IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v141y2022ics1389934122000697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

State-level forestry policies across the US: Discourses reflecting the tension between private property rights and public trust resources

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly, Erin Clover
  • Crandall, Mindy S.

Abstract

Policies impacting forest management on privately-owned lands demonstrate remarkable variety across the United States, with each state emphasizing different approaches to balancing private property rights with the protection of public trust resources. Though private property rights are historically paramount in the US, previous researchers have identified a variety of policy approaches on private forest lands, from regulatory to non-regulatory. We expand on these categories through a discourse analysis of state-produced documents (including legislation, rules, and best management practices manuals). Through this analysis, we create a typology of categories that express assumptions about landowner behavior and the appropriate role of state intervention. The typology identifies four discourse categories used to varying degrees within each state: landowner stewardship, forestry expert stewardship, science-bureaucracy, and participatory conservation. This typology allows for comparison of policy approaches and comparison across resources and jurisdictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly, Erin Clover & Crandall, Mindy S., 2022. "State-level forestry policies across the US: Discourses reflecting the tension between private property rights and public trust resources," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:141:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000697
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934122000697
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102757?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. Manuschevich, Daniela, 2016. "Neoliberalization of forestry discourses in Chile," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 21-30.
    2. Nichiforel, Liviu & Deuffic, Philippe & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Weiss, Gerhard & Hujala, Teppo & Keary, Kevin & Lawrence, Anna & Avdibegović, Mersudin & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Feliciano, Diana & Górriz-, 2020. "Two decades of forest-related legislation changes in European countries analysed from a property rights perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    3. Nick Hanley & Simanti Banerjee & Gareth D. Lennox & Paul R. Armsworth, 2012. "How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 93-113, Spring.
    4. Ellefson, Paul V. & Kilgore, Michael A. & Granskog, James E., 2007. "Government regulation of forestry practices on private forest land in the United States: An assessment of state government responsibilities and program performance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 620-632, February.
    5. van Heeswijk, Laura & Turnhout, Esther, 2013. "The discursive structure of FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade): The negotiation and interpretation of legality in the EU and Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 6-13.
    6. Ellefson, Paul V. & Moulton, Robert J. & Kilgore, Michael A., 2003. "Public agencies and bureaus responsible for forest management and protection: an assessment of the fragmented institutional landscape of state governments in the United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 207-223, September.
    7. Marissa Bongiovanni Schmitz & Erin Clover Kelly, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Commodification: Lessons from California," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(4), pages 90-110, November.
    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. Goldstein, Brita & Crandall, Mindy S. & Kelly, Erin Clover, 2023. "“The cost of doing business”: Private rights, public resources, and the resulting diversity of state-level forestry policies in the U.S," 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. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    2. Susaeta, Andres & Carter, Douglas R. & Adams, Damian C., 2014. "Impacts of Climate Change on Economics of Forestry and Adaptation Strategies in the Southern United States," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(2), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Hag Mo Kang & Dae Sung Lee & Soo Im Choi & Sohui Jeon & Chong Kyu Lee & Hyun Kim, 2020. "Problems and Challenges: A Private Forest Purchase Method for National Forest Expansion in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-13, October.
    4. Andong, Sandrine & Ongolo, Symphorien, 2020. "From global forest governance to domestic politics: The European forest policy reforms in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Paing, Win Min & Han, Phyu Phyu & Ota, Masahiko & Fujiwara, Takahiro, 2023. "The state-private hybrid forest policy in Myanmar: The impact of neoliberalism on the forestry sector after the 1990s," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Orihuela, José Carlos, 2017. "Assembling participatory Tambopata: Environmentality entrepreneurs and the political economy of nature," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 52-62.
    8. Wilkinson, Graham R. & Schofield, Mick & Kanowski, Peter, 2014. "Regulating forestry — Experience with compliance and enforcement over the 25years of Tasmania's forest practices system," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-11.
    9. Banerjee, Simanti & Cason, Timothy N. & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 68-89.
    10. Afriyie, Kwadwo & Abass, Kabila, 2020. "Profiting from illegality: A discursive analysis of the chainsaw operation in rural Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    11. Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Payments for Environmental Services: Concepts and Applications," Research Reports 244011, Australian National University, Effective Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services in Lao PDR.
    12. Juutinen, Artti & Ollikainen, Markku & Mönkkönen, Mikko & Reunanen, Pasi & Tikkanen, Olli-Pekka & Kouki, Jari, 2014. "Optimal contract length for biodiversity conservation under conservation budget constraint," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 14-24.
    13. Rousseau Sandra, 2008. "Enforcement Aspects of Conservation Policies: Compensation Payments versus Reserves," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0801, KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment.
    14. Simanti Banerjee & Frans P. de Vries & Nick Hanley & Daan P. van Soest, 2014. "The Impact of Information Provision on Agglomeration Bonus Performance: An Experimental Study on Local Networks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1009-1029.
    15. Carson Reeling & Leah H. Palm-Forster & Richard T. Melstrom, 2019. "Policy Instruments and Incentives for Coordinated Habitat Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 791-813, July.
    16. Md. Sayed Iftekhar & John G. Tisdell, 2016. "An Agent Based Analysis of Combinatorial Bidding for Spatially Targeted Multi-Objective Environmental Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(4), pages 537-558, August.
    17. Alisa E White & David A Lutz & Richard B Howarth & José R Soto, 2018. "Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    18. Anna Bartczak & Michał Krawczyk & Nick Hanley & Anne Stenger, 2014. "Buying spatially-coordinated ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation on forest land: an experiment on the role of auction format and communication," Working Papers 2014-19, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Curran, Michael & Kiteme, Boniface & Wünscher, Tobias & Koellner, Thomas & Hellweg, Stefanie, 2016. "Pay the farmer, or buy the land?—Cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services versus land purchases or easements in Central Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 59-67.
    20. Alexandru Giurca & Liviu Nichiforel & Petru Tudor Stăncioiu & Marian Drăgoi & Daniel-Paul Dima, 2022. "Unlocking Romania’s Forest-Based Bioeconomy Potential: Knowledge-Action-Gaps and the Way Forward," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, November.

    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:141:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000697. 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.