IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v106y2019ic14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do ownership structures effect forest management? An analysis of African American family forest landowners

Author

Listed:
  • Goyke, Noah
  • Dwivedi, Puneet
  • Thomas, Marc

Abstract

Complex ownership structures like absentee ownership and heirs' property could affect management of forestlands owned by African American family landowners in the southern United States. The Theory of Planned Behavior offers a framework for understanding the role of ownership structures, along with other landowner characteristics on forest management intentions and behaviors. We used data from surveys of African American forest landowners in Georgia to inform logit models of legacy goals, management goals, management activity and management planning. Older landowners, male landowners, and landowners who had received professional advice were significantly more likely to have legacy goals, while landowners who did not report obstacles to management were more likely to have management goals. Ownership structures did not have a significant effect on landowners' goals, nor did they have a significant effect on management activities. However, absentee ownership, along with technical advice, significantly affected management planning. Results suggest that rather than the ownership structure, the most important factor in determining forest management is professional advice. The trust and personal relationship between landowners and forest professionals ultimately determine the engagement level of African American forest landowners in sustainable forest management.

Suggested Citation

  • Goyke, Noah & Dwivedi, Puneet & Thomas, Marc, 2019. "Do ownership structures effect forest management? An analysis of African American family forest landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:106:y:2019:i:c:14
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934119302084
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101959?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. 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.
    2. Karppinen, Heimo & Berghäll, Sami, 2015. "Forest owners' stand improvement decisions: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 275-284.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Markowski-Lindsay, Marla & Butler, Brett J. & Kittredge, David B., 2017. "The future of family forests in the USA: Near-term intentions to sell or transfer," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 577-585.
    5. Andrew Zekeri, 1996. "Community action in Alabama's Black Belt Timber-Dependent communities," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 203-228, January.
    6. Barlow, Becky & Bailey, Conner, 2017. "The Potential Impact of Heir Property on Timber Management in the Southeastern United States," Professional Agricultural Workers Journal (PAWJ), Professional Agricultural Workers Conference, vol. 5(1), September.
    7. Deaton, B. James & Baxter, Jamie & Bratt, Carolyn S., 2009. "Examining the consequences and character of "heir property"," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2344-2353, June.
    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. Jinna Yu & Yiming Wei & Wei Fang & Zhen Liu & Yujie Zhang & Jing Lan, 2021. "New Round of Collective Forest Rights Reform, Forestland Transfer and Household Production Efficiency," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, September.
    2. 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).

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Aurora A. C. Teixeira & Rosa Portela Forte, 2017. "Prior education and entrepreneurial intentions: the differential impact of a wide range of fields of study," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 353-394, March.
    4. Popa, Bogdan & Niță, Mihai Daniel & Hălălișan, Aureliu Florin, 2019. "Intentions to engage in forest law enforcement in Romania: An application of the theory of planned behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 33-43.
    5. Grace B. Villamor & Andrew Dunningham & Philip Stahlmann-Brown & Peter W. Clinton, 2022. "Improving the Representation of Climate Change Adaptation Behaviour in New Zealand’s Forest Growing Sector," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Timothy M. Swartz & Jaime J. Coon & Jenna R. Mattes & James R. Miller, 2019. "Identifying Opportunities to Conserve Farm Ponds on Private Lands: Integration of Social, Ecological, and Historical Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Karppinen, Heimo & Berghäll, Sami, 2015. "Forest owners' stand improvement decisions: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 275-284.
    8. Chidchanok Apipoonyanon & Sylvia Szabo & John K. M. Kuwornu & Mokbul Morshed Ahmad, 2020. "Local participation in community forest management using theory of planned behaviour: evidence from Udon Thani Province, Thailand," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 32(1), pages 1-27, January.
    9. Arlixcya Vinnisa Anak Empidi & Diana Emang, 2021. "Understanding Public Intentions to Participate in Protection Initiatives for Forested Watershed Areas Using the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Case Study of Cameron Highlands in Pahang, Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    10. 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).
    11. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    13. Clara Cardone-Riportella & María José Casasola-Martinez & Isabel Feito-Ruiz, 2014. "Do Entrepreneurs Come From Venus Or Mars? Impact Of Postgraduate Studies: Gender And Family Business Background," Working Papers 14.04, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Financial Economics and Accounting (former Department of Business Administration), revised Sep 2014.
    14. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    15. Ruijie Zhu & Guojing Zhao & Zehai Long & Yangjie Huang & Zhaoxin Huang, 2022. "Entrepreneurship or Employment? A Survey of College Students’ Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    16. Alsalem, Amani & Fry, Marie-Louise & Thaichon, Park, 2020. "To donate or to waste it: Understanding posthumous organ donation attitude," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 87-97.
    17. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    18. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.
    19. Jacqueline Ruth & Steffen Willwacher & Oliver Korn, 2022. "Acceptance of Digital Sports: A Study Showing the Rising Acceptance of Digital Health Activities Due to the SARS-CoV-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Jariyasunant, Jerald & Carrel, Andre & Ekambaram, Venkatesan & Gaker, David & Sengupta, Raja & Walker, Joan L., 2012. "The Quantified Traveler: Changing transport behavior with personalized travel data feedback," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt3047k0dw, University of California Transportation Center.

    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:forpol:v:106:y:2019:i:c:14. 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/locate/forpol .

    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.