IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v178y2025ics1389934125001534.html

Landowners' willingness to accept for sustainable forest management in the Cross-Timbers region, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Cheng, Haotian
  • Soto, José R.
  • Susaeta, Andres
  • Russell, Aaron
  • Joshi, Omkar

Abstract

The Cross-Timbers (CT) region, spanning southern Kansas through central Oklahoma into Texas, is a vital forested area with millions of residents in urban centers like Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and the Dallas Metroplex. Covering nearly 27 million acres suitable for livestock, this region plays a critical role in agriculture and recreation. However, much of the land remains underutilized in terms of active management for ecosystem services. This study evaluates landowners' preferences for sustainable forest management using a novel survey method, Double-Bounded Best-Worst Choice (DBBWC), which combines Best-Worst Scaling with Double-Bound Contingent Valuation. The results reveal that landowners prioritize compensation of $110 per ha acre per year, compensation of $80 per ha acre per year, and low-intensity thinning as the most preferred forest management practices. In contrast, prescribed burning once a year was ranked least favorable. Additionally, landowners' willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for implementing prescribed burning annually was $96.77 per acre, while for high-intensity thinning, the WTA was $35.86. These findings provide valuable insights into landowners' preferences for forest management and suggest how financial incentives could influence decisions about ecosystem service provision. The study's results are relevant for policy development, particularly for U.S. Forest Service Land Management Plans and broader National Forest Management strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheng, Haotian & Soto, José R. & Susaeta, Andres & Russell, Aaron & Joshi, Omkar, 2025. "Landowners' willingness to accept for sustainable forest management in the Cross-Timbers region, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:178:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125001534
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125001534
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103574?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Thapa, Bhawna & Chapagain, Binod P. & McMurry, Scott T. & Smith, Loren M. & Joshi, Omkar, 2024. "Understanding landowner participation in the Conservation Reserve Program in the U.S. High Plains region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    4. Starr, Morgan & Joshi, Omkar & Will, Rodney E. & Zou, Chris B., 2019. "Perceptions regarding active management of the Cross-timbers forest resources of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas: A SWOT-ANP analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 523-530.
    5. Wuyang Hu & Shan Sun & Jerrod Penn & Ping Qing, 2022. "Dummy and effects coding variables in discrete choice analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1770-1788, October.
    6. G.C., Shivan & Mehmood, Sayeed R., 2010. "Factors influencing nonindustrial private forest landowners' policy preference for promoting bioenergy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 581-588, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Omkar Joshi & Rodney E. Will & Chris B. Zou & Gehendra Kharel, 2019. "Sustaining Cross-Timbers Forest Resources: Current Knowledge and Future Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-12, August.
    9. Wookhyun An & Silverio Alarcón, 2021. "Inferring customer heterogeneity for rural tourism: A latent class approach based on a best-worst choice modelling," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(7), pages 266-276.
    10. Soto, José R. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2016. "Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 35-42.
    11. Cheng, Haotian & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Thomas, Alyssa S. & Reyes, Jesus Felix De Los & Ng'ombe, John N. & Soto, José R., 2025. "Understanding how urban communities make trade-offs between forest management and ecosystem service objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    12. Lusk, Jayson L. & Parker, Natalie, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Amount and Type of Fat in Ground Beef," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(01), pages 1-16, April.
    13. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
    14. 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.
    15. Jikun Huang & Shukun Wang & Zhihua Xiao, 2017. "Rising Herbicide Use and Its Driving Forces in China," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(3), pages 614-627, July.
    16. Deacue Fields & Walt Prevatt, 2008. "An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 487-498.
    17. 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).
    18. Halbritter, Andreas, 2020. "An economic analysis of thinning intensity and thinning type of a two-tiered even-aged Forest stand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    19. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    20. Zhang, Daowei, 2016. "Payments for forest-based environmental services: A close look," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 78-84.
    21. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    22. Joshi, Omkar & Grebner, Donald L. & Hussain, Anwar & Grado, Stephen C., 2013. "Landowner knowledge and willingness to supply woody biomass for wood-based bioenergy: Sample selection approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 97-109.
