IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v99y2019icp68-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The social networks of Irish private forest owners: An exploratory study

Author

Listed:
  • Stoettner, Evelyn M.
  • Ní Dhubháin, Áine

Abstract

Private forests in Europe are increasingly characterised by fragmented ownership and declining owner knowledge and engagement, raising concerns about the harvesting behaviour of private forest owners. The formation of forest owner groups is seen as a means not only of addressing fragmented ownership but also owner knowledge. It is also increasingly recognised that owner engagement is not only influenced by the characteristics of the owner and their forest but also the individuals that surround the owners, i.e. their social network. This study aims to explore and describe existing social networks of private forest owners in Ireland. It focusses specifically on four types of owners: forest owners who were members of a forest owner group and who had harvested; forest owners who were members of a group but had not harvested; forest owners who were not members of a group and who had harvested and finally forest owners who were not group members who had not harvested. Interviews were held with a total of 56 forest owners in the southern half of Ireland. Members of forest owner groups who have harvested had the largest and the most diverse social networks. These results suggest an association between social networks and the harvesting activity of forest owners, although the direction of the association is not clear. The persons/organisations in the social networks that were trusted most by the forest owners were the public technical advisory service (Teagasc), the forest owner group and family/friends/neighbours. Teagasc and the forest owner group were also the most influential highlighting the key role that trust plays in knowledge exchange. The study provides the first insights into the social networks of forest owners in Ireland. However, further research is required to address how social networks effectively influence forest owners' harvesting behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Stoettner, Evelyn M. & Ní Dhubháin, Áine, 2019. "The social networks of Irish private forest owners: An exploratory study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 68-76.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:99:y:2019:i:c:p:68-76
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.09.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934117301521
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.09.008?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Hendee, Jacob T. & Flint, Courtney G., 2013. "Managing private forestlands along the public–private interface of Southern Illinois: Landowner forestry decisions in a multi-jurisdictional landscape," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 47-55.
    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. Lawrence, Anna & Deuffic, Philippe & Hujala, Teppo & Nichiforel, Liviu & Feliciano, Diana & Jodlowski, Krzysztof & Lind, Torgny & Marchal, Didier & Talkkari, Ari & Teder, Meelis & Vilkriste, Lelde & W, 2020. "Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2022. "Embedding non-industrial private forest owners in forest policy and bioeconomy issues using a Living Lab concept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    3. Joa, Bettina & Schraml, Ulrich, 2020. "Conservation practiced by private forest owners in Southwest Germany – The role of values, perceptions and local forest knowledge," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    4. Sanz-Hernández, Alexia, 2021. "Privately owned forests and woodlands in Spain: Changing resilience strategies towards a forest-based bioeconomy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2021. "Developing the persona method to increase the commitment of non-industrial private forest owners in French forest policy priorities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    6. 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.

    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. Steubing, B. & Zah, R. & Waeger, P. & Ludwig, C., 2010. "Bioenergy in Switzerland: Assessing the domestic sustainable biomass potential," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(8), pages 2256-2265, October.
    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. Julia Touza & Charles Perrings & María Chas Amil, 2010. "Harvest Decisions and Spatial Landscape Attributes: The Case of Galician Communal Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 75-91, May.
    4. Cai, Zhen & Narine, Lana Landra & D'Amato, Anthony & Aguilar, Francisco Xavier, 2016. "Attitudinal and revenue effects on non-industrial private forest owners' willingness-to-harvest timber and woody biomass," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 52-61.
    5. Størdal, Ståle & Lien, Gudbrand & Baardsen, Sjur, 2008. "Analyzing determinants of forest owners' decision-making using a sample selection framework," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 159-176, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Hendee, Jacob T. & Flint, Courtney G., 2013. "Managing private forestlands along the public–private interface of Southern Illinois: Landowner forestry decisions in a multi-jurisdictional landscape," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 47-55.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Holthausen, Niels, 2006. "Ökonomische Bedeutung und Management von Naturrisiken im Wald: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Analysen nach dem Sturm Lothar (1999) in der Schweiz," Schriftenreihe Forstökonomie und Forstplanung, University of Freiburg, Chair of Forestry Economics and Planning, volume 26, number 26.
    11. Kostadinov, Fabian & Holm, Stefan & Steubing, Bernhard & Thees, Oliver & Lemm, Renato, 2014. "Simulation of a Swiss wood fuel and roundwood market: An explorative study in agent-based modeling," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 105-118.
    12. 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.
    13. Sauter, Philipp A. & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard & Wilhelm, Stefan, 2016. "Faustmann vs. real options theory – An experimental investigation of foresters’ harvesting decisions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 1-20.
    14. 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).
    15. Petucco, Claudio & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2015. "Influences of nonindustrial private forest landowners’ management priorities on the timber harvest decision—A case study in France," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 152-166.
    16. Gregory Amacher & Markku Ollikainen & Mikko Puhakka, 2018. "Renewable Resource Use and Nonseparable Amenity Benefits," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(4), pages 637-659, April.
    17. Mohebalian, Phillip M. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2016. "Additionality and design of forest conservation programs: Insights from Ecuador's Socio Bosque Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 103-114.
    18. Mozgeris, Gintautas & Brukas, Vilis & Stanislovaitis, Andrius & Kavaliauskas, Marius & Palicinas, Michailas, 2017. "Owner mapping for forest scenario modelling — A Lithuanian case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 235-244.
    19. Upton, V. & Ryan, M. & Heanue, K. & Ní Dhubháin, Á., 2019. "The role of extension and forest characteristics in understanding the management decisions of new forest owners in Ireland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 77-82.
    20. Snyder, Stephanie A. & Ma, Zhao & Floress, Kristin & Clarke, Mysha, 2020. "Relationships between absenteeism, conservation group membership, and land management among family forest owners," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).

    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:99:y:2019:i:c:p:68-76. 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.