IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v21y2015i3p152-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influences of nonindustrial private forest landowners’ management priorities on the timber harvest decision—A case study in France

Author

Listed:
  • Petucco, Claudio
  • Abildtrup, Jens
  • Stenger, Anne

Abstract

Recently, there has been a demand to increase the wood mobilisation from French private forests which are a significant part of the national wood supply. Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners are frequently not only timber producers, but also providers of forest amenities, from which they derive a private utility as well as positive externalities for the rest of the society. This is often addressed as a limit to wood exploitation, since generally there is a trade-off between timber production and amenities. However, the forest property fragmentation and the passive management of some private forest owners are also considered as restraining the wood supply. We propose an econometric analysis of the harvesting decision with particular attention to the role of NIPF landowners’ management objectives. We defined four categories of management objectives: “production-oriented”, “production & amenities”, “amenities-oriented”, and “no objectives”, using a sample of 432 French NIPF landowners. The aim was to identify the relevant factors influencing the harvest decision, and, in particular, the role of amenities-oriented objectives and no-objectives. Results showed that a change in the management objective from production-oriented to amenities-oriented significantly reduced the probability of harvesting. The lack of management objectives as well as absenteeism, however, exhibited an even higher negative effect. Consistently with a utility maximisation framework, both economic variables (timber price and income) and landowners’ socio-demographic characteristics were significant predictors of the harvesting decision. From a policy viewpoint, our results suggest to address incentives schemes on passive forest owners in order to increase wood production.

