Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public-Private Interactions in the Conservation of Private Forests in the United States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Human-Environment Interactions

Part of the book series: Human-Environment Interactions ((HUEN,volume 1))

Abstract

This chapter discusses the investment decisions of private and public actors in the USA regarding the management and conservation of private forests. Managed by nearly 11 million private owners, these forestlands provide valuable ecological, economic, and social benefits to society. What happens on these lands as a result of public and private investment decisions has implications for society, both in the present and in the future. First, this chapter reviews the interactions between private and public actors in private forestry. A typology is proposed that characterizes public and private investments in forestlands based on their target audiences (e.g., a private investment decision for largely public benefit). This chapter next explores the different ownership features and uses of forests over time and space. The discussion centers on the challenges and opportunities of governing private forests as a bundle of property rights within the proposed typology of public-private interactions in private forestry.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The characteristics and definitions of “forest stewardship” vary. Drawing from others, forest stewardship is understood, here broadly, as a type of sustainable land use and management (Kilgore et al. 2008, 358).

  2. 2.

    We use the state of Indiana, in the Midwest USA, because of its significant share of privately owned forests and similarities to other Midwest states, which display a mix of small-scale forest and agricultural land use, residential expansion, and susceptibility to invasive plants and natural disturbances (see Kauneckis and York 2009; Koontz 2001; Smith et al. 2009: 48).

  3. 3.

    Nonindustrial private forest is a subset of private forestlands, where the owner does not operate wood-using plants. A difference exists between families and individuals who own forestland but do not operate a wood-processing facility (nonindustrial private forest owners) and private groups and corporations who own and operate a primary wood-processing facility (industrial private forest owners) (Butler 2008: 3; Smith et al. 2009: 144).

  4. 4.

    Most states rely on education and incentive programs to encourage sustainable forestry practices. Ellefson et al. (2007) examined statewide programs for all private lands. Certain targeted programs, such as the Indiana Classified Forest and Wildlands program, do set standards and regulate forest use on lands enrolled voluntarily in the program. This is an important differentiation since many states have such voluntary programs.

  5. 5.

    The estimated annual state government investment in regulatory programs targeted at private forestlands was $57.6 million dollars in 2003 (Ellefson et al. 2007: 629).

  6. 6.

    Habitat conservation plans in the Endangered Species Act fall under the responsibility of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/hcp-overview.html. Accessed 18 Sept 2011).

  7. 7.

    The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) “complements private, Federal and State programs focusing on conservation in two ways. First, FLP directly supports property acquisition. Additionally, FLP supports efforts to acquire donated conservation easements. FLP funded acquisitions serve public purposes identified by participating states and agreed to by the landowner” (USFS 2008).

  8. 8.

    http://www.pikelumber.com/Partner.php. Accessed 23 Oct 2010.

  9. 9.

    American Tree Farm System Certification Program (http://www.treefarmsystem.org/atfscertification. Accessed 23 Oct 2010).

  10. 10.

    Results from a 2006 survey conducted in conjunction with the National Gardening Association of America estimated the total investment of American households on landscaping and tree care services (Butterfield 2007 cited in Davis et al. 2010: 322).

References

  • Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Inside the matrix: Integrating the paradigms of intergovernmental and network management. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(12), 1401–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., & Hardin, R. (2008). Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science, 320(5882), 1460–1462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, R., & Wyerman, J. (2005). 2005 National land trust census report. Washington, DC: Land Trust Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alig, R., Latta, G., Adams, D., & McCarl, B. (2010). Mitigating greenhouse gases: The importance of land base interactions between forests, agriculture, and residential development in the face of changes in bioenergy and carbon prices. Forest Policy and Economics, 12, 67–75. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allred, S., & Goff, G. (2009). The power of peer learning programs in natural resources. Rural New York Minute, 32(August 2009) (Published by Human Dimensions Research Unit and Community & Rural Development Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arano, K. G., Munn, I. A., Gunter, J. E., Bullard, S. H., & Doolittle, M. L. (2004). Comparison between regenerators and non-regenerators in Mississippi: A discriminant analysis. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 28(4), 189–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barten, P. K., Damery, D., Catanzaro, P., Fish, J., Campbell, S., Fabos, A., et al. (2001). Massachusetts family forests: Birth of a landowner cooperative. Journal of Forestry, 99(3), 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bascompte, J. (2009). Disentangling the web of life. Science, 325(5939), 416–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, R., Pattanayak, S., Yang, J., Murray, B., & Abt, R. (2005). Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: A review and synthesis. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(3), 261–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengston, D. N., Asah, S. T., & Butler, B. J. (2011). The diverse values and motivations of family forest owners in the United States: An analysis of an open-ended question in the National Woodland Owner Survey. Small-Scale Forestry, 10, 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, C. (2004). Non-governmental organizations: More owners and smaller parcels pose major stewardship challenges. Journal of Forestry, 102(7), 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, C., & Wayburn, L. (2001). America’s private forests: Status and stewardship. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, J. C. (2001). Extension and the future of family forests: Making connections. Published by International Union of Forestry Research Organizations, provided by The Regional Institute Ltd. www.regional.org.au/au/iufro/2001/bliss.htm. Accessed 15 Nov 2010.

