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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.pikelumber.com/Partner.php. Accessed 23 Oct 2010.
- 9.
American Tree Farm System Certification Program (http://www.treefarmsystem.org/atfscertification. Accessed 23 Oct 2010).
- 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.
Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., & Hardin, R. (2008). Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science, 320(5882), 1460–1462.
Aldrich, R., & Wyerman, J. (2005). 2005 National land trust census report. Washington, DC: Land Trust Alliance.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Bascompte, J. (2009). Disentangling the web of life. Science, 325(5939), 416–419.
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.
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.
Best, C. (2004). Non-governmental organizations: More owners and smaller parcels pose major stewardship challenges. Journal of Forestry, 102(7), 10–11.
Best, C., & Wayburn, L. (2001). America’s private forests: Status and stewardship. Washington, DC: Island Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bruyere, B., Teel, T., & Newman, P. (2009). Response to more kids in the woods: Reconnecting Americans with nature. Journal of Forestry, 107, 378–379.
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.
Butler, B. J., & Leatherberry, E. C. (2004). America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry, 102, 4–14.
Chazdon, R. L. (2008). Beyond deforestation: Restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science, 320(5882), 1458–1460.
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.
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.
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.
Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2011). Timber. Hoboken: Wiley.
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.
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.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.
Egan, A. F. (1999). Reducing forest road erosion: Do foresters and logging contracts matter? Journal of Forestry, 97(8), 36–39.
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.
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.
Fischer, B. C., & Ruseva, T. B. (2010). What is happening in and outside America’s private woodlands? Journal of Forestry, 108(6), 304–306.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing human behavior: The reasoned action approach. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643–653.
Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.
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.
Gatzweiler, F. W. (2006). Organizing a public ecosystem service economy for sustaining biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 59(3), 296–304.
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.
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.
Kendra, A., & Hull, R. B. (2005). Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science, 51(2), 142–154.
Kilgore, M. A. (2004). Public forest policies and the family forest. Journal of Forestry, 102(7), 11–12.
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.
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.
Kimbell, A. R., Schuhmann, A., & Brown, H. (2009). More kids in the woods: Reconnecting Americans with nature. Journal of Forestry, 107, 373–377.
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.
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.
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.
Koontz, T. M. (2001). Money talks – But to whom? Financial versus nonmonetary motivations in land use decisions. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 51–65.
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.
Kroeger, T., & Casey, F. (2007). An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Ecological Economics, 64(2), 321–332.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oakerson, R. J. (1999). Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis. Richmond: ICS Press.
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.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422.
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.
Persha, L., Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331(6024), 1606–1608.
Pescosolido, B. A. (1992). Beyond rational choice: The social dynamics of how people seek help. The American Journal of Sociology, 97(4), 1096–1138.
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.
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.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264.
Rickenbach, M. (2009). Serving members and reaching others: The performance and social networks of a landowner cooperative. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 593–599.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ruhl, J. B., Kraft, S. E., & Lant, C. L. (2007). The law and policy of ecosystem services. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ruhl, J. B., Kraft, S. E., & Lant, C. L. (2008). The tragedy of ecosystem services. Bioscience, 58(10), 969–975.
Sampson, N. (2004). Responses to “America’s family forest owners”: Implications for forest production. Journal of Forestry, 102(7), 12–13.
Sampson, N., & DeCoster, L. (2000). Forest fragmentation: Implications for sustainable private forests. Journal of Forestry, 98, 4–8.
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.
Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249–262.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sugden, A., Smith, J., & Pennisi, E. (2008). The future of forests. Science, 320(5882), 1435–1460.
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.
Tucker, C. M. (2010). Learning on governance in forest ecosystems: Lessons from recent research. International Journal of the Commons, 4(2), 687–706.
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.
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.
Weimer, D., & Vining, A. (2010). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4780-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4779-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4780-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)