View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
brought to you by
CORE
provided by Michigan Technological University
Michigan Technological University
Digital Commons @ Michigan Tech
Michigan Tech Publications
10-1-2020
Enrollment Decision-Making by Students in Forestry and Related
Natural Resource Degree Programmes Globally
T. L. Bal
Michigan Technological University, tlbal@mtu.edu
M. D. Rouleau
Michigan Technological University, mdroulea@mtu.edu
T. L. Sharik
Michigan Technological University, tlsharik@mtu.edu
A. M. Wellstead
Michigan Technological University, awellste@mtu.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/michigantech-p
Part of the Forest Sciences Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons
Recommended Citation
Bal, T., Rouleau, M. D., Sharik, T. L., & Wellstead, A. M. (2020). Enrollment Decision-Making by Students in
Forestry and Related Natural Resource Degree Programmes Globally. International Forestry Review, 22(3),
287-305. http://doi.org/10.1505/146554820830405627
Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/michigantech-p/14380
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/michigantech-p
Part of the Forest Sciences Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons
International Forestry Review Vol.22(3), 2020
i
Contents
PAPERS
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry
and related natural resource degree programmes
globally
T.L. BAL, M.D. ROULEAU, T.L. SHARIK and
A.M. WELLSTEAD
287
State-community relations and deliberative politics
within federal forest governance in Nepal
K. POKHAREL, R. KARKI, H.R. OJHA,
P. GENTLE, D. ACHARYA, M. BANJADE and
D. PAUDEL
370
Developing small-scale bamboo enterprises for
livelihoods and environmental restoration in
Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State, Ethiopia
M. BOISSIÈRE, S. ATMADJA,
S. BENMAKHLOUF, M. BEYESSA, H. KASSA,
T. HUNDE and F. ASSEFA
306
Agroforests, swiddening and livelihoods between
restored peat domes and river: effects of the 2015
fire ban in Central Kalimantan (Indonesia)
Y.A. SILVIANINGSIH, K. HAIRIAH,
D. SUPRAYOGO and M. van NOORDWIJK
382
Changes in vegetation characteristics following a
decade of community forest management in
mid-western Uganda
C. MAWA, F. BABWETEERA, J.R.S. TABUTI
and D.M. TUMUSIIME
323
Non-timber forest product importance for rural
household well-being in four coastal communities
in Oaxaca, Mexico
H.C. ZAMORA-MALDONADO and
V.S. AVILA-FOUCAT
397
Understanding the Coula edulis, Dacryodes
buettneri and Irvingia gabonensis non-timber forest
product value chains from Makokou, North-East
Gabon from a gender perspective
C. MIKOLO YOBO, A. AWONO and V. INGRAM
339
The governance of global forest statistics: case study
on forest products trade between Sub-Saharan Africa
and China
Y. ZHAO, Y.M. KROTT and S. ONGOLO
408
Exploring gender dynamics, economics and
perceptions of the vulnerability of the bush mango
value chain in three provinces of Gabon
C. MIKOLO YOBO, D.M. IPONGA,
J.C. TIEGUHONG, N. NSSI BENGONE and
A. NGOYE
354
International Forestry Review Vol.22(3), 2020
287
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry and
related natural resource degree programmes globally
T.L. BALa, M.D. ROULEAUb, T.L. SHARIKa and A.M. WELLSTEADb
a
College of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, 49931, MI, USA
Department of Social Sciences, College of Sciences and Arts, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, 49931, MI, USA
b
Email: tlbal@mtu.edu
HIGHLIGHTS
• Forestry and Related Natural Resources (FRNR) students from 51 countries report that enjoyment of nature was the most important factor
driving their decision to enroll.
• Decision factors that caused hesitation included earning potential, availability of funding, and political issues.
• Importance factors differed significantly between genders, race/ethnicity, academic standing, world region, and social background (i.e.
urban vs rural).
• Women and people of color from multiple world regions had a greater hesitancy to enroll in an FRNR programme than their white male
counterparts.
• Implications for recruitment and retention include the need for continual diversity and inclusion efforts and a balance between personal
preferences and employability.
SUMMARY
A survey of 396 undergraduate and graduate students from 51 countries on 5 continents currently enrolled in Forestry or Related Natural
Resource (FRNR) degree programmes was conducted of attendees to the International Union of Forest Research Organizations’ (IUFRO)
conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, 2014. These perspectives come from some of the most active students in their respective fields. We explored
the motivating reasons for enrolling in their current FRNR programme, and conversely why they may have been hesitant to do so. Results
indicate that enjoyment of nature was the most important factor on average driving the decision to enroll, closely followed by job satisfaction,
concern for the environment, enjoyment of outdoor recreation, being outdoors, and an interest in subject material. Hesitancy factors included
earning potential, availability of funding/scholarships, and politically contentious issues. A number of significant differences were found across
demographic categories. Of particular note was the greater hesitancy on the part of women and people of color to enroll in FRNR degree
programmes compared to their white male counterparts. We discuss the limitations of our study arising from its international scope and
imbalance of responses among countries and regions.
Keywords: decision making, forest education, hesitation, international survey, motivation, student enrollment
Comment les étudiants prennent-ils globalement la décision de s’inscrire en diplômes de
foresterie et de programmes en ressources naturelles connexes?
T.L. BAL, M.D. ROULEAU, T.L. SHARIK et A.M. WELLSTEAD
Une étude de 396 étudiants de premier cycle et diplômés de 51 pays sur 5 continents actuellement étudiants en programmes d’études en
Foresterie ou ressources naturelles connexes (FRNR) a été menée auprès de participants à la conférence de l’Union internationale des organisations de recherche forestière (IUFRO) à Salt Lake City dans L’Utah en 2014. Ces perspectives proviennent de certains des étudiants les plus
actifs dans leurs domaines respectifs. Nous avons exploré les raisons les ayant motivés à s’inscrire dans leurs programmes FRNR en cours, et,
complémentairement, les facteurs qui les avaient peut-être fait hésiter. Les résultats indiquent que la jouissance de la nature était le facteur
moyen le plus important ayant précipité leur décision de s’inscrire, suivie de près par la satisfaction professionnelle, les préoccupations
environnementales, l’amour de la récréation en plein air, le grand air et un intérêt dans le matériel académique. Les facteurs d’hésitation
comprenaient le potentiel de gains, la disponibilité de bourses d’études et de soutien financier et les questions contentieuses politiquement. Un
nombre de différences importantes a été identifié dans cinq catégories démographiques. On remarque en particulier que les femmes et les
personnes de couleur hésitent davantage à s’inscrire aux programmes de FRNR, comparés à leurs pairs masculins et blancs. Nous analysons les
limites de notre étude, provenant de son échelle internationale et du déséquilibre des réponses au travers des pays et des régions.
288
T.L. Bal et al.
La toma de decisiones sobre la matriculación de los estudiantes en programas de licenciatura
relacionados con la silvicultura y los recursos naturales a nivel mundial
T.L. BAL, M.D. ROULEAU, T.L. SHARIK y A.M. WELLSTEAD
Se llevó a cabo una encuesta entre 396 estudiantes de licenciatura y de posgrado de 51 países de cinco continentes, matriculados actualmente
en programas de licenciatura sobre silvicultura o recursos naturales relacionados (SRNR), aprovechando su asistencia a la conferencia de la
Unión Internacional de Organizaciones de Investigación Forestal (IUFRO, por sus siglas en inglés), celebrada en Salt Lake City (Utah) en 2014.
Estas perspectivas provienen de algunos de los estudiantes más activos en sus respectivos campos. Se exploraron los motivos por los que se
matricularon en su programa actual de SRNR y, a la inversa, por qué pudieron haber dudado en hacerlo. Los resultados indican que disfrutar
de la naturaleza fue el factor más importante en promedio que motivó la decisión de matricularse, seguido de cerca por la satisfacción en el
trabajo, la preocupación por el medio ambiente, el disfrute de la actividades recreativas al aire libre, el estar al aire libre y el interés en el tema.
Los factores que les hicieron dudar fueron el potencial de ganar ingresos, la disponibilidad de fondos/becas y cuestiones políticas controvertidas.
Se encontraron varias diferencias significativas entre las distintas categorías demográficas. En particular destacó la mayor vacilación por parte
de las mujeres y las personas de color para matricularse en programas de grado de SRNR en comparación con sus homólogos masculinos
blancos. Se discuten las limitaciones de este estudio derivadas de su alcance internacional y del desequilibrio de las respuestas entre países
y regiones.
INTRODUCTION
Choosing a college major sometimes requires important tradeoffs by striking a balance between doing what one enjoys
versus making a stable living. A natural resource (NR)-related
degree is one way many students choose to pursue their personal interests professionally (Arevalo et al. 2012, McGown
2015). However, this sort of attractiveness to NR programmes
can ebb and flow over time, space, and demographics. This
can be seen in the strongly fluctuating enrollment statistics
of forestry and related NR (FRNR) programmes in the United
States over the past number of decades (e.g. Barnes 2010,
Christensen 1983, Markworth 1968, Nyland 2008, Sharik
et al. 2015, Vasey and Theoe 1977, Xu and Bengston 1997).
From 2005–2012, nearly every natural resource academic
area experienced an increase in enrollment with the exception
of wood science/products, which remained relatively constant
(Sharik et al. 2015). The demographic makeup of these
programmes is also changing rapidly with a 71% increase in
female enrollment and a 130% increase in racial/ethnic
minority enrollment in US FRNR programmes between 2005
and 2012 alone (Sharik et al. 2015). However, while these
increases are dramatic, they still represent only a small
fraction of current FRNR total enrollments. In some FRNR
fields, including forestry, declining enrollments and a lack of
diversity continue to be recognized as a significant challenge
(Sample et al. 2015).
Prior research has shown that critical differences also
exist in enrollment decision-making between majority and
minority students considering an FRNR major in US higher
education institutions (e.g. Armstrong et al. 2007, Rouleau
et al. 2017). Little effort has been made to determine the
degree to which these differences exist outside the US
context, although organizations like the International Forest
Students’ Association (IFSA) have supported surveys of
students in some countries (e.g. Arevelo et al. 2011, 2012).
This paper, to our knowledge, is the broadest geographically
to date, to investigate FRNR enrollment decision-making and
motivating factors to see how the US experience compares to
FRNR programmes throughout the world. Many programmes
are interested in recruiting a diversity of international
students; moreover, FRNR is comprised of global topics and
is global in scale.
