Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Post-Faustmann Forest Resource Economics Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2013 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

5. Forest Management and Landowners’ Discount Rates in the Southern United States

verfasst von : Stibniati S. Atmadja, Erin O. Sills

Erschienen in: Post-Faustmann Forest Resource Economics

Verlag: Springer Netherlands

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In theory, decisions with long-term pay-offs, such as whether to invest in forest management, are influenced by time preferences. However, this relationship is difficult to test empirically and time preferences are often assumed constant across individuals. We examine the relationship between forest management behavior and personal discount rates by modeling forest management choices as a function of individual discount rates elicited through binary choice questions. We focus on “limited resource woodland owners” in the Southern United States, including landowners who are traditionally underserved by public institutions (i.e., minorities and women) and who face financial, social and natural resource constraints that limit their forest management options. We found that the probability of harvesting timber is positively related with personal discount rates, as predicted by theory. However, discount rates are not significantly related to stand improvements or contact with a professional forester, suggesting that lack of investment in forest management is not a result of landowner impatience. Rather, these behaviors are driven by characteristics such as size of property, proximity of residence to woodlands, and tenureship characteristics including whether the woodlands are inherited.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Modeling Forest Sector Structural Evolution with the Experience-Weighted-Attraction-Learning (EWA-Lite) Algorithm
Nächstes Kapitel Impatience, Inconsistency, and Institutions to Counter Their Effects on Sustainable Forest Management
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
We refer to this group as “woodland” owners rather than “forestland” owners, because they generally recognize and refer to their properties as having “woods” rather than “forest”, which can have connotations of industrial timber management.
 
2
The model can be expanded to consider bequest factors, which in turn would be influenced by tenure status (e.g., with uncertainty about future benefits introduced by heir property status).
 
3
The complete first order conditions are displayed in Appendix A.1.
 
4
The survey instrument was pretested and reviewed by woodland owners, forestry faculty at NCSU, and forestry extension agents to ensure that the questions were easy to understand yet presented forestry concepts accurately. Information about the survey was published in local newsletters a month before the survey took place. Landowners selected for the survey were sent postcards to inform them they were being requested to participate. This mailing was followed by a survey packet that included a cover letter, survey booklet, request for survey results, pre-addressed postage paid envelope, and small gifts (e.g. a refrigerator magnet with the study logo, $1 bill, mini cd-rom with forestry information). A month afterwards, landowners who had not replied were sent follow-up postcard reminders.
 
5
More details on the study are available from www.​ncsu.​edu/​woodland.
 
6
There were several ways that landowners with more than 100 acres could have been included in our sampling frame. Most often, this happened because they own land outside the seven study counties. In some cases, they owned land under different names (e.g., as heir property) that were not linked in our sampling frame.
 
7
The discount rate is assumed to follow a log-normal distribution for two reasons: (1) estimates from this distribution were within observed discount rate ranges for 70 % of the respondents, which is a higher proportion compared to results based on normal or Weibull (extreme value) distributions; and (2) the log-normal distribution limits the estimates to be non-negative, which is supported by the time preference literature (e.g. Olson and Bailey 1981).
 
8
Environmental preferences are potentially correlated with time preferences and a determinant of forest management behavior, and therefore could potentially also introduce multi-collinearity into models of forest management as a function of time preferences. This is confirmed by a positive and statistically significant (P-value: 0.025) correlation between the estimated discount rate and respondents who put high importance on protecting nature. However, this variable does not have a statistically significant impact on any of the behaviors in multivariate models.
 
