Abstract
Maple syrup production can provide significant value to rural economies and contribute to the long-term sustainability of forest ecosystems. Producers’ experiences vary based on their type of sugaring operation, so foresters, Extension educators, and equipment suppliers can more effectively support the expansion of maple syrup production if they tailor their outreach to the needs of each type of producer. Drawing on a survey of Wisconsin maple syrup producers (n = 657), this study compares the motivations, confidence in forest management knowledge, interests in learning, interests in new behaviors, desire to expand, and barriers to expansion among three groups of maple syrup producers: non-commercial, small commercial, and large commercial producers. Most producers were motivated by spending time in nature, and as might be expected, commercial producers were more motivated by finances than non-commercial producers. All three groups expressed interest in forest health management. The producers most interested in expansion were those who already sell for income, who are motivated by finances, who have fewer seasons of experience, and are newer woodland owners. Key barriers to expansion included efficient sap collection and a lack of time for non-commercial and small commercial producers, while workforce availability and a lack of capital were key barriers to expansion for both groups of commercial producers. Based on these results, we provide recommendations for audience segmentation strategies to support maple syrup producers through education, marketing, and research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This figure excludes producers with fewer than 100 taps.
A total of 2810 survey responses were received. Preliminary analysis indicated data were contaminated with bot responses. The research team developed coding schemes to detect the electronic signatures of potential bots and three coders used the coding schemes to flag bot responses. The coders discussed differences in coding, resolved disagreements, and reached a consensus. After removing bot-generated responses (n = 2087), of the 723 responses, 39 contained no answers to any questions, and 7 respondents were disqualified by selecting the answer choice “I have never done maple sugaring activities” to the screening question.
To test for multicollinearity, we calculated the variance inflation factor for all independent variables in all five models. All the VIF values were between 1.14 and 1.67, well below the commonly used cutoff value of 5. Thus, multicollinearity is not an issue in our regression models.
References
Ahmed S, Lutz D, Rapp J, Huish R, Dufour B, Brunelle A, Morelli TL, Stinson K, Warne T (2023) Climate change and maple syrup: Producer observations, perceptions, knowledge, and adaptation strategies. Front for Glob Change 6:1092218. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1092218
Ajzen I (2002) Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 32(4):665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x
Becot F, Kolodinsky J, Conner D (2015) The economic contribution of the Vermont maple syrup industry. University of Vermont Center for Rural Studies, Burlington (VT). https://mapleresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/Maple_Industry_Economic_Contribution_Report_final.pdf
Bissonnette J-F, Dupras J, Doyon F, Chion C, Tardif J (2017) Perceptions of small private forest owner’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to environmental disturbances and climate change: views from a heterogeneous population in southern Quebec, Canada. Small-scale For 16(3):367–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9361-y
Butler BJ, Tyrrell M, Feinberg G, VanManen S, Wiseman L, Wallinger S (2007) Understanding and reaching family forest owners: lessons from social marketing research. J For 105(7):348–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/105.7.348
Byerly H, D’Amato AW, Hagenbuch S, Fisher B (2019) Social influence and forest habitat conservation: experimental evidence from Vermont’s maple producers. Conserv Sci Pract 1(9):e98. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.98
Cannella M, Lindgren C, Isselhardt M (2022) Northeastern United States maple syrup production and economics: a 2019 survey of producers. University of Vermont Extension Faculty Publications, Burlington (VT). https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/extfac/30/
Caughron A, Legault S, Haut C, Houle D, Reynolds TW (2021) A changing climate in the maple syrup industry: variation in Canadian and U.S.A. producers’ climate risk perceptions and willingness to adapt across scales of production. Small-scale For 20(1):73–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09457-2
Chang C-T, Shaw B, Solin J, Gorby T, Robinson P (2023a) Influence of forester traits and advising approaches on landowners’ intention to follow recommendations about maple sugarbush management among sap producers in Wisconsin. J For 121:408–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad027
Chang C-T, Gorby T, Shaw B, Solin J, Robinson P, Tiles K, Cook C (2023b) Influence of learner characteristics on optimal knowledge acquisition among Wisconsin maple syrup producers. J Agric Educ Ext. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2023.2254286
Clark K, McLeman RA (2012) Maple sugar bush management and forest biodiversity conservation in eastern Ontario, Canada. Small-scale For 11(2):263–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-9183-x
