IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v49y2021ics2212041621000413.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landowner concerns related to availability of ecosystem services and environmental issues in the southern United States

Author

Listed:
  • Adhikari, Ram K.
  • Grala, Robert K.
  • Grado, Stephen C.
  • Grebner, Donald L.
  • Petrolia, Daniel R.

Abstract

The effectiveness of conservation initiatives on private lands in the southern United States plays an important role in improving provision of ecosystem services and mitigating negative environmental impacts. However, participation in conservation efforts is in part affected by landowner concern about environmental issues. This study used a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) to quantify the impacts of local environmental conditions (e.g., air and water pollution, population density, and land cover type), private land attributes and sociodemographic factors on landowner ecosystem service and environmental concerns. The study involved a mail survey of private landowners in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and East Gulf Coastal Plain sub-geographies of the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative. At least 37% of landowners were extremely concerned about drinking water quality, drinking water quantity, soil erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, and loss of open spaces. Local environmental conditions and sociodemographic factors were only marginally related to landowner ecosystem service and environmental concerns, although these factors could affect landowner environmental attitudes, personal health and outdoor activities. Private land attributes, such as property size and landownership objectives, strongly influenced landowner concerns about environmental issues where landowners with larger agricultural land parcels, and who owned land for profit making and provision of ecosystem services were more concerned about environmental issues than other landowners. Conservation policies should focus not only on activities that address ecosystem service and environmental issues that are of concern to landowners but also help them attain their landownership objectives because such approach is more likely to increase their participation in conservation practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Adhikari, Ram K. & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Grebner, Donald L. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2021. "Landowner concerns related to availability of ecosystem services and environmental issues in the southern United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:49:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000413
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041621000413
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101283?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. Nelson, Erik J. & Withey, John C. & Pennington, Derric & Lawler, Joshua J., 2017. "Identifying the impacts of critical habitat designation on land cover change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 89-125.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Miller, Kristell A. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Kilgore, Michael A., 2012. "An assessment of forest landowner interest in selling forest carbon credits in the Lake States, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 113-122.
    4. Sristi Kamal & Małgorzata Grodzińska-Jurczak & Gregory Brown, 2015. "Conservation on private land: a review of global strategies with a proposed classification system," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(4), pages 576-597, April.
    5. Ehrlich, Oren & Bi, Xiang & Borisova, Tatiana & Larkin, Sherry, 2017. "A latent class analysis of public attitudes toward water resources with implications for recreational demand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 124-132.
    6. Jenkins, W. Aaron & Murray, Brian C. & Kramer, Randall A. & Faulkner, Stephen P., 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1051-1061, March.
    7. Sweikert, Lily A. & Gigliotti, Larry M., 2019. "Evaluating the role of Farm Bill conservation program participation in conserving America’s grasslands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 392-399.
    8. David Roodman, 2011. "Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with cmp," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(2), pages 159-206, June.
    9. Jones, Benjamin A., 2018. "Forest-attacking Invasive Species and Infant Health: Evidence From the Invasive Emerald Ash Borer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 282-293.
    10. Håbesland, Daniel E. & Kilgore, Michael A. & Becker, Dennis R. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Solberg, Birger & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Lindstad, Berit H., 2016. "Norwegian family forest owners' willingness to participate in carbon offset programs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 30-38.
    11. Graff Zivin, Joshua & Neidell, Matthew, 2009. "Days of haze: Environmental information disclosure and intertemporal avoidance behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 119-128, September.
    12. P. Dupraz & D. Vermersch & B. De Frahan & L. Delvaux, 2003. "The Environmental Supply of Farm Households: A Flexible Willingness to Accept Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(2), pages 171-189, June.
    13. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(3), pages 278-294, September.
    14. LeVert, Michael & Stevens, Thomas & Kittredge, Dave, 2009. "Willingness-to-sell conservation easements: A case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 261-275, December.
    15. Fanus A. Aregay & Minjuan Zhao & Xiaoping Li & Xianli Xia & Haibin Chen, 2016. "The Local Residents’ Concerns about Environmental Issues in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-12, March.
    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. Ram K. Adhikari & Robert K. Grala & Stephen C. Grado & Donald L. Grebner & Daniel R. Petrolia, 2022. "Landowner Satisfaction with Conservation Programs in the Southern United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, May.

    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. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2019. "Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-85.
    2. Ram K. Adhikari & Robert K. Grala & Stephen C. Grado & Donald L. Grebner & Daniel R. Petrolia, 2022. "Landowner Satisfaction with Conservation Programs in the Southern United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    4. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    5. Alderighi, Marco & Bianchi, Carluccio & Lorenzini, Eleonora, 2016. "The impact of local food specialities on the decision to (re)visit a tourist destination: Market-expanding or business-stealing?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 323-333.
    6. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    7. David Aristei & Michela Vecchi & Francesco Venturini, 2016. "University and inter-firm R&D collaborations: propensity and intensity of cooperation in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 841-871, August.
    8. Alisa E White & David A Lutz & Richard B Howarth & José R Soto, 2018. "Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    9. Lefebvre, Marianne & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio & Viaggi, Davide, 2014. "EU farmers' intentions to invest in 2014-2020: complementarity between asset classes," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182737, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Huaquan Zhang & Yashuang Tang & Martinson Ankrah Twumasi & Abbas Ali Chandio & Lili Guo & Ruixin Wan & Shilei Pan & Yun Shen & Ghulam Raza Sargani, 2022. "The Effects of Ecological Public Welfare Jobs on the Usage of Clean Energy by Farmers: Evidence from Tibet Areas—China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Magali A. Delmas & Aanchal Kohli, 2020. "Can Apps Make Air Pollution Visible? Learning About Health Impacts Through Engagement with Air Quality Information," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 279-302, January.
    12. Giuseppe Medda, 2020. "External R&D, product and process innovation in European manufacturing companies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 339-369, February.
    13. Thi Thu Tra Pham & Thai Vu Hong Nguyen & Son Kien Nguyen & Hieu Thi Hoang Nguyen, 2023. "Does planned innovation promote financial access? Evidence from Vietnamese SMEs," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(2), pages 281-307, June.
    14. Kanchan Joshi & Thiagu Ranganathan & Ram Ranjan, 2021. "Exploring Higher Order Risk Preferences of Farmers in a Water-Scarce Region: Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Bengal, India," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 19(2), pages 317-344, June.
    15. Drakos, Konstantinos & Giannakopoulos, Nicholas, 2018. "Self and bank credit rationing: a trivariate probit with double selection," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 124-134.
    16. Giovanni Bruno & Orietta Dessy, 2014. "Average partial effects in multivariate probit models with latent heterogeneity: Monte Carlo experiments and an application to immigrants' ethnic identity and economic performance," Italian Stata Users' Group Meetings 2014 10, Stata Users Group.
    17. Djenontin, Ida Nadia S. & Zulu, Leo C. & Richardson, Robert B., 2022. "Smallholder farmers and forest landscape restoration in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Central Malawi," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    18. Jianhua Zhang & Mohammad Shahidul Islam, 2020. "The Heterogeneous Impacts of R&D on Innovation in Services Sector: A Firm-Level Study of Developing ASEAN," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    19. Ferrara, Ida & Missios, Paul, 2016. "Reduce, Reuse or Recycle? Household Decisions over Waste Prevention and Recycling," MPRA Paper 74863, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Snyder, Stephanie A. & Ma, Zhao & Floress, Kristin & Clarke, Mysha, 2020. "Relationships between absenteeism, conservation group membership, and land management among family forest owners," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).

    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:ecoser:v:49:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000413. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.