Attitudes and preferences toward co-operative agreements for management of private forestlands in the North-eastern United States

Abstract

Forest fragmentation is increasing throughout much of the United

Forest Stakeholder Participation in Improving Game Habitat in Swedish Forests

“…This is in line with [45] who found that an individual's belief determines her/his attitudes and behaviour; and [27] who found that non-industrial landowners in North-eastern United States collaborate in improvement of game habitat. This suggests that the improvement of game habitat can help redistribute game activities in forests and reduce browsing damage in valuable forest stands, consequently helping to lower economic losses in timber production.…”

“…in the following spring and summer in Montana, United States and found that fall cattle grazing can be used as a game habitat improvement strategy. In a study of landowner attitudes and preferences toward co-operative agreements in the United States [27] found that non-industrial private landowners are more likely to undertake collaborative management of forestlands when it focuses on improvement of game habitat. Thus, it is important to gain knowledge regarding the participation of hunters and forest owners in improving game habitat because the success of a sustainable game management strategy largely depends on the acceptance by the different forest stakeholders [28].…”

Cross-boundary cooperation: A mechanism for sustaining ecosystem services from private lands

“…This is not to suggest that landowners are unreceptive or disinterested. Numerous surveys show that landowners value landscapescale outcomes (Brunson et al 1996;Raedeke et al 2001;Belin et al 2005) and are willing to consider cross-boundary approaches (Finley et al 2006;Stevens et al 1999). However, landowners do not necessarily perceive a personal benefit, and other factors may intervene.…”

Economic incentives for coordinated management of forest land: a case study of southern New England

“…bach et al, 1998 , the majority would probably not actually undertake coordinated management programs that involve either explicit or implicit Ž . cost to themselves Stevens et al, 1999 . Economic incentives may therefore be needed to accomplish the degree of coordination required for successful EM, but little is known about the relationship between incentives and the likelihood of coordinated management program participation.…”

“…More recently, Stevens et al 1999 surveyed 1250 southern New England residents owning 10 acres or more of forest land. A conjoint analysis was used in which each owner was asked to rate four different hypothetical management scenarios that are examples of ones that might be applied in an EM plan, on a scale of 1᎐10 with 10 indicating scenarios, if any, the individual would definitely undertake.…”