Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

If A Tree Falls in A Forest, Why Do People Care? An Analysis of Private Family Forest Owners’ Reasons for Owning Forest in the United States National Woodland Owner Survey

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Small-scale Forestry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

At its heart, forest management is grounded in valuation, with questions regarding what, how, and how much individuals value the forest being fundamental for efficient management. In this paper, we try to understand why private family forest owners value their forestland, and how owner and forest characteristics vary depending on the type of value. We estimate the demographic and socio-economic factors behind a suite of stated reasons for owning forest, from traditional market-value reasons to less-traditional, non-market reasons, among others. For our analysis, we use the United States Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS), a nationwide survey of private forest and woodland ownerships of at least one acre. We are able to identify different groupings of reasons for owning that share similar associated explanatory variables. While our results are generally in agreement with the literature, we find some notable discrepancies, such as a consistent negative association with education level and timber harvest as a reason for owning. This highlights a potential difference between stated and actual preferences. We believe that our results are useful when designing and disseminating information for policy, such as for promoting endangered species conservation or targeting individuals for enrollment in conservation easement, green certification, or cost-share programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While frequent in forest economics, the consideration of multiple types of benefits, including nonmarket valuation, is more novel in mainstream resource economics (though see Barbier (2007), Bertram and Quaas (2016), Brock et al. (2010), Nelson et al. (2009), and Shanafelt et al. (2018) for exceptions).

  2. The linkage between preferences, objectives, and behavior is intuitive, but it is far from a foregone conclusion. We know of no study in forestry or forest economics that checks for consistency between them, as doing so would likely require information on stated preferences/objectives and actual management behavior.

  3. Starting with the work of McFadden (1974), empirical estimation of model parameters in (1) under a logistic distribution were shown to be consistent with the theory of utility maximization. This has subsequently been extended to other statistical distributions (Cameron and Trivedi 2005; Green and Hensher, 2009; Train 2009).

  4. The Poisson, for example, assumes specific forms of the mean and variance of the data, and is not truncated at the maximum ranking (Cameron and Trivedi 2005). Alternatively, consider the multinomial logit. Unlike the ordered logit, there is no ordering in the choices as the value of the ranking increases. That is, each option can be thought of as an independent product, with the option yielding the highest utility being the one that is selected. However, by ignoring the ordered structure of the decision process in the data, this violates the assumption of independent and identically-distributed errors for each alternative: a choice is more similar to those close by than to those far away. Nonetheless, the multinomial can give reasonable estimates or be modified into a nested or mixed logit or probit to account for this fact (Cameron and Trivedi 2005; Train 2009).

  5. Neither acreage nor the acquisition of property by purchase are significantly associated with water resources as a reason for owning, supporting the latter hypothesis, that properties with water resources are more often part of joint-share ownerships. A future study incorporating an interaction term between the number of owners and acreage/acquisition of property by purchase could explicitly test the former hypothesis.

  6. In forestry, non-market or non-use values of the forest have long been recognized (see, for example, Hartman’s 1976 model, which considers both the harvest and recreational services). However, this is not true for mainstream resource economics, who only recently have explicitly considered non-market values in utility maximization (Barbier 2007; Bertram and Quaas 2016; Shanafelt et al. 2018).

References

  • Aguilar FX, Cai Z, D’Amato AW (2014a) Non-industrial private forest owner’s willingness-to-harvest: How higher timber prices influence woody biomass supply. Biomass and Energy 71:202–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar FX, Daniel M, Cai Z (2014b) Family-forest owners’ willingness to harvest sawlogs and woody biomass: The effect of price on social availability. Agric Resour Econ Rev 43:279–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar FX, Cai Z, Butler B (2017) Proximal association of land management preferences: Evidence from family forest owners. PLoS ONE 12:e0169667

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amacher GS, Conway MC, Sullivan J (2003) Economic analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study? J For Econ 9:137–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Amacher GS, Koskela E, Ollikainen M, Conway MC (2002) Bequest intentions of forest landowners: Theory and empirical evidence. Am J Agric Econ 84:1103–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (2012) Assessing non-industrial private forest owners’ attitudes to risk: Do owner and property characteristics matter? J For Econ 18:3–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrejczyk K, Butler BJ, Tyrrell ML, Langer J (2016) Hansel and Gretel walk in the forest, landowners walk in the woods: A qualitative examination of the language used by family forest owners. J Forest 114:52–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angrist JD, Pischke J (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (2007) Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Economic Policy 22:179–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach RH, Pattanayak SK, Yang J-C, Murray BC, Abt RC (2005) Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: A review and synthesis. For Policy Econ 7:261–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram C, Quaas MF (2016) Biodiversity and optimal multi-species ecosystem management. Environmental Resource Economics Online First

