Advertisement

Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 303–319 | Cite as

Family Forest Owners’ Familiarity with Conservation Programs in Mississippi, USA

  • Edward MutandwaEmail author
  • Robert K. Grala
  • Stephen C. Grado
  • Ian A. Munn
Research Paper

Abstract

Conservation programs such the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) were introduced in the USA to create financial, educational, and technical incentives to enhance conservation of natural resources. This study examined Mississippi family forest owners’ familiarity with CRP, EQIP, WHIP, WRP, and conservation easements before the programmatic reorganization brought about by the Farm Bill of 2014. The research also determined the association of selected attitudinal and socioeconomic characteristics with landowner familiarity. A mail survey was sent to 2025 randomly selected family forest owners in Mississippi and an adjusted response rate of 37.1 % was obtained. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and five binary logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with landowner familiarity with conservation programs. Familiarity with conservation programs was positively associated with male landowners, forest land size, forest and conservation organization membership, and having a written forest management plan (p < 0.05). Findings suggest that membership in forestry- and agriculture-based organizations can help improve landowner knowledge of ecosystem services and enhance familiarity with conservation programs.

Keywords

Conservation easements Conservation Reserve Program Ecosystem services Mail survey Logistic regression 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Natural Resource Enterprises Program, Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University and approved as publication FO458. This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, MISZ-061180 under 222774.

