IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

What does it take to get family forest owners to enroll in a forest stewardship-type program?

  • Kilgore, Michael A.
  • Snyder, Stephanie A.
  • Schertz, Joseph
  • Taff, Steven J.

We estimated the probability of enrollment and factors influencing participation in a forest stewardship-type program, Minnesota's Sustainable Forest Incentives Act, using data from a mail survey of over 1000 randomly-selected Minnesota family forest owners. Of the 15 variables tested, only five were significant predictors of a landowner's interest in enrolling in the program: compensation amount, intention to obtain a forest management plan, opposition to the program's land covenant, prior awareness of the program, and total acres of forest land owned. The estimated median minimum compensation required was approximately $24 per acre per year. One-fourth of the survey respondents were undecided about whether they would participate in the stewardship program, suggesting there may be potential to capture additional interest and participation. Marketing efforts to raise program awareness, increasing annual stewardship payments, and eliminating the land covenant are likely to be effective strategies for increasing program participation.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VT4-4SVM15T-1/2/f3a5f4b91ac30f7a1c4a8b8d2e90b29b
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Forest Policy and Economics.

Volume (Year): 10 (2008)
Issue (Month): 7-8 (October)
Pages: 507-514

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:10:y:2008:i:7-8:p:507-514
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert C. Mitchell & Stanley Presser & Paul A. Ruud & Smith, V. Kerry, 1995. "Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: TheNOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation," Working Papers 95-17, Duke University, Department of Economics.
  2. Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  3. Kniivila, Matleena, 2006. "Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 530-539, October.
  4. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
  5. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
  6. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
  7. Cramer, J. S. & Ridder, G., 1991. "Pooling states in the multinomial logit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2-3), pages 267-272, February.
  8. Steven B. Caudill & Peter A. Groothuis, 2005. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to "Don’t Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
  9. Sullivan, Jay & Amacher, Gregory S. & Chapman, Sara, 2005. "Forest banking and forest landowners forgoing management rights for guaranteed financial returns," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 381-392, March.
  10. Haener, Michel K. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1998. "Analysis Of "Don'T Know" Response To Referendum Contingent Valuation Questions," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(2), October.
  11. Alok Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet & Robert Berrens, 2001. "Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 173-195, November.
  12. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
  13. Champ, Patricia A. & Alberini, Anna & Correas, Ignacio, 2005. "Using contingent valuation to value a noxious weeds control program: the effects of including an unsure response category," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 47-60, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:10:y:2008:i:7-8:p:507-514. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.