A mail survey was conducted on private landowners in Alabama, USA, during autumn 2000 to investigate the landowners' general attitudes towards certification (level of knowledge of and 'openness to' the forest certification concept), costs and benefits of certification, and cooperation and communication. After reading the definition of forest certification provided in the survey booklet, 22% of respondents reported that they had previously heard of forest certification, while 78% had not heard of certification or were not sure. It was found that 69% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to learn more about forest certification, and 70% agreed or strongly agreed that it is important to stay up to date with forestry practices and programmes. A normative conviction that certification is 'the right thing to do' was the only more frequently cited condition in seriously considering certification for their forestlands. The three most frequently cited befits include the provision of better wildlife habitat, enhanced timber productivity, and protection of the environment. The importance of landowners' willingness to cooperate with each other varies among forest certification programmes. More than half of the landowners expressed willingness to be certified with other landowners if it would decrease costs. 80% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that landowners should work together when new forestry issues arise. Landowner associations, professional foresters and the state government were the three organizations rated most trustworthy by landowners in Alabama. 44% of the respondents said that they would not seriously consider certification for their own forestlands unless they 'had a say' in making the rules.
Pre-testing of draft survey instruments and telephone-administered questionnaires were conducted to compare the perceptions of two important stakeholder groups in Louisiana, USA: the non-industrial private and corporate forestland owners, about certification. Among the 979 returned surveys, 13% (129 respondents) were corporate timberland owners, while 850 respondents were non-industrial private forestland (NIPF) owners. For all forest/ownership types, NIPF respondents felt a greater need for certification. The respondents also believe that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were strongly influencing the certification movement, closely following that NGOs were the third-party certifiers and certification consultants who have a stake in promoting certification efforts. The entity that respondents trust most was professional foresters who have been approved by a certification organization. Generally, the respondents were not averse to having certifiers check their forestry operations. However, willingness to pay for certification was weak. The respondents highly suggested that Louisiana Department of Agriculture be the third-party certifying agency.
This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all herbicides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and their containers.
Production rates of a feller-buncher are shown for row thinning pine plantations with light and dense undergrowth conditions. Dense undergrowth reduced macliine output by about 20 percent.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.