IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v6y2017i1p4-d88078.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

State-Level Forestry Cost-Share Programs and Economic Impact of Increased Timber Outputs: A South Carolina Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Brandon G. Stoots

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Thomas J. Straka

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Scott L. Phillips

    (South Carolina Forestry Commission, Columbia, SC 29212, USA)

Abstract

Management of family forests in the United States has been long-influenced by public policies and programs that encourage active management on these private lands, especially afforestation of idle lands and reforestation of cut-over lands. Financial incentive programs to encourage family forest reforestation date back to the 1940s, and in the beginning were funded by the federal government. Beginning in the early 1970s, state governments, especially those with strong forestry-based economies, saw a need to offer their own incentives, primarily cost-share programs to increase forest productivity. These programs are considered to be successful, but little research addresses the value and increased timber supply that result from the state investment. Here, we use historical data from the South Carolina Forest Renewal Program (FRP), one of the oldest and well-established state forestry cost-share programs, to determine the incremental timber outputs generated. Marginal analysis was used to produce financial comparison between regeneration options that include cost-share and those that do not. Annual funding for the FRP is currently $1,000,000 and in the long-run five dollars of economic impact is created for each dollar invested, and over a half million tons of additional wood is added to the annual timber supply.

Suggested Citation

  • Brandon G. Stoots & Thomas J. Straka & Scott L. Phillips, 2017. "State-Level Forestry Cost-Share Programs and Economic Impact of Increased Timber Outputs: A South Carolina Case Study," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:1:p:4-:d:88078
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/1/4/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/1/4/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian W. Hardie & Peter J. Parks, 1996. "Program Enrollment and Acreage Response to Reforestation Cost-Sharing Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 248-260.
    2. Robert J. Stimson & Roger R. Stough & Brian H. Roberts, 2006. "Regional Economic Development," Springer Books, Springer, edition 0, number 978-3-540-34829-0, April.
    3. Daowei Zhang & Warren A. Flick, 2001. "Sticks, Carrots, and Reforestation Investment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 443-456.
    4. Cubbage, Frederick & Harou, Patrice & Sills, Erin, 2007. "Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 833-851, April.
    5. 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.
    6. John E. Hatcher & Thomas J. Straka & John L. Greene, 2013. "The Size of Forest Holding/Parcelization Problem in Forestry: A Literature Review," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-19, April.
    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. Nepal, Sakar & McConnell, T. Eric & Barefield, Alan & Grala, Robert, 2023. "Mississippi USA'S timber severance tax apportionments and their economic contributions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(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. 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.
    2. Ovaskainen, Ville & Hujala, Teppo & Hänninen, Harri & Mikkola, Jarmo, 2017. "Cost sharing for timber stand improvements: Inducement or crowding out of private investment?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 40-48.
    3. Sun, Changyou, 2007. "Variation of federal cost-share programs in the United States and the inducement effects on tree planting," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 279-296, February.
    4. Dinh, Hoang Huu & Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Hoang, Viet-Ngu & Wilson, Clevo, 2017. "Economic incentive and factors affecting tree planting of rural households: Evidence from the Central Highlands of Vietnam," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 14-24.
    5. Hoang Huu Dinh & Shyam Basnet & Justus Wesseler, 2023. "Impact of Land Tenure Security Perception on Tree Planting Investment in Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Marey-Pérez, M.F. & Rodríguez-Vicente, V., 2011. "Factors determining forest management by farmers in northwest Spain: Application of discriminant analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 318-327, June.
    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. Langpap, Christian, 2006. "Conservation of endangered species: Can incentives work for private landowners?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 558-572, June.
    10. Karppinen, Heimo & Berghäll, Sami, 2015. "Forest owners' stand improvement decisions: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 275-284.
    11. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    12. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    13. Põllumäe, Priit & Lilleleht, Ando & Korjus, Henn, 2016. "Institutional barriers in forest owners' cooperation: The case of Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-16.
    14. Zaijun Li & Jianquan Cheng & Qiyan Wu, 2016. "Analyzing regional economic development patterns in a fast developing province of China through geographically weighted principal component analysis," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 233-245, October.
    15. Ferhan Gezici & Burçin Yazgı & Sinem Metin, 2013. "Analyzing the determinants of agglomeration for the manufacturing industry in Turkey," ERSA conference papers ersa13p808, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Huttunen, Suvi, 2018. "Linking practices of multifunctional forestry to policy objectives: Case studies in Finland and the UK," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 35-44.
    17. Trinajstic, Masa & Baresa, Suzana & Bogdan, Sinisa, 2018. "Regional Economic Growth And Tourism: A Panel Data Approach," UTMS Journal of Economics, University of Tourism and Management, Skopje, Macedonia, vol. 9(2), pages 145-155.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Antonescu, Daniela, 2012. "Theoretical approaches of regional development," MPRA Paper 60523, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2013.

    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:gam:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:1:p:4-:d:88078. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.