determinants of enrollment in public incentive programs for · 2016-05-09 · draft 1 1...

Draft

Determinants of enrollment in public incentive programs for

forest management and their effect on future programs for woody bioenergy: evidence from Virginia and Texas

Journal: Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Manuscript ID cjfr-2015-0335.R1

Manuscript Type: Article

Date Submitted by the Author: 04-Jan-2016

Complete List of Authors: Wolde, Bernabas; Montclair State University , Earth and Environmental

Studies Lal, Pankaj; Montclair State University , Earth and Environmental Studies Gan, Jianbang; Texas A&M University , Department of Ecosystem Science and Management Alavalapati, Janaki; Virginia Tech University Taylor, Eric; Texas A&M Forest Service Burli, Pralhad; Montclair State University

Keyword: public incentive program, woody bioenergy, recursive partitioning, policy preference, forestland owners

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Draft

1

Determinants of enrollment in public incentive programs for forest management and their 1

effect on future programs for woody bioenergy: evidence from Virginia and Texas 2

Bernabas Wolde, Pankaj Lal,, Jianbang Gan, Janaki Alavalapati, Eric Taylor, Pralhad Burli 3

Bernabas Wolde, Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, 4

Montclair NJ, 07043, [email protected] 5

Pankaj Lal, Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, 6


Jianbang Gan, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, 8

College Station, TX 77843, [email protected] 9

Janaki Alavalapati, Department of Forest Resources & Environmental Conservation, Virginia 10

Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, [email protected] 11

Eric Taylor, Sustainable Forestry Department, Texas A&M Forest Service, Overton, Texas 12

75684 , [email protected] 13

Pralhad Burli, Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, 14


*Corresponding Author: Bernabas Wolde, +1 7033475582, [email protected] 16

17

18

Page 1 of 30



Draft

2

Abstract 19

Several federal and state sponsored programs including cost sharing arrangements, tax 20

incentives, and technical assistance programs are available to forestland owners, aiming to 21

encourage desired forest management practices and outcomes. However, enrollment rates in such 22

programs are low and trends of forestland parcelization hint at an even smaller enrollment rate in 23

the future. Therefore, it is important to understand how socioeconomic attributes of forestland 24

owners and how past experience with such programs affect the likelihood of enrollment in public 25

incentive programs. Among others, this will help us provide tailored information to forestland 26

owners who are less likely to use these opportunities through Extension and outreach programs. 27

Towards this end, we conducted a survey of 1800 forestland owners in Virginia and Texas. Our 28

recursive partitioning, logistic regression, and Cochran-Armitage trend test results suggest that 29

forestland owners who are less likely to enroll in such programs have relatively smaller 30

forestland acreage, lower level of education, and shorter land ownership tenure. We also find that 31

forestland owners with experience in public incentive programs tend to attach higher importance 32

to potential programs, including those that do not directly benefit them. We also identify 33

threshold values for explanatory variables such as acreage and tenure length. 34

Keywords: public incentive program, woody bioenergy, recursive partitioning, policy preference, 35

forestland owners 36

37

38

39

40

Page 2 of 30



Draft

3

1. Introduction 41

Forests provide positive externalities including lower soil erosion, increased carbon 42

sequestration, water regulation, and aesthetics, for which the private forestland owner is not 43

financially compensated. To account for the public-good nature of these services and the 44

uncompensated positive forest management outcomes, several federal and state sponsored 45

programs provide technical assistance and cost sharing opportunities to forestland owners. Given 46

the implementing agencies’ limited mandate, such incentive programs are one of only a few legal 47

tools in influencing private forestland owners’ choices. 48

In the context of woody bioenergy, such types of public programs may be justified by 49

how they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce fire and disease outbreaks in overstocked 50

forests, improve rural economy, and reduce dependence on imported oil (Hubbard et al., 2007). 51

Forestland owners have limited experience of profitably participating in a woody biomass supply 52

market. Despite the significant share of the forestland managed by private forestland owners and, 53

thus, their stake in the supply of biomass for bioenergy, there is limited research on forestland 54

owners’ perception of public programs in the context of woody bioenergy. Such uncertainty may 55

discourage forestland owners from supplying biomass and making other investments related to 56

woody bioenergy. Under these circumstances, public incentive programs can play a role of 57

encouraging forestland owners to supply biomass for bioenergy production by helping cover 58

some of the management cost and guaranteeing prices, among others. Considering how 59

forestland owners may not be fully aware of the economics of woody bioenergy, such programs 60

can also help to correct for information asymmetry and to compensate for the positive 61

externalities associated with the relevant forest management. A specialized agency implementing 62

such incentive programs also has economies of scale in producing and distributing forest 63

Page 3 of 30



Draft

4

management information and resources, compared to each forestland owner having to do so 64

alone. 65

The incentive programs may take the form of direct payments or tax credits to 66

participating landowners (Barber, 1989). Tax-based programs include property or income tax 67

deferment and abatement, treatment of timber income as capital gain, favorable tax credits and 68

deductions (Greene et al., 2006). Cost sharing programs can cover as high as 75% of the cost for 69

prescribed management practices. The amount of payment to enrollees could also be based on 70

the land rental value, with enrollment durations from five to ten years (Conservation Programs, 71