Specific enrollment data and comparable quantitative
studies of FRNR students to those in Sharik et al. (2015) are
hard to find outside the US. Many enrollment data sets likely
exist within country governments or are published in local
languages, thus not easily accessible or available for more
global analytical endeavors (Rekola et al. 2017). In recent
decades, reports of a general decline in forestry enrollments
have come from the United Kingdom (Burley 2001, Leslie
et al. 2006), Australia (Vanclay 2005), Canada (Innes 2005),
and African countries (Längin and Ackerman 2008, Temu
et al. 2006). Some smaller nations have had their forestry and
natural resources institutions close (Kanowski 2001) or have
been amalgamated or transferred into larger programmes
such as biology or agriculture (e.g. Chen 2002, Innes and
Ward 2010, Leslie et al. 2006). Ferguson (2012) discusses
some of the institutional frameworks proposed to have led to
the declining forestry enrollments in Australia, but does not
include quantitative data supporting the assessment. In an
opposite trend, many Asian countries report increasing enrollments in forestry, particularly Southeast Asian countries such
as Malaysia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam (Faridah-Hanum
and Ghani 2015, Temu et al. 2005,). Ratnasingam et al. (2013)
report specific numbers of students graduating in forestry
and wood science from Malaysia from 1977–2012 with a
generally increasing trend, but do not show quantitative data
on demographics such as gender or student perceptions about
trends. Generally, other natural resources-related degrees
have not had as strong a decline as traditional forestry;
however, the trend can vary by country or the specific name
of the degree major (Innes and Ward 2010, Sharik et al. 2015,
Thomas 2014).
Potential reasons for the low diversity representation
(at least in US context) in FRNR programmes include a
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry
complexity of factors such as job security, low salaries,
historical (and in some cases, ongoing) discrimination against
minorities with respect to access to land and resources, and a
tendency of minorities to be more attracted to programmes
that are perceived as having a more direct impact in their
communities (Armstrong et al. 2007, Balcarczyk et al.
2015, Bengston 2004, Gervais et al. 2017, Gharis et al. 2017,
Leatherberry and Wellman 1988, Outley 2008, Schelhas
2002, Sharik 2015, Thomas 2017). At a country- and regionscale, there are likely other reasons for demographic patterns
or increasing/decreasing enrollment trends in FRNR. A
general concern is the disconnect between natural resources
and the public, specifically young people, which may negatively impact students’ views on studying natural resources or
related programmes in college (Sharik and Frisk 2011).
To better understand FRNR enrollment trends in a global
context, a survey was administered to students attending
an International Union of Forest Research Organizations’
(IUFRO) conference in 2014. The survey contained questions
highlighting key factors in order to determine the degree to
which each influenced or motivated students’ decisions to
enroll or hesitations before enrolling in a FRNR programme.
The results from this survey have been analyzed and reported
here, with the intent of identifying specific factors and
how they influence students’ decisions based on various
population demographics from a global perspective.
DATA AND METHODS
In 2014, an online survey was administered to every registered
student participant attending the IUFRO World Congress held
in Salt Lake City, Utah, October 5–11, 2014. All 672 student
attendees received an e-mail request to participate in this
study and 396 participants completed the survey for a
response rate of 58.9%, which is considered an acceptable
return rate (Mayer and Wellstead 2018). These conference
attendees were chosen to participate in this study because the
IUFRO World Congress is held every five years, attracting a
large pool of international FRNR students, making it possible
to conduct a multinational investigation of FRNR enrollment
decision-making while maximizing limited resources and
minimizing logistical constraints. Although IUFRO conference attendees do not represent all students enrolled in
FRNR programmes around the world, their views can at least
provide important insights into enrollment decision-making
among some of the most active and dedicated students in
their respective FRNR fields. Furthermore, due to limitations
beyond our control, it was impossible for privacy reasons, to
assess non-response bias. In large-scale surveys where the
population is known, testing for this bias is critical. Given the
specialized nature of the respondents, such a test would be
of limited utility. However, we took measures to minimize
non-response bias including a thorough pre-testing of the
survey instrument, frequent reminder emails to complete the
survey, keeping the survey open for a reasonable period of
time (Dillman 2011), and participating in the organization
and oversight of the conference. Knowing what drove these
289
individuals to enroll in their FRNR programme and conversely,
may have made them hesitant in doing so, is a useful starting
point for programme administrators seeking to boost enrollment
numbers or to simply attract more highly motivated students.
The structure of the on-line survey was modeled after
Sharik and Frisk (2011) and Rouleau et al. (2017). The first
section focused on demographic information such as the location of the student’s current degree programme, their academic
status, gender, race, and country of residence. The second part
used a series of Likert-scale questions to determine which
factors were most important to the student’s decision to enroll
in a FRNR programme, and conversely those that may have
made them hesitant to enroll.
The survey was divided into two components: demographics of respondents and factors that impacted their
decision to enroll in forestry or a related programme. Student
respondents were given a list of potential influencing factors
and were directed to choose how important that particular
factor was to them. To gain a better understanding of the
involvement of students outside of their degree programmes,
the survey contained a question asking whether or not students
were members of one or more university student naturalresources organizations. Finally, students were also asked
what other majors they considered before deciding on a
degree in FRNR. This provides information as to the personal
interests of typical forestry or natural resources students.
Responses were analyzed using the SPSS 20 Statistics
software. Data underwent reliability analysis using Cronbach’s
alpha to determine the strength of association of factors
within meta-categories. For the Importance factors, a neutral
response would yield a value of µ=2.00 while lower values
indicate less importance and higher values, greater importance. ANOVAs were computed to determine if there was a
difference between types of students based on their demographics and how they answered particular questions. Output
that yielded results below a significance value of 0.05
were deemed statistically significant. These results were then
analyzed using the Tukey Post Hoc test. Tukey Post Hoc
results below 0.05 indicate which groups in the grouping
variable differ.
The statistically significant values found using a t-Test
from the important factors were used for additional analysis.
ANOVAs were computed using the significant t-Test results
to determine which grouping variables have statistically different components (Sig. < 0.05). The significance value for
each factor as well as the mean for each possible response are
reported for each corresponding demographic group. Tukey
test results indicate which variables differ from each other and
are bolded in the ANOVA results tables.
RESULTS
About the Respondents
IUFRO conference participants who identified their gender
and race included a fairly even distribution of males and
females with 174 being female (just over 51%) and 162 (nearly
290
T.L. Bal et al.
48%) being male (4 chose not to answer). The majority (54%)
of the respondents identified as White, while 17.4% of
respondents identified as being of Hispanic or Latino origin
or descent. Asians (16.1%) were the largest racial group
after Whites, followed by black or African American (7.0%),
Native American/Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (1.8%),
and Multiracial (5%). Not surprisingly, the largest group
(44%) of respondents resided in North America, the conference location (Table S1). Clearly, it would have been advantageous to have better balance among countries and regions in
the survey population. Moreover, we did not differentiate
between students studying at home and those studying abroad.
The next most represented groups came from Europe, Asia,
and Latin America at 25%, 11%, and 11%, respectively.
Other parts of the world represented at the conference included Oceania, Africa, and the Middle East (Table S1). In terms
of their day-to-day living environments, nearly half of the
respondents (46.9%) spent the majority of their lives in urban
settings compared to those doing so in suburban (30.3%)
and rural environments (22.8%). There was an interaction
between race and residential setting, in that the majority of
non-whites (55.3%) spent most of their lives in urban environments, reporting much less time lived in rural areas (14.9%),
while whites were fairly evenly distributed among urban,
suburban, and rural environments (37.4%, 32.5%, 30.1%
respectively) in terms of majority residency.
Most respondents (58.8%) were doctoral or post-doctoral
students while 26.5% and 16.7% were masters and undergraduate students, respectively. Just over a quarter (27.7%)
had completed at least three years of their current degree
programme. The majority of students (51%) self-identified
their current programme as forestry. Other programmes
included environmental or natural resource studies (17.7%),
wood science and products (3.6%), watershed science and
management (1.0%), and fisheries and wildlife (0.3%). The
“Mixed” category refers to students who enrolled in a combination of the previous degree programmes and comprises
7.7% of the survey population. The “Other” category refers to
the remaining 18.7% of current students in degree programmes
they self-identified outside of traditional FRNR categories,
with most students indicating they were in other degrees
related to human dimensions, natural science, and social
sciences. Most students (92.5%) selecting “other” degree
programmes did indicate an area related to FRNR, such as
forest economics, public international law, geographical
sciences, plant pathology, or environmental engineering,
which makes sense given that these students were attending
an international forest research conference. More students
(39.3%) indicated they were enrolled in a combination of
specialties within degree programmes than those enrolled in
one particular specialty. At least 45.4% considered enrolling
in a combination of the previous majors, but ultimately
enrolled in only one field, while 12.9% and 32.2% selected
only human dimensions or natural science, respectively.
Finally, most students (66.2%) said they did not belong to a
university student FRNR organization.
Importance Factors Influencing Choice of a FRNR
Education
A reliability analysis of these items resulted in the following
broader categories for these factors: “Career”, “Personal”,
and “Academic” (Table 1). An additional category called
“Affective” was created to distinguish emotional from cognitive responses and thus was expressed as “enjoyment of”
rather than “interest in” in the survey questions (Rouleau
et al. 2017, Sharik and Frisk 2011). Respondents were asked
a number of questions about how important various factors
were regarding their choice of pursuing a FRNR education.
With the exception of the “Academic” category (α=0.229),
strong Alpha scores were reported. Given that the highest
possible response is µ=4, results show just how strongly
respondents felt about their education and future work environments, and how much influence it has on their choice in
degree programmes. The highest overall category mean was
for the Affective category (µ=3.20), which also had the highest internal consistency among factors (α= .816). The highest
mean values in the Career, Academic, Personal, and Affective
categories were “Job Satisfaction” (µ=3.41), “Subject Matter”
(µ=3.10), “Concern for the Environment” (µ=3.36), and
“Enjoy Nature in General” (µ=3.47), respectively (Table 1).
The frequency scores for items across the four categories are
reported in Table S2.
Multiple statistically significant Importance factors, those
that are different on the more important side of “neutral”
(µ=2), were identified, with Enjoying Nature and Job
Satisfaction being the most important (Table 1). The only
importance factors that were not statistically significant are
Earning Potential, Tuition and Fees, and Exposure to Forestry
in High School (Table 1). Factors in the same category that
have the largest differences include Earning Potential (µ=1.97)
and Job Satisfaction (µ=3.41) in the Career category and
Family Member or Friend (µ=1.29) and Concern for Environmental Problems (µ=3.36) in the Personal category. These
results indicate that respondents felt their satisfaction in a
career was more important than earning potential or the
influence from family or friends. In addition, respondents’
concern for the environment was more important to them
when choosing a major than input from family or friends.
Academic Standing contains four groups including
Undergraduates, Masters, Doctoral, and Post-doctoral. Three
Importance factors were statistically significant for these
groups, i.e., Employment Opportunities, Being Outdoors,
and Scholarships (Table 2). Tukey results indicate that undergraduate are statistically different from masters and doctoral
students for Employment Opportunities and Being Outdoors.
For Scholarships, only undergraduates and doctoral students
are statistically different (Table 2). Undergraduate students
find their future Employment Opportunities (µ=3.41) to be
more important than the other groups of students. Undergraduates also find Being Outdoors to be more important (µ=3.41).
Doctoral students reported the availability of Scholarships
(µ=2.81) more important than undergraduate students
(µ=2.27) (Table 2).
291
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry
TABLE 1 Responses to “How important were the following factors when you made your decision to major in forestry or a
related natural resource degree programme?” (FRNR = forestry or related natural resources)
Mean (Not Important µ=0,
Very Important µ=4)
Std. Deviation
n
Employment Opportunities
2.67
1.144
349
High Earning Potential
1.97
1.097
349
Enjoy Working in Outdoors
3.19
0.999
350
Sense of Job Satisfaction
3.41
0.805
350
2.81
—
—
Subject Matter of my Programme
3.10
0.926
344
Available Scholarships/Funding
2.76
2.576
348
Reputation of School or Faculty
2.57
1.102
350
2.41
5.354
347
2.71
—
—
Enjoy Being Outdoors
3.17
0.989
349
Family or Friends
1.29
1.312
348
Exposure to FRNR as a Child
2.55
1.298
345
Exposure to FRNR courses in High School
1.90
1.327
346
3.36
0.883
348
2.45
—
—
Enjoy Wildlife
3.04
1.049
347
Enjoy Nature in General
3.47
0.792
346
Enjoy Forestry
3.10
1.170
344
Enjoy Outdoor Recreation
3.20
1.000
348
3.20
—
—
Career α=0.554
Career Total
Academic α=0.229
Tuition and Fees
Academic Total
Personal α=0.580
Concern for Environmental Problems
Personal Total
Affective α=0.816
Affective Total
Bold numbers indicate statistically significantly different from neutral (2) at the 95% confidence level.
TABLE 2 Factors considered important and hesitant with statistically significant ANOVA mean differences (Not Important or
Hesitant µ=0, Very Important or Hesitant µ=4) for Academic Standing
Category†
Under-graduatea
Mastersb
Doctoralc
Post-Doctorald
Employment Opportunities
3.12b,c
2.55a
2.57a
2.18
0.004
Enjoy Being Outdoors
3.41
Available Scholarships/Funding
2.27
Significance
Important
3.15
3.13
c
3.27
0.026
2.50
a
2.81
3.00
0.023
Job Satisfaction
0.79c
1.20
1.47a
1.40
Contentious Political Issues
1.45
1.35
1.79
2.60
b,c
a
a
Hesitant
d
Letters indicate which group significantly differed from which other group.
c,d
b
0.007
a,b
0.003
292
T.L. Bal et al.
World Regions differ significantly with respect to eight
importance factors, i.e., Earning Potential, Being Outdoors,
Enjoy Working Outdoors, Reputation of School/Faculty,
Scholarships, Family/Friends, Enjoy Forestry, and Enjoy
Outdoor Recreation (Table 3). According to the Tukey results,
North America and Europe are statistically significantly
different for more factors than any other two regions, i.e.,
for for all but Family and Friends. For Reputation and Enjoy
Forestry, North America, Latin America and Europe are
statistically different while for Family/Friends, Europe and
Asia are statistically different. Employment Opportunities are
more important to North Americans than to Europeans. Being
Outdoors is also more important to North Americans than
Europeans, and by a larger margin. Similarly, Enjoy Working
Outdoors is more important to North Americans (µ=3.39)
than Europeans (µ=2.85). Reputation of the School or Faculty
is most important to Latin Americans followed by North
Americans and then Europeans. Scholarships are also more
important to North Americans than to Europeans. Family and
Friends are more important to Asians than to Europeans. Forestry is most important to Latin Americans followed by North
Americans and then Europeans. Finally, Outdoor Recreation
is more important to North Americans than it is to Europeans
(Table 3).
Gender differed significantly with respect to two importance factors, i.e., Job Satisfaction and Enjoy Nature
(Table 4). Females had higher means for both factors indicating that job satisfaction and nature are more important to them
than it is to males.
With respect to Race (reduced to two groups, i.e., NonWhites and Whites), Employment Opportunities are more
important to Non-Whites than to Whites, while Being Outdoors is more important to Whites than Non-Whites (Table 5).
Earning Potential, Reputation, Scholarships and Family/
Friends are all more important to Non-Whites. Exposure to
Forestry as a Child and Enjoying Outdoor Recreation were
reported as more important to Whites than to Non-Whites
(Table 5).
Social Background describes the living environment in
which participants spent most of their life, i.e., urban, suburban, or rural. Social Background includes two statistically
significant factors, Being Outdoors and Job Satisfaction
(Table 6). Tukey results indicate that urban respondents are
statistically significantly different from rural respondents for
TABLE 3 Importance Factors ANOVA Means (Not Important or Hesitant µ=0, Very Important or Hesitant µ=4) for World
Region (FRNR = forestry and related natural resources)
Category
North
Americaa
Latin
Americab
Europec
Oceaniad
Asiae
Africaf
Middle
Eastg
Significance
Important
Employment Opportunities
2.80c
2.66
2.25a
3.00
2.67
2.89
3.17
0.012
Enjoy Being Outdoors
3.40
2.90
2.90
3.25
2.97
3.22
2.83
0.002
Working in Outdoors
3.39
3.15
a,f
2.85
3.25
2.88
3.61
3.17
0.001
Reputation of School or Faculty
2.61
2.84
2.14
a,b
2.88
2.72
2.83
3.00
0.005
Scholarships/Funding
2.82
2.63
2.13
3.38
2.87
2.67
2.83
0.003
Family or Friends
1.23
1.20
1.07
0.88
1.94
1.56
2.17
0.021
Enjoy Forestry
3.20c
3.46c
2.80a,b
3.00
3.13
3.28
3.40
0.016
Enjoy Outdoor Recreation
3.39
3.13
2.93
2.88
3.19
2.94
3.50
0.020
Work Conditions
1.26b,e,f
1.97a
1.57
1.00
2.13a
2.39a
2.33
0.000
Remote Work Locations
1.25
1.86
1.55
1.38
2.03
2.06
2.17
0.001
Job Satisfaction
1.10
1.67
1.25
0.52
1.04
c,d
1.55
1.17
0.000
Contentious Political Issues
1.43
2.08
1.52
1.75
a,c
2.33
1.61
2.50
0.002
Difficult Subject Matter
0.86b,e
1.70a
1.13e
0.63g
1.90a,c
1.33
2.80a,c,d
0.000
Reputation of School or Faculty
1.05b,e
1.78a,c
1.04b,e,g
0.88
1.86a,c
1.83
2.50a,c
0.000
Scholarships/Funding
1.60
2.08
1.39
1.13
2.17
2.22
2.33
0.007
Exposure in High School
1.18
1.53
1.05
1.25
1.45
1.94
2.50
0.008
Negative Image of FRNR sector
1.13
1.61
0.98
1.25
1.52
1.78
2.83
0.001
Own Gender
1.01
1.19
0.68
1.25
1.30
1.89
2.83
0.000
Own Race
0.82
1.14
0.55
0.75
1.10
1.28
2.20
0.003
c
c
c
c
c
c
a
a
e
a
c
f
Hesitant
e
b,e,f
e
g
g
f,g
f,g
a,c
b,g
e
g
g
f,g
Letters indicate which group significantly differed from which other group.
f,g
e,g
a
a
a,c
a,c
a,c,d
a,c
a,c
a,c
a,c
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry
293
TABLE 4 Factors considered important and hesitant with statistically significant mean differences (Not Important or Hesitant
µ=0, Very Important or Hesitant µ=4) for Gender (FRNR = forestry and related natural resources)
Category
Female
Male
Significance
Sense of Job Satisfaction
3.47
3.35
0.033
Enjoy Nature in General
3.57
3.37
0.031
Min. Exposure to FRNR in High School
1.37
1.20
0.049
Negative Image of FRNR sector
1.37
1.15
0.035
Own Gender
1.30
0.80
0.001
Important
Hesitant
TABLE 5 Factors considered important and hesitant with statistically significant mean differences (Not Important or Hesitant
µ=0, Very Important or Hesitant µ=4) for Race (FRNR = forestry and related natural resources)
Category
Non-White
White
Significance
Employment Opportunities
2.80
2.55
0.042
Enjoy Being Outdoors
2.95
3.31
0.001
High Earning Potential
2.21
1.81
0.001
Reputation of School or Faculty
2.71
2.46
0.032
Scholarships/Funding
2.91
2.47
0.002
Family or Friends
1.51
1.12
0.005
Exposure to FRNR as a Child
2.29
2.69
0.005
Enjoy Outdoor Recreation
3.00
3.33
0.002
Family or Friends
1.36
0.99
0.000
Working Conditions
1.99
1.28
0.000
Remote Work Locations
1.90
1.27
0.000
Job Satisfaction
1.88
0.89
0.000
Contentious Political Issues
1.99
1.41
0.000
Difficult Subject Matter
1.46
0.96
0.000
Reputation of School or Faculty
1.62
1.02
0.000
Scholarships/Funding
2.05
1.44
0.000
Min. Exposure to FRNR as Child
1.57
1.03
0.000
Min. Exposure to FRNR in High School
1.64
1.03
0.000
Negative Image of FRNR sector
1.59
1.02
0.000
Own Gender
1.36
0.86
0.000
Own Race
1.27
0.58
0.000
Important
Hesitant
Being Outdoors, while all three living environments differ
from each other for Job Satisfaction. Respondents who spent
most of their lives in rural environments feel that being outdoors is more important to them than do respondents from
urban environments. Respondents from rural environments
also feel that Job Satisfaction is the most important followed
by those from suburban and then urban environments.
Hesitance Factors Influencing Choice of a FRNR
Education
Students were also asked about factors that made them hesitate before enrolling. Each of the detracting hesitant factors
was statistically significantly different (more “not hesitant”)
from neutral (Table 7). Factors that caused respondents to be
294
T.L. Bal et al.
