Case studies examining the economic impacts of new forest practices regulations on NIPF landowners.

Abstract

Three case studies were used to examine the economic impacts of Washington's (USA) new forest practices regulations on small, non-industrial private forests (NIPF) landwoners. This study focuses on the potential range and disparity of impacts between individual landowners with more specificity on cost and management treatments. This study also seeks to reveal best management strategies for small landowners in light of the new rules, and it also assesses the effectiveness of impact mitigation programmes. The case studies presented indicated that there was a significant potential for economic losses for small, NIPF landowners under the Forests and Fish rule. The case studies also indicated that there was a substantial disparity of losses between individual landowners. The magnitude and disparity of these losses may be reduced by managing in the riparian zone to the full extent allowed under the rules, though most NIPF landowners so far have chosen not to.

Private forest policy tools: A national survey exploring the American public's perceptions and support

“…A dramatic increase in Forest Practice Acts in the West occurred in the 1970s and in the East in the 1980s, although regional differences in private forest policies still exist (Cubbage and Siegel, 1988;Salazar and Cubbage, 1990), especially those developed by local governmental bodies (Martus et al, 1995). Many suggest that the trend is toward increasing regulation of private forest practices (Cubbage and Siegel, 1988;Cubbage, 1991;Ellefson et al, 1997;Zobrist and Lippke, 2003). Further, some regulations for private forest practices are contained in statelevel rules responding to threatened and endangered species listings under the Endangered Species Act (e.g.…”

“…Further, some regulations for private forest practices are contained in statelevel rules responding to threatened and endangered species listings under the Endangered Species Act (e.g. Washington's dForests and FishT rules) (Zobrist and Lippke, 2003). Other private forestland policy tools are of the incentive typology (especially costshares like Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP)), many of which originated in the 1990 Farm Bill (Best and Wayburn, 2001) and were revised or augmented in the 2002 Farm Bill.…”

Government regulation of forestry practices on private forest land in the United States: An assessment of state government responsibilities and program performance

“…McKillop (1993) Regulatively required forestland set asides in state of California Significant decline in timber supplies and employment 1994 Kelson et al (1994) Impact of state of Washington regulatory restrictions on global wood supply Negligible declines in global industrial wood supply 1994 Woodman and Cubbage (1994) Regulatory restriction on forestry in streamside management zones in state of Georgia Increased cost of applying special forestry practices 1995 Stier and Martin (1997) Regulatory restriction on forestry in state of Wisconsin Minimal decrease in timber value; some cases increase in value 1995 Cleaves and Bennett (1995) Landowner anticipation and avoidance of future regulatory restrictions Minimal consideration of future regulations on landowner timing of timber harvest 1997 Johnson et al (1997) Landowner anticipation and avoidance of future regulatory restrictions Modest consideration of future regulations on landowner timing of timber harvest 2000 Zobrist and Lippke (2003) Regulatory restrictions on timber harvest in riparian areas in state of Washington…”

Equitable regulation of private forests

“…Few authors have focused on the fact that a forest regulation may produce individually unequal regulatory outcomes among forest owners. With the exception of the work of Zobrist et al on the effects of Washington's riparian regulations (Zobrist et al 2004;Zobrist and Lippke 2003), this study is believed to be among the first peer reviewed research on this topic in the USA. There is, however, a body of literature that describes how the diverse personal circumstances of private forest owners may induce dissimilar non-regulatory outcomes among them.…”