Examining incentives for adjacent non-industrial private forest landowners to cooperate

Vokoun, Melinda; Amacher, Gregory S.; Sullivan, Jay; Wear, Dave

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.08.008

Cited by 26 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the United States, where 35 % of all forests are owned by individuals and families, social interactions can provide an understanding of the actors and information pathways shaping private forest management. Land use decisions by individuals, families, estates, and other unincorporated private entities (collectively known as family forest owners) affect the capacity of forest lands to sustain ecosystem benefits, and resist threats like fire and invasive species (Butler 2008;Vokoun et al 2010). It can be insightful to know whom family forest owners talk to and whom they turn to for advice related to the health and management of their woodlands.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in the Social Networks of Forest Owners: The Effect of Management Activity, Resource Professionals, and Ownership Size

Ruseva

Evans

Fischer

2014

Small-scale Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social networks play an important role in the communication of information among forest owners and how owners process that information in making land management decisions. This article examines variations in the social network characteristics of family forest owners using survey data and interviews with 42 owners in south-central Indiana. We examine how network structure and content vary by harvesting activity, information sources, ownership attributes, sociodemographic characteristics, and location. Quantitative measures of network size and diversity, along with a qualitative understanding of network content and function are discussed and compared for active and passive forest managers. We find that active managers (people who had a recent timber harvest) had at least twice as many social ties related to forest management compared to passive managers, particularly after accounting for parcel ownership size, forest area, and total landholding size. Learning and service were the main functions of these networks, with learning being the most frequently cited reason for talking to others regardless of the management profile of forest owners. The study contributes to a growing interest in mixed methods approaches to network studies and research on social networks in private forestry. Abstract Social networks play an important role in the communication of information among forest owners and how owners process that information in making land management decisions. This article examines variations in the social network characteristics of family forest owners using survey data and interviews with 42 owners in south-central Indiana. We examine how network structure and content vary by harvesting activity, information sources, ownership attributes, sociodemographic characteristics, and location. Quantitative measures of network size and diversity, along with a qualitative understanding of network content and function are discussed and compared for active and passive forest managers. We find that active managers (people who had a recent timber harvest) had at least twice as many social ties related to forest management compared to passive managers, particularly after accounting for parcel ownership size, forest area, and total landholding size. Learning and service were the main functions of these networks, with learning being the most frequently cited reason for talking to others regardless of the management profile of forest owners. The study contributes to a growing interest in mixed-

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in the Social Networks of Forest Owners: The Effect of Management Activity, Resource Professionals, and Ownership Size

Ruseva

Evans

Fischer

2014

Small-scale Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies indicate that without strong and enforced regulations, or effective regulatory or market incentives, landowners are willing to retain remnant native woody vegetation if it is located on land unsuitable for pasture (Bradshaw et al, 1998;Wilson, 1992), and/or when there is significant private net benefit (Bradshaw et al, 1998;Fairweather, 1996;Mead, 1995;Rauniyar & Parker, 1998;Underwood & Ripley, 2000;Vokoun et al, 2010). The results of this study indicate many farmers do not believe woody vegetation provides sufficient benefit to offset its costs, particularly on productive pasture land.…”

Section: Are the Resulting Woody Vegetation Network Significantly Comentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies evaluating voluntary regulatory approaches for planting trees demonstrate landowner support for tree planting when they attribute sufficient private values to their products and services (e.g. Gyau et al, 2014;Underwood & Ripley, 2000;Vokoun, Amacher, Sullivan, & Wear, 2010). In New Zealand, studies indicate rangeland farmers value trees for sheltering stock, and in areas unsuitable for pasture (Bradshaw, Cocklin, & Smit, 1998;Wilson, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a dairy agri-environmental programme for restoring woody green infrastructure

McWilliam

Fukuda

Møller

et al. 2017

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pastoral landscape woody vegetation provides ecosystem services, but potentially competes for space, light and nutrients that could provide additional farm production. A questionnaire determined the values and behaviours of New Zealand dairy farmers to evaluate voluntary agri-environmental programmes for restoring woody vegetation. Findings indicate the area is increasing, while the composition and configuration of networks are changing and redistributing. Farms with little are losing more, and those with more are gaining. Farmers are planting new areas to increase their public ecosystem services, but may not provide these services through planting and management. Barriers include insufficient private woody vegetation ecosystem services, and low rates of growth of native plants. Government incentive programmes are ineffective in overcoming barriers. Farmers may be motivated by stronger evidence of valued ecosystem services, information about their benefits and drawbacks and how to support services through planting and management. However, a targeted environmental stewardship scheme is required to overcome barriers to planting, with government and the dairy industry working together to develop and maintain a landscape-scaled woody vegetation network on private and public land. Such networks would build sustainability and resilience into dairy farming, leading to an equitably sharing of benefits and costs of their public ecosystem services. KEYWORDS

show abstract

“…In these cases, missing markets and the under-provision of beneficial activities are caused by a variety of reasons. Spatial externalities can be hard to fully internalize without a policy intervention simply because of the prohibitive cost of arranging negotiations between multiple landowners and the large number of other affected parties [14,15]. Free riding incentives among adjacent landowners lead to under-provision of public goods across space, such as taking actions to reduce hazardous fuels [16].…”

Section: Sources Of Externalities In Forestrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite this, cooperation across space may not be as feasible in a more traditional forest management context. There would be obvious transaction costs of forest landowners coordinating their actions, not the least of which is the fact that absentee ownership often comprises nearly 30 % of land ownership for nonindustrial private land in the USA (see [15]). The most common instrument in these situations to incentivize fuel reduction has therefore been more traditional cost-sharing programs (see [109]).…”

Section: Forest Fuel Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Performance Bonding in Forest Policy Settings

Kuusela

Amacher

2016

Curr Forestry Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest policies have typically relied on prescriptive standards to mitigate various nonpoint negative externalities, whereas more recent approaches have focused on the use of incentive-based policies, such as payments for environmental services (PES), to encourage activities associated with positive externalities. We provide a general review on the current state of knowledge concerning prescriptive standards and incentive-based policies in the context of nonpoint and point source externalities that are typical in industrial and nonindustrial forestry. Our specific focus is on reviewing and assessing the current and future applications of performance bonding in forest policy. We argue that bonds can be viewed either as an enforcement mechanism to achieve compliance with standards, or alternatively, as a deposit-refund instrument that imposes a tax on harmful activities while subsidizing beneficial ones in the form of a refund. Four forest policy settings are considered: best management practices (BMP) for protecting the integrity of water resources, reduced impact logging (RIL) standards in industrial concessions, fire-fuel mitigation in wildland-urban interface (WUI), and carbon sequestration in standing forests and soils. Unique challenges that the successful design of performance bonding present are used as motivation for future research.

show abstract

Examining incentives for adjacent non-industrial private forest landowners to cooperate

Cited by 26 publications

References 15 publications

Variations in the Social Networks of Forest Owners: The Effect of Management Activity, Resource Professionals, and Ownership Size

Variations in the Social Networks of Forest Owners: The Effect of Management Activity, Resource Professionals, and Ownership Size

Evaluation of a dairy agri-environmental programme for restoring woody green infrastructure

A Review of Performance Bonding in Forest Policy Settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About