IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v97y2018icp51-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of the sustainable forestry initiative fiber sourcing standard on the average implementation rate of forestry best management practices in Georgia, United States

Author

Listed:
  • Dwivedi, Puneet
  • Tumpach, Chantal
  • Cook, Chase
  • Izlar, Bob

Abstract

Much of the discourse on the sustainability of forestry resources revolves around certified forestland. It is typically assumed that certified forestland is the hallmark of sustainable forestry. This reasoning has led to a general perception that uncertified forestlands are not sustainably managed. In this regard, the role of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Fiber Sourcing Standard is instrumental in promoting sustainable forest management on uncertified forestlands. We used an advanced spatial approach to determine the influence of the SFI Fiber Sourcing Standard over space and time on Georgia's forestlands. We also assessed differences in the implementation rate of forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Georgia on harvested sites located within the sourcing radius of mills certified to SFI Fiber Sourcing Standard relative to those harvest sites located outside the sourcing radius of certified mills. Our results suggest that the SFI Fiber Sourcing Standard affects 80% or more of total forestland in Georgia. We also found that the average BMP implementation rate on harvested sites located within the sourcing radius (about 65 km) of certified mills is about 2% higher relative to harvested sites located outside the sourcing radius of such mills over time. Our results indicate that the SFI Fiber Sourcing Standard is helping in ensuring sustainability of forestlands in Georgia, as forestry BMPs are an important indicator of sustainable forest management. We hope our results will bring clarity to the overall sustainability of uncertified forestlands in Georgia and other forested regions in North America in the context of global private forest governance systems like the SFI Fiber Sourcing Standard.

Suggested Citation

  • Dwivedi, Puneet & Tumpach, Chantal & Cook, Chase & Izlar, Bob, 2018. "Effects of the sustainable forestry initiative fiber sourcing standard on the average implementation rate of forestry best management practices in Georgia, United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 51-58.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:97:y:2018:i:c:p:51-58
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.08.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118300807
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.08.016?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. Overdevest, Christine & Rickenbach, Mark G., 2006. "Forest certification and institutional governance: An empirical study of forest stewardship council certificate holders in the United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 93-102, November.
    2. Johansson, Johanna & Lidestav, Gun, 2011. "Can voluntary standards regulate forestry? -- Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 191-198, March.
    3. Lars H. Gulbrandsen, 2004. "Overlapping Public and Private Governance: Can Forest Certification Fill the Gaps in the Global Forest Regime?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(2), pages 75-99, May.
    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. Karnatz, Caroline & Kadam, Parag & Pfeuffer, Alexander & Dwivedi, Puneet, 2021. "The portrayal of forest certification in national and state newspapers of the United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Huang, Yu-Kai & Bawa, Ranjit & Mullen, Jeffrey & Hoghooghi, Nahal & Kalin, Latif & Dwivedi, Puneet, 2022. "Designing Watersheds for Integrated Development (DWID): A stochastic dynamic optimization approach for understanding expected land use changes to meet potential water quality regulations," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    3. Butler, Brett J. & Caputo, Jesse & Henderson, Jesse D. & Pugh, Scott A. & Riitters, Kurt & Sass, Emma M., 2022. "An assessment of the sustainability of family forests in the U.S.A," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(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. Stephen Wyatt & Sara Teitelbaum, 2020. "Certifying a state forestry agency in Quebec: Complementarity and conflict around government responsibilities, indigenous rights, and certification of the state as forest manager," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 551-567, July.
    2. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    3. Louise Briec & Matthieu Mandard, 2016. "The Failure of Forest Certification. The FSC Certification in the Light of the Actor-Network Theory [L’échec de la certification forestière. Le cas de la certification FSC examiné au travers de la ," Post-Print halshs-01298087, HAL.
    4. Kathryn Bowler & Pavel Castka & Michaela Balzarova, 2017. "Understanding Firms’ Approaches to Voluntary Certification: Evidence from Multiple Case Studies in FSC Certification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(2), pages 441-456, October.
    5. Olga Malets, 2017. "Recursivity by Organizational Design: The Case of the Forest Stewardship Council," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(3), pages 343-352, September.
    6. Nathan, Iben & Chen, Jie & Hansen, Christian Pilegaard & Xu, Bin & Li, Yan, 2018. "Facing the complexities of the global timber trade regime: How do Chinese wood enterprises respond to international legality verification requirements, and what are the implications for regime effecti," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 169-180.
    7. So, Hau Wing & Lafortezza, Raffaele, 2022. "Reviewing the impacts of eco-labelling of forest products on different dimensions of sustainability in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    8. Bayer, Patrick & Marcoux, Christopher & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2013. "Leveraging private capital for climate mitigation: Evidence from the Clean Development Mechanism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 14-24.
    9. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.
    10. Carlsen, Kirsten & Hansen, Christian Pilegaard & Lund, Jens Friis, 2012. "Factors affecting certification uptake — Perspectives from the timber industry in Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 83-92.
    11. Kadam, Parag & Dwivedi, Puneet & Karnatz, Caroline, 2021. "Mapping convergence of sustainable forest management systems: Comparing three protocols and two certification schemes for ascertaining the trends in global forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    12. Janina Grabs & Graeme Auld & Benjamin Cashore, 2021. "Private regulation, public policy, and the perils of adverse ontological selection," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1183-1208, October.
    13. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Greetje Schouten, 2018. "Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 333-356, June.
    14. FabianG. Neuner, 2020. "Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of Global Private EnvironmentalGovernance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 60-81, February.
    15. Fischer, Carolyn & Sedjo, Roger & Jawahar, Puja & Aguilar , Francisco, 2005. "Forest Certification: Toward Common Standards?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-10, Resources for the Future.
    16. Galati, Antonino & Gianguzzi, Giuseppe & Tinervia, Salvatore & Crescimanno, Maria & La Mela Veca, Donato Salvatore, 2017. "Motivations, adoption and impact of voluntary environmental certification in the Italian Forest based industry: The case of the FSC standard," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 169-176.
    17. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Sumaila, Ussif Rashid, 2016. "Estimating demand for certification of forest ecosystem services: A choice experiment with Forest Stewardship Council certificate holders," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 193-201.
    18. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Krishna, Vijesh V. & Pascual, Unai, 2005. "Biodiscovery And Intellectual Property Rights: A Dynamic Approach To Economic Efficiency," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Discussion Papers 31928, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy.
    19. Charline Depoorter & Axel Marx, 2022. "Seeing the trees for the forest: Adoption dynamics of the Forest Stewardship Council," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1788-1806, December.
    20. Juerges, Nataly & Newig, Jens, 2015. "How interest groups adapt to the changing forest governance landscape in the EU: A case study from Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 228-235.

    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:97:y:2018:i:c:p:51-58. 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.