TABLE 6 Factors considered important and hesitant with statistically significant mean differences (Not Important or Hesitant
µ=0, Very Important or Hesitant µ=4) for Social Background (FRNR = forestry and related natural resources)
Urbana
Category
Suburbanb
Ruralc
Significance
3.36a
0.026
Important
Enjoy Being Outdoors
3.01c
3.24
Sense of Job Satisfaction
3.27
c
3.36
3.66
0.002
Job Satisfaction
1.50c
1.13
1.01a
0.012
Difficult Subject Matter
1.34b
0.96a
1.00
0.015
Reputation of School or Faculty
1.48
b,c
1.07
Scholarships/Funding
1.89
b
Min. Exposure to FRNR as a Child
1.48
b,c
Min. Exposure to FRNR in High School
1.51
b
Own Race
1.02
b
c
a,b
Hesitant
1.08
0.009
1.49
a
1.54
0.036
1.06
a
a
a
0.98
0.003
0.99
a
1.11
0.002
0.66
a
0.74
0.027
a
Letters indicate which group significantly differed from which other group.
TABLE 7 Responses to “How important were the following factors that caused you to hesitate when deciding to enroll in an
NR programme?” (FRNR = forestry or related natural resources)
Mean (Not Hesitant µ=0,
Very Hesitant µ=4)
Std. Deviation
n
Career α=0.799
Salary Levels and Earning Potential
1.84
1.148
344
Working Conditions
1.57
1.246
345
Remote Work Locations
1.52
1.227
345
Job Satisfaction
0.29
1.337
345
Contentious Political Issues
1.63
1.429
344
1.57
—
—
Difficult Subject Matter
1.18
1.185
342
Available Scholarships/Funding
1.27
1.21
340
Reputation of School or Faculty
1.69
1.332
341
1.38
—
—
Family or Friends
1.14
1.232
346
Minimal Exposure to FRNR as a Child
1.25
1.241
341
Minimal Exposure to FRNR in High School
1.32
1.287
343
Negative Image of FRNR Sector
1.27
1.283
343
Own Gender
1.07
1.251
342
Own Race
0.88
1.174
342
1.15
—
—
Career Total
Academic α=0.751
Academic Total
Personal α=0.808
Personal Total
Bold numbers indicate statistically significantly different from neutral (µ=2) at the 95% confidence level.
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry
the most hesitant on average included Earning Potential,
Reputation, and Political Issues, while respondents Own Race
elicited the least hesitancy. The frequency scores for items
across the three categories are reported in Table S3.
All Hesitant factors were statistically significant from
neutral (Table 7), but of far less magnitude than the values
for Importance factors (Table 1). Salary Levels and Earning
Potential had the highest hesitancy score of all factors,
followed by Reputation of School or Faculty. Minimal Exposure in High School had the highest value among personal
factors.
Two of the thirteen factors showed a significant difference
among academic ranks, with doctoral students expressing
a significantly higher level of concern over Job Satisfaction
than undergraduate students, and post-doctoral students
having a significantly higher level of hesitancy than undergraduates and masters with respect to to Contentious Political
Issues (Table 2). Eleven of the thirteen factors exhibited
significant differences among world regions (Table 3). North
Americans showed the greatest number of factor differences
with respondents from other regions, and in nearly all cases
the level of hesitancy was higher for participants in other
regions than in North America. Two notable exceptions were
respondents’ Gender and Race, where North Americans were
more hesitant than Europeans. Middle Eastern respondents
exhibited the highest level of hesitancy for the largest number
of factors, including Subject Matter, Reputation of the Programme, Scholarship Availability, Negative Image of FRNR
Sector, and their own Gender and Race.
Three factors were significantly different between genders, including Minimum Exposure in High School, Negative
Image of FRNR Sector, and Own Gender, and in all cases
hesitancy values were higher for females than males
(Table 4). All thirteen factors showed significant differences
among racial/ethnic groups, with non-whites being more
hesitant than whites in all cases (Table 5). Likewise, among
the seven factors exhibiting significant differences among
social backgrounds, urban respondents showed higher levels
of hesitancy than suburban and/or rural respondents (Table 6).
Moreover, as reported earlier, there was an interaction
between race and social background in that a higher proportion of non-whites spent most of their lives in urban areas than
did whites.
DISCUSSION
Many of our results support work by others done in interviews
or smaller surveys, but these vary depending on the demographics, locations, or specific wording in the survey. A study
of culturally diverse NR students from West Virginia University (a large university with an agriculture focus) and Alabama
Agricultural and Mechanical University (a Historically Black
College founded before the US Civil Rights Act of 1964
intended to serve the African-American community) found
that lack of scholarships, lack of family understanding and/or
institutional support, and gender discrimination were barriers
for students pursuing NR degrees (Balcarzyk et al. 2016),
295
while having scholarships, general family support, access to
social NR clubs or groups, and friends that enjoy outdoor
activities were strong factors related to a feeling of support
in pursuing a NR-related degree (Balcarzyk et al. 2016). In
another survey of primarily white, female Agriculture and
NR students from Michigan State University (another large
land-grant), the academic programme (subject matter), reputation of the programme, internships, advisors and recommendations of family members were the most important
factors in students’ decisions to attend (Shrestha et al. 2011).
Highlighting the university or programmatic culture of
supporting students socially, with student access to role
models, advisers, mentors, and financial resources was an
important recruiting practice. These studies have similar
overlapping motivational values, but it is important to keep in
mind the tailored wording and options in the survey tool
choices, and the demographics of the specific locations versus
a broadly national or international scope.
Major differences in Importance and Hesitancy Factors
Given that our survey population consisted of students who
were currently enrolled in a FRNR degree or post-doctoral
programme, we would expect them to place a high degree of
importance on most of the 17 factors in the survey regarding
their decision to major in forestry or a related natural resources
(FRNR) degree programme, and indeed they did. Conversely,
we would have expected their hesitancy to major in FRNR to
be relatively low. While this was the case, they did show a
degree of hesitancy that differed significantly from neutral in
all 13 factors considered. These hesitancies offer suggestions
as to why non-FRNR students, especially those who enjoy
being in nature/the outdoors, choose not to pursue FRNR
degrees and by extension careers in these fields.
Affective
Of the four categories, “Career”, “Academic”, “Personal”,
and “Affective”, the latter had the highest overall mean
importance score (µ=3.20 compared to 2.81, 2.71, and 2.45
for the first three respectively; Table 1). Enjoying Nature had
the highest score of any of the importance factors, and when
coupled to the high values for Working Outdoors, Being Outdoors, Job Satisfaction, and Concern for The Environment,
supports our results from earlier surveys of US students
(Rouleau et al. 2017, Sharik and Frisk 2011) where this
combination of factors seems to be extremely important in
their decision to matriculate in a FRNR degree programme.
Surveys of FRNR students often cite affective development
such as a love of the outdoors or feeling passionate about
nature in their attraction to FRNR fields (e.g. Emmons 1997,
Markworth and Buttrick 1939, Wolter et al. 2011a, Wolter
et al. 2011b). Arevalo et al. (2012) found a strong similarity
in the importance of environmental protection to forestry
student views from Brazil, China, and Finland. Likewise,
the International Forestry Student Association (IFSA 2010)
found that dealing with environmental issues was the main
reason 75% of responding forestry students choose that field.
In addition, a study of over 100 environmental scientists in
296
T.L. Bal et al.
Canada found that concern for the environment and precareer experiences in the natural world were ubiquitous
motivations among the professionals (Wright and Wyatt
2008). Numerous authors have also shown outdoor, fieldbased learning experiences are important to FRNR students
(e.g. Bullard et al. 2014, Hix 2015, Nagel 2004).
Career
Students indicated that Job Satisfaction and Working
Outdoors were the most important aspects of the “Career”
category, but these are also highly related to “Affective”
choices. Earning Potential overall had the most “not important to neutral” rankings (Table S2), confirming earlier
studies (Sharik and Frisk 2011), which may reflect a very
altruistic perspective for students with significant concerns
for the environment (Gifford and Nilsson 2014). There are
significant differences in earning potential rankings seen
between world regions (Table 3), likely reflecting a cultural
emphasis on financial values (e.g. Auyeung and Sands 2010,
Komppula et al. 2018).
Academic
The “academic” category overall ranked higher than “Personal” category, but not the “Career” or “Affective” categories. Scholarships or funding availability may negate some of
the concerns over tuition or fees, while a high scoring for
Subject Matter is likely tied to the importance of the “Affective” category, and the tendency for natural resource students
to have a strong affinity for hands-on or experiential learning
in outdoor settings (e.g. Bragg and Tappe 2015, Bullard et al.
2014, Fedynich et al. 2012, Hirsch and Lloyd 2006, Hix,
2015, Nagel 2004). A survey of Australian university students
reported that academic factors (course suitability, reputation,
and teaching quality) and career factors (job prospects) ranked
highly among student enrollment decisions, but factors
related to the affective category were not included (Soutar
and Turner 2002).
Personal
The influence of family or friends (µ=1.29) overall was low,
while exposure to forestry as a child (µ=2.55) was much more
important (Table 1). Parental influence is often reported to be
stronger in surveys for all college students, not just those
in FRNR (e.g. Workman 2015), but there are often reported
differences between demographic groups (e.g. Ceja 2006,
Perna and Titus 2005). This overall trend is similar to an
enrollment perspective survey in the US of students in
colleges of agriculture at 1862 land grant institutions, where
current students in the programme indicated that family or
friends have a low influence on their choice, but having a
family member involved in an agriculture-related career
(meaning the students would likely have known more about
such a career from an early age) was the most likely influencer in their decision to enroll (Smith-Hollins et al. 2015).
Outley (2008) reported that minority students in the US identified individuals who most influenced their career choice as
their own mother and people already employed in the field.
Looking more closely at the importance of family and friends
and childhood exposure to FRNR, there are significant
differences depending on the world region (Table 3) and race
(Table 5). Collectivist societies (for example, many Asian
cultures) highly value the opinions of their families and
social responsibility and may be more willing to self-report or
identify it in a survey more so than people from individualist
societies such as many US, German, or Australian cultures
(Giacomino et al. 2013, Soutar and Turner 2002, Wang and
Juslin 2012). Lesson content related to or leading to exposure
to FRNR in primary and secondary school can also vary by
world region and cultures. It may be a topic rarely incorporated, if at all, or it may be compulsory and regularly incorporated into the curriculum, as it is for example in India (Dhaka
and Choudhari 2018), thereby more regularly exposing
students to FRNR topics. Formative experiences as a child
help develop an affinity for the natural world and lead to
more exposure to career options or environmental considerations (Sharik and Frisk 2011, Tanner 1980, Wells and Lekies
2006), whereas a commonly cited barrier to pursuing careers
in FRNR is simply a lack of knowledge of FRNR careers (e.g.