Literatur
Agee M, Crocker T (1996) Parents’ discount rates for child quality. South Econ J 63(1):36–50CrossRef
Alig RJ, Lee KJ, Moulton RJ (1990) Likelihood of timber management on nonindustrial private forests: evidence from research studies, p 17
Atmadja SS (2008). Discount Rate Estimation and the Role of Time Preference in Rural Household Behavior: Disease Prevention in India and Forest Management in the US. PhD Dissertation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Amacher GS, Koskela E, Ollikainen M, Conway MC (2002b) Bequest intentions of forest landowners: theory and empirical evidence. Am J Agric Econ 84(4):1103–1114CrossRef
Barton DN, Mourato S (2003) Transferring the benefits of avoided health effects from water pollution between Portugal and Costa Rica. Environ Dev Econ 8:351–371CrossRef
Becker GS, Mulligan CB (1997) The endogenous determination of time preference. Quart J Econ 112(3):729–758CrossRef
Binswanger HP, Sillers DA (1983) Risk aversion and credit constraints in farmers’ decision-Making: a reinterpretation. J Dev Stud 20(1):5–21CrossRef
Bliss JC, Grassl MJ (1987) Predicting timber harvests on private forests in southwest Wisconsin. Northern J Appl Forestry 4(3):152–154
Bliss JC, Martin AJ (1988) Identity and private forest management. Soc Nat Res 1(4):365–376CrossRef
Bliss JC, Sisock ML, Birch TW (1998) Ownership matters: forestland concentration in rural Alabama. Soc Nat Res 11(4):401–410CrossRef
Bolkesjø TF, Solberg B (2003) A panel data analysis of nonindustrial private roundwood supply with emphasis on the price elasticity. For Sci 49(4):530–538
Bullard SH, Gunter JE, Doolittle ML, Arano KG (2002) Discount rates for nonindustrial private forest landowners in Mississippi: how high a hurdle? South J Appl Forestry 26(1):26–32
Butler BJ (2008) Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. U.S. Department of agriculture, forest service, northern research station, Newtown Square, p 72
Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J Forest 102(7):4–14
Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manage 15:355–379CrossRef
Cleaves DA, Bennett M (1995) Timber harvesting by nonindustrial private forest landowners in western Oregon. Western J Appl Forestry 10(2):66–71
Conway MC, Amacher GS, Sullivan J, Wear D (2003) Decisions nonindustrial forest landowners make: an empirical examination. J For Econ 9(5):181–203
Cubbage FW (1982) Economies of forest tract size in southern pine harvesting. Research Paper SO-184. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. New Orleans, LA, p 27
Cubbage FW, Harris TG (1986) Tract size and forest management practices: Issues, literature, and implications. Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report No. 551, p 29
De Coster L (1998) The boom in forest owners—a bust for forestry? J Forest 96(5):25–28
Deaton BJ, Baxter J, Bratt CS (2009) Examining the consequences and character of “heir property”. Ecol Econ 68(8–9):2344–2353CrossRef
Ernst CT Jr, Marsinko A (1983) Participation in the forestry incentives program in berkeley and orangeburg counties in South Carolina. Forest Research Series No.38. Department of Forestry, Clemson University, ii + p 30
Faustmann M (1849) Berechnung des Wertes welchen Waldboden, sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestäande für die Waldwirtschaft besitzen. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagd-Zeitung 25:441–455
Gan JB, Kebede E (2005) Multivariate probit modeling of decisions on timber harvesting and request for assistance by African-American forestland owners. South J Appl Forestry 29(3):135–142
Harrison GW, Lau MI, Williams MB (2002) Estimating individual discount rates in Denmark: a field experiment. Am Econ Rev 92(5):1606–1617CrossRef
Hartman R (1976) The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Econ Inq 14(1):52–58CrossRef
Hensyl CH (2005) Impacts of land and ownership characteristics on the stumpage prices for Virginia’s nonindustrial forests. MS Thesis. Department of Forestry, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, p 115
Hickman CA (1984) Socio-economic characteristics of prospective nonindustrial private timber sellers in East Texas. Research Note SO-308. USDA forest service, southern forest experiment station, p 4
Hubbard WG, Abt RC (1989) The effect of timber sale assistance on returns to landowners. Res Manage Optim 6(3):225–234
Kant S (1999). Endogenous rate of time preference, traditional communities, and sustainable forest management. J Soc Econ Dev 2(1):65–87
Kirby KN, Marakovic NN (1995) Modeling myopic decisions: evidence for hyperbolic delay-discounting within subjects and amounts. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 64(1):22–30CrossRef
Kirby KN, Petry NM (2004) Heroin and cocaine abusers have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than alcoholics or non-drug-using controls. Addiction 99(4):461–471CrossRef
Kline JD, Alig RJ, Johnson RL (2000) Fostering the production of nontimber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. For Sci 46(2):302–311
Kronrad GD, De Steiguer JE (1983) Relationships between discount rates and investment lengths among nonindustrial private landowners. Research Notes Series No.19. Small Woodlot R&D Program, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, p 19
Kuuluvainen J, Tahvonen O (1999) Testing the forest rotation model: evidence from panel data. For Sci 45(4):539–551
Lawrance EC (1991) Poverty and the rate of time preference: evidence from panel data. J Political Economy 99(1):54–77CrossRef
Londo AJ, Grebner DL (2004) Economies of scale and forest management in Mississippi. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–71. U.S. department of agriculture, forest service, southern research station. Asheville, p 91
Loewenstein G, Prelec D (1992) Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and an interpretation. Quart J Econ 107(2):573–597CrossRef
Mance K, Warren S, Sills EO (2004) Outreach to limited resource forest landowners: extension innovation for low literacy audiences. In: Proceedings of human dimensions of family, farm, and community forestry international symposium, 29 Mar–1 April, 2004, Washington State University. D. M. Baumgartner. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Extension
Measells MK, Grado SC, Hughes HG, Dunn MA, Idassi J, Zielinske B (2005) NIPF landowner charateristics and use of forestry services in four southern states: results from a 2002–2003 mail survey. South J Appl Forestry 29(4):194–199
Melfi FM, Straka TJ, Marsinko AP, Baumann JL (1997) Landowner attitudes toward South Carolina’s forest stewardship program. South J Appl Forestry 21(4):158–163
Mitchell TW (2001) From reconstruction to deconstruction: undermining black landownership, political independence, and community through partition sales of tenancies in common. Northwest Univ Law Rev 95(2):505–580
Moseley WG (2001) African evidence on the relation of poverty, time preference and the environment. Ecol Econ 38(3):317–326CrossRef
Munn IA, Rucker RR (1994) The value of information services in a market for factors of production with multiple attributes: The role of consultants in private timber sales. For Sci 40(3):474–496
Nagubadi V, McNamara KT, Hoover WL, Mills WLJ (1996) Program participation behavior of nonindustrial forest landowners: a probit analysis. J Agric Appl Econ 28(2):323–336
Newman DH, Wear DN (1993) Production economics of private forestry: a comparison of industrial and nonindustrial forest owners. Am J Agric Econ 75(3):674–684CrossRef
Olson M, Bailey MJ (1981) Positive time preference. J Political Economy 89(1):1–25CrossRef
Pender JL (1996). Discount rates and credit markets: Theory and evidence from rural India. Journal of Dev Econ 50(2): 257–296
Poulos C, Whittington D (2000) Time preferences for life-saving programs: Evidence from six less developed countries. Environ Sci Technol 34:1445–1455CrossRef
Prestemon JP, Wear DN (2000) Linking harvest choices to timber supply. For Sci 46(3):377–389
Rogers AR (1994) Evolution of time preference by natural selection. Am Econ Rev 84(3):460–481
Straka TJ, Wisdom HW, Moak JE (1984) Size of forest holding and investment behaviour of nonindustrial private owners. J Forest 82(8):495–496
Thompson RP, Jones JG (1981) Classifying nonindustrial private forestland by tract size. J Forest 79(5):288–291
Trostel PA, Taylor GA (2001) A theory of time preference. Econ Inq 39(3):379–395CrossRef
USDA Forest Service (2000) USDA Forest service interim strategic public outreach plan. FS-665. USDA forest service, p 64
Vokoun M, Amacher GS, Wear DN (2006) Scale of harvesting by non-industrial private forest landowners. J For Econ 11(4):223–244
Vuchinich RE, Simpson CA (1998) Hyperbolic temporal discounting in social drinkers and problem drinkers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacology 6(3):292–305CrossRef
Webster HH, Stoltenberg CH (1959) What ownership characteristics are useful in predicting response to forestry programs. Land Econ 35(3):292–295CrossRef
Zhang D (1996) Assistance foresters in nonindustrial private forest management: Alabama landowners perspectives. Highlights Agric Res 43(4):10–12
Zhang DW, Mehmood SR (2001) Predicting nonindustrial private forest landowners’ choices of a forester for harvesting and tree planting assistance in Alabama. Southern J Appl Forestry 25(3):101–107
Metadaten
Titel
Forest Management and Landowners’ Discount Rates in the Southern United States
verfasst von
Stibniati S. Atmadja
Erin O. Sills
Copyright-Jahr
2013
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Buch
Post-Faustmann Forest Resource Economics

Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5777-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-007-5778-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2013

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5778-3_5