  • Bliss, J. C., & Kelly, E. C. (2008). Comparative advantages of small-scale forestry among emerging forest tenures. Small-Scale Forestry, 7, 95–104. doi:10.1007/s11842-008-9043-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, J. C., Kelly, E. C., Abrams, J., Bailey, C., & Dyer, J. (2010). Disintegration of the U.S. industrial forest estate: Dynamics, trajectories, and questions. Small-Scale Forestry, 9, 53–66. doi:10.1007/s11842-009-9101-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 366–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, Ö., Crona, B., & Ernstson, H. (2006). Social networks in natural resource management: What is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecology and Society, 11(2), resp. 2 [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/resp2/

  • Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruyere, B., Teel, T., & Newman, P. (2009). Response to more kids in the woods: Reconnecting Americans with nature. Journal of Forestry, 107, 378–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, B. J. (2008). Family forest owners of the United States, 2006 (General Technical Report NRS-27). Newtown Square: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, B. J., & Leatherberry, E. C. (2004). America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry, 102, 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chazdon, R. L. (2008). Beyond deforestation: Restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science, 320(5882), 1458–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., & Farber, S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on the dynamics and value of ecosystem services: Integrating economic and ecological perspectives. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 367–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crona, B., & Bodin, Ö. (2006). What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and Society, 11(2), art. 7 [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art7/

  • Crossley, N., Prell, C., & Scott, J. (2009). Social network analysis: introduction to special edition. Methodological Innovations Online, 4, 1–7, http://www.pbs.plym.ac.uk/mi/pdf/17-04-09/1.%20Crossley%20et%20al%20intro%201-7.pdf

  • D’Amato, A. W., Catanzaro, P. F., Damery, D. T., Kittredge, D. B., & Ferrare, K. A. (2010). Are family forest owners facing a future in which forest management is not enough? Journal of Forestry, 108, 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, S. E., Kilgore, M. A., Jacobson, M. G., Greene, J. L., & Straka, T. J. (2010). Examining the compatibility between forestry incentive programs in the US and the practice of sustainable forest management. Forests, 1, 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2011). Timber. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M., Steiner, L. E., & Fly, J. M. (2010). Do you hear what i hear: Better understanding how forest management is conceptualized and practiced by private forest landowners. Journal of Forestry, 108(6), 321–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, A. F. (1999). Reducing forest road erosion: Do foresters and logging contracts matter? Journal of Forestry, 97(8), 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellefson, P. V., Kilgore, M. A., & Granskog, J. 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, 9(6), 620–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESA (Endangered Species Act of 1973 As Amended through the 108th Congress). (2005). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esa.pdf

  • Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S., & Elmqvist, T. (2008). Social movements and ecosystem services—The role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecology and Society, 13(2), art. 39 [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art39/

  • Evans, T. P., Donnelly, S., & Sweeney, S. (2010). Threats to the forest transition in the Midwest United States. In H. Nagendra & J. Southworth (Eds.), Reforesting landscapes: Linking pattern and process (pp. 175–203). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, B. C., & Ruseva, T. B. (2010). What is happening in and outside America’s private woodlands? Journal of Forestry, 108(6), 304–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing human behavior: The reasoned action approach. East Sussex: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gass, R., Rickenbach, M., Schulte, L., & Zeuli, K. (2009). Cross-boundary coordination on forested landscapes: Investigating alternatives for implementation. Environmental Management, 43(1), 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatzweiler, F. W. (2006). Organizing a public ecosystem service economy for sustaining biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 59(3), 296–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J., Daniels, S., Jacobson, M., Kilgore, M., & Straka, T. (2010). Financial incentive programs for non-industrial private forest owners. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/econ/data/forestincentives/. Accessed 26 Sept 2011.

  • Heath, S., Fuller, A., & Johnston, B. (2009). Chasing shadows: Defining network boundaries in qualitative social network analysis. Qualitative Research, 9(5), 645–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IDNR (Indiana Department of Natural Resources). (n.d.). IDNR Division of Forestry strategic plan 2008–2013. http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/files/fo-Forestry-Strategic-Plan-2008-2013.Final.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2010.