Adams and Moreno 1998, Outley 2008).
Major differences in demographics
Varying from Rouleau et al. (2017) and other recent research
on FRNR student motivations, this survey includes a majority
of graduate students, nearly as many non-forestry majors
as forestry majors, and global representation. We also asked
students to provide information on their primary social
background as another demographic category in addition to
race and gender.
Academic Standing
Graduate students reported Availability of Scholarships and
Funding to be more important than undergraduate students
(Table 2). This may be because scholarships are typically
more abundant and accessible to undergraduate students than
they are to graduate students, and therefore more of a concern
for upper-level students. Other reasons may be that students
have already accumulated debt from a baccalaureate and have
reservations about continuing to do so, or undergraduates
may be receiving more financial assistance from their parents
(Malcolm and Dowd 2012). Although not statistically significant, Post-Docs reported that scholarships/funding were also
more important than for Doctoral students, who in turn also
reported that it was more important than for Masters students.
Scholarships was still significantly more important than
neutral for undergraduates. It is interesting that Employment
Opportunities are the inverse, being ranked less important to
graduate students and post-docs, but this may be because they
already have an undergraduate degree and feel more qualified
for employment in their field. Being Outdoors is also rated
less important to graduate students than to undergraduates,
which may mean they are focusing on less “outdoor field”
experience in school and enrolling for more analytical or
research-based programmes. Further differentiating students
into years of study may shed more light on perceptions and
motivations, as even first-year vs. third- or fourth-year FRNR
undergraduates have discernable differences in their motivations and concerns (Arevelo et al. 2010). However, 76.9% of
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry
undergraduates responding to our survey had completed 3
or more years in their programme, the result of our survey
pool being conference attendees and more likely to be in
leadership positions or involved with activities that provide
conference travel support.
World Regions
Most of the significant differences in importance factors
among regions were between North American and European
respondents (Table 3), and in all cases North Americans placed
a higher importance on these factors than did Europeans—for
reasons that are not clear. One area that may be less speculative is that it is likely Europeans are less concerned with
Scholarships than others, as higher education in Europe is
largely subsidized or reduced in cost, though this varies
between individual nations (Brooks 2017). About one-third of
the respondents reported the US as their country of residence
(Table S1), and their stronger responses could be related to
feeling more comfortable in their “home country” during the
survey, rather than if the conference were in another country.
The survey was also conducted in English, so some may have
been less comfortable in their answers if it were a second
language. However, this does not explain why Europeans
placed less importance on these factors than respondents from
other regions.
Gender
Females responded with higher means for all of the statistically significant importance and hesitance factors (Table 4).
Other surveys have also found that females tend to place a
higher value on nature on nature or the environment or have
stronger environmental concerns (Mueller and Mullenbach
2018). Arevelo et al. (2011) reported women in Brazil and
Finland placed a higher value on environmental protection
than their male colleagues. Storch (2011) also reported that
female foresters in Germany had different perceptions of
nature than male foresters, but that these differences were
not as significant as either female or male foresters and the
general public. A higher rating in Job Satisfaction may mean
that female students see their FRNR field as aligned with
nature or the environment, but also that future job satisfaction
will be an important consideration given the challenges FRNR
has faced regarding gender diversity. In the US and internationally, women may feel more hesitant about enrolling in a
FRNR programme and seeking a job in the field because these
programmes are typically known to be comprised of mostly
males, especially in forestry (e.g. Balcarczyk et al. 2016, FAO
2006, FAO 2007, Kuhns et al. 2002, Sharik and Frisk 2011,
Sharik et al. 2015, Rouleau et al. 2017, this study). Similar to
North America, Nordic countries have commonly reported
lower proportions of female forestry students (Lidestava and
Sjölander 2007), but these countries and others such as China
and Brazil, have indicated increasing trends of enrolled
female forestry students (Arevalo et al. 2012, Sharik et al.
2015). Authors have described ‘forestry’ as having an image
or reputation problem that can be related to diversity and
inclusiveness, or that it can appear less modern or overly
technical (perhaps due to accreditation standards), compared
297
to other NR programmes (e.g. Andersson and Lidestav 2016,
Hoffmann 1988, Luckert 2006, McGown 2015, Redelsheimer
et al. 2015, Wellman 1987, Yanciw 2004). Increasing the
number of women in FRNR fields is important to change the
image of forestry and related fields, yet socially constructed,
male-dominated culture (e.g. Markworth and Buttrick) in
academia and in the work force is still a hesitation factor for
many women as shown in this study and others (CoutinhoSledge 2015, Kern et al. 2019, Larasatie et al. 2019, Rouleau
et al. 2017, Sharik and Frisk 2011).
Race
The significant differences for race (Table 5) are telling, even
in a cross-national survey. The most important factors for
non-white students in making a decision to matriculate in an
FRNR degree programme included largely financial/economic
factors, while those for whites were related to being outdoors,
including as a child. This may be a reflection of racial stratification, with white students generally having more socioeconomic opportunities, more access to outdoor recreational
opportunities, and potentially more access to scholarships/
funding, leading to it being less of a concern or motivating
factor (Carnevale and Strohl 2013, Finney 2014). However,
being outdoors and outdoor recreation were ranked as
the most important to both groups. The finding in this study
that non-whites showed a significantly greater hesitancy to
matriculate in an FRNR degree programme than whites in
all thirteen hesitancy factors, including one’s own race, is
especially noteworthy. It should also be stated that enrollment
of a racially and ethnically diverse student body may not be
considered a problem in some countries, whereas approximately one-third of students in this survey were from the US
(Table S1), where student enrollments in FRNR have not been
reflective of the racial/ethnic diversity in the college-aged
population for decades (Didriksen 1975, Sharik et al. 2015).
Diverse and reflective representation is made even further
complex in countries with a history of colonialism.
A survey of minority student perceptions in agriculture
and natural resource fields in the US noted that the student’s
own mother or knowing a person in the field had the most
influence on their career choice, followed by concern for
environment (Outley 2008). Other factors such as career
opportunities, positive educational experiences, and job experiences with agencies or organizations were also important
thematic considerations for career choice, while barriers identified included lack of information, internal agency/organization diversity, perceptions of careers, and historical cultural
perceptions (Outley 2008). Comparisons were only made
here between white and non-white students in order to have a
large enough sample size, but future research should consider
this further.
Social Background
It is noteworthy in this study that of the seven hesitancy
factors where there were significant differences among
respondents who spent most of their lives in urban vs. suburban or rural areas, those from urban areas showed a higher
hesitancy to major in an FRNR degree programme. In the US,
298
T.L. Bal et al.
traditionally, many FRNR professionals came from rural
areas, regardless of ethnicity (Balcarzyk et al. 2016). An
assumption is that people who have spent most of their life
(and especially their youth, ala Louv 2005) in rural environments may have a greater appreciation for the outdoors than
people from other living environments and may thus derive a
greater sense of satisfaction from a career in FRNR (Collins
and Anantharaman 2015, Eliason 2006, Sharik and Frisk
2011, Wolter et al. 2011a). Students from urban and suburban
areas in the US may have spent less time in the outdoors in
their youth than did their rural counterparts and thus perceive
more barriers to overcome in pursuing a career in FRNR
(Balcarzyk et al. 2016). However, in our survey, only 22% of
student respondents reported as being from a rural background, suggesting that more and more students are motivated
to enroll in FRNR from urban and suburban backgrounds.
Moreover, the “traditionally” rural-raised FRNR student
stereotype may not hold true internationally, at least among
higher-academic-standing, conference-going students. Of the
graduate students and post-doctoral students here, on average
they reported 79.7% of their life having lived in an urban/
suburban environment, while undergraduates averaged 65.4%.
Limitations of the Study
A mistake in one word of the survey answer options,
(‘Forestry’ rather than ‘Forests’) likely influenced results for
the affective categories. Respondents indicated enjoyment of
Wildlife, Nature, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation as positive factors in their decision to enroll in an FRNR programme.
Given that 51% of students reported majoring in forestry
(with the others in related fields), and that the IUFRO conference was taking place jointly with a Society of American
Foresters National Convention, there was probably not a
strong negative feeling of the word ‘Forestry’. However,
the survey should have had ‘Forests’ along with Nature and
Wildlife as an “Affective” category to choose from, relating to
a feeling or attitude about forests in general, rather than the
field of forestry. In addition, this change may have resulted
in non-forestry majors (nearly half the study population),
placing higher importance on this factor had it been “enjoying
forests”, given the negative image of forestry in some segments
of society (Sharik and Frisk 2011, Sharik et al. 2015).
The survey here was conducted with current students in
FRNR, and thus one might expect their motivations for
enrolling to outweigh any hesitancies to enrolling. However,
the hesitancies do tell us what factors may have caused them
not to have matriculated in an FRNR programme. It would be
difficult to globally survey university students who considered FRNR specifically, but decided not to pursue it. Some
small surveys of student reasons for starting outside of FRNR
and transferring in (Wolter et al. 2011a) and leaving programmes (Wolter et al. 2011b) have been published. Though
we asked how many years of their current programme they
completed and what level of academic standing they had,
students were not specifically asked if they had transferred or
previously studied non-FRNR programmes. We did ask if they
had considered other majors before deciding on a degree in
FRNR, which may be an important window into this area,
with students indicating biology (43.9%), engineering
(21.3%), or social sciences (20.4%) as the three highest
response answers. Wolter et al. (2011b) interviewed US
undergrads as they decided to leave a fisheries and wildlife
programme, and most of them reported concerns over job
prospects and earning potential, reluctance to pursue a further
graduate programme, lack of outdoor experiences offered in
the curriculum, and a desire for more active participation in
the undergrad programme. However, these students were
motivated to enroll in the programme to begin with. Thus, we
are very much in need of a nation-wide or global study that
surveys students in a wide array of degree programmes,
especially those that lead to professional careers where
knowledge, skills and abilities, and behaviors are important.
These new surveys would ascertain which factors prevent
potential FRNR students from enrolling, particularly nonFRNR students who enjoy being and working in nature/the
outdoors since these factors are strongly associated with those
who decided to major in FRNR.
Though almost 19% of respondents self-identified as
majoring in “Other” categories outside of FRNR, they indicated interdisciplinary fields such as social sciences or natural
sciences. As these students were attending an international
conference focusing on forestry, we have assumed a likelihood that their study programme strongly correlates with
FRNR topics.