2011; Straka, 2011). Moreover, technical assistance to landowners may be provided by the state 72

and federal governments and land-grant universities. These programs can have practical benefits 73

to enrollees, such as making it possible to afford ownership of their forestland in areas with 74

rising land value and high property taxes (D'Amato et al., 2010). More generally, such programs 75

can reduce forest management costs, increase the production possibility or productivity of the 76

forestland, increase return on the owner’s investments, increase welfare by correcting market 77

failure, and increase the intensity and acreage of forestland managed under prescribed practices 78

relative to the absence of the program. 79

The cost of running such incentive programs, which may be financed by the federal 80

and/or state governments or by the forest industry, may be considered as a public investment in 81

the efficient production and distribution of relevant information and resources. These programs 82

are also a step towards ensuring the healthy operation of the timber market along with the 83

economic output, jobs, and tax revenue it supports annually. 84

Despite these benefits, enrollment rates in public programs are limited, as low as 25% for 85

reforestation tax credit and managed timberland programs (Fortney et al., 2011). Furthermore, 86

Page 4 of 30



Draft

5

trends indicate that the average size of forestlands is decreasing over time (Best, 2002). 87

Ownership of smaller tracts of forestlands is associated with lower interest in such programs 88

(Royer, 1987a). If this pattern continues, enrollment rates might become even lower in the 89

future. 90

Furthermore, while some forestland owners routinely practice a prescribed activity 91

without enrolling in a program that aims to encourage that activity, some enrollees may have a 92

limited implementation rate and duration of enrollment, obfuscating what determines enrollment 93

and active implementation (Greene et al., 2004). Given their use of public resources and the 94

important societal objectives the programs aim to achieve, it is important to understand if and 95

how enrollment rates can be improved. 96

In this paper, we attempt to identify the factors that explain forestland owners’ enrolment 97

in financial and technical assistance programs. We also assess how previous experience with 98

such programs affects their perceptions about future programs dealing with woody bioenergy. 99

Additionally, we investigate how forestland owners rate public programs that affect others in the 100

supply chain, even though they might not directly benefit from such programs. This research is 101

important because by better understanding the typical attributes of forestland owners less likely 102

to enroll in such programs, we can target them through Extension and outreach programs. Such 103

information may also allow us to adapt existing programs and modify future programs, which 104

may lead to higher enrollment and implementation rates, provide for a more effective use of 105

public resources, and lead to a larger forestland acreage covered under such programs. Moreover, 106

research in this area allows us to better understand and affect desired changes in management 107

practices and outcomes. 108

Page 5 of 30



Draft

6

The remainder of the paper is organized in four parts. First, we introduce findings of 109

previous related studies to provide a context for this paper and to highlight the relevant research 110

gaps that this paper intends to bridge. This section is followed by the methods section that 111

describes the study area and statistical methods used. The results section follows and contains a 112

general description of the survey respondents and subsections that provide the results and 113

discussion for the specific objectives. Lastly, we conclude with summary of the main results and 114

their policy implications. 115

116

2. Literature Review 117

While earlier versions of public programs such as the Agricultural Conservation Program 118

focused on maintaining and enhancing timber value and supply, recent ones have broader 119

objectives including the promotion of sustainability and conservation of soil, water, and wildlife, 120

wildfire mitigation; and enhancement of aesthetics and recreation, invasive species management, 121

forest restoration, encouragement of biodiversity and enhancement of carbon sequestration 122

(Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP], 2011). These different objectives are 123

addressed by a multitude of public programs including the Environmental Quality Incentive 124

Program, the Forestland Enhancement Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the 125

Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Biomass Crop Assistance Program. 126

Previous studies on such programs focus on assessing their effectiveness in influencing 127

the purpose and long-term orientation of the target population’s forest management practices, 128

measures of effectiveness including income transfer efficiency, return on investment, and 129

economic benefits to society (Hibbard et al., 2003). Other studies use this information and 130

ratings by enrollees and forestry officials to rank different types of programs such as tax 131

Page 6 of 30



Draft

7

incentive, cost sharing, and technical assistance programs as well as the implementing agencies 132

such as state, federal, and non-governmental institutions (Zhang et al., 2009; Jacobson et al., 133

2009; Lorenzo and Beard, 1996; Kilgore et al., 2007). 134

Jacobson et al. (2009) surveyed forestry officials and found that forest stewardship, 135

forestland enhancement, and forest legacy programs are among the top rated federal programs. 136

Based on the ranking by relevant stakeholders and the number of participants, technical 137

assistance is preferred both to tax incentives and cost sharing programs (James et al., 1951; 138

Kilgore and Blinn, 2004; Greene et al., 2006). Brockett et al. (1999) and Hibbard et al. (2003) 139

also reported that tax-based policies have limited success in accomplishing their objective in the 140

short term. Polyakov et al. (2008) found that land use changes are inelastic with respect to 141

property taxes. However, Mehmood and Shivan (2010) disclosed that forestland owners tend to 142

prefer tax-based policies over cost sharing programs in the context of bioenergy, suggesting that 143

the end product may affect the ranking of different programs. 144

Previous studies have also assessed if new programs addressed a need that was not met 145

before, increased the acreage of forestland treated by a given practice, increased the intensity of 146

the practice per given area of forestland, or if the programs simply transferred capital given that 147

forestland owners would have engaged in the prescribed forest management practice even 148

without enrolling in the relevant public program (Polyakov et al., 2008). Esseks et al. (2000) 149

found that two-third of forestland owners that participated in the program would not have made 150

the investment in forest management activities if there was not a cost-sharing program. 151

Studies on enrollment in public programs find that the following factors affect enrollment 152

decision: acreage, income, education, occupation, tenure status, tendency to seek professional 153

Page 7 of 30



Draft

8

advice for forest management, environmental attitudes, absenteeism, and riparian forest 154

ownership (Royer, 1987 b). Among others, landowners with higher income, higher level of 155

education, and larger acreage are more likely to enroll in such programs. Furthermore, the initial 156

reasons for joining the programs and their satisfaction with the program once enrolled affected 157

how well forestland owners implement the prescribed forest management practices (Jacobson, 158

1998). Lack of knowledge on the programs and their benefits, and the meager amount of 159

financial benefits provided by incentive programs have also been considered as other reasons for 160

low enrollment rates (Anderson, 1968). Thus, in addition to increasing the availability of public 161

programs and easing the application process, increasing program visibility may increase 162

enrollment rates (Schaaf et al., 2006). Increasing program payments, prolonging contracts, and 163

coupling financial incentive programs with technical assistance programs might increase 164

enrollment rates and effectiveness of such programs (Fortney et al., 2011). 165

Given that most forestland owners do not mainly manage their properties to generate 166

revenues, Daniels et al. (2010) notes that financial incentives and certification programs seeking 167

to add a premium to the forest might not be the best strategies to increase enrollment. The design 168

of such programs should also account for the differences in forest management objectives, 169

forestland features, and other relevant factors, allowing the programs to be tailored to the 170

priorities of forestland owners. 171

While these studies provide valuable insights, they do not quantitatively measure the 172

factors that explain enrollment decisions and their relative importance. For instance, while they 173

find that forestland owners with large acreage tend to take advantage of such programs more 174

than those with smaller acreage, they do not specify how they distinguish between large and 175

small. In this paper, we find the threshold acreage level that delineates large and small in the 176

Page 8 of 30



Draft

9

context of enrollment in public programs. We also determine thresholds for the other variables 177

used to explain forestland owners’ enrollment decisions. We also aim to bridge another research 178

gap by assessing if and how experience with public programs affects the importance forestland 179

owners attach to potential programs. This is done by using hypothetical public programs that aim 180

to encourage private forestland owners to supply woody biomass for bioenergy production. 181

Previous studies also focus mainly on how forestland owners respond to public programs that 182

affect them directly, disregarding programs that affect others in the supply chain and indirectly 183

benefiting the forestland owners. This paper also fills that research gap by assessing how 184

forestland owners respond to public programs that help cover equipment purchase and product 185

hauling cost, which are among the major cost components and a potential hindrance to the 186

development of woody bioenergy. 187

3. Methods 188

a. Study area 189

The study area includes the states of Virginia and Texas in the southern US, one of the most 190

productive forest regions in the world where family forestland owners dominate the forest 191

ownership landscape. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Virginia and fifty-four (54%) of East Texas 192

are covered by forests (VDoF, 2015). Most of the timberland in Texas is in the eastern part of the 193

state (Joshi et al., 2014). Consequently, seventy-one percent (71%) of the forest industry’s output 194

and the majority of the logging and primary solid wood products sub-industries of the state are 195

also located in East Texas. The forest industry is among the largest employers both in Virginia 196

and East Texas, producing over US$17 billion worth of economic output annually in Virginia 197

and US$5.7 billion annually in East Texas (VDoF, 2015). These estimates do not include the 198

indirect and induced impacts of the forest industry. Private forestland owners account for more 199

Page 9 of 30



Draft

10

than 66% and 92% of total forestland in Virginia and East Texas, respectively. Private forestland 200

owners’ decisions, thus, are important to the forest industry, the economy it supports, and for 201

forest-based ecosystem services. Therefore, it is vital to assess their perceptions and the ways to 202

increase their enrollment in incentive programs, in turn enhancing ecosystem sustainability and 203

economic prosperity. 204

The results from several focus group discussions, pilot surveys, and review by Extension 205

professionals working in the US South were used to enhance the survey’s readability, 206

consistency with market realities, and comprehensiveness. We identified 900 potential 207

respondents with at least 8.09 hectares of forestland from each state. The cutoff point follows 208

from previous studies that identify it as a requirement for an economically viable biomass 209

production (Mehmood and Shivan, 2010). 210

The mail survey participants received the first survey, a postcard reminder, and a final 211

reminder with another copy of the survey, following the tailored Dillman approach (Dillman et 212

al., 2011). In addition to asking whether the respondents have benefited from public 213

financial/technical assistance programs in the past five years, the survey also elicited 214

respondents’ socioeconomic background, forestland features and management objectives, policy 215

preferences, as well as previous and planned forest management activities. We obtained 390 216

responses from the two states, making for a 21.6% response rate. Because some survey 217

participants did not answer all the questions in the survey, 229 responses were used for this 218

study. 219

b. Partitioning analyses 220

We used recursive partitioning analyses to identify thresholds in explanatory variables. 221

The thresholds are such that they sort observations into two optimal groups that behave 222

