Erratum to ‘Identifying policy target groups with qualitative and quantitative methods: the case of wildfire risk on nonindustrial private forest lands’ [Forest Policy and Economics 25 (2012) 62–71]

Designing policies to harness the potential of heterogeneous target groups such as nonindustrial private forest owners to contribute to public policy goals can be challenging. The behaviors of such groups are shaped by their diverse motivations and circumstances. Segmenting heterogeneous target groups into more homogeneous subgroups may improve the chances of successfully identifying policy strategies to influence their behavior. Findings from a multimethod study of nonindustrial private forest owners in eastern Oregon suggest four unique subgroups of owners with different fuel management motivations and suitabilities for policy tools: commodity managers could benefit from market-based incentives; amenity managers could benefit from capacity building programs paired with symbolic campaigns; recreational managers could benefit from public incentives provided through consultants or contractors who can help plan the work; and passive managers may benefit from opportunities to respond to the policy strategies designed for the other groupings until more information can be gathered. Incorporating qualitative analysis of interview data with statistical analysis of survey data improved understanding of the groupings and appropriate policy strategies for them.

► This multi-method study identified four NIPF owner policy target groups.
► The policy target groups were commodity, amenity, recreational and passive managers.
► Qualitative interview data complimented quantitative survey data in the analysis.