IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v135y2022ics1389934121002331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservation easement landowners' willingness to accept for forest thinning and the impact of information

Author

Listed:
  • Gutierrez-Castillo, Ana
  • Penn, Jerrod
  • Tanger, Shaun
  • Blazier, Michael A.

Abstract

After being subject to several decades of degradation, the bottomland hardwood (BLH) forests within the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley have undergone landscape-scale restoration regimes through conservation easement programs, such as the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). Reforested easements offer an opportunity for landowners' adoption of forest management practices to fulfill the program's long-term conservation goals. Using the contingent valuation approach, we examine easement landowners' willingness to accept (WTA) to thin their forest subject to an easement to enhance forest health and wildlife habitat quality, and we test the effect of providing information about the benefits of thinning on WTA estimates. Results from an interval regression model suggest that ownership characteristics like years of ownership, involvement in non-timber activities like hiking and walking, and management characteristics like having past intention to thin, significantly decreased WTA while being an original easement grantor and ownership objectives like legacy increased WTA. The mean monetary compensation required to induce thinning adoption is $11.41 per ton of pulpwood. There is some evidence that the information intervention influences the WTA estimates downward, representing a potential policy instrument to achieve thinning objectives in the conservation easements efficiently.

Suggested Citation

  • Gutierrez-Castillo, Ana & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael A., 2022. "Conservation easement landowners' willingness to accept for forest thinning and the impact of information," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:135:y:2022:i:c:s1389934121002331
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934121002331
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102627?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. Kilgore, Michael A. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Schertz, Joseph & Taff, Steven J., 2008. "What does it take to get family forest owners to enroll in a forest stewardship-type program?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 507-514, October.
    2. Joshi, Sudiksha & Arano, Kathryn G., 2009. "Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 132-139, March.
    3. John C. Bergstrom & John R. Stoll & Alan Randall, 1990. "The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 614-621.
    4. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Tyrväinen, Liisa & Karhu, Jouni & Kurttila, Mikko, 2018. "Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 14-24.
    5. Beach, Robert H. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Yang, Jui-Chen & Murray, Brian C. & Abt, Robert C., 2005. "Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 261-281, March.
    6. Watson, Adam C. & Sullivan, Jay & Amacher, Gregory S. & Asaro, Christopher, 2013. "Cost sharing for pre-commercial thinning in southern pine plantations: Willingness to participate in Virginia's pine bark beetle prevention program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 65-72.
    7. Jagannadha R. Matta & Janaki R. R. Alavalapati & D. Evan Mercer, 2009. "Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation Beyond the Best Management Practices: Are Forestland Owners Interested?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 132-143.
    8. Gregory, S. Amacher & Christine Conway, M. & Sullivan, Jay & Gregory, S. Amacher, 2003. "Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 137-164.
    9. Dora L. Costa & Matthew E. Kahn, 2013. "Energy Conservation “Nudges” And Environmentalist Ideology: Evidence From A Randomized Residential Electricity Field Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 680-702, June.
    10. Matthies, Brent D. & Kalliokoski, Tuomo & Eyvindson, Kyle & Honkela, Nina & Hukkinen, Janne I. & Kuusinen, Nea J. & Räisänen, Petri & Valsta, Lauri T., 2016. "Nudging service providers and assessing service trade-offs to reduce the social inefficiencies of payments for ecosystem services schemes," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 228-237.
    11. Christian Langpap, 2004. "Conservation Incentives Programs for Endangered Species: An Analysis of Landowner Participation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(3), pages 375-388.
    12. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
    13. Rowe, Robert D. & Schulze, William D. & Breffle, William S., 1996. "A Test for Payment Card Biases," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 178-185, September.
    14. Jerrod M. Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2021. "The Extent of Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Accept," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 126-141, January.
    15. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    16. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    17. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2020. "Nudging Acceptability for Wood Ash Recycling in Forests: A Choice Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    18. Jenkins, W. Aaron & Murray, Brian C. & Kramer, Randall A. & Faulkner, Stephen P., 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1051-1061, March.
    19. Sotirov, Metodi & Sallnäs, Ola & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola, 2019. "Forest owner behavioral models, policy changes, and forest management. An agent-based framework for studying the provision of forest ecosystem goods and services at the landscape level," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 79-89.
    20. Interis, Matthew & Petrolia, Daniel, 2014. "The Effects of Consequentiality in Binary- and Multinomial-Choice Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-16.
    21. Conway, M.Christine & Amacher, Gregory S. & Sullivan, Jay & Wear, David, 2003. "Decisions nonindustrial forest landowners make: an empirical examination," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 181-203.
    22. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    23. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    24. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2018. "Can stated measures of willingness-to-accept be valid? Evidence from laboratory experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-149.
    25. Pengfei Liu & Xiaohui Tian, 2021. "Downward Hypothetical Bias in the Willingness to Accept Measure for Private Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1679-1699, October.
    26. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    27. Valatin, Gregory & Moseley, Darren & Dandy, Norman, 2016. "Insights from behavioural economics for forest economics and environmental policy: Potential nudges to encourage woodland creation for climate change mitigation and adaptation?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-36.
    28. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    29. Rambonilaza, Tina & Brahic, Elodie, 2016. "Non-market values of forest biodiversity and the impact of informing the general public: Insights from generalized multinomial logit estimations," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 93-100.
    30. Isoaho, K. & Burgas, D. & Janasik, N. & Mönkkönen, M. & Peura, M. & Hukkinen, J.I., 2019. "Changing forest stakeholders’ perception of ecosystem services with linguistic nudging," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    31. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2017. "Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 258-268.
    32. Nemati, Mehdi & Penn, Jerrod, 2020. "The impact of information-based interventions on conservation behavior: A meta-analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    33. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2019. "Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-85.
    34. Lindhjem, Henrik & Mitani, Yohei, 2012. "Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 290-302.
    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. Bastola, Sapana & Penn, Jerrod & Blazier, Michael, 2022. "Assessing Hypothetical Bias in Nudging: Willingness to Pay for Consultation towards Improved Forest Management," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322477, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Luo, Heng & Ye, Yanmei & Zhou, Chongwu & Zhao, Jinghui, 2024. "Collective participation in conservation easements in rural China: Evidence from the Qianjiangyuan National Park," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    3. Ying Cheng & Zhongbao Liu & Yuan Hu & Weizhong Zeng, 2023. "The Influence of Farmers’ Cognition on Forest Land Transfer Behavior: A Case Study of Chengdu City," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, October.