Page 10 of 30



Draft

11

statistically differently when compared to each other using t-test. Observations in each cluster 223

exhibit comparable behavior to one another with respect to the explanatory variable. Given that 224

binary variables cannot be partitioned any further, we developed dummy versions of the 225

continuous and multivariate variables, which are presented in Table 1 under the columns 226

Reference (Ref.) cluster and Alternative (Alt.) cluster. The odds ratio of enrolling in public 227

programs for respondents in the Alternative group (for example: acreage above the threshold 228

level identified by the partitioning analyses) relative to those in the Reference group (acreage 229

below the threshold level identified by the partitioning analyses) is estimated by taking the 230

exponential of the regression coefficient for forestland acreage. By segmenting observations into 231

such groups, we are better able to profile observations, improving overall prediction capacity of 232

the model, and develop tailored recommendations to the respective segments (Muggeo et al., 233

2008). 234

[Please insert table 1 here] 235

236

c. Logistic regression 237

Given that whether or not the respondent has enrolled in a public program in the past five 238

years is binomial, we use the binomial logistic regression to analyze the data. For a logistic 239

cumulative distribution, this model can estimate the probability of getting a ‘yes’ response (Y=1) 240

given the values of the explanatory variables (X): 241

P�Y = 1|X�, X, X�, X�, … X��.(1) 242

The corresponding logistic function becomes: 243

P�X� = 1/(1+��⋯�). (2) 244

Page 11 of 30



Draft

12

The Xs represent the socioeconomic and forestland attributes used as explanatory variables, 245

listed in table 1 above. 246

For a composite index, z, of all relevant variables it can be summarized as: 247

F(z) = 1/(1+��) (3) 248

d. Cochran Armitage trend test 249

The importance that forestland owners attach to the proposed programs is ordinal while 250

having enrolled in any public program in the past five years is binomial. The Cochran-Armitage 251

test detects a linear trend in the proportion of respondents saying that they have enrollment 252

experience across the ordinal scale relative to those that have not enrolled in such programs. This 253

test accounts for the ordinal nature of the data by treating it as a quantitative instead of nominal 254

scale (Agresti, 2007). 255

The correlation between two variables, r, can be specified as: 256

� = ∑ �!"�!��#"�#�$"%",%

&'∑ �!"�!��" $"][∑ *#%�#+�" $%,, (4) 257

258

where the denominator is the product of the sample standard deviations for the two variables; the 259

numerator weights cross-products of deviation scores by their relative frequency. The test 260

statistics T2 has a chi-squared distribution with df = 1, that is, 261

- = �. − 1��. (5) 262

A p value less than α value (significance level) suggests that the slop for the linear trend is not 263

zero (Agresti, 2007), thus indicating the existence of a linear trend. 264

265

266

Page 12 of 30



Draft

13

4. Results 267

a. Respondent attributes 268

We used t-tests and a benchmarking approach to determine the possible presence and level of 269

non-response bias and as a way of determining the representativeness of our data. A t-test 270

determining statistical difference between early respondents (responses received before the third 271

reminder was sent) and late respondents (responses received after the third reminder was sent) 272

for both states in terms of forestland features and socioeconomic attributes. However, these tests 273

did not yield significant results. 274

We also compared our data with the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) data collected 275

by the US Forest Service in terms of forestland features including acreage and socioeconomic 276

features including gender, race, and absenteeism. Given that their survey has a larger number of 277

respondents and that it is done in regular intervals over time, this data can serve as a good 278

benchmark in assessing the potential non-response bias as well as representativeness of our 279

survey data to the background population. Accordingly, while the average size of forestland 280

owned by our survey respondents are 34.56 and 27.39 hectares, respectively, the average 281

forestland acreage for private forestland owners in Virginia and Texas are 30.35 and below 20.23 282

hectares, respectively (VDoF, 2015). This difference results largely from the fact that we 283

targeted forestland owners with at least 8.09 hectares of forestland. Adjusting for this cutoff 284

point, our results are comparable with those of the NWOS, which is based on a larger number of 285

respondents and is done over time for all states including Virginia and Texas (Butler et al., 286

2015). While 94.8% of the respondents from Virginia and 89.1% from Texas are white, the 287

results from NWOS are 91.4% for Virginia and 92.5% for Texas. While 55.8% of the 288

respondents from Virginia and 43.7% from Texas said the forested property is part of their 289

Page 13 of 30



Draft

14

primary residence, the results from NWOS are 61.2% for Virginia and 55% for Texas. While 290

78% of the respondents from Virginia and 82.1% from Texas are male, the results from NWOS 291

are 83.15% for Virginia and 84.3% for Texas. 292

293

b. Determinants of enrollment in public programs 294

Approximately 13.4% of the respondents said they have benefited from a public 295

financial/technical support program in the past five years. Contingency analysis did not result in 296

a statistically different enrollment rate between Texas and Virginia. Odds ratios are computed 297

only for the significant variables ( Table 2). 298


300

We find mixed results for forestland management objectives as significant predictors of 301

tendency to enroll in public programs. While forest management for timber production is 302

significantly related to program enrollment tendency, land management for the ‘enjoyment of 303

privacy’ and ‘production of firewood for own use’ is not significant. Respondents who rate the 304

timber production as at least as a 4 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being a ‘very important forest 305

management objective’ had an odds ratio of 6.42 for enrolling in public programs. Forestland 306

owners who do not rate timber production higher than a 3 on the same scale are less likely to 307

enroll in public programs. The statistical insignificance of ‘enjoyment of privacy’ and 308