Suggested Citation

  • Petucco, Claudio & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2015. "Influences of nonindustrial private forest landowners’ management priorities on the timber harvest decision—A case study in France," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 152-166.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:21:y:2015:i:3:p:152-166
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2015.07.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1104689915000343
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jfe.2015.07.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Serge Garcia & Éric Nazindigouba Kéré & Anne Stenger, 2014. "Econometric analysis of social interactions in the production decisions of private forest owners," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(2), pages 177-198.
    2. Joshi, Sudiksha & Arano, Kathryn G., 2009. "Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 132-139, March.
    3. Eric Nazindigouba KERE & Jérôme FONCEL & Marielle BRUNETTE, 2014. "Attitude towards Risk and Production Decision: An Empirical analysis on French private forest owners," Working Papers 201410, CERDI.
    4. Max, Wendy & Lehman, Dale E., 1988. "A behavioral model of timber supply," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 71-86, March.
    5. Beach, Robert H. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Yang, Jui-Chen & Murray, Brian C. & Abt, Robert C., 2005. "Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 261-281, March.
    6. Gregory, S. Amacher & Christine Conway, M. & Sullivan, Jay & Gregory, S. Amacher, 2003. "Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 137-164.
    7. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    8. Vokoun, Melinda & Amacher, Gregory S. & Wear, David N., 2006. "Scale of harvesting by non-industrial private forest landowners," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 223-244, January.
    9. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    10. Marielle Brunette & Jérôme Foncel & Nazindigouba Eric Kéré, 2014. "Attitude towards Risk and Production Decision: An Empirical analysis on French private forest owners," Working Papers halshs-00981350, HAL.
    11. Gadaud, Juliette & Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2010. "Amenity values and payment schemes for free recreation services from non-industrial private forest properties: A French case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 297-311, December.
    12. Conway, M.Christine & Amacher, Gregory S. & Sullivan, Jay & Wear, David, 2003. "Decisions nonindustrial forest landowners make: an empirical examination," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 181-203.
    13. Anne Stenger-Letheux & Nicolas Robert, 2013. "Can payments solve the problem of undersupply of ecosystem services?," Post-Print hal-01003270, HAL.
    14. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    15. Bolkesjo, Torjus Folsland & Baardsen, Sjur, 2002. "Roundwood supply in Norway: micro-level analysis of self-employed forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 55-64, May.
    16. Elyakime, B. & Cabanettes, A., 2009. "How to improve the marketing of timber in France?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 169-173, May.
    17. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    18. Andersson, Mats & Gong, Peichen, 2010. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions and timber harvest decisions -- An empirical study of nonindustrial private forest owners in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 330-339, June.
    19. Serge Garcia & Patrice Harou & Claire Montagne & Anne Stenger, 2007. "Valuing Forest Biodiversity from a National Survey in France: A Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2007-08, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
    20. Serbruyns, Inge & Luyssaert, Sebastiaan, 2006. "Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 285-296, December.
    21. Luanne Lohr & Timothy A. Park, 1995. "Utility-Consistent Discrete-Continuous Choices in Soil Conservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 474-490.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Attallah, May & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2022. "Non-monetary incentives for sustainable biomass harvest: An experimental approach," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    2. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2022. "Embedding non-industrial private forest owners in forest policy and bioeconomy issues using a Living Lab concept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    3. Lautrup, M. & Panduro, T.E. & Olsen, J.V. & Pedersen, M.F. & Jacobsen, J.B., 2023. "Is there more to trees than timber? Estimating the private amenity value of forests using a hedonic land model for combined agricultural properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    4. Josset, Clement & Shanafelt, David W. & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Probabilistic typology of private forest owners: A tool to target the development of new market for ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2021. "Developing the persona method to increase the commitment of non-industrial private forest owners in French forest policy priorities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    6. Mook, Anne & Dwivedi, Puneet, 2022. "Exploring links between education, forest management intentions, and economic outcomes in light of gender differences in the United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. Zhao, Jianheng & Daigneault, Adam & Weiskittel, Aaron, 2020. "Forest landowner harvest decisions in a new era of conservation stewardship and changing markets in Maine, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    8. Sauter, Philipp A. & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard & Wilhelm, Stefan, 2016. "Faustmann vs. real options theory – An experimental investigation of foresters’ harvesting decisions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 1-20.
    9. Lawrence, Anna & Deuffic, Philippe & Hujala, Teppo & Nichiforel, Liviu & Feliciano, Diana & Jodlowski, Krzysztof & Lind, Torgny & Marchal, Didier & Talkkari, Ari & Teder, Meelis & Vilkriste, Lelde & W, 2020. "Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    10. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Strange, Niels, 2018. "Landowner participation in forest conservation programs: A revealed approach using register, spatial and contract data," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-12.
    11. Rørstad, Per Kristian, 2022. "Payment for CO2 sequestration affects the Faustmann rotation period in Norway more than albedo payment does," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    12. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Bostedt, Göran & Stenger, Anne, 2019. "Determinants of forest owners attitudes towards wood ash recycling in Sweden - Can the nutrient cycle be closed?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Rosa, Renato & Soares, Paula & Tomé, Margarida, 2018. "Evaluating the Economic Potential of Uneven-aged Maritime Pine Forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 210-217.
    14. Pröbstl-Haider, U. & Mostegl, N.M. & Haider, W., 2020. "Small-scale private forest ownership: Understanding female and male forest owners' climate change adaptation behaviour," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eric Nazindigouba KERE & Jérôme FONCEL & Marielle BRUNETTE, 2014. "Attitude towards Risk and Production Decision: An Empirical analysis on French private forest owners," Working Papers 201410, CERDI.
    2. Marielle Brunette & Jérôme Foncel & Nazindigouba Eric Kéré, 2014. "Attitude towards Risk and Production Decision: An Empirical analysis on French private forest owners," Working Papers halshs-00981350, HAL.
    3. Størdal, Ståle & Lien, Gudbrand & Baardsen, Sjur, 2008. "Analyzing determinants of forest owners' decision-making using a sample selection framework," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 159-176, June.
    4. Sauter, Philipp A. & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard & Wilhelm, Stefan, 2016. "Faustmann vs. real options theory – An experimental investigation of foresters’ harvesting decisions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 1-20.
    5. Andersson, Mats, 2012. "Assessing non-industrial private forest owners’ attitudes to risk: Do owner and property characteristics matter?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 3-13.
    6. Fischer, A. Paige, 2012. "Identifying policy target groups with qualitative and quantitative methods: The case of wildfire risk on nonindustrial private forest lands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 62-71.
    7. Kilham, Philipp & Hartebrodt, Christoph & Schraml, Ulrich, 2019. "A conceptual model for private forest owners' harvest decisions: A qualitative study in southwest Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Sauter, Philipp & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Risk attitudes of foresters, farmers and students: An experimental multimethod comparison," DARE Discussion Papers 1514, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    9. G.C., Shivan & Mehmood, Sayeed R., 2012. "Determinants of nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to accept price offers for woody biomass," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 47-55.
    10. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    11. Thomas, J. & Brunette, M. & Leblois, A., 2022. "The determinants of adapting forest management practices to climate change: Lessons from a survey of French private forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    12. Cai, Zhen & Narine, Lana Landra & D'Amato, Anthony & Aguilar, Francisco Xavier, 2016. "Attitudinal and revenue effects on non-industrial private forest owners' willingness-to-harvest timber and woody biomass," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 52-61.
    13. Sauter, Philipp & Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Risk attitudes of farmers, foresters and students: An experimental multimethod comparison," 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia 235515, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. M. Brunette & M. Hanewinkel & R. Yousefpour, 2020. "Risk aversion hinders forestry professionals to adapt to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2157-2180, October.
    15. Watson, Adam C. & Sullivan, Jay & Amacher, Gregory S. & Asaro, Christopher, 2013. "Cost sharing for pre-commercial thinning in southern pine plantations: Willingness to participate in Virginia's pine bark beetle prevention program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 65-72.
    16. Gutierrez-Castillo, Ana & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael A., 2022. "Conservation easement landowners' willingness to accept for forest thinning and the impact of information," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    17. Lindhjem, Henrik & Mitani, Yohei, 2012. "Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 290-302.
    18. Camille Tevenart & Marielle Brunette, 2021. "Role of Farmers’ Risk and Ambiguity Preferences on Fertilization Decisions: An Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-27, August.
    19. Staal Wästerlund, D. & Kronholm, T., 2014. "Market analysis of harvesting services engaged by private forest owners in Sweden," 2014, Number 45, May 22-24, 2014, Uppsala, Sweden, Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, vol. 2014(45), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Mozgeris, Gintautas & Brukas, Vilis & Stanislovaitis, Andrius & Kavaliauskas, Marius & Palicinas, Michailas, 2017. "Owner mapping for forest scenario modelling — A Lithuanian case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 235-244.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Forest amenities; Passive ownership; Timber-harvest decision; Management priorities; Nonindustrial private forest owners;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:21:y:2015:i:3:p:152-166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.