    23. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    24. 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.
    25. Cheng, Haotian & Ng'ombe, John N. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2024. "A Bayesian generalized rank ordered logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    26. Juutinen, Artti & Haeler, Elena & Jandl, Robert & Kuhlmey, Katharina & Kurttila, Mikko & Mäkipää, Raisa & Pohjanmies, Tähti & Rosenkranz, Lydia & Skudnik, Mitja & Triplat, Matevž & Tolvanen, Anne & Vi, 2022. "Common preferences of European small-scale forest owners towards contract-based management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    27. 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.
    28. Farley, Josh & Aquino, André & Daniels, Amy & Moulaert, Azur & Lee, Dan & Krause, Abby, 2010. "Global mechanisms for sustaining and enhancing PES schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2075-2084, September.
    29. Cheng, Haotian & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Thomas, Alyssa & De Los Reyes, Jesus Felix & Ng’ombe, John & Soto, Jose R., 2025. "Understanding how Urban Communities make Trade offs Between Forest Management and Ecosystem Service Objectives," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360807, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    30. Kilgore, Michael A. & Frey, Gregory E. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Mihiar, Christopher, 2025. "Factors influencing a forest landowner's choice of incentive program commitment length," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    31. Cheng, Haotian & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Thomas, Alyssa S. & Felix De Los Reyes, Jesus & Soto, José R., 2024. "Comparing individual and collective valuation of ecosystem service tradeoffs: A case study from montane forests in southern California, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    32. Cheng, Haotian & Zhang, Tong & Lambert, Dayton M. & Feuz, Ryan, 2023. "An empirical comparison of conjoint and best-worst scaling case III methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    33. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Soto, José R., 2016. "Does policy process influence public values for forest-water resource protection in Florida?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-131.
    34. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Munn, Ian A. & Grado, Stephen C. & Grala, Robert K. & Henderson, James E., 2017. "Evaluating non-industrial private forest landowner willingness to manage for forest carbon sequestration in the southern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 112-119.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cheng, Haotian & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Thomas, Alyssa S. & Reyes, Jesus Felix De Los & Ng'ombe, John N. & Soto, José R., 2025. "Understanding how urban communities make trade-offs between forest management and ecosystem service objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Mishra, Bijesh, 2022. "Economics and human dimension of active management of forest-grassland ecotone in South-central USA under changing climate," MPRA Paper 116200, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Jul 2022.
    5. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Gutierrez, Ana L. & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael, 2020. "Conservation Easement Landowners’ WTA Compensation to Thin their Forest," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304551, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Cheng, Haotian & Zhang, Tong & Lambert, Dayton M. & Feuz, Ryan, 2023. "An empirical comparison of conjoint and best-worst scaling case III methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Yang, Yi & Zhu, Yu & Zhao, Yiwen, 2024. "Improving farmers’ livelihoods through the eco-compensation of forest carbon sinks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Houston, Laurie L. & Gray, Andrew N. & Monleon, Vicente, 2021. "Evaluating empirical evidence for housing development effects on the management of remaining private-owned forest in the U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    14. 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.
    15. repec:ags:afjare:225657 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Graves, Rose A. & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Haugo, Ryan D. & Holz, Andrés, 2022. "Forest carbon incentive programs for non-industrial private forests in Oregon (USA): Impacts of program design on willingness to enroll and landscape-scale program outcomes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    17. 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).
    18. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    19. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 253-274, December.
    20. 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.
    21. Ovaskainen, Ville & Hujala, Teppo & Hänninen, Harri & Mikkola, Jarmo, 2017. "Cost sharing for timber stand improvements: Inducement or crowding out of private investment?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 40-48.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General

    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:forpol:v:178:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125001534. 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.