‘production of firewood for own use’ as forestland management objectives suggests that those 309

who enrolled in public programs do not typically attach ‘very high’ or ‘very low’ importance to 310

these objectives relative to those who do not enrolled in any public incentive program. There is 311

no distinct pattern to these objectives with respect to enrollment in public programs. 312

Page 14 of 30



Draft

15

We find similarly mixed results for socioeconomic attributes in explaining enrollment 313

tendencies. While level of education, how long the forestland owner has owned the land, 314

acreage, the way the forestland was acquired, and membership in forestry/environmental 315

associations significantly explained likelihood to enroll in public programs, we did not find 316

gender, income, or absenteeism to be statistically significant. 317

Consistent with previous findings (Greene et al., 2004), our results show that enrollees 318

tend to have higher educational attainment. Specifically, our data shows that enrollees with at 319

least ‘some college’ level of education have a 7.69 odds ratio of enrolling in public programs 320

compared to those with just a high school education or less. Respondents who have owned their 321

forestland longer than 26 years are also more likely to enroll in public programs. Longer tenures 322

may lead to greater practical experience in managing forestland and knowledge about the 323

resources publicly available to forestland owners. 324

Consistent with previous findings, our results also show that enrollees tend to have a 325

large size of forestland. Managing a larger forestland area can be demanding in terms of 326

knowledge, capital, and other resources, thus explaining the higher tendency for such forestland 327

owners to take advantage of public programs. Although 17 hectares is a relatively small number 328

and below the average forestland size for our respondents, the threshold analyses shows that, for 329

the purpose of enrolling in public programs, it delineates the small from the large forestland. For 330

every 28 enrollees with acreage greater than 17 hectares, there is only one owner with forestland 331

less than 17 hectares. 332

If a portion of the land, or if the whole land is acquired by inheritance, the owner is less 333

likely to enroll in public programs, with an odds ratio of 0.35. While intergenerational transfer of 334

Page 15 of 30



Draft

16

forestland leads to changing motivation and management plans (Majumdar et al., 2009), our 335

results suggest that it also leads to lower tendency to enroll in public programs. 336

Membership in forestry or environmental associations significantly explains enrollment 337

tendencies. Forestland owners that are members of such associations are more likely to enroll in 338

public programs. This result may be explained by how such associations offer forestland owners 339

opportunities to learn and share practical information relevant to forest management, including 340

information about public resources available for forestland owners. 341

While some past activities, such as building roads on the forested properties and 342

developing forest management plans significantly explain enrollment tendencies, other practices 343

such as removing invasive species and conducting wildlife habitat or fisheries improvement 344

projects are not significant. Forestland owners that built roads on their forested properties and 345

those that developed forest management plans are more likely to enroll in public programs. 346

Investments in building or maintaining roads is a proactive forest management practice that 347

improves access and reduces biomass collection cost while increasing the volume of biomass 348

collected per acre. Such proactive management tendencies associate positively with enrolling in 349

public programs. The significance of forest management plans may be explained by how it can 350

be an eligibility requirement to enroll in the programs. 351

Absenteeism is associated with inability to attend to the day-to-day management of the 352

forestland while primary residence on the forested property offers more opportunities to be 353

involved in the management and to benefit from prescribed forest management practices. 354

However, we do not find a statistically significant result for this variable. Similarly, we do not 355

find significant results for gender and income. 356

357

Page 16 of 30



Draft

17

c. Program preference 358

The survey provided a list of potential cost sharing programs that encourage the supply of 359

biomass for bioenergy production and asked respondents to rate the programs’ importance in 360

encouraging them to supply biomass from their forestland. The hypothetical programs offer to 361

cover part of the cost incurred for forest management, equipment, hauling, and a price support. 362

We offered two implementing agencies for the forest management cost assistance program, the 363

state and federal governments. By controlling for the type of program, this allows us to test if 364

there is a preference for an implementing agency. Figure 1 presents a visual representation of the 365

rating patterns. The relative width of the columns is based on the number of respondents rating 366

the policies on an ordinal scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). 367

[Please insert figure 1 here] 368

369

The responses corresponding to 4 (important) and 5 (very important), shown by the area in the 370

two right-most columns, for all five programs show that the majority of the respondents rate the 371

programs positively. Even for panels D and E, which do not directly benefit forestland owners, 372

the area taken by 4 and 5 is big. The relative distribution of respondents that have recently 373

enrolled in public programs compared to those that have not across the ordinal scale shows a 374

statistically significant pattern for management cost and hauling cost support programs. This 375

result means that forestland owners with public program experience tend to rate the proposed 376

programs as having greater importance than those without similar experience. 377

378


380

Page 17 of 30



Draft

18

Although both state and federal government sponsored programs that provide cost 381

sharing opportunities are statistically significant, the federal government sponsored programs 382

have a slightly higher coefficient compared to the state sponsored programs, meaning that the 383

number of forestland owners with public program experience that rate it as being important is 384