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. Armstrong A, Stedman RC (2012) Landowner willingness to implement riparian buffers in a transitioning watershed. Landsc Urban Plan 105(3):211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beasley TM, Zumbo BD (2003) Comparison of aligned Friedman rank and parametric methods for testing interactions in split-plot designs. Comput Stat Data Anal 42(4):569–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bengston DN, Asah ST, Butler BJ (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 For Econ 10(3):339–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bullard SH, Gunter JE, Doolittle ML, Arano KG (2002) Discount rates for nonindustrial private forest landowners in Mississippi: How high a hurdle? South J Appl For 26(1):26–31Google Scholar
  6. Butler BJ (2008) Family forest owners of the United States, 2006 (General Technical Report NRS-27). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 73, Newtown Square, PA. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us. Accessed 18 Feb 2015
  7. Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J For 102(7):4–14Google Scholar
  8. Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 26:152–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creamer SF, Blatner KA, Butler BJ (2012) Certification of family forests: what influences owners’ awareness and participation? J For Econ 18(2):131–144Google Scholar
  10. Cross JE, Keske CM, Lacy MG, Hoag DL, Bastian CT (2011) Adoption of conservation easements among agricultural landowners in Colorado and Wyoming: the role of economic dependence and sense of place. Landsc Urban Plan 101(1):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahal RP, Munn IA, Henderson JE (2013) Forestry in Mississippi: the impact of the industry on the Mississippi economy—an input–output analysis. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Research Bulletin FO 438, Mississippi State University, 22 pp. http://www.fwrc.msstate.edu/pubs/forestryinmississippi_2010.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015
  12. D’Amato AW, Catanzaro PF, Damery DT, Kittredge DB, Ferrare KA (2009) Are family forest owners facing a future in which forest management is not enough? J For 108(1):32–38Google Scholar
  13. Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, vol 2. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Emtage N, Herbohn J (2012) Implications of landholders’ management goals, use of information and trust of others for the adoption of recommended practices in the Wet Tropics region of Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 107(4):351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis (2014) Total gross domestic product of Mississippi. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MSNGSP. Accessed 6 Jan 2016
  16. Ferris J, Siikamäki J (2009) Conservation reserve program and wetland reserve program: primary land retirement programs for promoting farmland conservation. RFF Backgrounder, Resources for the Future. http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-BCK-ORRG_CRP_and_WRP.pdf. Accessed 03 May 2015
  17. Fischer AP, Bliss JC (2009) Framing conservation on private lands: conserving oak in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Soc Nat Resour 22(10):884–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gagné SA, Eigenbrod F, Bert DG, Cunnington GM, Olson LT, Smith AC, Fahrig L (2015) A simple landscape design framework for biodiversity conservation. Landsc Urban Plan 136:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grala RK, Tyndall JC, Mize CW (2012) Willingness to pay for aesthetics associated with field windbreaks in Iowa, United States. Landsc Urban Plan 108(2–4):71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grebner DL, Bettinger P, Siry JP (2013) Introduction to forestry and natural resources. Academic Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 15:140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gunter JE, Bullard SH, Doolittle ML, Arano KG (2001) Reforestation of harvested timberlands in Mississippi: behavior and attitudes of nonindustrial private forest landowners. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Research Bulletin FO172, Mississippi State University. http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=forestry. Accessed 15 Jun 2014
  23. Henderson JE, Grado SC, Munn IA Jones W (2010) Economic impacts of wildlife- and fisheries-associated recreation on the Mississippi economy: an input–output analysis. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Research Bulletin FO429, Mississippi State University. http://www.fwrc.msstate.edu/pubs/wildlife_impacts.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2015
  24. Hughes G, Measells MK, Grado SC, Dunn MA, Idassi JO, Zielinske RJ (2005) Underserved forest landowner workshops: opportunities for landowners and extension. J Ext 43(4):4FEA5Google Scholar
  25. Jacobson MG, Greene JL, Straka TJ, Daniels SE, Kilgore MA (2009) Influence and effectiveness of financial incentive programs in promoting sustainable forestry in the south. South J Appl For 33(1):35–41Google Scholar
  26. Jeffreys I (2004) The use of compensatory and non-compensatory multi-criteria analysis for small-scale forestry. Small-scale For Econ Manag Policy 3(1):99–117Google Scholar
  27. Jones WD, Munn IA, Grado SC, Jones JC (2001) Fee hunting: an income source for Mississippi’s non-industrial, private landowners. FWRC Research Bulletin FO164. Mississippi State University. http://fwrc.msstate.edu/pubs/feehunting.pdf. Accessed 6 Jan 2016
  28. Joshi O, Mehmood SR (2011) Factors affecting nonindustrial private forest landowners’ willingness to supply woody biomass for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenerg 35(1):186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joshi O, Grebner DL, Hussain A, Grado SC (2013a) Landowner knowledge and willingness to supply woody biomass for wood-based bioenergy: sample selection approach. J For Econ 19(2):97–109Google Scholar
  30. Joshi O, Grebner DL, Munn IA, Hussain A, Gruchy SR (2013b) Understanding landowner preferences for woody biomass harvesting: a choice experiment-based approach. For Sci 59(5):549–558Google Scholar
  31. Kilgore MA, Greene JL, Jacobson MG, Straka TJ, Daniels SE (2007) The influence of financial incentive programs in promoting sustainable forestry on the nation’s family forests. J For 105(4):184–191Google Scholar
  32. Langpap C (2004) Conservation incentives programs for endangered species: an analysis of landowner participation. Land Econ 80(3):375–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. LaRocco GL, Deal RL (2011) Giving credit where credit is due: increasing landowner compensation for ecosystem services. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-842. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr842.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2014
  34. LeVert M, Stevens T, Kittredge D (2009) Willingness-to-sell conservation easements: a case study. J For Econ 15(4):261–275Google Scholar
  35. Ma Z, Butler BJ, Kittredge DB, Catanzaro P (2012) Factors associated with landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the US: implications for policy design and outreach. Land Use Policy 29(1):53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Majumdar I, Teeter L, Butler B (2008) Characterizing family forest owners: a cluster analysis approach. For Sci 54(2):176–184Google Scholar
  37. Mayer AL, Tikka PM (2006) Biodiversity conservation incentive programs for privately owned forests. Environ Sci Policy 9(7):614–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Measells MK, Grado SC, Hughes HG, Dunn MA, Idassi J, Zielinske B (2005) Nonindustrial private forest landowner characteristics and use of forestry services in four southern states: results from a 2002–2003 mail survey. South J Appl For 29(4):194–199Google Scholar
  39. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: the assessment series (four volumes and summary). Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Munn IA, Hussain A, Byrd JD, Grado SC, Jones JC, Jones WD, Loden EK, Miller JE,West BC (2007) Landowner involvement and attitudes: fee access wildlife and fisheries recreation. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Research Bulletin FO332, Mississippi State University. http://fwrc.msstate.edu/pubs/foinms01.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2015
  41. Munn IA, Hussain A, Spurlock S, Henderson JE (2010) Economic impact of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation expenditures on the southeast US regional economy: an input–output analysis. Hum Dimens Wildl 15(6):433–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nagubadi RV, Zhang D (2005) Determinants of timberland use by ownership and forest type in Alabama and Georgia. J Agr Appl Econ 37(1):173–186Google Scholar
  43. Nagubadi V, McNamara KT, Hoover WL, Mills WL (1996) Program participation behavior of nonindustrial forest landowners: a probit analysis. J Agr Appl Econ 28(2):323–336Google Scholar
  44. Poudyal NC, Hodges DG (2009) Factors influencing landowner interest in managing wildlife and avian habitat on private forestland. Hum Dimens Wildl 14(4):240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramanathan R (2002) Introductory econometrics with applications, 5th edn. Harcourt College Publishing, Fort WorthGoogle Scholar
  46. Reed MG, Massie MM (2013) Embracing ecological learning and social learning: UNESCO biosphere reserves as exemplars of changing conservation practices. Conserv Soc 11(4):391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reimer AP, Prokopy LS (2014) Farmer participation in US Farm Bill conservation programs. Environ Manag 53(2):318–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG (2003) Categorical data analysis using the SAS system. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  49. Sun X, Sun C, Munn IA, Hussain A (2009) Knowledge of three regeneration programs and application behavior among Mississippi nonindustrial private forest landowners: a two-step sample selection approach. J For Econ 15(3):187–204Google Scholar
  50. Tarrant MA, Porter R, Cordell HK (2002) Sociodemographics, values, and attitudes. Southern forest resource assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 175–187. General Technical Report SRS-53. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_07e.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2014
  51. US Census Bureau (2012) State and County QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html. Accessed 3 Mar 2015
  52. USDA (Natural Resources Conservation Service) (2014) NRCS conservation programs. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs. Retrieved 07 May 2015
  53. USDA Forest Service (2009) More about ecosystem services. Wildlife-associated recreation. http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/About_ES/index.shtml. Accessed 10 Jan 2015
  54. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2014) Strategic habitat conservation. http://www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/shc.html. Accessed 5 Mar 2014
  55. Warren ST (2003) One step further: women’s access to and control over farm and forest resources in the US South. SRS 19(2):94–113Google Scholar
  56. Williams VS, Jones LV, Tukey JW (1999) Controlling error in multiple comparisons, with examples from state-to-state differences in educational achievement. J Educ Behav Stat 24(1):42–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang G, Ge Y, Xue H, Yang W, Shi Y, Peng C, Yuanyuan D, Xing F, Yuan R, Chang J (2015) Using ecosystem service bundles to detect trade-offs and synergies across urban–rural complexes. Landsc Urban Plan 136:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang D, Flick WA (2001) Sticks, carrots, and reforestation investment. Land Econ 77(3):443–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Mutandwa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert K. Grala
    • 1
  • Stephen C. Grado
    • 1
  • Ian A. Munn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forestry, College of Forest Resources, Forest and Wildlife Research CenterMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations