Identity and private forest management

Bliss, John C.; Martin, A. Jeff

doi:10.1080/08941928809380666

Cited by 28 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this survey show, however, that foresters have a limited influence on private-forest owners, and that impulses stemming from the direct social environment, for example, family and friends, are often more powerful (for discussion of forestry practices as a result of familyspecific identity see e.g. Bliss and Martin 1988).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Non-industrial private-forest owners: possibilities for increasing adoption of close-to-nature forest management

Bieling

2004

Eur J Forest Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of close-to-nature management combines an economic use of forests with nature conservation. Today, this compromise between central interests in forest management is seen as an appropriate model for the majority of the forestland in Germany. In attempting to implement the concept nationwide, the category of privately owned forests, which make up 46% of Germany's forested area, has received increasing political attention. The adoption of close-to-nature forestry practices within private forests is difficult to describe due to exceedingly diverse owner-specific factors. Applying a socio-psychological behavioural model that combines the theory of planned behaviour, the cultural theory and the modernisation theory, this article presents an analysis of how non-industrial private-forest (NIPF) owners in the Black Forest region of Germany assess and implement close-to-nature forestry practices. The study is based on a written survey of approximately 900 randomly selected owners of forestlands ranging in size from 0.1-200 ha. The main factors identified that affect the adoption of close-to-nature forestry practices include perceptions of forest conditions and of opportunities to influence these conditions as well as the influences of social surroundings on the forest owners. Owners were classified into three types based on multiple characteristic features: economically interested, conceptually interested, and uninterested forest owners. Based on these results, opportunities to encourage NIPF owners to use close-to-nature forestry practices were explored.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Non-industrial private-forest owners: possibilities for increasing adoption of close-to-nature forest management

Bieling

2004

Eur J Forest Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since forest owners are heterogeneous, the meanings attached to a forest owner identity (FOI) may be diverse and cover sentiments such as being a multi-objective owner, a recreationist, economic centered, a farmer, an indifferent owner, a conservationist, multifunctional, or a self-employed owner, for example (Lawrence and Dandy 2014 ; Ní Dhubháin et al 2007 ; Ficko et al 2017 ; Feliciano et al 2017 ). Studies suggest that perceptions of forest ownership may be incorporated as part of the owner’s identity (e.g., Bliss and Martin 1988 ; Lähdesmäki and Matilainen 2014 ; Kreye et al 2018 ; Bergstèn et al 2018 ), although scarce attention has been given to how different owner identities are associated with diverse management behaviors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Knowledge and Value Basis of Private Forest Management in Sweden: Actual Knowledge, Confidence, and Value Priorities

Eriksson

Fries

2020

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With growing demands on forests, there is a need to understand the drivers of managing the forest for diverse objectives, such as production, recreation, and climate adaptation. The aim of this study was to examine the knowledge and value basis of forest management behaviors, including different management strategies and management inactivity, among private forest owners in Sweden. Different dimensions of knowledge (declarative and procedural knowledge, assessed in terms of objective and subjective knowledge measures) and value priorities (basic values and forest values), as well as the role of forest owner identity, were examined. The study was conducted by means of a postal questionnaire to a random sample of private forest owners in Sweden (n = 3000, response rate 43%). The distinctions between actual knowledge (objective knowledge), confidence (subjective knowledge), and value priorities, in addition to the hierarchical structure of how these factors are linked to management behaviors, proved to be valuable. Results revealed that different knowledge dimensions and value priorities were jointly important for forest management behaviors. In addition, the role of forest owner identity for management behaviors was confirmed. Insights from the study may be used to develop policy and outreach to private forest owners and thereby facilitate different forest functions in private forestry.

show abstract

“…Plus, a number of studies showed that many NIPF owners did not primarily focus on timber production, but had major ownership objectives related to non-timber outputs like wildlife and recreation [51,92,104,105,112,134,[145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159]. Even forest landowners' stated intentions were found to differ from later forest management practices on the ground [152][153][154][155].…”

Section: Classical Nipf Ownership Characteristics and Related Forest mentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxonomic Review of Classical and Current Literature on the Perennial American Family Forest Problem

Straka

2011

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:One of the fundamental issues in American forest policy has been the small forest ownership problem. Early in the twentieth century, it was called the farm forestry problem, later, the nonindustrial private forest problem, and today, the family forest problem. Family forest owners are thought to manage their lands in a suboptimal manner resulting in low forest productivity relative to other ownership groups. This can lead to future timber supply problems. The exact nature of the problem, especially its social and economic basis, was a common subject of early forestry research studies. This article includes many of the major nonindustrial private forest or family forest studies, from early to current, and classifies them both by themes used by other authors and categories that relate to major research areas in the current literature. A major focus of this literature deals with promoting management on family forest holdings and possible land management incentives and disincentives. Natural trends in family forest ownership, like parcelization, also impact upon forest management opportunities. By developing a taxonomy that classifies these studies by research objective, methodology, owner motivation, and problem definition, this article serves to organize the family forest literature in a manner that provides a temporal framework for better understanding the historical motivation for and development of family forest research in the United States.

show abstract

Identity and private forest management

Cited by 28 publications

References 4 publications

Non-industrial private-forest owners: possibilities for increasing adoption of close-to-nature forest management

Non-industrial private-forest owners: possibilities for increasing adoption of close-to-nature forest management

The Knowledge and Value Basis of Private Forest Management in Sweden: Actual Knowledge, Confidence, and Value Priorities

Taxonomic Review of Classical and Current Literature on the Perennial American Family Forest Problem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About