Membership matters: comparing members and non-members of NIPF owner organizations in southwest Wisconsin, USA

Rickenbach, Mark; Guries, Raymond P.; Schmoldt, Daniel L.

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.05.006

Cited by 45 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 1986, with the entry of Portugal into the European Union, private forest owners benefited from a set of programmes and financial incentives for afforestation, reforestation and improvement of existing forest stands [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. The first programme was the Forest Action Plan (PAF in Portuguese initials) which run from 1986/87 to 1996, and subsequently the Forest Development Programme (PDF in Portuguese initials) which run from 1994 to 1999.…”

Section: The Organization Of Private Forest Owners In Portugalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The growing risk of forest fires which is relatively more severe in those regions also made forest owners increasingly aware of the benefits of collective action [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10].…”

Section: The Organization Of Private Forest Owners In Portugalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Small-scale forest owners can achieve similar benefits of large-scale forest owners if they are members of a FOO [3]. By joining together, non-industrial private forest owners (NIPF) can improve their bargaining power and have a say in the forest policy decision-making processes [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in Finland and Norway, FOOs date from the beginning of the 20th century whereas in Portugal and Slovakia they date from the end of the 20 th century [2][3][4][5]. In Serbia and Croatia they were only established in the new millennium.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in Norway, the main objective was the marketing of wood, but nowadays increased attention is been given to sustainable forest management [2][3][4][5]. Other examples of common marketing of wood for FOOs members are Central and Eastern European countries such as Slovakia [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Forest Owners’ Organizations in North and Central Portugal – Assessment of Success

Feliciano¹,

Mendes²

2011

SEEFOR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Organization Of Private Forest Owners In Portugalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Organization Of Private Forest Owners In Portugalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Forest Owners’ Organizations in North and Central Portugal – Assessment of Success

Feliciano¹,

Mendes²

2011

SEEFOR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Help to Self-help? A Service-Dominant Perspective on the Forest Owners’ Own Institutions

Wästerlund

2019

World Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-Boundary Coordination on Forested Landscapes: Investigating Alternatives for Implementation

Gass

Rickenbach

Schulte

et al. 2008

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-boundary coordination is a tool for ecosystem management whereby landowners voluntarily coordinate management practices toward economic and/or ecological landscape-scale outcomes (e.g., fiber, invasive species control, habitat). Past research indicates that it may be particularly applicable on landscapes that include small forest landholdings. To explore alternatives by which coordination might occur, we conducted seven focus groups with landowners (n=51) who actively manage their forests in southwest Wisconsin and northeast Iowa. Focus group participants were presented with three hypothetical alternatives to coordinate with their neighbors; landowners could self-organize, work with a natural resource professional (i.e., forester), or work with an organization to complete a cross-boundary practice. In this article, we focus on the latter two alternatives and the role of two social theories--principal-agent and cooperation--in explaining landowners' evaluations of these alternatives. Key findings are that (1) cross-boundary coordination has the potential to alleviate problems between landowners and resource professionals inherent to their typical working relationship, and (2) social relationships are a major factor contributing to landowners' willingness to participate. We posit that cross-boundary coordination offers a non-economic incentive for landowners to work together as it may reduce the uncertainty associated with hiring a resource professional. At the same time, professionals can provide a bridging function among landowners who are unacquainted. To achieve these outcomes and expand the adoption of cross-boundary coordination, we suggest four guidelines. First, foster dialogue among landowners toward shared cognition and oversight. Second, match landowners' practices and objectives such that there are clear benefits to all. Third, develop relationships through low risk activities where possible. Fourth, do not expect on-going commitments.

show abstract

Membership matters: comparing members and non-members of NIPF owner organizations in southwest Wisconsin, USA

Cited by 45 publications

References 20 publications

Forest Owners’ Organizations in North and Central Portugal – Assessment of Success

Forest Owners’ Organizations in North and Central Portugal – Assessment of Success

Help to Self-help? A Service-Dominant Perspective on the Forest Owners’ Own Institutions

Cross-Boundary Coordination on Forested Landscapes: Investigating Alternatives for Implementation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About