Comments for Woodland Owner Networks

Comment on What is peer-to-peer learning? by Vertical Farm Startup Peer Learning Topic Request (Part 1 of 3) « The omniGenerations Blog – beta

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:40:15 +0000

[...] the merits of different points of view from one another. This is the fundamental concept of a peer learning [3] or peer to peer learning [4] . This article intention is to encourage a sharing of [...]

Comment on What is peer-to-peer learning? by Urban Vertical Farm’s Start-up Solution « The omniGenerations Blog – beta

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:36:00 +0000

[...] The purpose of this article is written from a peer learning [8] [9] perspective. In short, we work together collectively in a sharing of our knowledge, [...]

Comment on 2009 Symposium by Mark Havel

Mark Havel — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:25:49 +0000

Greetings to all;

Great event with great potential. I feel I wasn’t able to communicate enough, or well enough, to help with the project and appologize. I do feel that I have much to share or offer, specifically with techniques to reach landowners, and would somehow like to get to it. I will attempt to contact those I spoke with, with some further information.

Comment on WON at the IUFRO Small-Scale Forestry conference by esagor

esagor — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:16:53 +0000

Me too! I look forward to hearing yours as well.

Comment on WON at the IUFRO Small-Scale Forestry conference by Teppo Hujala

Teppo Hujala — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:03:43 +0000

Looking forward to hearing the presentation – just hoping that mine is not at the same time.

Comment on NNFP webinar: The Woodland Advocate Program of Wisconsin Family Forests by Scott Bagley

Scott Bagley — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:13:34 +0000

Hey Eli,
We postponed Gerry’s session to Thursday, March 5 @ noon eastern.

Hope you can make it.

Scott

Comment on Webinar recording now online by Scott Bagley

Scott Bagley — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:43:23 +0000

Eli,
Great working with you on the webinar. Hope you’ll be able to plug in on future ones related to your research review session.

Scott @ NNFP

Comment on Strong ties, weak ties, and information transmission by Average shortest distance in a weighted network « Tore Opsahl

Average shortest distance in a weighted network « Tore Opsahl — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:57:56 +0000

[...] node B a piece of information (or a disease) twice as likely as node C. If we are looking at the diffusion of information or diseases in a network, then the speed and route are clearly affected by the [...]

Comment on Diffusion models: two-step flow vs. network by esagor

esagor — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:53:34 +0000

Interesting point about constraints on small-scale owners’ ability to adopt forestry behaviors. I’d been thinking of the perceived control component in different terms, but this sounds very interesting…

Comment on Diffusion models: two-step flow vs. network by Mark Rickenbach

Mark Rickenbach — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:15:29 +0000

TRA?! We have a survey out now using Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to assess landowners’ intentions and behaviors vis-a-vis forest practices (see http://fwe.wisc.edu/facstaff/rickenbach/small-scale.html). We selected TPB over TRA as it includes “perceived behavioral control” which, given economies of scale, access to sources, etc., seems a reasonable constraint on landowners–particularly those with small landholdings. We should know more come spring.

Interesting you should mention combining TRA/TPB with SNA as I have a student who is a presenting just such a model to our working group here later this week. I’ve not seen it, so I cannot say much at this point. However, your hypothesis about social influence is, I think, important and needs to be more fully vetted.

As you can see, when it comes to blogging, I am better at reacting than posting.

Mark