  • Janssen, M. A., Bodin, Ö., Anderies, J. M., Elmqvist, T., Ernstson, H., McAllister, R. R. J., et al. (2006). Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), art. 15 [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art15/

  • Kauneckis, D., & York, A. (2009). An empirical evaluation of private landowner participation in voluntary forest conservation programs. Environmental Management, 44(3), 468–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendra, A., & Hull, R. B. (2005). Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science, 51(2), 142–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgore, M. A. (2004). Public forest policies and the family forest. Journal of Forestry, 102(7), 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgore, M. A., Greene, J. L., Jacobson, M. G., Straka, T. J., & Daniels, S. E. (2007). The influence of financial incentive programs in promoting sustainable forestry on the nation’s family forests. Journal of Forestry, 105(4), 184–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgore, M. A., Snyder, S., Taff, S., & Schertz, J. (2008). Family forest stewardship: Do owners need a financial incentive? Journal of Forestry, 106(7), 357–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, A. R., Schuhmann, A., & Brown, H. (2009). More kids in the woods: Reconnecting Americans with nature. Journal of Forestry, 107, 373–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittredge, D. B. (2005). The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: International examples and potential application in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(4), 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoot, T., & Rickenbach, M. (2011). Best management practices and timber harvesting: The role of social networks in shaping landowner decisions. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 26(2), 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoot, T., Schulte, L., & Rickenbach, M. (2010). Oak conservation and restoration on private forestlands: Negotiating a social-ecological landscape. Environmental Management, 45(1), 155–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, T. M. (2001). Money talks – But to whom? Financial versus nonmonetary motivations in land use decisions. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, T. M., Steelman, T. A., Carmin, J. A., Smith Korfmacher, K., Moseley, C., & Thomas, C. W. (2004). Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government? Washington, DC: RFF Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger, T., & Casey, F. (2007). An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Ecological Economics, 64(2), 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kueper, A. M., & Sagor, E. S. (2011). Peer learning and landowner networks: Lessons from five case studies. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Extension. http://api.ning.com/files/iFd3RfosUw6JpOgZbJ3*BZPf7KAIPoJRKZLv5j*QvfNBZSXQPXrmS2acIWfSkkJMnGFyLInG6hqbSnuFJWtvhgX9DL0*Y7B3/AMKresearchoverviewfinalPDF.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2011.

  • Lubchenco, J. (1998). Earth’s unruly tenant: Credible science and human impacts on global ecology. Open Spaces, 2(1) [online]. http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-lubchenco.php

  • Munroe, D. K., & York, A. M. (2003). Jobs, houses, and trees: Changing regional structure, local land-use patterns, and forest cover in southern Indiana. Growth and Change, 34(3), 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagendra, H. (2007). Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(39), 15218–15223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagubadi, V., McNamara, K. T., Hoover, W. L., & Mills, W. L., Jr. (1996). Program participation behavior of nonindustrial forest landowners: A probit analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 28(2), 323–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • NASF (National Association of State Foresters). (2010). State foresters concerned that president’s budget will fall short in meeting conservation goals on all lands. Press release. Washington, DC: NASF. http://www.stateforesters.org/files/02112010-NASF-prez-budget.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2011.

  • Nowak, D. J., & Walton, J. T. (2005). Projected urban growth (2000–2050) and its estimated impact on the US forest resource. Journal of Forestry, 103(8), 383–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, D. J., Walton, J. T., Dwyer, J. F., Kaya, L. G., & Myeonng, S. (2005). The increasing influence of urban environments on US forest management. Journal of Forestry, 103(8), 377–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council), (1998). Forested landscapes in perspective: Prospects and opportunities for sustainable management of America’s nonfederal forests. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E., & Lunnan, A. (2009). Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(2), 608–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakerson, R. J. (1999). Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis. Richmond: ICS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., & Schultz, L. (2007). Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecology and Society, 12(1), art. 28 [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art28/