The fact that well over half of the study population
consisted of graduate and post-doctoral students is not a
limitation per se, but rather makes it difficult to compare with
earlier studies, most of which were confined to undergraduate
students. However, the fact that only three of the 17 importance factors and two of the 13 hesitancy factors differed
significantly among one or more of the four classes of academic standing suggests that students in these classes have
a lot in common regarding their decisions to major in an
FRNR degree programme. Another interpretation is that the
relatively small differences in results could be a product of
homogeneity of the sample. In some ways this should not be
surprising in that most graduate students and post-doctoral
fellows likely had degrees in the same or similar disciplines
as the undergraduates in our current study, but we did not
specifically ask what areas previous degrees were in, or if
students were in coursework- or research-based programmes.
Furthermore, one must keep in mind that these were actively
engaged students who had the means to attend a large, international forest research conference in the US, which may in
part explain the larger proportion of graduate and post-doctoral
students.
There are limitations to cross-national studies in that it is
difficult to know if they are truly representative of a global
scale and global cultures, especially when such studies have
an imbalance in respondents among countries and regions,
such as was the case in our study (Arevelo et al. 2012). For
example, the term ‘race’ was used in the survey, rather than
ethnicity or race/ethnicity, and all of the results were
collapsed into white and non-white (i.e. people of color). This
obviously is complicated when surveying an international
population. Additionally, the survey tool asked for country of
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry
residence and the origin of the institution, thus students studying abroad would be another population to consider in the
future. An objective in this study was to have comparable
results to Sharik and Frisk (2011) and Rouleau et al. (2017),
both of which were confined to US students. However, this
meant that the survey instrument was developed and interpreted from a US perspective, potentially missing culturally
relevant factors specific to other regions in the world. Institutions where students have made the decision to enroll vary in
their demographic characteristics and employment markets
they target. Despite this, there are common motivational
factors perceived by FRNR students that encouraged them
to pursue university enrollment in these fields.
CONCLUSION
From their study of factors that attracted undergraduate
forestry students in the US to matriculate in a forestry degree
programme, Sharik and Frisk (2011, pg 165) developed the
following student profile: “someone who loves working
outdoors and has a deep affection for and interest in nature, in
part resulting from having experienced nature in childhood
and adolescence; has a strong interest in natural science and
forestry academic subjects; has a strong conservation ethic;
and is committed to making a difference through sustainable
management of our nation’s forests.” The main hesitancies of
these students were “a perceived lack of jobs and low wages
compared to other professions.” A follow-up study of a
closely related population by Rouleau et al. (2017) revealed a
similar profile. A profile developed from the current study is
not unlike that developed from previous studies despite the
fact that it includes a much better balance between FRNR
majors, includes undergraduates and graduate students, and is
more global in extent, keeping in mind the context that our
respondents were actively engaged, attending an international
forest research conference. Universities have to balance
curriculum and recruitment strategies that are important to
students making decisions to enroll in programmes and consider future employer preferences for knowledge, abilities
and skills, and behaviors. Future research could further examine how to further incorporate programmes geared towards
potential students’ affective preferences with knowledge and
skills desired by future employers (i.e. Sample et al. 2015),
thereby impacting recruitment and retention efforts. A lingering problem for the natural resource professions is that of low
gender and racial/ethnic diversity, at least in the US (Sharik
et al. 2015, Sharik and Bal 2017). Low numbers of women
and especially people of color have made it difficult to obtain
survey sample sizes adequate to draw any meaningful insights
into why this diversity continues to remain low. The current
study, with its larger sample size, allowed for a more robust
analysis of this issue and perhaps one of the most telling
results is that women and people of color, surveyed from
multiple world regions, continue to feel that their own gender
and race make them more hesitant to pursue a degree (and
by extension, a career) in FRNR than their white male peers.
Future surveys of a similar nature should provide a good
index of whether or not this barrier remains.
299
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the International Union of
Forest Research Organizations, as well as student assistants
for constructing data tables. Partial funding for this project
was provided by the Richard and Bonnie Robbins Chair in
Sustainability to T. L. Sharik. Reviews by four anonymous
peers greatly enhanced the final manuscript.
REFERENCES
ADAMS, C.E. and MORENO, M. 1998. A comparative study
of natural resource professionals in minority and majority
groups in the southeastern United States. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 26(4): 971–981.
ANDERSSON, E. and LIDESTAV, G. 2016. Creating
alternative spaces and articulating needs: Challenging
gendered notions of forestry and forest ownership through
women’s networks. Forest Policy & Economics 67: 38–44.
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.014.
AREVALO, J., JARSCHEL, B., PITKÄNEN, S., TAHVANAINEN, S. and ENKENBERG, J. 2010. Differences
in forestry students’ perceptions across study years in
a Brazilian undergraduate programme. Journal of Natural
Resources & Life Sciences Education 39: 94–101.
doi:10.4195/jnrlse.2010.0003.
AREVALO, J., TAHVANAINEN, L., PITKÄNEN, S. and
ENKENBERG, J. 2011. Motivation of foreign students
seeking a multi-institutional forestry master’s degree in
Europe. Journal of Forestry 109: 69–73. doi:10.1093/
jof/109.2.69.
AREVALO, J., MOLA-YUDEGO, B., PELKONEN, P. and
QU, M. 2012. Students’ views on forestry education:
A cross-national comparison across three universities
in Brazil, China and Finland. Forest Policy & Economics
25: 123–131. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.08.015.
ARMSTRONG, M.J., BERKOWITZ, A.R., DYER, L.A. and
TAYLOR, J. 2007. Understanding why underrepresented
students pursue ecology careers: a preliminary case study.
Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment 5(8): 415–420.
doi: 10.1890/060113.1.
AUYEUNG, P. and SANDS, J. 1997. Factors influencing
accounting students’ career choice: a cross-cultural
validation study. Accounting Education 6(1): 13–23. doi:
10.1080/096392897331596.
BALCARCZYK, K.L., SMALDONE, D., SELIN, S.W.,
PIERSKALLA, C.D. and MAUMBE, K. 2015. Barriers
and supports to entering a natural resource career:
Perspectives of culturally diverse recent hires. Journal of
Forestry 113(2): 231–239. doi:10.5849/jof.13-105.
BALCARCZYK, K.L., SMALDONE, D., SELIN, S.,
DOUGLAS, S., MAUMBE, K. and PIERSKALLA, C.
2016. Barriers and supports to pursuing a natural resource
degree. Natural Sciences Education 45: 15-11-0028.
doi:10.4195/nse2015.11.0028.
BARNES, D. 2010. Decline in Forestry Enrolment and
Student Recruitment. Forestry Chronicle 86(5): 565–565.
300
T.L. Bal et al.
BENGSTON, D.N. 2004. Listening to neglected voices:
American Indian perspectives on natural resource management. Journal of Forestry 102(1): 48–52. doi:10.1093/
jof/102.1.48.
BRAGG, D.C. and TAPPE, P.A. 2015. The many values
of field-based education in forestry. Journal of Forestry
113(6): 592. doi:10.5849/jof.15-114.
BROOKS, R. 2017. Understanding the higher education
student in Europe: a comparative analysis. Compare:
A Journal of Comparative and International Education
48(4): 500–517. doi:10.1080/03057925.2017.1318047.
BULLARD, S.H., STEPHENS WILLIAMS, P., COBLE, T.,
COBLE, D.W., DARVILLE, R. and ROGERS, L. 2014.
Producing “society-ready” foresters: A research-based
process to revise the bachelor of science in forestry
curriculum at Stephen F. Austin State University. Journal
of Forestry 112(4): 354–360. doi:10.5849/jof.13-098.
BURLEY, J. 2001. Changing forestry education–A United
Kingdom view. International University Forest Education
Leaders, Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
CARNEVALE, A.P. and STROHL, J. 2013. Separate &
unequal: How higher education reinforces the intergenerational reproduction of white racial privilege. Georgetown
University, Public Policy Institute, Center on Education
and the Workforce. Washington, DC, 57 p.
CEJA, M. 2006. Understanding the role of parents and
siblings as information sources in the college choice
process of Chicana students. Journal of College Student
Development 47(1): 87–104. doi: 10.1353/csd.2006.0003.
CHEN, D.Y. 2002. A study on the amalgamation of Chinese
higher educational institutions. Asia Pacific Education
Review 3(1): 48–55. doi:10.1007/BF03024920.
CHRISTENSEN, R.R. 1983. Forestry school enrollment and
degrees granted, 1971–1981. Journal of Forestry 81(10):
660–662. doi:10.1093/jof/81.10.660.
COLLINS, D. and ANANTHARAMAN, L. 2015. Equality
and inclusion in the outdoors: connecting with nature
from an Indian perspective. In: HUMBERSTONE, B.,
PRINCE, H. and HENDERSON, K.A. (ed.) Routledge
international handbook of outdoor studies. 351–359. New
York: Routledge.
COUTINHO-SLEDGE, P. 2015. Feminized forestry: The
promises and pitfalls of change in a masculine organization. Gender, Work & Organization 22(4): 375–389.
doi:10.1111/gwao.12098.
DHAKA, R.K. and CHOUDHARI, C. 2018. Forestry
education in India: Objectives, needs, current status and
recommendations. The Pharma Innovation Journal 7(12):
320–324.
DIDRIKSEN, R.G. 1975. Minorities in professional forestry
schools-1973. Journal of Forestry 73(5): 283. doi:10.1093/
jof/73.5.283.
DILLMAN, D.A. 2011. Mail and Internet surveys: The
tailored design method—2007 Update with new Internet,
visual, and mixed-mode guide. John Wiley & Sons.
ELIASON, S.L. 2006. Factors influencing job satisfaction
among state conservation officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 29(1):
6–18. doi:10.1108/13639510610648458.
EMMONS, K.M. 1997. Perceptions of the environment while
exploring the outdoors: a case study in Belize. Environmental Education Research 3(3): 327–344. doi:10.1080/
1350462970030306
FAO. 2006. Time for action: changing the gender situation
in forestry. Report of the UNECE/FAO team of specialists
on gender and forestry. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
FAO. 2007. Gender mainstreaming in forestry in Africa,
Report of a project carried out under the FAO Netherlands
Partnership Programme. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FARIDAH-HANUM, I. and GHANI, A.N.A. 2015. Forestry
education in Malaysia: trends and challenges. The
Malaysian Forester 78(1&2): 151–160.
FEDYNICH, L.V., DOAN-CRIDER, D. and FEDYNICH, A.