higher than those that rate the state level program as being important. 385

Programs dealing with management cost have a slightly higher coefficient compared to 386

programs that deal with hauling costs. This may result from how management cost affects 387

forestland owners more directly than hauling cost does. However, the significance of programs 388

dealing with hauling cost, where more of the owners with public program experience consider it 389

as important, suggests that forestland owners that use public programs also appreciate the 390

importance of programs that benefit others in the supply chain. Even if forestland owners find 391

supplying biomass for bioenergy purposes economically viable or desirable for improving the 392

productivity of forest stands, unless loggers and others along the supply chain cannot viably 393

harvest the biomass, the forestland owner will not realize the economic and other opportunities 394

from the harvest of biomass for bioenergy. Although forestland owners do not primarily benefit 395

from such programs, those that have public program experience consider it important that others 396

along the supply chain have programs that help cover costs. Such experience associates with 397

rating potential programs that benefit them and others in the supply chain more positively than 398

forestland owners without similar experience. More data is needed to determine if they are also 399

more likely to enroll in these programs compared to forestland owners without similar 400

experience, leading to fewer new enrollees at the margin. 401

Page 18 of 30



Draft

19

We do not find a statistically significant trend for price support and equipment cost 402

support programs, indicating that forestland owners having experience with public programs do 403

not rate these programs in any particular pattern relative to those without experience. 404

405

5. Conclusions and implications 406

A small percentage of the respondents said they have recently enrolled in public 407

programs. We find mixed results for land management objectives, socioeconomic attributes, and 408

past activities in explaining likelihood to enroll in public programs. Forestland owners who 409

identify timber production as an important land management objective are more likely to enroll 410

in such programs. The degree of importance placed on ‘enjoyment of privacy’ and ‘production of 411

firewood for own use’ as land management objectives are not significant in explaining likelihood 412

to enroll in public programs. Furthermore, while higher level of education, longer tenure, larger 413

forestland acreage, acquiring the whole or part of the land by purchase, and membership in 414

forestry or environmental associations significantly explain likelihood to enroll in public 415

programs, gender, income, and absenteeism do not. Similarly, while building roads on the 416

forested property and developing forest management plans significantly explain enrollment 417

tendencies, removing invasive species and conducting wildlife habitat or fisheries improvement 418

projects are not significant. Having experience with public programs leads to a more favorable 419

assessment of other potential programs. This result holds even for programs that primarily 420

benefit others in the supply chain. 421

Instead of categorically asking about enrollment in public programs, future studies can 422

use specific public programs and assess if that alters the direction and significance of variables. 423

Page 19 of 30



Draft

20

Future studies can also change the timeframe of enrollment by comparing the recent enrollees 424

with others that have not enrolled in such a program for more than five years or by assessing the 425

determinants of longer enrollment durations compared to shorter ones. Future research can also 426

assess the relevance of the results for other states or at broader regional levels. Such research will 427

enhance relevance and applicability of the results to other states and regions. These studies can 428

also assess the composition of program enrollees based on having experience or being new to 429

public programs; assess if forestland owners can suggest programs based on their needs instead 430

of the program design being top-down; what changes they would like to see in the programs, 431

eligibility requirement, or other program features. Such studies will further our understanding of 432

what it would take to increase and maintain a high enrollment rate in public incentive programs. 433

Our findings have several policy implications. Among the significant variables, 434

developing forest management plans and membership in environmental/forestry associations are 435

more amenable to policy interventions. Both also provide opportunities for forestland owners to 436

learn about public programs and other resources relevant to their objectives and other 437

considerations. Developing forest management plans, for instance, can lead to contact with 438

professionals, defining specific objectives for the forestland, and establishing a timeline for their 439

attainment. The number of enrollees could potentially be increased by encouraging forestland 440

owners to develop management plans that list relevant public programs and a timeframe for 441

submitting program applications. Enrollment in environmental/forestry associations also create 442

opportunities in terms of sharing forest management information and in further dissemination of 443

public incentive programs, eventually leading to the higher enrollment of forestland owners in 444

such programs. Thus, expanding the availability and encouraging enrollment in such associations 445

may emerge as a pathway to enrollment in public incentive programs. 446

Page 20 of 30



Draft

21

The significant socioeconomic attributes and their respective threshold values describe 447

the profiles of forestland owners more/less likely to enroll in public incentive programs. 448

Developing a multi-tiered program that is adapted to the varied enrollment tendencies of 449

forestland owners instead of adopting a uniform, blanket approach may be justified. For instance, 450

public incentive programs may provide higher cost sharing arrangements or longer lasting 451

contracts to forestland owners with forestlands less than 17 hectares compared to those with 452

forestlands larger than 17 hectares. Our results also show that forestland owners that are more 453

likely to rate potential incentive programs as being important to them (as suggested by how they 454

rank proposed programs) are the ones that have previously benefited from other public incentive 455

programs, hinting at a pattern of a revolving door. Developing focused programs that provide 456

increased incentives to new enrollees, while maintaining the benefits to those that have enrolled 457

in such programs in the past, may increase not only the number of enrollees but also address an 458

increasing proportion of the forestland owners in the states. 459

460

6. Acknowledgements 461

Authors gratefully acknowledge support for this study from US Department of Agriculture 462

National Institute of Food and Agriculture Grant 2012-67009-19742, US Department of 463

Energy’s International Affairs under award number DE-PI0000031, Montclair State University, 464

Virginia Polytechnic and State University, and Texas A&M AgriLife Research. 465

466

Page 21 of 30



Draft

22

References

Agresti, A. 2007. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd Edition, New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

Anderson, W. C. 1968. Factors influencing North Carolina landowners to practice forestry.