  • Brock W, Xepapadeus A (2010) Pattern formation, spatial externalities and regulation in coupled economic-ecological systems. J Environ Econ Manag 59:149–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler B, Caputo J, Robillard AL, Sass EM, Sutherland C (2021a) One size does not fit all: Relationships between size of family forest holdings and owner attitudes and behaviors. J Forest 119:28–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler BJ, Caputo J (2020) Weighting for the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture, F. S., Northern Research Station, (Ed.), Madison, WI

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC, Williams MS (2005) Design, implementation, and analysis methods for the National Woodland Owner Survey. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture, F. S., Northern Research Station, (Ed.). USDA Forest Service, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016a) Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey. J Forest 114:638–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016b) USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owner Survey: National, regional, and state statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10 + acres, 2011–2013. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture, F. S., Northern Research Station, (Ed.), Vol. Res. Bull. NRS-99, Newtown Square, PA

  • Butler BJ, Butler SM, Caputo J, Dias J, Robillard A, Sass EM, United States (2021b) Family forest ownerships of the, 2018: Results from the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture, F. S., Northern Research Station, (Ed.), Madison, WI

  • Butler BJ, Catanzaro PF, Greene JL, Hewes JH, Kilgore MA, Kittredge DB, Ma Z, Tyrrell ML (2012) Taxing family forest owners: Implications of federal and state policies in the United States. J Forest 110:371–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2005) Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caputo J, Butler B (2017) Ecosystem service supply and capacity on U.S. family forestlands. Forests 8:395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caputo J, Butler BJ, Sass EM (2020) The National Woodland Owner Survey database: Database description and user’s guide, version 1.0. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture, F. S., Northern Research Station, (Ed.)

  • Clark CW (2010) Mathematical bioeconomics: The mathematics of conservation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad JM (1999) Resource economics. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad JM, Clark CW (1987) Natural resource economics: Notes and problems. Cambridge University Press

  • Dickinson BJ, Butler BJ (2013) Method for estimating private forest ownership statistics: Revised methods for the USDA Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey. J Forest 111:319–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson BJ, Stevens TH, Markowski-Lindsay M, Kittredge DB (2012) Estimated participation in U.S. carbon sequestration programs: A study of NIPF landowners in Massachusetts. J For Econ 18:36–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan AF, Jones SB (1995) The reliability of landowner survey responses to questions on forest ownership and harvesting. North J Appl For 12:184–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggers J, Lamas T, Lind T, Ohman K (2014) Factors influencing the choice of management strategy among small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Forests 5:1695–1716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson DL, Ryan R, De Young R (2002) Woodlots in the rural landscape: Landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case study. Landsc Urban Plann 58:101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Favada IM, Karppinen H, Kuuluvainen J, Mikkola J, Stavness C (2009) Effects of timber prices, ownership objectives, and owner characteristics on timber supply. For Sci 55:512–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Felipe-Lucia MR, Soliveres S, Penone C, Fischer M, Ammer C, Boch S, Boeddinghaus RS, Bonkowski M, Buscot F, Fiore-Donno AM, Frank K, Goldmann K, Gossner MM, Hölzel N, Jochum M, Kandeler E, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Leimer S, Manning P, Oelmann Y, Saiz H, Schall P, Schloter M, Schöning I, Schrumpf M, Solly EF, Stempfhuber B, Weisser WW, Wilcke W, Wubet T, Allan E (2020) Land-use intensity alters networks between biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 28140–28149, doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016210117

  • Ficko A, Lidestav G, Dhubhain AN, Karppinen H, Zivojinovic I, Westin K (2019) European private forest owner topologies: A review of methods and use. For Policy Econ 99:21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finley AO, Kittredge DB (2006) Thoreau, Muir, and Jane Doe: Different types of private forest owners need different kinds of forest management. North J Appl For 23:27–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia S, Nazindigouba Kéré E, Stenger A (2014) Econometric analysis of social interactions in the production decisions of private forest owners. Eur Rev Agric Econ 41:177–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatto P, Defrancesco E, Mozzato D, Pettenella D (2019) Are non-industrial private forest owners willing to deliver regulation ecosystem services? Insights from an alpine case. Eur J For Res 138:639–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene JL, Kilgore MA, Jacobson MG, Daniels SE, Straka TJ (2006) Existing and potential incentives for practicing sustainable forestry on non-industrial private forest lands. In: Sury J (ed) Southern Forest Economics Workshop. Souther Research Station

