Scale of harvesting by non-industrial private forest landowners

Vokoun, Melinda; Amacher, Gregory S.; Wear, David N.

doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2005.10.002

Cited by 50 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature review focussed on understanding the harvesting behaviour of forest owners (Beach et al, 2005;Bolkesjo et al, 2007;Butler, 2006;Favada et al, 2009;Stordal et al, 2008;Vokoun et al, 2006;Adams et al, 1991;Araño and Munn, 2006), as well as on wood supply in more general terms (Sterba et al, 2000;Verkerk et al, 2011). Based on our review and data availability for the entire study área, 16 potential location factors influencing the likelihood of harvest were identified, as well as a priori assumptions with regards to the direction of influence of each location factor on harvesting likelihood (Table 1).…”

Section: Location Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping wood production in European forests

Verkerk

Levers

Kuemmerle

et al. 2015

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Location Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping wood production in European forests

Verkerk

Levers

Kuemmerle

et al. 2015

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most forest owners in the United States hold \4 ha of forest land, and their average tenure is 26 years (Butler 2008). We can also posit that absentee owners may have less diverse and/or smaller networks than resident owners, since property residence has been connected to decreased likelihood for management activities (Vokoun et al 2006;Joshi and Arano 2009). Finally, local institutions and county rules, such as logging permits, taxes, and zoning regulations, may create structural constraints or opportunities on social behavior because individual networks exist in multilevel environments that have their own network-like structures (Pescosolido 2006).…”

Section: Variations In the Network Of Forest Ownersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in the Social Networks of Forest Owners: The Effect of Management Activity, Resource Professionals, and Ownership Size

Ruseva

Evans

Fischer

2014

Small-scale Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social networks play an important role in the communication of information among forest owners and how owners process that information in making land management decisions. This article examines variations in the social network characteristics of family forest owners using survey data and interviews with 42 owners in south-central Indiana. We examine how network structure and content vary by harvesting activity, information sources, ownership attributes, sociodemographic characteristics, and location. Quantitative measures of network size and diversity, along with a qualitative understanding of network content and function are discussed and compared for active and passive forest managers. We find that active managers (people who had a recent timber harvest) had at least twice as many social ties related to forest management compared to passive managers, particularly after accounting for parcel ownership size, forest area, and total landholding size. Learning and service were the main functions of these networks, with learning being the most frequently cited reason for talking to others regardless of the management profile of forest owners. The study contributes to a growing interest in mixed methods approaches to network studies and research on social networks in private forestry. Abstract Social networks play an important role in the communication of information among forest owners and how owners process that information in making land management decisions. This article examines variations in the social network characteristics of family forest owners using survey data and interviews with 42 owners in south-central Indiana. We examine how network structure and content vary by harvesting activity, information sources, ownership attributes, sociodemographic characteristics, and location. Quantitative measures of network size and diversity, along with a qualitative understanding of network content and function are discussed and compared for active and passive forest managers. We find that active managers (people who had a recent timber harvest) had at least twice as many social ties related to forest management compared to passive managers, particularly after accounting for parcel ownership size, forest area, and total landholding size. Learning and service were the main functions of these networks, with learning being the most frequently cited reason for talking to others regardless of the management profile of forest owners. The study contributes to a growing interest in mixed-

show abstract

“…How American forest management on small forest holdings compared to that in European countries, especially Sweden, also became a research topic [174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182]. Some studies considered economic aspects of small forests [183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194], suggesting education and demonstration programs [195][196][197][198][199][200] or technical assistance [201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208] as means to encourage forest management. Even factors like ownership change impacted potential timber supply on NIPF forests [209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218].…”

Section: General Problems Of Promoting Management On Nipf Holdingsmentioning

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

Scale of harvesting by non-industrial private forest landowners

Cited by 50 publications

References 20 publications

Mapping wood production in European forests

Mapping wood production in European forests

Variations in the Social Networks of Forest Owners: The Effect of Management Activity, Resource Professionals, and Ownership Size

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About