IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v100y2019icp142-153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating natural resource planning for longleaf pine ecosystems in the Southeast United States

Author

Listed:
  • Foster, Michaela
  • Peterson, M. Nils
  • Cubbage, Frederick
  • McMahon, Gerard

Abstract

Natural resource plans play a critical role in guiding the sustainable management of forest ecosystems. However, little is known about the quality of management plans. In this study, we evaluated and compared the quality of 35 management plans from federal, state, and nongovernment groups managing longleaf pine ecosystems in the Southeast United States. We developed a plan evaluation tool consisted of five components: (1) Problem and Objective Statement, (2) Fact Base, (3) Actions and Implementation, (4) Integration with Other Plans, and (5) Stakeholder Participation, to examine to what extent plans incorporated planning best practices. We tested a hypothetical model for understanding the relationship among plan components, and our results suggested stakeholder participation predicted clear problem statements, better integration with other plans, and better actions and implementation protocols. The Fact Base component scored highest across most plans while the Actions and Implementation component scored lowest. Newer plans scored modestly higher than older plans, suggesting agencies may be learning to develop better plans over time and indicating older plans should be prioritized for revision. Plans from federal and state agencies scored higher than plans from nongovernmental organizations. Our findings suggest planners should consider incorporating more stakeholder participation, which was positively related to better actions and implementation and improved problem and objective statements.

Suggested Citation

  • Foster, Michaela & Peterson, M. Nils & Cubbage, Frederick & McMahon, Gerard, 2019. "Evaluating natural resource planning for longleaf pine ecosystems in the Southeast United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 142-153.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:100:y:2019:i:c:p:142-153
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.11.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118300698
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.11.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Germain, Rene H. & Floyd, Donald W. & Stehman, Stephen V., 2001. "Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 113-124, November.
    2. Kilgore, Michael A. & Hibbard, Calder M. & Ellefson, Paul V., 2006. "Comprehensive strategic planning for the use and management of forest resources: The experiences of state governments in the United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 42-49, November.
    3. Maria Manta Conroy & Philip R Berke, 2004. "What Makes a Good Sustainable Development Plan? An Analysis of Factors That Influence Principles of Sustainable Development," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(8), pages 1381-1396, August.
    4. Kathryn Stevenson & M. Peterson & Howard Bondell & Susan Moore & Sarah Carrier, 2014. "Overcoming skepticism with education: interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(3), pages 293-304, October.
    5. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Alavalapati, Janaki R. R. & Stainback, George A. & Carter, Douglas R., 2002. "Restoration of the longleaf pine ecosystem on private lands in the US South: an ecological economic analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 411-419, March.
    7. P R Berke & J Crawford & J Dixon & N Ericksen, 1999. "Do Cooperative Environmental Planning Mandates Produce Good Plans? Empirical Results from the New Zealand Experience," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 26(5), pages 643-664, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Randall, Hampton & Brewitt, Peter, 2023. "Collaborating for longleaf pine: A case study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    2. Abinash Bhattachan & Matthew D. Jurjonas & Priscilla R. Morris & Paul J. Taillie & Lindsey S. Smart & Ryan E. Emanuel & Erin L. Seekamp, 2019. "Linking residential saltwater intrusion risk perceptions to physical exposure of climate change impacts in rural coastal communities of North Carolina," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 97(3), pages 1277-1295, July.
    3. Veysel Yilmaz & Pınar Guleç & Erkan Ari, 2023. "Impact of climate change information of university students in Turkey on responsibility and environmental behavior through awareness and perceived risk," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 7281-7297, July.
    4. Helena Fornwagner & Oliver P. Hauser, 2022. "Climate Action for (My) Children," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(1), pages 95-130, January.
    5. Andrew Bieler & Randolph Haluza-Delay & Ann Dale & Marcia Mckenzie, 2017. "A National Overview of Climate Change Education Policy: Policy Coherence between Subnational Climate and Education Policies in Canada (K-12)," Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, , vol. 11(2), pages 63-85, September.
    6. Matta, Jagannadha R. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. & Stainback, George A., 2009. "Effect of conserving habitat for biodiversity on optimal management of non-industrial private forests in Florida," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 223-235, December.
    7. Andrew Stainback, G. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R., 2004. "Restoring longleaf pine through silvopasture practices: an economic analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 371-378, June.
    8. Matta, Jagannadha & Alavalapati, Janaki & Tanner, George, 2007. "A framework for developing marked-based policies to further biodiversity on non-industrial private forests (NIPF)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 779-788, April.
    9. Hu, Saiquan & Jia, Xiao & Zhang, Xiaojin & Zheng, Xiaoying & Zhu, Junming, 2017. "How political ideology affects climate perception: Moderation effects of time orientation and knowledge," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 124-131.
    10. Mortoja, Md. Golam & Yigitcanlar, Tan, 2022. "Understanding political bias in climate change belief: A public perception study from South East Queensland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    11. Melania Michetti & Stefano Ghinoi, 2020. "Climate-driven vulnerability and risk perception: implications for climate change adaptation in rural Mexico," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 290-302, September.
    12. Sifan Hu & Jin Chen, 2016. "Place-based inter-generational communication on local climate improves adolescents’ perceptions and willingness to mitigate climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 425-438, October.
    13. Fernández Milmanda, Belén & Garay, Candelaria, 2019. "Subnational variation in forest protection in the Argentine Chaco," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 79-90.
    14. Catherine M. Chambers & Paul E. Chambers & John R. Crooker & John C. Whitehead, 2008. "Stochastic Dominance, Entropy and Biodiversity Management," Working Papers 08-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    15. Fang He & Wendong Wu & Taozhi Zhuang & Yuan Yi, 2019. "Exploring the Diverse Expectations of Stakeholders in Industrial Land Redevelopment Projects in China: The Case of Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-27, August.
    16. Rosemary D. F. Bromley & Andrew R. Tallon & Colin J. Thomas, 2005. "City Centre Regeneration through Residential Development: Contributing to Sustainability," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(13), pages 2407-2429, December.
    17. Kim, Jinhee & de Leeuw, Evelyne & Harris-Roxas, Ben & Sainsbury, Peter, 2023. "Five urban health research traditions: A meta-narrative review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    18. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    19. Yanis Elalamy & Luc Doyen & Lauriane Mouysset, 2019. "Contribution of the land use allocation model for agroecosystems: The case of Torrecchia Vecchia," Post-Print hal-03143304, HAL.
    20. Bethmann, Stephanie & Simminger, Eva & Baldy, Jana & Schraml, Ulrich, 2018. "Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 93-101.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:100:y:2019:i:c:p:142-153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.