Barber, J. C. 1989. Impacts of state and private programs on forest resources and industries in the

South.

Best, C. 2002. America's private forests: challenges for conservation. Journal of

Forestry, 100(3), 14-17.

Brockett, C. D., & Gebhard, L. 1999. NIPF tax incentives: do they make a difference? Journal of

Forestry, 97(4), 16-21.

Butler, B. J., Miles, P. D., & Hansen, M. H. 2012. National Woodland Owner Survey Tabler

web-application version 1.0. Amherst, MA, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

Conservation Programs; USDA Farm Service Agency: Washington, DC, USA. 2011. Available

online at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp [Online]

D'Amato, A. W., Catanzaro, P. F., Damery, D. T., Kittredge, D. B., & Ferrare, K. A. 2010. Are

family forest owners facing a future in which forest management is not enough? Journal of

Forestry, 108(1), 32-38.

Daniels, S. E., Kilgore, M. A., Jacobson, M. G., Greene, J. L., & Straka, T. J. 2010. Examining

the compatibility between forestry incentive programs in the US and the practice of sustainable

forest management. Forests, 1(1), 49-64.

Page 22 of 30



Draft

23

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Melani, L. 2011. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the

tailored design method. Toronto: Wiley & Sons.

Egan, A., Gibson, D., & Whipkey, R. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of the forest

stewardship program in West Virginia. Journal of Forestry, 99(3), 31-36.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 2011. USDA Natural Resource Conservation

Service: Washington, DC, USA. Available online at:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/PROGRAMS/EQIP [Online]

Esseks, J. D., & Moulton, R. J. 2000. Evaluating the Forest Stewardship Program through a

national survey of participating forest land owners. Center for Governmental Studies, DeKalb,

Illinois.

Fortney, J., Arano, K. G., & Jacobson, M. 2011. An evaluation of West Virginia's managed

timberland tax incentive program. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(1), 69-78.

Greene, J. L., Straka, T. J., & Dee, R. J. 2004. Nonindustrial private forest owner use of federal

income tax provisions. Forest Products Journal and Index,54(12), 59-66.

Greene, J. L., Bullard, S. H., Cushing, T. L., & Beauvais, T. 2006. Effect of the federal estate tax

on nonindustrial private forest holdings. Journal of Forestry, 104(1), 15-20.

Hibbard, C. M., Kilgore, M. A., & Ellefson, P. V. 2003. Property taxation of private forests in

the United States: A national review. Journal of Forestry,101(3), 44-49.

Page 23 of 30



Draft

24

Hubbard, W.; L. Biles; C. Mayfield; S. Ashton (Eds.). 2007. Sustainable Forestry for Bioenergy

and Bio-based Products: Trainers Curriculum Notebook. Athens, GA: Southern Forest Research

Partnership, Inc.

Jacobson, M. G. 1998. Developing extension programs for private forest landowners in the

southeast: are we putting the cart before the horse. In Third IUFRO Extension Working Party

Symposium, Extension Forestry: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Application.

Jacobson, M. G., Straka, T. J., Greene, J. L., Kilgore, M. A., & Daniels, S. E. 2009. Financial

incentive programs' influence in promoting sustainable forestry in the northern region. Northern

Journal of Applied Forestry, 26(2), 61-67.

James, L. M., Hoffman, W. P., & Payne, M. A. 1951. Private forest landownership and

management in Central Mississippi.

Joshi O., Edgar, C., Zehnder, R. & Burl Carraway, A. 2014. Economic Impact of the Texas

Forest Sector. Sustainable Forestry Department Texas A&M Forest Service.

Kilgore, M. A., & Blinn, C. R. 2004. Policy tools to encourage the application of sustainable

timber harvesting practices in the United States and Canada. Forest Policy and Economics, 6(2),

111-127.

Kilgore, M.A., J.L. Greene, M.G. Jacobson, T.J. Straka, and S.E. Daniels. 2007. The Influence

of Financial Incentive Programs in Promoting Sustainable Forestry on the Nation’s

Family Forests. Journal of Forestry 105(4):184-191(8).

Page 24 of 30



Draft

25

Lorenzo, A.B.; Beard, P. Factors affecting the decisions of NIPF owners to use assistance

programs. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Non-Industrial Private Forests: Learning from

the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, USA, 18–20 February 1996; Baughman,

M.J.,Ed.; University of Minnesota Extension Services Special Programs: St. Paul, MN, USA,

1996; pp. 264-275.

Majumdar, I., Laband, D., Teeter, L., and Butler, B. (2009). Motivations and land-use intentions

of nonindustrial private forest landowners: Comparing inheritors to noninheritors. Forest science,

55(5), 423-432.

Mehmood, S.R., Shivan G.C. 2010 Factors influencing nonindustrial private forest landowners'

policy preference for promoting bioenergy. Forest Policy and Economics, Volume 12 (8). 581-

588.

Muggeo, V. M. 2008. Segmented: an R package to fit regression models with broken-line

relationships. R news, 8(1), 20-25.

Polyakov, M., & Zhang, D. 2008. Property tax policy and land-use change. Land

Economics, 84(3), 396-408.

Royer, J. P. 1987 a. Determinants of reforestation behavior among southern landowners. Forest

Science, 33(3), 654-667.

Royer, J. P. 1987 b. Reforestation tax incentives and cost-sharing in North Carolina: A question

of efficiency. Journal of soil and water conservation, 42(3), 191-193.

Page 25 of 30



Draft

26

Schaaf, K. A., & Broussard, S. R. 2006. Private forest policy tools: A national survey exploring

the American public's perceptions and support. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(4), 316-334.

Straka, T. J. 2011. Taxonomic review of classical and current literature on the perennial

American family forest problem. Forests, 2(3), 660-706. Virginia Department of Forestry

(VDoF). 2015. Economic Benefits of the Forest Industry in Virginia. Accessed from

http://www.dof.virginia.gov/forestry/benefits/index.htm on June 21, 2015.

Zhang, Y., Liao, X., Butler, B. J., & Schelhas, J. 2009. The increasing importance of small-scale

forestry: evidence from family forest ownership patterns in the United States. Small-Scale

Forestry, 8(1), 1-14.

467

Page 26 of 30



Draft

1

Tables and Table titles

Table 1. A description of the variables and the corresponding threshold values from the recursive partitioning analyses.

Variable Description Ref. Alt.

Years owning land Continuous <26 ≥26

How land is acquired

Bought (1), Inherited (2), Inherited+Bought (1.5)

1.5, 2 1

Forestland acreage in hectares Continuous <17 ≥17

Enjoyment of privacy

Ordinal, 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important)

1,2 3,4, 5

Timber production Ordinal, 1 (not at all important ) to 5 (very important)

1,2, 3

4,5

Production of firewood for own use Ordinal, 1 (not at all important ) to 5 (very important)

1,2, 3,4

5

Level of education Elementary (1), high school (2), some college (3), and college graduate and above (4)

1,2 3,4,

Residence on forested property No/Yes No Yes

Removed invasive species in the past five years

No/Yes No Yes

Built or maintained roads in forested property in the past five years

No/Yes No Yes

Developed a forest management plan in the past five years

No/Yes No Yes

Wildlife habitat/fisheries improvement projects in the past five years

No/Yes No Yes

Gender Male/ Female Male Female Member of a local forestry/environmental association

No/Yes No Yes

Gross annual income in 2013 <$22,000 (1), $22,000 - $49,999 (2), $50,000 - $89,999 (3), >$90,000 (4)

1,2 3,4

Page 27 of 30



Draft

2

Table 2. Results of the recursive partitioning based logistic regression analyses.

Variable Coef. Odds ratio

Years owning land {≥26 vs. <26} 1.66*** 5.26

How land is acquired {1 vs. 1.5, 2} -0.04*** 0.35

Forestland acreage in hectares {≥17 vs. <17} 3.32*** 27.66

Enjoyment of privacy {3,4,5 vs. 1,2} -0.8 -

Timber production {4,5 vs.1,2,3} 1.86*** 6.42

Production of firewood for own use {5 vs.1,2,3,4} -1.36 -

Level of education {3,4, vs. 1,2} 2.04** 7.69

Residence on forested property {Yes vs. No} -0.36 -

Removed invasive species in the past five years {Yes vs. No}

0.39 -

Built or maintained roads in forested property in the past five years {Yes vs. No}

1.11** 3.03

Developed a forest management plan in the past five years {Yes vs. No}

1.54*** 4.66

Wildlife habitat/fisheries improvement projects in the past five years {Yes vs. No}

0.43 -

Gender {Female vs. Male} 0.12 - Member of a local forestry/environmental Association {Yes vs. No}

1.44*** 4.22

Gross annual income in 2013 {3,4 vs. 1,2} -0.56 -

*** and ** Indicate significance at 0.01 and 0.05 α levels, respectively.

Page 28 of 30



Draft

3

Table 3. Cochran-Armitage trend test results for the relative distribution of respondents across

the ordinal scale.

Policy Cochran-Armitage

trend statistic

Federal cost share programs, for example, the type that covers part of the management cost incurred.

-2.21**

State cost share programs, for example, the type that cover part of the management cost incurred.

-2.19**

Price support for biomass program similar to what is available for other agricultural products.

-1.13

Biomass transportation cost support program to help cover hauling cost.

-2.13**

Capital support program such as the type that would help finance the cost of equipment purchased to harvest biomass.

-1.59

** Indicate significance at 0.05 α level.

Page 29 of 30



Draft

1

Figures and Figure Captions

A

B

C

D

E

Figure 1. Panels represent mosaic plot of the different programs: A [management cost (federal)],

B [management cost (state)], C [price support], D [hauling cost], and E [equipment cost]. For a

given rating the vertical axis shows the proportion of respondents that have experience with

public programs (upper part of the bar, black) relative to those that do not (bottom part of the bar,

grey).

Page 30 of 30



determinants of enrollment in public incentive programs for · 2016-05-09 · draft 1 1...

Documents