scholarly journals Family forest owners’ motivations in forest management activities: a case study in Recoaro Terme municipality (north-east Italy)

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Canton ◽  
D Pettenella
Keyword(s):  
Forest Management ◽  
Family Forest Owners ◽  
Forest Owners ◽  
Family Forest ◽  
North East

scholarly journals Social and Cultural Influences on Management for Carbon Sequestration on US Family Forestlands: A Literature Synthesis

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Paige Fischer ◽  
Susan Charnley
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Carbon Sequestration ◽  
Forest Management ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Cultural Influences ◽  
Ecological Knowledge ◽  
Family Forest Owners ◽  
Forest Owners ◽  
Family Forest

Nonindustrial private—or “family”—forests hold great potential for sequestering carbon and have received much attention in discussions about forestry-based climate change mitigation. However, little is known about social and cultural influences on owners' willingness to manage for carbon and respond to policies designed to encourage carbon-oriented management. We review the published literature to examine how family forest owners' values, ecological knowledge, risk perceptions, and forest management and policy preferences may affect their interest in managing for carbon sequestration. We find that although family forest owners may not be particularly motivated to mitigate climate change, their forest management values and practices compliment many carbon-oriented management strategies. However, the strong value owners place on privacy and autonomy, and the weak importance many place on financial reward, may inhibit participation in policies and programs that incentivize carbon-oriented management. These findings also have implications for policy efforts to encourage management for other ecological values besides carbon sequestration on family forestlands.

scholarly journals Forest Farming: Who Wants In?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie E Trozzo ◽  
John F Munsell ◽  
James L Chamberlain ◽  
Michael A Gold ◽  
Kim L Niewolny
Keyword(s):  
Forest Management ◽  
Forest Canopy ◽  
Critical Mass ◽  
Forest Products ◽  
Family Forest Owners ◽  
Nontimber Forest Products ◽  
Forest Owners ◽  
Forest Farming ◽  
Family Forest ◽  
Study Results

Abstract Forest farming is an agroforestry practice defined as the intentional cultivation of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) underneath a forest canopy. Forest farming perspectives and preferences among family forest owners are generally understudied, particularly in Appalachia, where many marketable native NTFPs species are found. We surveyed Appalachian family forest owners in fourteen Southwest Virginia counties about their interest in forest farming and likelihood of leasing land for this purpose. We also asked about the owner’s residency and historical connection to the region as well as contemporary land uses, and identified the following types of uses: absentee and vacationers, newcomers, longtime farming residents, and longtime nonfarming residents. We mailed 1,040 surveys and 293 were returned (28.9%). Forty-five percent were interested or extremely interested in forest farming and 36% were likely or extremely likely to lease land. Rates of interest in forest farming and leasing were similar across owner types, suggesting broad appeal among family forest owners. Study Implications Forest farming of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) and leasing forestland for this practice is broadly appealing across diverse family forest owners in Appalachia. Opportunities to scale profitable forest farming are on the rise, potentially improving family forest management and spurring regional economic development. Study results indicate there is a critical mass of family forest owners interested in forest farming who could potentially supply cultivated NTFPs. Forest management professionals and stakeholders would benefit from considering how they can assist family forest owners who are interested in forest farming.

scholarly journals U.S. Family Forest Owners' Forest Management for Climate Adaptation: Perspectives From Extension and Outreach Specialists

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolena vonHedemann ◽  
Courtney A. Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Forest Management ◽  
Climate Adaptation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Active Management ◽  
Family Forest Owners ◽  
Forest Owners ◽  
Family Forest ◽  
The Us