2012. Undergraduate experiential learning in the natural
sciences at a Hispanic serving institution. Research in
Higher Education Journal 15: 1–12.
FERGUSON, I. 2012. Future forestry employment and
education. Australian Forestry 75(3): 192–199. doi:
10.1080/00049158.2012.10676401.
FINNEY, C. 2014. Black faces, white spaces: Reimagining
the relationship of African Americans to the great outdoors. Asheville: University of North Carolina Press.
GERVAIS, B.K., VOIRIN, C.R., BEATTY, C., BULLTAIL,
G., COWHERD, S., DEFRANCE, S., DORAME, B.,
GUTTERIEZ, R., LACKEY, J., LUPE, C., and
NEGRETTE, A.B. 2017. Native American student
perspectives of challenges in natural resource higher
education. Journal of Forestry 115(5): 491–497.
doi:10.5849/jof.2016-065R1.
GHARIS, L.W., LAIRD, S.G. and OSBORNE, D.C. 2017.
How do university students perceive forestry and wildlife
management degrees? Journal of Forestry 115(6): 540–
547. doi:10.5849/JOF-2016-080R3.
GIACOMINO, D.E., LI, X. and MICHAEL, D.A. 2013.
An examination of personal values and value systems of
Chinese and US business students. American Journal of
Business Education 6(1): 119–128.
GIFFORD, R. and NILSSON, A. 2014. Personal and social
factors that influence pro-environmental concern and
behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology
49(3): 141–157. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034
HIRSCH, P. and LLOYD, K. 2006. Real and virtual experiential learning on the Mekong: field schools, e-sims and
cultural challenges. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 29(3): 321–337. doi: 10.1080/03098260500290892.
HIX, D.M. 2015. Providing the essential foundation through
an experiential learning approach: An intensive field
course on forest ecosystems for undergraduate students.
Journal of Forestry 113(5): 484–489. doi: 10.5849/jof.14065.
HOFFMANN, V. 1998. Female forest-workers in Germanyplanters or foresters? AFZ/Der Wald, Allgemeine Forst
Zeitschrift für Waldwirtschaft & Umweltvorsorge 53(26):
1581–1582.
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry
IFSA. 2010. International Forestry Students’ Association,
survey on forestry education. S. Dupire and S. Goswami
(Abstract). International Symposium on Forestry Education. Vancouver 17–21, May 2010.
INNES, J.L. 2005. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and
training in forestry and forest research. The Forestry
Chronicle 81: 324–329.
INNES, J.L. and WARD, D. 2010. Professional education
in forestry. In: Commonwealth Forestry Association.
Commonwealth forests 2010: An overview of the forests
and forestry sectors of the countries of the Commonwealth, 76–93. Shropshire, U.K.: Commonwealth Secretariat.
KANOWSKI, P. 2001. Forestry Education in a changing
landscape. The International Forestry Review 3: 175–183.
KERN, C.C., KENEFIC, L.S., DOCKRY, M.J. and COBOLEWIS, A. 2019. Discrimination and career satisfaction:
Perceptions from US Forest Service scientists. Journal of
Forestry 118(1): 44–58. doi:10.1093/jofore/fvz057.
KOMPPULA, R., HONKANEN, A., ROSSI, S. and KOLESNIKOVA, N. 2018. The impact of values on sustainable
behaviour-A study among Russian and Finnish university
students. European Journal of Tourism Research 19:
116–131.
KUHNS, M.R., BRAGG, H.A, and BLAHNA, D.J. 2002.
Involvement of women and minorities in the urban forestry profession. Journal of Arboriculture 28(1): 27–34.
LÄNGIN, D. and Ackerman, P. 2008. Transforming Forestry
Education: challenges and opportunities- South African
perspective. In: TEMU, A.B., CHAMSHAMA, S.A.O.,
KUNG’U, J., KABOGGOZA, J.R.S., CHIKAMAI, B.,
and KIWIA, A.N. (eds.) New perspectives in forestry
education. Nairobi: ICRAF. pp. 83–102.
LARASATIE, P., BAUBLYTE, G., CONROY, K., HANSEN,
E. AND TOPPINEN, A. 2019. “From nude calendars to
tractor calendars”: the perspectives of female executives
on gender aspects in the North American and Nordic
forest industries. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
49: 915–924. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2018-0402.
LEATHERBERRY, E.C. and WELLMAN, J.D. 1988. Black
high school students’ images of forestry as a profession.
The Journal of Negro Education 57(2): 208–219.
LESLIE, A.D., WILSON, E.R. and STARR, C.B. 2006. The
current state of professional forestry education in the
United Kingdom. International Forestry Review 8(3):
339–349. doi:10.1505/ifor.8.3.339.
LIDESTAVA, G. and SJÖLANDER, A.E. 2007. Gender and
forestry: a critical discourse analysis of forestry professions in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research
22: 351–362. doi: 10.1080/02827580701504928.
LOUV, R. 2005. Last child in the woods: Saving our children
from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin
Books.
LUCKERT, M.K. 2006. Has the myth of the omnipotent forester become the reality of the impotent forester? Journal
of Forestry 104(6): 299–306. doi:10.1093/jof/104.6.299.
MARKWORTH, G.D. 1968. Statistics from schools of forestry for 1968: degrees granted and enrollments. Journal
of Forestry 66(4): 333–339. doi:10.1093/jof/66.4.333.
301
MARKWORTH, G.D. and BUTTRICK, P.L. 1939. Why men
enter the profession of forestry. Journal of Forestry 37(2):
191–193. doi:10.1093/jof/37.2.191.
MALCOM, L.E. and DOWD, A.C. 2012. The impact of
undergraduate debt on the graduate school enrollment of
STEM baccalaureates. The Review of Higher Education
35(2): 265–305.
MCGOWN, K.I. 2015. Student perspectives on North
American forestry education. Journal of Forestry 113(6):
585–586. doi:10.1353/rhe.2012.0007.
MAYER, A.L. and WELLSTEAD, A.M. 2018. Questionable
survey methods generate a questionable list of recommended articles. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2(9): 1336.
doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0637-9.
MUELLER, J.T. and MULLENBACH, L.E. 2018. Looking
for a white male effect in generation Z: race, gender,
and political effects on environmental concern and
ambivalence. Society & Natural Resources 31(8): 925–
941. doi:10.1080/08941920.2018.1445331.
NAGEL, L.M. 2004. Teaching and assessing an integrated
field practicum for forestry and applied ecology majors.
Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 12: 125–134.
NYLAND, R.D. 2008. The decline in forestry education
enrollment—Some observations and opinions. BOSQUE
29(2): 105–108.
OUTLEY, C.W. 2008. Perceptions of agriculture and natural
resource careers among minority students in a national
organization. In: CHAVEZ, D.J., WINTER, P.L. and
ABSHER, J.D. (ed.) Recreation visitor research: studies
of diversity, 139–153. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station,
Albany, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210.
PERNA, L.W. and TITUS, M.A. 2005. The relationship
between parental involvement as social capital and college
enrollment: an examination of racial/ethnic group differences. The Journal of Higher Education 76(5): 485–518.
doi: 10.1080/00221546.2005.11772296.
RATNASINGAM, J., IORAS, F., VACALIE, C.C. and
WENMING, L. 2013. The future of professional forestry
education: trends and challenges from the Malaysian
perspective. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici ClujNapoca 41(1): 12–20.
REDELSHEIMER, C.L., BOLDENOW, R., and MARSHALL, P. 2015. Adding value to the profession: The role
of accreditation. Journal of Forestry 113(6): 566–570.
doi:10.5849/jof.15-028
REKOLA, M., ABBAS, D., BAL, T., BURNS, J., LACKNER, M., RODRIGUEZ, S., and SHARIK, T. (ed.). 2017.
Global Outlook of Forest Education (GOFE): A Pilot
Study Report. International Union of Forest Research
Organizations and International Forestry Students
Association. Available online at www.foresteducation.
wordpress.com.
ROULEAU, M., SHARIK, T.L., WHITENS, S. and WELLSTEAD, A. 2017. Enrollment Decision-Making in US
Forestry and Related Natural Resource Degree Programmes. Natural Sciences Education 46(1): 1–9.
doi:10.4195/nse2017.05.0007.
302
T.L. Bal et al.
SAMPLE, V.A., BIXLER, R.P., MCDONOUGH, M.H.,
BULLARD, S.H. and SNIECKUS, M.M. 2015. The
promise and performance of forestry education in the
United States: Results of a survey of forestry employers,
graduates, and educators. Journal of Forestry 113(6):
528–537. doi:10.5849/jof.14-122.
SCHELHAS, J. 2002. Race, ethnicity, and natural resources
in the United States: A review. Natural Resources Journal
42: 723–726.
SHARIK, T.L. 2015. Diversifying student demographics in
forestry and related natural resources disciplines. Journal
of Forestry 113(6): 579. doi:10.5849/jof.15-031.
SHARIK, T.L. and BAL, T.L. 2017. Inter-Institutional variation in minority enrollment in undergraduate natural
resources programmes in the US in relation to web-based
recruitment strategies (abstract). Journal of Forestry
115(2): S11. doi:10.5849/jof.2016-108.
SHARIK, T.L. and FRISK, S.L. 2011. Student perspectives
on enrolling in undergraduate forestry degree programmes
in the United States. Journal of Natural Resources & Life
Sciences Education 40(1): 160–166. doi:10.4195/jnrlse.
2010.0018u.
SHARIK, T.L., LILIEHOLM, R.J., LINDQUIST, W. and
RICHARDSON, W.W. 2015. Undergraduate enrollment
in natural resource programmes in the United States:
Trends, drivers, and implications for the future of natural
resource professions. Journal of Forestry 113(6): 538–
551. doi:10.5849/jof.14-146.
SHRESTHA, K.M., SUVEDI, M. and FOSTER, E.F. 2011.
Who enrolls in agriculture and natural resources majors:
A case from Michigan State University. NACTA Journal
55(3): 33–43.
SMITH-HOLLINS, C., ELBERT, C.D., BAGGETT, C. and
WALLACE, S. 2015. Factors influencing enrollment in
colleges of agriculture: Perspectives of students in 1862
Land Grant Institutions. NACTA Journal 59(4): 306–312.
SOUTAR, G.N. and TURNER, J.P. 2002. Students’ preferences for university: a conjoint analysis. The International
Journal of Educational Management 16(1): 40–45.
doi:10.1108/09513540210415523.
STORCH, S. 2011. Forestry professionalism overrides
gender: A case study of nature perception in Germany.
