Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 270–281 | Cite as

Young Forest Conservation Incentive Programs: Explaining Re-Enrollment and Post-program Persistence

  • Seth H. LutterEmail author
  • Ashley A. Dayer
  • Jeffery L. Larkin
Article

Abstract

Environmental conservation actions conducted by private landowners are critically important for conservation efforts worldwide. Incentive programs are used to engage landowners in voluntary conservation, but outcomes after landowners exit these programs are poorly understood. Previous research identified several pathways, including landowner motivations, cognitions, and resources, which could sustain or undermine continued conservation management behavior after incentive program participation. We tested the utility of these pathways for explaining management intentions of participants in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) young forest habitat conservation programs in the eastern United States. We conducted a telephone survey of enrolled landowners in the programs from January to May 2017 (n = 102). We compared candidate multiple regression models to determine variables explaining landowner intentions to re-enroll in young forest programs or to persist with management without further cost-share. We found intentions to re-enroll in NRCS young forest programs were highest among landowners with high agency trust, and for whom cost-share, environmental concerns, and hunting were important motivations. Management persistence intentions were highest for group landowners (e.g., hunting clubs and nonprofits), landowners motivated by environmental concerns, and those less motivated by cost-share. Our results suggest that fostering trust through positive program experiences and recruiting landowners with supportive motivations and resources may encourage sustained young forest management. Differences in variables explaining program re-enrollment and management persistence in this study highlight the importance of considering these outcomes separately for conservation programs widely.

