs (many run by NGOs) that can be partnered with MFTIP to help with their removal. In the interviews, the MFPAs’ knowledge was seen as essential in guiding and drawing up the Managed Forest Plan for the landowner to follow. They ensured that participants set realistic objectives that align with their overall goals for the property and what they can accomplish within the timeframe. This reciprocal transfer of knowledge between the MFPAs and landowners was often mentioned in interviews with forest consultants and landowners as one of the main outcomes of this program. Forest consultants also noted that it is especially important in shaping landowners’ preconceived notions about forest management. One MFPA stated: “So then it becomes an educational half-hour with them because I’m teaching them that cleaning up the bush is not what you want to do in regard to sustainable management” (Interviewee 12). Another interviewee reiterated that: “The MFTIP program is that steppingstone to get them [landowners] in touch with a proper consultant or a plan approver that can educate them on good forestry practices and maybe give them advice as to what management that woodlot might require. And a lot of it does involve active management” (Interviewee 2).

When investigating the nature of the knowledge exchange and the preparation of the Managed Forest Plan, the background of the MFPA was considered an important contribution. Their knowledge impacts what management is being implemented on these properties, which provides an educational resource for the landowner. MFPAs have diverse backgrounds and may be trained as arborists, foresters, or landscape architects, which results in the integration of different values and ways of reading the land when developing the management plan. One interviewee summarized the different lenses of viewing forest management as, “An arborist will say that a big tree is over-mature, a forester will say it’s great timber, and ecologists will say its old growth. It’s the same tree—so that’s just a basic bias among three different people looking at the same tree” (Interviewee 12). However, one interviewee noted that there are different perspectives on what proper management entails based on one’s background (Interviewee 5). An MFPA interviewee, who is also a registered professional forester, said, “I can really see the value of well-managed, long-term objectives—in how well they pay off for economical, ecological diversity and environmental objectives. I tend to think that a lot of these other plans that have been authored by someone who might be a landscaper or a lumberjack or arborist…they don’t quite get the full perspective of it” (Interviewee 18).

The different perspectives and backgrounds of MFPAs are not necessarily a detriment to the program or landscape, as they can introduce variability and diversity. An MFPA also stated, “I also recognize that by having a bit more of a diverse group of people that can approve these plans, you are also adding value by bringing other perspectives. We might bring in more people to the program, more people thinking about forest management and actually thinking about forest products and the importance of forests. By having more people involved in the program you get a greater knowledge base to draw from. So, I wish every forest plan approver was a professional forester or a forest technician. But yes, I also recognize that there are also a lot of other benefits from different perspectives” (Interviewee 18). Although variability in MFPAs’ experience can impact landowner management plans, and landowners may miss out on other perspectives that are also beneficial, MFPAs’ inconsistent backgrounds could also be a strength. Introducing variability to the landscape ecologically has benefits for the resilience and adaptation of these natural systems. Incorporating a more diverse group of MFPAs adds value by bringing different perspectives at the local level, attracting a broader range of landowners to the program and ultimately expanding landowners’ overall knowledge base.

Legibility at the Site Scale

Local landowner knowledge of forested lands is essential for the success of the MFTIP program. Good stewardship involves the ability to read the land to understand its hydrology and at-risk areas. Thus, landowners need to gain broad knowledge, including identifying and protecting sensitive plant species or zones with significant ecological value, such as headwater streams and wetlands. This knowledge is gained by mapping forest compartments in the preparation of the Managed Forest Plan. Three main themes emerged inductively from the interviews and participant observations. In terms of landowner impact, these themes include the: (1) knowledge of program participants, (2) motivations driving management, and (3) the implementation of the management plan.

Coproducing Knowledge

This paper argues that provincial incentive programs and the rescaling of forest management on private lands from the government to private actors (i.e., landowners) has helped build mētis and techne knowledge at two levels: (1) at the property level by activating landowners, and (2) at the regional level through consultants. By promoting the concept of legibility in the context of incentivized forest conservation in southern Ontario, mētis is present in the learned tacit knowledge of landowners who interact with their property over time—it is the ability to read the landscape over seasons and anticipate future management work as the land changes. Such knowledge and skills are increasingly relevant to respond to the impact of climate change and to pursue future resilience and adaptation planning that address more frequent stints of drought, disease, and invasive species. They can also monitor the effects of encroaching urban development or land-use change on their property.

In addition, forest consultants develop mētis knowledge. Based on their years of experience, they can walk the land with a landowner and point out areas the landowner should watch for. Here, forest consultants can develop a regional mētis associated with private land management, where over time, by visiting various properties, they gain a wider perspective. Along with this experiential understanding, they can also provide techne (i.e., ecologically based scientific knowledge that infiltrates ways of seeing the forest). Thus, while there has been a loss of tacit knowledge from the provincial government, this knowledge has been replaced by landowners’ increased ability to respond at the local level.

Flexible Management and Capacity Building in a Changing Climate

Since the mid-90s, MFTIP has attempted to address evolving environmental change. Both MFPAs and landowners mention a greater recognition of the need to include climate change planning in the Managed Forest Plans. MFPAs also referenced this flexible character of the program as important to allow the program to adapt in response to increasing climate challenges. While adaptation to climate change was not initially a high priority, those who now manage forests focus on being resilient to future changes. For instance, one MFPA noted that, “they [landowners] can refine their skills to recognize and monitor emerging forest stressors, such as hemlock wooly adelgid, emerald ash borer, butternut canker, beech bark disease, and changing climate impacts” (Interviewee 8).

Researchers and practitioners have identified forest systems as integral to nature-based mitigation and adaptation strategies to address global climate concerns and the loss of biodiversity (IPCC 2022). In southern Ontario, management practices that add to and retain existing woodlands and forested lands are needed to address these issues. Here, stewardship practices, such as those promoted by MFTIP, can contribute to provincial goals that aim to go beyond Paris Agreement targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Paris Agreement 2015). For instance, recent commitments by the Canadian federal government have highlighted forests as part of a nature-based climate strategy that supports the planting of 2 billion trees on public and private land. In particular, the government has committed to the conservation of 25% of the land and oceans by 2050 (PMO 2019; ECCC 2020; PMO 2021). Stewardship practices resulting from MFTIP can also help support the climate-forward work of Conservation Authorities who are building resilience to climate change through the management of natural systems (Conservation Ontario 2023b).

In interviews, MFPAs cited the flexibility of MFTIP as a strength in building a resilient socio-ecological regional infrastructure to address the future health of forest systems. One MFPA pointed to the fact that the study materials for the MFPA exam now include information on planning for climate change and invasive species (Interviewee 3). In addition, since the program’s inception, it has become more flexible in its landscape requirements and has loosened the conditions regarding the amount of allowable open areas and wetlands, recognizing the ecosystem benefits of these features, which has allowed for previously ineligible properties to apply for the program and thus has played a role in increasing the amount of land under active stewardship (Interviewee 18).

The program has also shown the same flexibility in response to invasive species. The initial program in the mid-90s had less emphasis on the impacts of invasive species and changing forest stressors. However, interviews noted that the program has been flexible enough to promote adaptation to changing conditions. For example, it requires landowners to periodically take stock of their forest conditions by reconsidering and rearticulating their objectives every 10 years. They must also have a reasonable plan to achieve these objectives. One MFPA interviewed noted that, “the plans, landowners, and the landscape can adapt as the conditions change. More landowners are learning about the importance of building resilience into their forests over time” (Interviewee 8). The program has also familiarized landowners with partner NGOs, government extension/conservation programs, and resources that are available to them. The tax incentive component of the program addresses land use pressure to keep existing forests intact, especially in regions where converting land to other uses is more financially viable. Thus, although the province no longer has internal staff with local property-based knowledge, the program now enables collaboration of management activities to address shifting environmental contexts. However, this knowledge relies on the agency of MFPAs and landowners to include strategies to address changing conditions in their plans and to follow through with their objectives.