Forest Policy and Economics 13: 171–175. doi:10.1016/
j.forpol.2010.11.003.
TANNER, T. 1980. Significant life experiences: A new
research area in Environmental Education. The Journal of
Environmental Education 11(4): 20–24. doi:10.1080/009
58964.1980.9941386.
TEMU, A.B., RUDEBJER, P.G., KIYIAPI, J. and LIEROP,
P.V. 2005. Forestry Education in Sub-Saharan and
Southeast Asia: Trends, Myths and Realities. FONP
Working Paper No. 14.
TEMU, A.B., OKALI, D. and BISHAW, B. 2006. Forestry
education, training and professional development in
Africa. The International Forestry Review 8(1): 118–125.
THOMAS, I. 2014. Student interest for environment/sustainability undergraduate programmes: recent Australian
experience. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 8(1): 5–27. doi:10.1177/0973408214529855.
THOMAS, I. 2017. Influences on career choice: Considerations for the environmental profession. Environmental
Practice 19(3): 115–127. doi:10.1080/14660466.2017.13
38449.
VANCLAY, J. 2005. Achieving a quiet revolution in forestry
education. Australian Forest Grower 28(3): 25–26.
VASEY, R.B. and THEOE, D.R. 1977. Enrollment trends
in professional forestry schools, 1972–1976. Journal of
Forestry 75(5): 270–272. doi:10.1093/jof/75.5.270.
WANG, L. and JUSLIN, H. 2012. Values and corporate social
responsibility perceptions of Chinese university students.
Journal of Academic Ethics 10(1): 57–82. doi:10.1007/
s10805-012-9148-5.
WELLMAN, J.D. 1987. Images of a profession-forestry is
something of a mystery to college bound students. Journal
of Forestry 85(3): 18–19. doi:10.1093/jof/85.3.18.
WELLS, N.M. and LEKIES, K.S. 2006. Nature and the life
course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to
adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments 16(1): 1–24.
WORKMAN, J.L. 2015. Parental influence on exploratory
students’ college choice, major, and career decision
making. College Student Journal 49(1): 23–30.
WRIGHT T.S.A. and WYATT, S.L. 2008. Examining influences on environmental concern and career choice among
a cohort of environmental scientists. Applied Environmental education & Communication 7: 30–39. doi:10.1080/
15330150802194896.
WOLTER, B.H., MILLENBAH, K.F., MONTGOMERY,
R.A. and SCHNEIDER, J.W. 2011a. Factors affecting
persistence of undergraduate students in a fisheries and
wildlife programme: Transfer students. Journal of Natural
Resources & Life Sciences Education 40(1): 58–68.
doi:10.4195/jnrlse.2010.0036u.
WOLTER, B.H., MILLENBAH, K.F., MONTGOMERY,
R.A. and SCHNEIDER, J.W. 2011b. Factors Affecting
Persistence of Undergraduate Students in a Fisheries
and Wildlife Programme: Leavers 1. Journal of Natural
Resources & Life Sciences Education 40(1): 10–18.
doi:10.4195/jnrlse.2010.0025u.
XU, Z. and BENGSTON, D.N. 1997. Trends in national forest values among forestry professional, environmentalists,
and the news media, 1982–1993. Society & Natural
Resources 10: 43–59. doi:10.1080/08941929709381008.
YANCIW, P. 2004. Overcoming negative perceptions about
forestry careers. The Forestry Chronicle 80: 164–164.
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry
303
TABLE S1 Country of residence reported and number (n) of survey respondents per academic standing level of students
attending the 2014 International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO) conference in Salt Lake City, Utah
Country
Undergrad
Masters
Doctoral
Post-Doctoral
Total %
United States
27
43
57
Canada
17
12
16
1
11.8%
Brazil
3
4
15
2
6.2%
Germany
3
4
13
1
5.4%
Austria
5
4
4
China
2
3
7
Finland
1
11
3.1%
Sweden
1
11
3.1%
4
6
2.8%
Japan
1
8
2.3%
Italy
1
5
United Kingdom
1
7
Australia
1
4
1
1.5%
India
1
3
1
1.3%
Nigeria
2
3
1.3%
Benin
1
3
1.0%
Mexico
1
France
Indonesia
3
32.6%
3.3%
1
2
3.3%
2.1%
2.1%
3
1
1
1
1.0%
1.0%
South Africa
1
2
Taiwan
1
3
1.0%
3
0.8%
Denmark
Ghana
3
Iran
New Zealand
0.8%
3
1
1.0%
2
0.8%
0.8%
South Korea
2
1
0.8%
Switzerland
2
1
0.8%
2
0.8%
Tunisia
1
Colombia
2
0.5%
Czech Republic
2
0.5%
Lithuania
2
0.5%
Norway
2
0.5%
Peru
Philippines
2
0.5%
1
Belgium
Bolivia
1
0.5%
1
0.3%
1
0.3%
Cameroon
1
0.3%
Costa Rica
1
0.3%
Cote d’Ivoire
1
0.3%
1
0.3%
Estonia
1
Ireland
Kenya
Luxembourg
0.3%
1
0.3%
1
0.3%
304
T.L. Bal et al.
TABLE S1 (Continued)
Country
Undergrad
Masters
Doctoral
Post-Doctoral
Total %
Mongolia
1
0.3%
Nepal
1
0.3%
Netherlands
1
0.3%
Senegal
1
0.3%
Spain
1
0.3%
Thailand
1
0.3%
1
0.3%
Trinidad and Tobago
1
Turkey
Total
65
104
0.3%
210
11
100.0%
*4 respondents did not identify either a country or academic level
TABLE S2 Frequency counts for responses to important factors, n (%) (FRNR = Forestry and Related Natural Resources)
Category and Positive Factors
Not
Important
Somewhat
Unimportant
Neutral
Somewhat
Important
Very
Important
Career
Employment Opportunities
28 (8.1%)
22 (6.3%)
69 (19.9%)
151 (43.5%)*
77 (22.2%)
High Earning Potential
46 (13.2%)
54 (15.5%)
134 (38.4%)*
93 (26.6%)
22 (6.3%)
Enjoy Working in Outdoors
9 (2.3%)
18 (4.6%)
38 (9.6%)
118 (29.9%)
166 (42.0%)*
Sense of Job Satisfaction
6 (1.7%)
3 (.9%)
26 (7.4%)
123 (31.1%)
192 (54.9%)*
Academic
6 (1.8%)
8 (2.3%)
69 (20.2%)
124 (36.3%)
135 (39.5%)*
Available Scholarships/Funding
37 (10.6%)
28 (8.0%)
77 (22.1%)
86 (21.8%)
120 (34.5%)*
Reputation of School or Faculty
24 (6.9%)
27 (7.8%)
91 (26.1%)
142 (35.9%)*
64 (18.4%)
Tuition and Fees
53 (15.5%)
37 (10.8%)
127 (37.1%)*
72 (21.1%)
53 (15.5%)
10 (2.9%)
17 (4.9%)
35 (10.0%)
130 (37.2%)
157 (45.0%)*
146 (42.1%)*
46 (13.3%)
90 (25.9%)
42 (12.1%)
23 (6.6%)
Exposure to FRNR as a Child
40 (11.7%)
30 (8.8%)
70 (20.5%)
114 (33.3%)*
88 (25.7%)
Exposure to FRNR in High School
77 (22.3%)
49 (14.2%)
92 (26.6%)*
86 (24.9%)
42 (12.1%)
Concern for Environmental Problems
10 (2.9%)
4 (1.2%)
20 (5.8%)
132 (38.3%)
179 (51.9%)*
16 (4.6%)
14 (4.0%)
45 (13.0%)
139 (40.2%)*
132 (38.2%
Enjoy Nature in General
6 (1.7%)
2 (.6%)
23 (6.6%)
108 (31.2%)
207 (59.8%)*
Enjoy Forestry
9 (2.6%)
12 (3.5%)
52 (15.2%)
122 (35.6%)
148 (43.1%)*
13 (3.7%)
9 (2.6%)
41 (11.8%)
118 (33.9%)
167 (48.0%)*
Subject Matter of my Program
Personal
Enjoy Being Outdoors
Family or Friends
Affective
Enjoy Wildlife
Enjoy Outdoor Recreation
*Highest frequency count in category.
Enrollment decision-making by students in forestry
305
TABLE S3 Frequency counts for responses to hesitant factors, n (%) (FRNR = Forestry and Related Natural Resources)
Category and Negative Factors
Not Hesitant
Somewhat
Unhesitant
64 (18.6%)
55 (16.0%)
Somewhat
Hesitant
Very
Hesitant
108 (31.4%)* 106 (30.8%)
11 (3.2%)
Neutral
Career
Salary Levels and Earning Potential
95 (27.6%)*
67 (19.5%)
92 (26.7%)
73 (21.2%)
17 (4.9%)
Remote Work Locations
100 (29.0%)*
64 (18.6%)
99 (25.1%)
65 (18.8%)
17 (4.9%)
Job Satisfaction
141 (40.9%)*
65 (18.8%)
66 (19.1%)
44 (12.8%)
29 (8.4%)
94 (27.6%)*
60 (17.6%)
86 (25.2%)
77 (22.6%)
24 (7.0%)
Difficult Subject Matter
137 (40.3%)*
69 (20.3%)
85 (25.0%)
41 (12.1%)
8 (2.4%)
Reputation of School or Faculty
131 (38.6%)*
69 (20.3%)
85 (25.0%)
41 (12.1%)
8 (2.4%)
Available Scholarships/ Funding
95 (27.9%)*
53 (15.5%)
91 (26.7%)
68 (19.9%)
34 (10.0%)
Family or Friends
166 (48.0%)*
32 (9.2%)
91(26.3%)
48 (13.9%)
9 (2.6%)
Minimal Exposure to FRNR as a Child
144 (42.2%)*
41 (12.0%)
98 (28.7%)
44 (12.9%)
14 (4.1%)
Minimal Exposure to FRNR in High School
136 (40.1%)*
47 (13.9%)
96 (28.3%)
47 (13.9%)
13 (3.8%)
Negative Image of FRNR Sector
143 (41.9%)*
51 (15.0%)
80 (23.5%)
54 (15.8%)
13 (3.8%)
Own Gender
177 (51.9%)*
29 (8.5%)
86 (25.2%)
37 (10.9%)
12 (3.5%)
Own Race
203 (59.7%)*
17 (5.0%)
95 (27.9%)
16 (4.7%)
9 (2.6%)
Working Conditions
Contentious Political Issues
Academic
Personal
*Highest frequency count in category.
Tara Bal