Cotnoir A (2021) Sugaring in Wabanahkik (land of the dawn). Audubon Vermont. https://vt.audubon.org/news/sugaring-wabanahkik-land-dawn. Accessed 6 Mar 2023
Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Perspectives in social psychology. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Dower B, Gaddis J (2021) Relative to the landscape: producer cooperatives in native food sovereignty initiatives. J Co-Op Organ Manag 9(2):100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2021.100147
Farrell ML (2013) Estimating the maple syrup production potential of American forests: an enhanced estimate that accounts for density and accessibility of tappable maple trees. Agrofor Syst 87(3):631–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9584-7
Farrell ML, Stedman RC (2013) Landowner attitudes toward maple syrup production in the northern forest: a survey of forest owners with ≥100 acres in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. North J Appl For 30(4):184–187. https://doi.org/10.5849/njaf.12-030
Frey GE, Alexander SJ, Chamberlain JL, Blatner KA, Coffin AW, Barlow RJ (2019) Markets and market values of nontimber forest products in the United States: a review, synthesis, and identification of future research needs. J For 117(6):613–631. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvz051
Graham GW, Goebel PC, Heiligmann RB, Bumgardner MS (2007) Influence of demographic characteristics on production practices within the Ohio maple syrup industry. North J Appl For 24(4):290–295. https://doi.org/10.1093/njaf/24.4.290
Henderson T (2021) Shrinking rural America faces state power struggle. Pew Stateline. https://pew.org/2VzTHcZ. Accessed 2 Feb 2023
Hine DW, Reser JP, Morrison M, Phillips WJ, Nunn P, Cooksey R (2014) Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological considerations. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 5(4):441–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.279
Hinrichs CC (1998) Sideline and lifeline: the cultural economy of maple syrup production. Rural Sociol 63(4):507–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1998.tb00690.x
Joshi O, Mehmood SR (2011) Segmenting southern nonindustrial private forest landowners on the basis of their management objectives and motivations for wood-based bioenergy. South J Appl For 35(2):87–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/35.2.87
Klöckner CA (2015) Target group segmentation—why knowing your audience is important. In: Klöckner CA (ed) The psychology of pro-environmental communication: beyond standard information strategies. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137348326_7
Kusmanoff AM, Fidler F, Gordon A, Garrard GE, Bekess SA (2020) Five lessons to guide more effective biodiversity conservation message framing. Conserv Biol 34(5):1131–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13482
Lange MA (2017) Meanings of maple: an ethnography of sugaring. Food and foodways. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville (AR)
Legault S, Houle D, Plouffe A, Ameztegui A, Kuehn D, Chase L, Blondlot A, Perkins TD (2019) Perceptions of U.S. and Canadian maple syrup producers toward climate change, its impacts, and potential adaptation measures. PLoS ONE 14(4):e0215511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215511
Matthews SN, Iverson LR (2017) Managing for delicious ecosystem service under climate change: can United States sugar maple (Acer saccharum) syrup production be maintained in a warming climate? Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 13(2):40–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1285815
McGinty MM, Swisher ME, Alavalapati J (2008) Agroforestry adoption and maintenance: self-efficacy, attitudes and socio-economic factors. Agrofor Syst 73(2):99–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9114-9
Metcalf AL, Gruver JB, Finley JC, Luloff AE (2016) Segmentation to focus outreach: behavioral intentions of private forest landowners in Pennsylvania. J For 114(4):466–473. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-030
Perkins TD, Heiligmann RB, Koelling MR, van den Berg AK (2022) North American maple syrup producers manual, third edition. University of Vermont, Burlington (VT). https://mapleresearch.org/pub/manual/
Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Tapper A, Clough D, Carrera JS, Sandhaus S (2019) Understanding the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations associated with community gardening to improve environmental public health prevention and intervention. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(3):494. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030494
Salmon O, Brunson M, Kuhns M (2006) Benefit-based audience segmentation: a tool for identifying nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owner education needs. J For 104(8):419–425. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/104.8.419
Sanford S, Go A (2022) Maple syrup production energy. In: Ciolkosz D (ed) Regional perspectives on farm energy. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90831-7_10
Saraiva A, Carrascosa C, Ramos F, Raheem D, Lopes M, Raposo A (2022) Maple syrup: chemical analysis and nutritional profile, health impacts, safety and quality control, and food industry applications. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(20):13684. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013684
Snyder SA, Kilgore MA, Emery MR, Schmitz M (2019) Maple syrup producers of the lake states, USA: attitudes towards and adaptation to social, ecological, and climate conditions. Environ Manag 63(2):185–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1121-7
[USDA-ERS] United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (2022) Rural employment and unemployment. United States department of agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/employment-education/rural-employment-and-unemployment. Accessed 20 Feb 2023
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (2019) 2017 census of agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/. Accessed 20 Feb 2023
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (2023a) Wisconsin Ag news—maple syrup. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Wisconsin/Publications/Crops/2023/WI-Maple-Syrup-06-23.pdf. Accessed 7 Aug 2023
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (2023b) USDA/NASS QuickStats ad-hoc query tool. United States Department of Agriculture. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/A0980C63-4964-3FEB-BB3A-23171CBA8BE9?pivot=short_desc. Accessed 7 Feb 2023
[USDA-RD] United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (2023) Rural energy for America program renewable energy systems & energy efficiency improvement guaranteed loans & grants. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/energy-programs/rural-energy-america-program-renewable-energy-systems-energy-efficiency-improvement-guaranteed-loans. Accessed 19 Feb 2023
[USGS] United States Geological Survey (2017) Digital representations of tree species range maps from “Atlas of United States trees” by Elbert L. Little, Jr. (and other publications). Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center. https://web.archive.org/web/20170127093428/https://gec.cr.usgs.gov/data/little/. Accessed 9 Aug 2023
van den Berg AK, Perkins TD, Isselhardt ML, Wilmot TR (2016) Growth rates of sugar maple trees tapped for maple syrup production using high-yield Sap collection practices. For Sci 62(1):107–114. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.15-019
Velardi S, Leahy J, Collum K, McGuire J, Ladenheim M (2021) Adult learning theory principles in knowledge exchange networks among maple syrup producers and beekeepers in Maine. J Agric Educ Ext 27(1):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1773283
Velardi S, Leahy J, Collum K, McGuire J, Ladenheim M (2023) Size and scope decisions of Maine maple syrup producers: a qualitative application of theory of planned behavior. Trees For People 12:100403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100403
Whitney GG, Upmeyer MM (2004) Sweet trees, sour circumstances: the long search for sustainability in the North American maple products industry. For Ecol Manag 200(1):313–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.006
Wisconsin Department of Revenue (2023) Wisconsin property sales information. Wisconsin Department of Revenue. https://propertyinfo.revenue.wi.gov/WisconsinProd/forms/htmlframe.aspx?mode=content/home.htm. Accessed 19 Feb 2023
Witzling L, Shaw BR (2019) Lifestyle segmentation and political ideology: toward understanding beliefs and behavior about local food. Appetite 132(1):106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.10.003
Acknowledgements
We thank the advisory board and participants of the pilot test for providing valuable insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research. We appreciate the partnership with the Wisconsin Maple Syrup Producers Association, Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association, Wisconsin Farmers Union, Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory Council, Forest Data Network, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, UW–Stevens Point Forestry Center, Roth Sugarbush, Maple Hollow, Maple Dude, and Smokey Lake in helping us distribute the survey. We also thank Tony Johnson, Darrin Kimbler, Bill Klase, John Kriva, Amy Nosal, Samuel Pratsch, and Scott Sanford for supporting project conceptualization.
Funding
Funding for this research was made possible by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Acer Access and Development Grant AM21ACERWI1006. This article’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the USDA. This study complies with U.S. law and is approved by the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SH: Conceptualization, Data curation, Data analysis and visualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. BS: Conceptualization, Survey design and data collection, Writing—review and editing, Funding acquisition. TG: Conceptualization, Survey design and data collection, Writing—review and editing, Funding acquisition, Project administration. JS: Conceptualization, Survey design and data collection, Data curation, Writing—review and editing. PR: Survey design and data collection, Writing—review and editing, Funding acquisition. KT: Survey design and data collection, Data curation, Writing—review and editing, Funding acquisition. CC: Writing—review and editing, Funding acquisition. C-TC: Survey design and data collection, Data curation, Writing—review and editing.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
We have no competing interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hershberger, S., Shaw, B., Gorby, T.A. et al. Comparing Motivations, Learning Interests, and Barriers to Expansion Among Non-commercial and Commercial Maple Syrup Producers in Wisconsin. Small-scale Forestry 23, 127–157 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-023-09557-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-023-09557-9