[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v12y2010i8p581-588.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors influencing nonindustrial private forest landowners' policy preference for promoting bioenergy

Author

Listed:
  • G.C., Shivan
  • Mehmood, Sayeed R.
Abstract
Woody biomass has gained considerable attention in the U.S. as a feedstock for producing renewable bioenergy. Though these resources are generally not cost competitive with fossil fuels under current technology and market conditions, they are likely to generate numerous socioeconomic and environmental benefits to the entire nation. Since the positive externalities associated with wood-based bioenergy production are not fully accounted for in the market place, policy incentives could play an important role in its promotion in the future. Nonindustrial private forests (NIPFs) of the southern United States, representing a large percentage of timberlands in the nation, are often viewed as potential sources of woody biomass for future bioenergy production. It is therefore critical to understand landowners' policy preferences for promoting wood-based bioenergy. This study examines policy alternatives preferred by landowners for promoting wood-based bioenergy and utilizes binary logit models to identify the factors influencing these policy preferences. The results indicate that landowners in general prefer tax based policies over direct subsidy support. A significant relationship was observed between landowners' decision to support or not to support different policy instruments and their income, age, distance of residence from the forest, size of the forest owned, size of trees in the forests, forest management objectives, and previous experience of using government cost-share programs.

Suggested Citation

  • G.C., Shivan & Mehmood, Sayeed R., 2010. "Factors influencing nonindustrial private forest landowners' policy preference for promoting bioenergy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 581-588, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:12:y:2010:i:8:p:581-588
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(10)00104-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application Of Tobit Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Beach, Robert H. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Yang, Jui-Chen & Murray, Brian C. & Abt, Robert C., 2005. "Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 261-281, March.
    3. Janota, Jessica J. & Broussard, Shorna R., 2008. "Examining private forest policy preferences," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 89-97, January.
    4. Sun, Xing & Sun, Changyou & Munn, Ian A. & Hussain, Anwar, 2009. "Knowledge of three regeneration programs and application behavior among Mississippi nonindustrial private forest landowners: A two-step sample selection approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 187-204, August.
    5. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application of Tobit Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 79-90, July.
    6. Nagubadi, Venkatarao & McNamara, Kevin T. & Hoover, William L. & Mills, Walter L., 1996. "Program Participation Behavior of Nonindustrial Forest Landowners: A Probit Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 323-336, December.
    7. Conway, M.Christine & Amacher, Gregory S. & Sullivan, Jay & Wear, David, 2003. "Decisions nonindustrial forest landowners make: an empirical examination," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 181-203.
    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. Upadhaya, Suraj & Dwivedi, Puneet, 2019. "The role and potential of blueberry in increasing deforestation in southern Georgia, United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 39-48.
    2. Rode, Rafael & Leite, Helio Garcia & Silva, Márcio Lopes da & Ribeiro, Carlos Antonio Álvares Soares & Binoti, Daniel Henrique Breda, 2014. "The economics and optimal management regimes of eucalyptus plantations: A case study of forestry outgrower schemes in Brazil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 26-33.
    3. Wolde, Bernabas & Lal, Pankaj & Burli, Pralhad, 2017. "Forestland owners’ willingness to consider multiple ways of supplying biomass simultaneously: Implications for biofuel incentive policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 183-190.
    4. Joshi, Omkar & Grebner, Donald L. & Hussain, Anwar & Grado, Stephen C., 2013. "Landowner knowledge and willingness to supply woody biomass for wood-based bioenergy: Sample selection approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 97-109.
    5. Sena, Kenton & Ochuodho, Thomas O. & Agyeman, Domena A. & Contreras, Marco & Niman, Chad & Eaton, Dan & Yang, Jian, 2022. "Wood bioenergy for rural energy resilience: Suitable site selection and potential economic impacts in Appalachian Kentucky," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    6. Gruchy, Steven R. & Grebner, Donald L. & Munn, Ian A. & Joshi, Omkar & Hussain, Anwar, 2012. "An assessment of nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to harvest woody biomass in support of bioenergy production in Mississippi: A contingent rating approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 140-145.
    7. Qu, Mei & Lin, Ying & Liu, Can & Yao, Shunbo & Cao, Yang, 2016. "Farmers׳ perceptions of developing forest based bioenergy in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 581-589.
    8. Degnet, Mohammed B. & Hansson, Helena & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke A. & Roos, Anders, 2022. "The role of personal values and personality traits in environmental concern of non-industrial private forest owners in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    9. Choudhury, Hari K. & Goswami, Kishor, 2013. "Determinants of expansion of area under jatropha plantation in North East India: A Tobit analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 46-52.
    10. Zhai, Jun & Kuusela, Olli-Pekka, 2022. "Incidence of domestic subsidies vs. export taxes: An equilibrium displacement model of log and lumber markets in Oregon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Halder, Pradipta & Paladinić, Elvis & Stevanov, Mirjana & Orlović, Sasa & Hokkanen, Timo J. & Pelkonen, Paavo, 2014. "Energy wood production from private forests – nonindustrial private forest owners׳ perceptions and attitudes in Croatia and Serbia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 515-526.
    12. Lal, Pankaj & Wolde, Bernabas & Alavalapati, Janaki & Burli, Pralhad & Munsell, John, 2016. "Forestland owners' willingness to plant pine on non-forested land for woody bioenergy in Virginia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 52-57.