In the United States (US), family forest owners, a group that includes individuals, families, trusts, and estates, are the largest single landowner category, owning approximately one-third of the nation's forests. These landowners' individualized decision-making on forest management has a profound impact on US forest cover and function at both local and regional scales. We sought to understand perceptions among family forest specialists of: climate impacts and adaptation options across different forested US regions; how family forest owners are taking climate adaptation into consideration in their forest management, if at all; and major barriers to more active management for adaptation among family forest owners. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 48 forest experts across the US who work with family forest owners, including extension specialists, state forestry agency employees, and consulting foresters who focus on family forest engagement. Our interviewees shared details on how both climate change impacts and forest management for climate adaptation vary across the US, and they perceived a lack of active forest management by family forest owners. They explained that western forest landowners confronting the imminent threat of catastrophic wildfires are more likely to see a need for active forest management. By contrast, in the east, where most forestland is privately owned, interviewees said that landowners see relatively fewer climate impacts on their forests and less need for forest management to respond to climate change. Perceived barriers to more active family forest management for climate adaptation include the lack of more robust markets for a wide range of forest products, a higher capacity forestry workforce, education and assistance in planning forest management, and addressing the issue of increased parcelization of family forest lands. We situate these perceptions in conversations on the role of boundary organizations in climate adaptation, how individual adaptation occurs, and how governing methods frame adaptation possibilities.

scholarly journals Risk Attitudes and Conservation Decisions: A Case Study of Family Forest Owners in Georgia

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-210
Author(s):  
Moon Jeong Kang ◽  
Jacek P Siry ◽  
Gregory Colson ◽  
Susana Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Risk Attitudes ◽  
Family Forest Owners ◽  
Forest Owners ◽  
Family Forest ◽  
Conservation Decisions

scholarly journals Trends Among Family Forest Owners in Alabama, 1994–2004

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 117-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Pan ◽  
Yaoqi Zhang ◽  
Brett J. Butler
Keyword(s):  
Forest Management ◽  
Management Plan ◽  
Timber Production ◽  
Family Forest Owners ◽  
Forest Owners ◽  
Family Forest ◽  
The Family ◽  
Intermediate Size ◽  
Management Advice

Abstract There are an estimated 432,000 family forest owners in Alabama and they control 67% of the State's forestland. About two-thirds owned less than 10 ac. and about 88% of the family forest owners have holdings of less than 50 ac; collectively, this group of owners with 1–49 ac of forestland own 15% of Alabama's family forestland. The corollary to this finding is that a majority (85%) of the state's family forestland is owned by the minority (12%) of owners who own 50 ac or more. Between 1994 and 2004, the amount of forestland owned by family forest owners with small (less than 10 ac) and large (more than 500 ac) forest holdings increased, while the total area of forestland owned by people with intermediate-size holdings, in general, decreased. Compared with 10 years ago, the number of family forest owners 45–54 years old is higher but they tend to own smaller parcels of forestland. During the same period, the number of owners 65 years or older decreased, but, on average, the size of their holdings increased. Recreation and investments have become more important objectives of ownership, whereas timber production as a primary ownership objective decreases. The probability of an owner having harvested trees, having a management plan, or having sought forest management advice increased as the size of the forest holding increased.

scholarly journals Thinning Alternatives for Ponderosa Pine: Tools and Strategies for Family Forest Owners

2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 216-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul T. Oester ◽  
William H. Emmingham ◽  
Pat Larson
Keyword(s):  
Ponderosa Pine ◽  
Volume Growth ◽  
Diameter Growth ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Family Forest Owners ◽  
Forest Owners ◽  
Family Forest ◽  
Periodic Growth ◽  
And Control