Keywords

Conservation behavior Conservation policy Habitat management Incentives Private landowners 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the landowners who participated in the study, and the NRCS leadership and field offices who provided support and enthusiasm for our work. We acknowledge the contributions of Emily Heggenstaller, Renae Veasley, and Callie Bertsch to the research. We thank Marc Stern, Mark Ford, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft. This project was funded by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Effects Assessment Project [https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/ceap/] (Award #68-7482-15-501 awarded to JL and AD). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Compliance With Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Arano KG, Munn IA (2006) Evaluating forest management intensity: a comparison among major forest landowner types. For Policy Econ 9(3):237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold TW (2010) Uninformative parameters and model selection using Akaike’s information criterion. J Wildl Manag 74(6):1175–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakermans MH, Larkin JL, Smith BW, Fearer TM, Jones BC (2011) Golden-Winged Warbler Habitat Best Management Practices in Forestlands in Maryland and Pennsylvania. American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia, p 26Google Scholar
  4. Baumgart-Getz A (2010) Why do Farmers Maintain Best Management Practices?. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, (Doctoral Dissertation)Google Scholar
  5. Bond A, O’Connor PJ, Cavagnaro TR (2018) Who participates in conservation incentive programs? Absentee and group owners are in the mix. Land Use Policy 72:410–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Method Res 33:261–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 For 114(6):638–647Google Scholar
  8. Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Markowski-Lindsay M, Butler SM (2016b) USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey 2011–2013: Documentation of Design, Implementation, and Analysis Methods. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-157, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, p 48Google Scholar
  9. Claassen R, Horowitz J, Duquette E, Ueda K (2014) Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation and Regulatory Offset Programs, ERR-170, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
  10. Cooke B, Corbo-Perkins G (2018) Co-opting and resisting market based instruments for private land conservation. Land Use Policy 70:172–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniels SE, Kilgore MA, Jacobson M, Green JL, Straka TJ (2010) Examining the Compatibility between Forestry Incentive Programs in the US and the Practice of Sustainable Forestry. Forests 1:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dayer AA, Lutter SH, Sesser KA, Hickey KM, Gardali T (2018) Private landowner conservation behavior following participation in voluntary incentive programs: recommendations to facilitate behavioral persistence. Conserv Lett 11(2):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dayer AA, Stedman RC, Allred SB, Rosenberg KV, Fuller AK (2016) Understanding landowner intentions to create early successional forest habitat in the northeastern United States. Wildl Soc B 40:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farmer JR, Ma Z, Drescher M, Knackmuhs EG, Dickinson SL (2017) Private landowners, voluntary conservation programs, and implementation of conservation friendly land management practices. Conserv Lett 10(1):58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gascoigne WR, Hoag D, Koontz L, Tangen BA, Shaffer TL, Gleason RA (2011) Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA. Ecol Econ 70(10):1715–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 update, 4th ed. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes TM (2012) Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes. Environ Conserv 39:144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson-Smith DB, Halling M, de la Hoz E, McEvoy JP, Horsburgh JS (2010) Measuring conservation program best management practice implementation and maintenance at the watershed scale. J Soil Water Conserv 65:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson PN, Misra SK, Ervin RT (1997) A qualitative choice analysis of factors influencing post-CRP land use decisions. J Agr Appl Econ 29:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kauneckis D, York AM (2009) An empirical evaluation of private landowner participation in Voluntary Forest Conservation Programs. Environ Manag 44:468–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kilgore MA, Snyder SA, Eryilmaz D, Markowski-Lindsay MA, Butler BJ, Kittredge DB, Catanzaro PF, Hewes JH, Andrejcyzk K (2015) Assessing the relationship between different forms of landowner assistance and family forest owner behaviors and intentions. J For 113(1):12–19Google Scholar
  22. King DI, Schlossberg S (2014) Synthesis of the conservation value of the early-successional state in forests of eastern North America. For Ecol Manag 324:186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knoot TG, Schulte LA, Grudens-Schuck N, Rickenbach M (2009) The Changing Social Landscapes in the Midwest: a boon for forestry and bust for oak? J For 107(5):260–266Google Scholar
  24. Lind-Riehl J, Jeltema S, Morrison M, Shirkey G, Mayer AL, Rouleau M, Winkler R (2015) Family legacies and community networks shape private forest management in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan (USA). Land Use Policy 45:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Litvaitis JA (2003) Shrublands and early-successional forests: critical habitats dependent on disturbance in the northeastern United States. For Ecol Manag 185:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lutter SH, Dayer AA, Heggenstaller E, Larkin JL (2018) Effects of biological monitoring and results outreach on private landowner conservation management. PLOS ONE 13(4):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moon K, Cocklin C (2011) Participation in biodiversity conservation: motivations and barriers of Australian landholders. J Rural Stud 27:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee (2017) The State of the Birds 2017: A Farm Bill Special Report. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. 4 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2018a) Environmental Quality Incentives Program. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/. Accessed 16 September 2018
  30. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2018b) Golden- winged Warbler. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/plantsanimals/fishwildlife/?cid=stelprdb1046990. Accessed 16 September 2018
  31. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2018c) Pennsylvania Payment Schedules. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/?cid = nrcseprd1328261. Accessed 16 September 2018
  32. Ouelette JA, Wood W (1998) Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behaviour predicts future behaviour. Psychol Bull 124:54–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Race D, Curtis A (2013) Reflections on the effectiveness of market-based instruments to secure long-term environmental gains in southeast Australia: understanding landholders’ experiences. Soc Natur Resour 26:1050–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramsdell CP, Sorice MG, Dwyer AM (2015) Using financial incentives to motivate conservation of an at-risk species on private lands. Environ Conserv 43:1–11Google Scholar
  35. Reimer AP, Prokopy LS (2014) Farmer Participation in U.S. Farm Bill Conservation Programs. Environ Manag 53(2):318–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rode J, Gómez-Baggethun E, Krause T (2015) Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecol Econ 117:270–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sagor ES, Becker DR (2014) Personal networks and private forestry in Minnesota. J Environ Manag 132:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Selinske MJ, Coetzee J, Purnell K, Knight AT (2015) Understanding the motivations, satisfaction, and retention of landowners in Private Land Conservation Programs. Conserv Lett 8(August):282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Selinske MJ, Cooke B, Torabi N, Hardy MJ, Knight AT, Bekessy SK (2016) Locating financial incentives among diverse motivations for long-term private land conservation. Ecol Soc 22(2):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shifley SR, Moser WK, Nowak DJ, Miles PD, Butler BJ, Aguilar FX, DeSantis RD, Greenfield EJ (2014) Five anthropogenic factors that will radically alter forest conditions and management needs in the Northern United States. Sci 60(5):914–925Google Scholar
  41. Silver EJ, Leahy JE, Weiskittel AR, Noblet CL, Kittredge DB (2015) An evidence- based review of timber harvesting behavior among private woodland owners. J For 113(5):490–499Google Scholar
  42. Sorice MG, Haider W, Conner JR, Ditton RB (2011) Incentive structure of and private landowner participation in an endangered species conservation program. Conserv Biol 25:587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Song N, Aguilar FX, Butler BJ (2014) Cost-share participation and family forest owners’ past and intended future management practices. For Policy Econ 46:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skaggs RK, Kirksey RE, Harper WM (1994) Determinants and implications of post-crop land-use decisions. J Agr Resour Econ 19:299–312Google Scholar
  45. Stern MJ, Coleman KJ (2015) The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 28:117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swann E, Richards R (2016) What factors influence the effectiveness of financial incentives on long-term natural resource management practice change? Evid Base 2:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2:53–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fish & Wildlife ConservationVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyIndiana University of PennsylvaniaIndianaUSA
  3. 3.American Bird ConservancyThe PlainsUSA

Personalised recommendations