Time and Distance: Comparing Motivations Among Forest Landowners in New England, USA
Tóm tắt
Parcelization and shifting landownership are critical forces reshaping forested ecosystems in the USA and elsewhere. These forces create a mosaic of new and long-time landowners as well as differences in residency. Using survey data (n = 879) of landowners in Massachusetts and Vermont, USA, we begin the process of sorting out time (i.e., length of landownership) and distance (i.e., distance of primary residence from forest holding), and their relationships to motivations for continued landownership and management. Both time and distance, and their interaction were significant in explaining three motivations for landownership: enjoyment, production, and protection as well as the number of neighbors with which respondents were acquainted. Distance is the statistically more important factor—negatively related to all dependent variables, but time and its interaction with distance offer the more useful insights for intervention.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Belin DL, Kittredge DB, Stevens TH, Dennis DF, Schweik CM, Morzuch BJ (2005) Assessing NIPF owner attitudes toward forest management. J For 103(1):28–35
Bergmann S, Bliss JC (2004) Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: Fire management at the public-private interface. Soc Nat Resour 17:377–393. doi:10.1080/08941920490430142
Boon TE, Meilby H, Jellesmark-Thorsen B (2004) An empirically based typology of private forest owners in Denmark: Improving communication between authorities and owners. Scand J For Res 19(4):1–11. doi:10.1080/14004080410034056
Breunig K (2003) Losing Ground. At what cost? Changes in land use and their impact on habitat, biodiversity, and ecosystem services in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Audubon Society. Lincoln, MA. http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/advocacy/losingground/LosingGround_1.pdf
Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J For 102(7):4–9
Egan AF, Luloff AE (2000) The exurbanization of America’s forests: research in rural social science. J For 98(3):26–30
Finley AO, Kittredge DB (2006) Thoreau, Muir, and Jane Doe: different types of private forest owners need different kinds of forest management. N J Appl For 23(1):27–34
Finley AO, Kittredge DB, Stevens TH, Schweik CM, Dennis D (2006) Interest in cross-boundary cooperation: identification of distinct types of private forest owners. For Sci 52(1):10–22
Foster DR, Kittredge DB, Donahue B, Motzkin G, Orwig D, Ellison AM et al (2005) Wildlands and Woodlands: a 100-year vision for the forests of Massachusetts. Harvard Forest paper. Petersham, Massachusetts
Gass RJ, Rickenbach M, Schulte LA, Zeuli K (in press) Cross-boundary coordination on forested landscapes: investigating alternatives for implementation. Environ Manage (NY)
Gobster PH, Rickenbach MG (2004) Private forestland parcelization and development in Wisconsin’s Northwoods: perceptions of resource-oriented stakeholders. Landsc Urban Plan 69:165–182. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.09.005
Grayson AJ (1993) Private forestry policy in Western Europe. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 329 pp
Hatcher T (1994) A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, 588 pp
Jeanrenaud S (2001) Communities and forest management in Western Europe. A regional profile of the Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland. http://www.uicn.org/places/europe/rofe/documents/communities%20_forest.pdf
Karppinen H, Hanninen H (2006) Monitoring finnish family forestry. Chronicle 82(5):657–661
Kendra A, Hull RB (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. For Sci 51(2):142–154
Kittredge DB (2004) Extension/outreach implications for America’s family forest owners. J For 102(7):15–18
Kittredge DB (2005) The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than their individual properties. For Pol Econ 7(2005):671–688
Kittredge DB, Mauri MJ, McGuire EJ (1996) Decreasing woodlot size and the future of timber sales in Massachusetts: when is an operation too small? N J Appl For 13(2):96–101
Medved M (2005) Statistical research of forest management of private family forests in Slovenia. In: Mizaras S (ed) Small-scale forestry in a changing environment. Proceeding of the IUFRO Small-scale Forestry Research Group (3.08.00). 30 May–4 June 2005, Vilnius Lithuania, pp 175–184
USDA Forest Service (2007a) Housing development on America’s private forests in forests on the edge. USDA Forest Service. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/fote/housing.html. Accessed 12 March 2008
USDA Forest Service (2007b) Open space conservation strategy. USDA Forest Service FS-889. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/. Accessed 12 March 2008
Rickenbach MG, Reed AS (2002) Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed context: the sentiments of private forest landowners. Environ Manage (NY) 30:584–594. doi:10.1007/s00267-002-2688-5
Rickenbach M, Zeuli K, Sturgess-Cleek E (2005) Despite failure: the emergence of “new” forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scand J For Res 20:503–513. doi:10.1080/02827580500434806
Schulte LA, Rickenbach M, Merrick LC (2008) Ecological and economic benefits of cross-boundary coordination among private forest landowners. Landsc Ecol 23(4):481–496.
Sisock ML (2008) Private forest owners’ communication networks: exploring the structural basis for cross-boundary cooperation. Dissertation. UW-Madison Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, Madison, WI
Sustaining Family Forest Initiative (2008) Family forest owners: insights into land-related stewardship, values, and intentions. GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media, New York, 69 pp
West PC, Fly JM, Blahna DJ, Carpenter EM (1988) The communication and diffusion of NIPF management strategies. N J Appl For 5:265–270
Wiersum KF, Elands BHM, Hoogstra MA (2005) Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: characteristics and future potential. Small-scale For 4(1):1–19