Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arano KG, Munn IA (2006) Evaluating forest management intensity: a comparison among major forest landowner types. For Policy Econ 9(3):237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold TW (2010) Uninformative parameters and model selection using Akaike’s information criterion. J Wildl Manag 74(6):1175–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgart-Getz A (2010) Why do Farmers Maintain Best Management Practices?. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, (Doctoral Dissertation)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 72:410–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Method Res 33:261–304

    Article  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 For 114(6):638–647

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 48

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Cooke B, Corbo-Perkins G (2018) Co-opting and resisting market based instruments for private land conservation. Land Use Policy 70:172–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1:49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 40:59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):58–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1715–1725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 update, 4th ed. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes TM (2012) Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes. Environ Conserv 39:144–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 65:413–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson PN, Misra SK, Ervin RT (1997) A qualitative choice analysis of factors influencing post-CRP land use decisions. J Agr Appl Econ 29:163–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauneckis D, York AM (2009) An empirical evaluation of private landowner participation in Voluntary Forest Conservation Programs. Environ Manag 44:468–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):12–19

    Google Scholar 

  • King DI, Schlossberg S (2014) Synthesis of the conservation value of the early-successional state in forests of eastern North America. For Ecol Manag 324:186–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):260–266

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 45:95–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litvaitis JA (2003) Shrublands and early-successional forests: critical habitats dependent on disturbance in the northeastern United States. For Ecol Manag 185:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Cocklin C (2011) Participation in biodiversity conservation: motivations and barriers of Australian landholders. J Rural Stud 27:331–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 pp

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Ouelette JA, Wood W (1998) Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behaviour predicts future behaviour. Psychol Bull 124:54–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:1050–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsdell CP, Sorice MG, Dwyer AM (2015) Using financial incentives to motivate conservation of an at-risk species on private lands. Environ Conserv 43:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer AP, Prokopy LS (2014) Farmer Participation in U.S. Farm Bill Conservation Programs. Environ Manag 53(2):318–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rode J, Gómez-Baggethun E, Krause T (2015) Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecol Econ 117:270–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagor ES, Becker DR (2014) Personal networks and private forestry in Minnesota. J Environ Manag 132:145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):282–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):914–925

    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 For 113(5):490–499

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorice MG, Haider W, Conner JR, Ditton RB (2011) Incentive structure of and private landowner participation in an endangered species conservation program. Conserv Biol 25:587–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song N, Aguilar FX, Butler BJ (2014) Cost-share participation and family forest owners’ past and intended future management practices. For Policy Econ 46:39–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skaggs RK, Kirksey RE, Harper WM (1994) Determinants and implications of post-crop land-use decisions. J Agr Resour Econ 19:299–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern MJ, Coleman KJ (2015) The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 28:117–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann E, Richards R (2016) What factors influence the effectiveness of financial incentives on long-term natural resource management practice change? Evid Base 2:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2:53–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Fish & Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    Seth H. Lutter & Ashley A. Dayer

  2. Department of Biology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA

    Jeffery L. Larkin

  3. American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia, USA

    Jeffery L. Larkin

Authors
  1. Seth H. Lutter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashley A. Dayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffery L. Larkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seth H. Lutter.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lutter, S.H., Dayer, A.A. & Larkin, J.L. Young Forest Conservation Incentive Programs: Explaining Re-Enrollment and Post-program Persistence. Environmental Management 63, 270–281 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1127-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1127-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation