IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v72y1996i2p248-260.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Program Enrollment and Acreage Response to Reforestation Cost-Sharing Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Ian W. Hardie
  • Peter J. Parks

Abstract

Five alternative sets of predictions are presented of the total acreage of southern pine that would have been planted after clear-cut harvest if existing government Forest Improvement Programs had made different levels of cost-sharing available to nonindustrial private forest owners. The predictions illustrate the importance of separating and accounting for both the number of tracts enrolled and for the size of enrolled tracts. Predictions are obtained from a profit maximization model that represents the owner's decision as a simultaneous choice of reforestation practice and size of tract to harvest and reforest.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian W. Hardie & Peter J. Parks, 1996. "Program Enrollment and Acreage Response to Reforestation Cost-Sharing Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 248-260.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:2:p:248-260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146969
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Watson, Adam C. & Sullivan, Jay & Amacher, Gregory S. & Asaro, Christopher, 2013. "Cost sharing for pre-commercial thinning in southern pine plantations: Willingness to participate in Virginia's pine bark beetle prevention program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 65-72.
    2. 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.
    3. Joshi, Sudiksha & Arano, Kathryn G., 2009. "Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 132-139, March.
    4. Sun, Changyou, 2007. "Variation of federal cost-share programs in the United States and the inducement effects on tree planting," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 279-296, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Marey-Pérez, M.F. & Rodríguez-Vicente, V., 2011. "Factors determining forest management by farmers in northwest Spain: Application of discriminant analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 318-327, June.
    7. repec:eee:foreco:v:29:y:2017:i:pa:p:14-24 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Thomas, H. Stevens & White, Sarah & Kittredge, David B. & Dennis, Donald, 2002. "Factors affecting NIPF landowner participation in management programs: a Massachusetts case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 169-184.
    9. Langpap, Christian, 2003. "Conservation Of Endangered Species: Can Incentives Work For Private Landowners?," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21972, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Jones, Phillip D. & Grado, Stephen C. & Demarais, Stephen, 2010. "Financial analysis of intensive pine plantation establishment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 101-112, April.
    11. C. J. C. Bacha, 2003. "The determinants of reforestation in Brazil," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(6), pages 631-639.
    12. Langpap, Christian, 2006. "Conservation of endangered species: Can incentives work for private landowners?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 558-572, June.

    More about this item

    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:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:2:p:248-260. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.