    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. Gutierrez, Ana L. & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael, 2020. "Conservation Easement Landowners’ WTA Compensation to Thin their Forest," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304551, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Strange, Niels, 2018. "Landowner participation in forest conservation programs: A revealed approach using register, spatial and contract data," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Kang, Moon Jeong & Siry, Jacek P. & Colson, Gregory & Ferreira, Susana, 2019. "Do forest property characteristics reveal landowners' willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services contracts in southeast Georgia, U.S.?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 144-152.
    4. Lindhjem, Henrik & Mitani, Yohei, 2012. "Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 290-302.
    5. Mitani, Yohei & Shimada, Hideki, 2021. "Self-selection bias in estimating the determinants of landowners' Re-enrollment decisions in forest incentive programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    6. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    7. Zawojska, Ewa & Gastineau, Pascal & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Cheze, Benoit & Paris, Anthony, 2021. "Measuring policy consequentiality perceptions in stated preference surveys," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313977, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Pouta, Eija & Hiedanpää, Juha, 2021. "Forest owners' interest in participation and their compensation claims in voluntary landscape value trading: The case of wind power parks in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    9. Fischer, A. Paige, 2012. "Identifying policy target groups with qualitative and quantitative methods: The case of wildfire risk on nonindustrial private forest lands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 62-71.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    11. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2019. "Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-85.
    12. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    13. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    14. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    15. Kilham, Philipp & Hartebrodt, Christoph & Schraml, Ulrich, 2019. "A conceptual model for private forest owners' harvest decisions: A qualitative study in southwest Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Manuel Frondel & Stephan Sommer & Lukas Tomberg, 2021. "WTA-WTP Disparity: The Role of Perceived Realism of the Valuation Setting," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(1), pages 196-206.
    17. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Houston, Laurie L. & Gray, Andrew N. & Monleon, Vicente, 2021. "Evaluating empirical evidence for housing development effects on the management of remaining private-owned forest in the U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    18. Tobias Börger & Tenaw G. Abate & Margrethe Aanesen & Ewa Zawojska, 2021. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: Experimental Design Effects on Self-Reported Perceptions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(2), pages 407-424.
    19. Jieun Lee & Yeo-Chang Youn, 2023. "Landowners Are Interested in Payment for the Ecosystem Services of Forestry: The Case of Korean Private Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, February.
    20. G.C., Shivan & Mehmood, Sayeed R., 2012. "Determinants of nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to accept price offers for woody biomass," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 47-55.

    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:135:y:2022:i:c:s1389934121002331. 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.