    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. Snyder, Stephanie A. & Ma, Zhao & Floress, Kristin & Clarke, Mysha, 2020. "Relationships between absenteeism, conservation group membership, and land management among family forest owners," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. Nana Tian & Neelam Poudyal & Fadian Lu, 2021. "Assessments of Landowners’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Participating in Forest Certification in Shandong, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Creamer, Selmin F. & Blatner, Keith A. & Butler, Brett J., 2012. "Certification of family forests: What influences owners’ awareness and participation?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 131-144.
    4. 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.
    5. Tran, Yenie L. & Siry, Jacek P. & Izlar, Robert L. & Harris, Thomas G., 2020. "Motivations, business structures, and management intentions of large family forest landowners: A case study in the U.S. South," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    6. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    7. Wang, H. Holly & Young, Douglas L. & Camara, Oumou M., 2000. "The Role Of Environmental Education In Predicting Adoption Of Wind Erosion Control Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Lynne, Gary D. & Franklin Casey, C. & Hodges, Alan & Rahmani, Mohammed, 1995. "Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 581-598, December.
    9. Baidu-Forson, J., 1999. "Factors influencing adoption of land-enhancing technology in the Sahel: lessons from a case study in Niger," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 231-239, May.
    10. Skaggs, Rhonda K., 2000. "Drip Irrigation In The Desert: Adoption, Implications, And Obstacles," 2000 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia 36412, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Lawrence, Anna & Deuffic, Philippe & Hujala, Teppo & Nichiforel, Liviu & Feliciano, Diana & Jodlowski, Krzysztof & Lind, Torgny & Marchal, Didier & Talkkari, Ari & Teder, Meelis & Vilkriste, Lelde & W, 2020. "Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Van Wyngaarden, Sarah & Anders, Sven M., 2021. "Canadian Farmer Policy and Agency Preferences in Agri-Environmental Best Management Practice Adoption," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313851, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Bekelc Shiferaw & Stein T. Holden, 1998. "Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 18(3), pages 233-247, May.
    15. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Strange, Niels, 2018. "Landowner participation in forest conservation programs: A revealed approach using register, spatial and contract data," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-12.
    16. Nkamleu, Guy Blaise & Keho, Yaya & Gockowski, James & David, Soniia, 2007. "Investing in agrochemicals in the cocoa sector of Côte d’Ivoire: Hypotheses, evidence and policy implications," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 1-22, September.
    17. Nkamleu, G. B. & Adesina, A. A., 2000. "Determinants of chemical input use in peri-urban lowland systems: bivariate probit analysis in Cameroon," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 111-121, February.
    18. Jaina, Avinash & Chandrab, Girish & Nautiyalb, Raman, 2017. "Valuating intangible benefits from afforested areas: A case study in India," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(01), June.
    19. Genereuse, Umuhoza, 2012. "Analysis of Factors Influencing Women Participation in Coffee Value Chain in Huye District, Rwanda," Research Theses 243451, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    20. Boris Bravo & Horacio Cocchi & Daniel Solís, 2006. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies in El Salvador: A cross-Section and Over-Time Analysis," OVE Working Papers 1806, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).

    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:12:y:2010:i:8:p:581-588. 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.