Abstract Density management of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests is critical for control of beetles, reducing risk of wildfire and capturing monetary, aesthetic, and ecological values. This case study examined periodic growth response of ponderosa pine 5 and 13 years after installation of a trial including three thinning regimes and an unthinned option in the Wallowa Mountains of northeast Oregon. Family forest owners and their advisors whose management goals include reducing fire and beetle risk and producing timber value can use the results of this case study with the stand density index (SDI) to evaluate thinning options. We analyzed mean tree diameter growth and periodic board foot volume growth of 8-in. diameter and larger trees for the four treatments applied to 85–100-year-old stands. Our treatments were used as a local test for SDI management guidelines and forest vegetation simulator (FVS). As expected, significant increases (α=0.05) were found after 13 years in mean diameter growth of trees and periodic board foot volume growth per tree in the wide and free treatments compared to narrow and control. Thinning to 80 ft2 of basal area or the lower management zone SDI in previously unmanaged, 85-year-old ponderosa pine stands provided for faster tree growth, lower risk of mortality from mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), and no appreciable sacrifice in value of stand growth. Total wood fiber production was better for narrow and control, but with greatly increased fire and beetle risk. This work substantiates research results that thinning to carefully prescribed stocking levels can increase volume growth per tree (even free selection) and maintain reasonable stand value growth even though cubic volume growth is diminished. The resulting changes in stand structure and reduced beetle and fire threats improve the odds that family forestland will generate their full potential of monetary and ecological benefits. West. J. Appl. For. 20(4):216–223.

scholarly journals Family forest owners’ opinions about forest management in northern Finland

Silva Fennica ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ville Hallikainen ◽  
Mikko Hyppönen ◽  
Leena Pernu ◽  
Jouni Puoskari
Keyword(s):  
Forest Management ◽  
Family Forest Owners ◽  
Forest Owners ◽  
Family Forest

scholarly journals Preferences for Northern Hardwood Silviculture among Family Forest Owners in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander C Helman ◽  
Matthew C Kelly ◽  
Mark D Rouleau ◽  
Yvette L Dickinson
Keyword(s):  
Species Diversity ◽  
Hardwood Forests ◽  
Family Forest Owners ◽  
Forest Owners ◽  
Upper Peninsula ◽  
Northern Hardwood Forests ◽  
Family Forest ◽  
Northern Hardwood ◽  
Single Tree ◽  
Single Tree Selection

Abstract Managing northern hardwood forests using high-frequency, low-intensity regimes, such as single-tree selection, favors shade-tolerant species and can reduce tree species diversity. Management decisions among family forest owners (FFO) can collectively affect species and structural diversity within northern hardwood forests at regional scales. We surveyed FFOs in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan to understand likely future use of three silvicultural treatments—single-tree selection, shelterwood, and clearcut. Our results indicate that FFOs were most likely to implement single-tree selection and least likely to implement clearcut within the next 10 years. According to logistic regression, prior use of a treatment and perceived financial benefits significantly increased the odds for likely use for all three treatments. Having received professional forestry assistance increased likely use of single-tree selection but decreased likely use of shelterwood. We discuss these results within the context of species diversity among northern hardwood forests throughout the region.

Family Forest Owners' Perceptions on Chemical Methods for Invasive Species Control

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew B. Howle ◽  
Thomas J. Straka ◽  
Mathew C. Nespeca
Keyword(s):  
Unexpected Result ◽  
Family Forest Owners ◽  
Forest Owners ◽  
Cost Share ◽  
Chinese Privet ◽  
Family Forest ◽  
Natural Systems ◽  
Invasive Species Control ◽  
Multiple Treatments ◽  
Herbicide Use

AbstractFocus group methodology in a field demonstration setting was used to obtain qualitative data on the perceptions of family forest owners relating to treatment efficiency and feasibility of herbicide control methods. Interviews took place on sites where various strategic herbicide treatments were implemented for Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) control using the active ingredients glyphosate and metsulfuron. Forest owners expressed unease about the possibility for post-treatment privet reestablishment due to reseeding or other factors and opinions surfaced calling for selective chemicals or application methods that would spare non-target species. Furthermore, treatment cost effectiveness with regard to timber value, the possible need for expensive multiple treatments, cost-share incentives, and treatment guarantees from herbicide applicators were participant concerns. Environmental concerns surfaced about possible effects of both herbicide use and the invasion of privet on natural systems and an unexpected result was a strong feeling among the forest owners that focus groups are a powerful demonstration tool.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document