  • Greene WH, Hensher DA (2010) Modeling ordered choices: A primer. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gruchy SR, Grebner DL, Munn IA, Joshi O, Hussain A (2012) An assessment of nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to harvest woody biomass in support of bioenergy production in Mississippi: A contingent rating approach. For Policy Econ 15:140–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansjurgens B, Schroter-Schlaack C, Berghofer A, Lienhoop N (2017) Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosyst Serv 23:9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman R (1976) The harvest decision when a standing forest has value. Econ Inq 14:52–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingemarson F, Lindhagen A, Eriksson L (2006) A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scand J For Res 21:249–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi S, Arano KG (2009) Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners. For Policy Econ 11:118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karppinen H (1998) Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica 32:699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karppinen H (2004) Landowner attitudes and typologies in relation to forestry. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics. Scandinavian Forest Economics, Vantaa, Finland, pp. 155–167

  • Karppinen H, Berghall S (2015) Forest owners’ stand improvement decisions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. For Policy Econ 50:275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilgore MA, Ellefson PV, Funk TJ, Frey GE (2018) State property tax programs promoting sustainable forests in the United States: A review of program structure and administration. J Forest 116:257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunegis J, Schmidt S, Lommatzsch A, Lerner J, De Luca EW, Albayrak S (2010) Spectral analysis of signed graphs for clustering, prediction, and visualization. 2010 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM), pp. 559–570

  • Kuuluvainen J, Karppinen H, Ovaskainen V (1996) Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. For Sci 42:300–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuuluvainen J, Karppinen H, Hanninen H, Uusivuori J (2014) Effects of gender and length of land tenure on timber supply in Finland. J For Econ 20:363–379

    Google Scholar 

  • LaBau VJ, Bones JT, Kingsley NP, Lund HG, Smith WB (2007) A history of the forest survey in the United States: 1830–2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenberg S, Steg L (2007) Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J Soc Issues 63:117–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majumdar I, Teeter L, Butler B (2008) Characterizing family forest owners: A cluster analysis approach. For Sci 54:176–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschak J (1960) Binary choice constraints on random utility indications. In: Arrow, K., (Ed.), Stanford Symposium on Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, pp. 312–329

  • Matilainen A, Koch M, Zivojinovic I, Lähdesmäki M, Lidestav G, Karppinen H, Didolot F, Jarsky V, Põllumäe P, Colson V, Hricova Z, Glavonjic P, Scriban RE (2019) Perceptions of ownership among forest owners - A qualitative study in European context. For Policy Econ 99:43–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembkda P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (2001) Economic choices. Am Econ Rev 91:351–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron DR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw MR (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman DH, Wear DN (1993) Production economics of private forestry: A comparison of industrial and nonindustrial forest owners. Am J Agric Econ 75:674–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petucco C, Abildtrup J, Stenger A (2015) Influences of nonindustrial private forest landowners’ management priorities on the timber harvest decision: A case study in France. J For Econ 21:152–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Polomé P (2016) Private forest owner motivations for adopting biodiversity-related protection programs. J Environ Manage 183:212–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz AJ, McGonigle J (2011) Negative edges and soft thresholding in complex network analysis of resting state functional connectivity data. NeuroImage 55:1132–1146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shanafelt DW, Perrings C (2018) The effect of post-2001 reforms on FMD risks of the international livestock trade. EcoHealth 15:327–337

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shanafelt DW, Clobert J, Fenichel EP, Hochberg M, Kinzig A, Loreau M, Marquet P, Perrings C (2018) Species dispersal and spatial insurance in human-dominated systems. J Theor Biol 457:199–210

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Silver EJ, Leahy JE, Weiskittel AR, Noblet CL, Kittredge DB (2015) An evidence-based review of timber harvesting behavior among private woodland owners. J Forest 113:490–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Service USDAF (2015) Who owns America’s trees, woods, and forests? Results from the U.S. Forest Service 2011–2013 National Woodland Owner Survey. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture, F. S., Northern Research Station, (Ed.), Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • York AM, Janssen MA, Carlson LA (2006) Diversity of incentives for private forest landowners: An assessment of programs in Indiana, USA. Land Use Policy 23:542–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young RA, Reichenbach MR (1997) Factors influencing the timber harvest intentions of nonindustrial private forest owners. For Sci 33:381–393

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Lorraine, Université de Strasbourg, AgroParis Tech, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Bureau d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée (BETA), 14 Rue Girardet - CS 14216, 54042, Nancy Cedex, France

    David W. Shanafelt & Jens Abildtrup

  2. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Amherst, MA, USA

    Jesse Caputo & Brett J. Butler

  3. Family Forest Research Center, Amherst, MA, USA

    Jesse Caputo & Brett J. Butler

Authors
  1. David W. Shanafelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jesse Caputo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jens Abildtrup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brett J. Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David W. Shanafelt.

Ethics declarations

Statements and declarations

We have no funding or competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shanafelt, D.W., Caputo, J., Abildtrup, J. et al. If A Tree Falls in A Forest, Why Do People Care? An Analysis of Private Family Forest Owners’ Reasons for Owning Forest in the United States National Woodland Owner Survey. Small-scale Forestry 22, 303–321 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-022-09530-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-022-09530-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation