Author
Listed:
- Courtney B Deviney
- Rajan Parajuli
- Frederick W Cubbage
- Erin O Sills
- Robert E Bardon
Abstract
Financial incentive programs, commonly administered by public institutions, have long supported sustainable land management practices in the United States, including soil conservation, water quality improvement, and biodiversity preservation. Recently, these initiatives have expanded under the concept of nature-based solutions (NBS), which emphasize land-based practices that deliver co-benefits for people and ecosystems. However, the effectiveness of such programs often depends on how well they align with landowners’ diverse values, preferences, and motivations. This study examines factors influencing forest and farm landowners’ likelihood of enrolling in traditional and NBS-oriented incentive programs. We surveyed 2,000 forest and farm landowners across four regions in North Carolina to assess how ownership motivations, land use intentions, and personal values influence program participation preferences and compensation expectations. The full information maximum likelihood regression results reveal significant differences between forest and farm landowners in their motivations, future land management plans, and financial expectations. Landowners who reside on their land or have never applied to any cost-share programs before are generally less inclined to participate in either program type. These findings highlight the importance of designing targeted outreach strategies and tailoring program structures to better reflect the values and needs of different landowner groups, thereby improving landowners’ participation and enhancing the long-term effectiveness of land-based conservation and sustainability initiatives.
Suggested Citation
Courtney B Deviney & Rajan Parajuli & Frederick W Cubbage & Erin O Sills & Robert E Bardon, 2026.
"Understanding landowner preferences for traditional and nature-based solutions incentive programs in North Carolina, USA,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(4), pages 1-16, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0347042
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0347042
Download full text from publisher
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:plo:pone00:0347042. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.