IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulp/sbbeta/2024-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

More forest more problems? Understanding family forest owners’ concerns in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • David W. Shanafelt
  • Brian Danle
  • Jesse Caputo
  • Marielle Brunette

Abstract

Forests face an increasing number of threats of both natural and human cause, many of which are expected to increase in frequency and intensity in the future. Recent calls in the literature have pointed out the need for holistic approaches when developing ecosystem and forest management policies, which requires a broad understanding of how forest owners perceive the uncertainties and risks that may threaten their forests. In this paper, we study a set of sixteen concerns in the United States National Woodland Owners Survey (NWOS). Our set of concerns span a broad array of types and causes – natural and anthropogenic – that capture multiple aspects of forest ownership. We measure the level of concern that family forest owners associate with each concern variable, and explore how the levels of concern vary with each other. We then turn our attention to the “total concernedness” of forest owners by summing the level of concern across all concern variables to study how individuals distribute their concerns across multiple ownership challenges. Finally, we relate an individual’s total concern to his/her socio-demographic and forest-ownership attributes to understand how variation in these factors may be associated with an owner’s level of overall concernedness. We find that private forest owners report moderate levels of concern, on average, for all concerns in the NWOS, and that concerns are, in general, positively correlated with each other. Moreover, forest owners tend to distribute their concerns evenly across all types of concerns, as opposed to high levels of one concern and none for the others. Among our results, we discuss implications of the finding that the majority of forest owners in our survey express moderate levels of concern for most ownership challenges. Our analysis highlights a general need for forest policy and regulations that properly consider the full suite of owner preferences, benefits, and costs, including concerns.

Suggested Citation

  • David W. Shanafelt & Brian Danle & Jesse Caputo & Marielle Brunette, 2024. "More forest more problems? Understanding family forest owners’ concerns in the United States," Working Papers of BETA 2024-32, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2024-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2024/2024-32.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Serge Garcia & Éric Nazindigouba Kéré & Anne Stenger, 2014. "Econometric analysis of social interactions in the production decisions of private forest owners," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(2), pages 177-198.
    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. Ait-Sahalia, Yacine & Lo, Andrew W., 2000. "Nonparametric risk management and implied risk aversion," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1-2), pages 9-51.
    4. 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.
    5. Montagné-Huck, Claire & Brunette, Marielle, 2018. "Economic analysis of natural forest disturbances: A century of research," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 42-71.
    6. Hansjürgens, Bernd & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Berghöfer, Augustin & Lienhoop, Nele, 2017. "Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 9-17.
    7. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    8. Butler, Brett J. & Caputo, Jesse & Henderson, Jesse D. & Pugh, Scott A. & Riitters, Kurt & Sass, Emma M., 2022. "An assessment of the sustainability of family forests in the U.S.A," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    9. Gregory W. Fischer & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Indira Nair & Lester B. Lave, 1991. "What Risks Are People Concerned About," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 303-314, June.
    10. Kinnucan, Henry W., 2016. "Timber price dynamics after a natural disaster: Hurricane Hugo revisited," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 115-129.
    11. Courtney G. Flint, 2007. "Changing Forest Disturbance Regimes and Risk Perceptions in Homer, Alaska," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1597-1608, December.
    12. Taye, Fitalew Agimass & Folkersen, Maja Vinde & Fleming, Christopher M. & Buckwell, Andrew & Mackey, Brendan & Diwakar, K.C. & Le, Dung & Hasan, Syezlin & Ange, Chantal Saint, 2021. "The economic values of global forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. Jeffrey P. Prestemon & Thomas P. Holmes, 2000. "Timber Price Dynamics Following a Natural Catastrophe," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(1), pages 145-160.
    14. L. Eeckhoudt & C. Gollier & H. Schlesinger, 2005. "Economic and financial decisions under risk," Post-Print hal-00325882, HAL.
    15. Costello, Christopher & Springborn, Michael & McAusland, Carol & Solow, Andrew, 2007. "Unintended biological invasions: Does risk vary by trading partner?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 262-276, November.
    16. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    17. Thomas, J. & Brunette, M. & Leblois, A., 2022. "The determinants of adapting forest management practices to climate change: Lessons from a survey of French private forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Thomas F. Crossley & Hamish W. Low, 2011. "Is The Elasticity Of Intertemporal Substitution Constant?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 87-105, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Thomas F. Crossley & Hamish W. Low, 2005. "Unexploited Connections Between Intra- and Inter-temporal Allocation," Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers 131, McMaster University.
    5. Creamer, Selmin F. & Blatner, Keith A. & Butler, Brett J., 2012. "Certification of family forests: What influences owners’ awareness and participation?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 131-144.
    6. Paudel, Jayash, 2018. "Community-Managed Forests, Household Fuelwood Use and Food Consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 62-73.
    7. Xiaojia Bao & Puyang Sun & Jianan Li, 2023. "The impacts of tropical storms on food prices: Evidence from China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(2), pages 576-596, March.
    8. Jun Zhai & Zhuo Ning, 2022. "Models for the Economic Impacts of Forest Disturbances: A Systematic Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Bastit, Félix & Brunette, Marielle & Montagné-Huck, Claire, 2023. "Pests, wind and fire: A multi-hazard risk review for natural disturbances in forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    10. Morland, Christian & Schier, Franziska & Janzen, Niels & Weimar, Holger, 2018. "Supply and demand functions for global wood markets: Specification and plausibility testing of econometric models within the global forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 92-105.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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).
    15. 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.
    16. Tran, Yenie L. & Siry, Jacek P. & Izlar, Robert L. & Harris, Thomas G., 2020. "Motivations, business structures, and management intentions of large family forest landowners: A case study in the U.S. South," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    17. Salvucci, Vincenzo & Santos, Ricardo, 2020. "Vulnerability to Natural Shocks: Assessing the Short-Term Impact on Consumption and Poverty of the 2015 Flood in Mozambique," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    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. Andersson, Mats, 2012. "Assessing non-industrial private forest owners’ attitudes to risk: Do owner and property characteristics matter?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 3-13.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    concerns; National Woodland Owners Survey (NWOS); family forest owners; threats; Tobit regression.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ulp:sbbeta:2024-32. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bestrfr.html .

    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.