  • Ostrom, E. (1998). The comparative study of public economies. The American Economist, 42(1), 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1999). Public goods and public choices. In M. D. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis (pp. 75–106). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persha, L., Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331(6024), 1606–1608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pescosolido, B. A. (1992). Beyond rational choice: The social dynamics of how people seek help. The American Journal of Sociology, 97(4), 1096–1138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pescosolido, B. A. (2007). Sociology of social networks. In C. D. Bryant & D. L. Peck (Eds.), 21st century sociology: A reference handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 208–217). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Klotthor-Weinkauf, D., & Baumgart-Getz, A. (2008). Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63(5), 300–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickenbach, M. (2009). Serving members and reaching others: The performance and social networks of a landowner cooperative. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 593–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickenbach, M., & Jahnke, A. (2006). Wisconsin private sector foresters’ involvement in nonindustrial private forestland cross-boundary forestry practices. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 23(2), 100–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickenbach, M., Schulte, L. A., Kittredge, D. B., Labich, W. G., & Shinneman, D. J. (2011). Cross-boundary cooperation: A mechanism for sustaining ecosystem services from private lands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 66(4), 91A–96A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross-Davis, A. L., Broussard, S. R., Jacobs, D. F., & Davis, A. S. (2005). Afforestation motivations of private landowners: An examination of hardwood tree plantings in Indiana. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 22(3), 149–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudel, T. (2010). Three paths to forest expansion: A comparative historical analysis. In H. Nagendra & J. Southworth (Eds.), Reforesting landscapes: Linking pattern and process (pp. 45–57). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudel, T. K., Coomes, O. T., Moran, E., Achard, F., Angelsen, A., Xu, J., et al. (2005). Forest transitions: Towards a global understanding of land use change. Global Environmental Change Part A, 15(1), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J. B., Kraft, S. E., & Lant, C. L. (2007). The law and policy of ecosystem services. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J. B., Kraft, S. E., & Lant, C. L. (2008). The tragedy of ecosystem services. Bioscience, 58(10), 969–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, N. (2004). Responses to “America’s family forest owners”: Implications for forest production. Journal of Forestry, 102(7), 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, N., & DeCoster, L. (2000). Forest fragmentation: Implications for sustainable private forests. Journal of Forestry, 98, 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaaf, K. A., & Broussard, S. R. (2006). Private forest policy tools: A national survey exploring the American public’s perceptions and support. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 316–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, J., Becker, D. R., & Kilgore, M. A. (2011). State forestry programs, budget strategies, and the recession (Staff Paper Series, No. 213). St. Paul: Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. B., Miles, P. D., Perry, C. H., & Pugh, S. A. (Coords.). (2009). Forest resources of the United States, 2007 (General Technical Report WO-78). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, S. M., McRoberts, R. E., Alig, R. J., Nelson, M. D., Theobald, D. M., Eley, M., et al. (2005). Forests on the edge: Housing development on America’s private forests (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-636). Portland: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, S. M., McRoberts, R. E., Mahal, L. G., Carr, M. A., Alig, R. J., Comas, S. J., et al. (2009). Private forests, public benefits: Increased housing density and other pressures on private forest contributions (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-795). Portland: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, A., Smith, J., & Pennisi, E. (2008). The future of forests. Science, 320(5882), 1435–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tompkins, E., & Eakin, H. (2012). Managing private and public adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change Part A: Human & Policy Dimensions, 22(1), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, C. M. (2010). Learning on governance in forest ecosystems: Lessons from recent research. International Journal of the Commons, 4(2), 687–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). GCT-P1. Urban/rural and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan population: 2000. Data set: Census 2000 summary file 1 (SF 1). http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-P1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-format=US-1 . Accessed 3 Oct 2011.

  • USFS (USDA Forest Service). (2008). Forest legacy program. http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/aboutflp.shtml. Accessed 19 Sept 2011.

  • USFS (USDA Forest Service). (2011). Northeastern area, forest health protection—Emerald ash borer. http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/eab/. Accessed 2 Oct 2011.

  • Vokoun, M., Amacher, G. S., Sullivan, J., & Wear, D. (2010). Examining incentives for adjacent non-industrial private forest landowners to cooperate. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(2), 104–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warriner, G. K., & Moul, T. M. (1992). Kinship and personal communication network influences on the adoption of agriculture conservation technology. Journal of Rural Studies, 8(3), 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, D., & Vining, A. (2010). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, A. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2005). Incentives affecting land use decisions of nonindustrial private forest landowners. In P. Dauvergne (Ed.), Handbook of global environmental politics (pp. 233–248). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Government & Justice Studies, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA

    Tatyana B. Ruseva

  2. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University–Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Burnell C. Fischer

Authors
  1. Tatyana B. Ruseva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Burnell C. Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatyana B. Ruseva .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, E. Kirkwood Avenue, Student Building 130 701, Bloomington, IN, 47405-7100, USA

    Eduardo S. Brondízio

  2. Dept. Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, E. Kirkwood Avenue 701, Bloomington, 47405-7100, Indiana, USA

    Emilio F. Moran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ruseva, T.B., Fischer, B.C. (2013). Public-Private Interactions in the Conservation of Private Forests in the United States. In: Brondízio, E., Moran, E. (eds) Human-Environment Interactions. Human-Environment Interactions, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4780-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation