Public Attitudes about Private Forest Management and Government Involvement in the Southeastern United States
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.1.1. Public Attitudes and Private Lands
1.1.2. Forest Ecosystem Services in the Southeastern United States
1.1.3. Public Choice and Timber Harvesting
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Conceptual Model
2.2. Survey Design
2.3. Survey Implementation
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Variables
3.2. Experiences with Forests
3.3. Attitudes about Timber Harvesting
3.4. Attitudes Towards Government Interventions
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Funk, C.; Kennedy, B.; Hefferon, M.; Strauss, M. Majorities See Government Efforts to Protect Environment as Insufficient. Pew Research Center. Washington DC. 2018. Available online: http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/14/majorities-see-government-efforts-to-protect-the-environment-as-insufficient/ (accessed on 10 July 2018).
- Blumm, M.C. Public Choice Theory and the Public Lands: Why Multiple Use Failed. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 1994, 18, 405–432. [Google Scholar]
- Rydin, Y.; Pennington, M. Public participation and local environmental planning: The collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environ. 2000, 5, 153–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shindler, B.; Cramer, L.A. Shifting public values for forest management: Making sense of wicked problems. West. J. Appl. For. 1999, 14, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. The Southern For. Futures Project: Technical Report; Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2013; p. 542.
- Burnett, M.; Davis, C. Getting out the cut: Politics and national forest timber harvests, 1960–1995. Adm. Soc. 2004, 34, 202–228. [Google Scholar]
- Butler, B.J.; Markowski-Lindsay, M.; Snyder, S.; Catanzaro, P.; Kittredge, D.B.; Andrejczyk, K.; Dickinson, B.J.; Eryilmaz, D.; Hewes, J.H.; Randler, P.; et al. Effectiveness of landowner assistance activities: An examination of the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Stewardship Program. J. For. 2014, 112, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karppinen, H.; Hänninen, H. Forest conservation and economic utilization: Public attitudes in Finland. J. For. Econ. 2000, 6, 55–79. [Google Scholar]
- Kraxner, F.; Yang, J.; Yamagata, Y. Attitudes towards forest, biomass and certification—A case study approach to integrate public opinion in Japan. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 4058–4061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lauber, T.B.; Knuth, B.A. Measuring fairness in citizen participation: A case study of moose management. Soc. Nat. Res. 1999, 11, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harshaw, H.W.; Sheppard, S.; Jeakins, P. Public attitudes toward sustainable forest management: Opinions from forest-dependent communities in British Columbia. J. Ecosyst. Manag. 2009, 10, 81. [Google Scholar]
- Forbes, W.; Lindquist, C. Philosophical, Professional, and Environmental Ethics An Overview for Foresters. J. For. 2000, 98, 4–10. [Google Scholar]
- Oswalt, S.N.; Smith, W.B. US For. Resource Facts and Historical Trends; United States Deparment of Agriculture, Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
- Butler, B.J.; Hewes, J.H.; Dickinson, B.J.; Andrejczyk, K.; Butler, S.M.; Markowsky-Lindsay, M. Family forest ownership of the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey. J. For. 2016, 114, 638–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehmood, S.R.; Zhang, D. Forest parcelization in the United States: A study of contributing factors. J. For. 2001, 99, 30–34. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, K. Where Is Rural America and What Does It Look Like? The Conversation. 20 February 2017. Available online: https://theconversation.com/where-is-rural-america-and-what-does-it-look-like-72045 (accessed on 28 August 2019).
- Lowe, G.D.; Pinhey, T.K. Rural-urban differences in support for environmental protection. Rural Sociol. 1982, 47, 114–128. [Google Scholar]
- Lawler, J.J.; Lewis, D.J.; Nelson, E.; Plantinga, A.J.; Polasky, S.; Withey, J.C.; Radeloff, V.C. Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terando, A.J.; Costanza, J.; Belyea, C.; Dunn, R.R.; McKerrow, A.; Collazo, J.A. The southern megalopolis: Using the past to predict the future of urban sprawl in the southeast U.S. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delphin, S.; Escobedo, F.J.; Abd-Elrahman, A.; Cropper, W.P. Urbanization as a land use change driver of forest ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 188–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martinuzzi, S.; Radeloff, V.C.; Higgins, J.V.; Helmers, D.P.; Plantinga, A.J.; Lewis, D.J. Key areas for conserving United States’ biodiversity likely threatened by future land use change. Ecosphere 2013, 4, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee Allen, H.; Fox, T.R.; Campbell, R.G. What is ahead for intensive pine plantation silviculture in the South? South. J. Appl. For. 2005, 29, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D.A.; Wigley, T.B.; Miller, K.V. Managed forests and conservation of terrestrial biodiversity in the southern United States. J. For. 2009, 107, 197–203. [Google Scholar]
- Boby, L.; Henderson, J.; Hubbard, W. The Economic Importance of For.ry in the South—2013; A Regional Peer Reviewed Technology Bulletin; Southern Regional Extension Forestry SREF-FE-001; Southern Regional Extension Forestry: Athens, GA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Munn, I.A.; Hussain, A.; Spurlock, S.; Henderson, J.E. Economic impact of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation expenditures of the southeast U.S. regional economy: An input-output analysis. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2010, 15, 433–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreye, M.M.; Pienaar, E.F.; Adams, A.E. The role of community identity in cattlemen response to Florida panther recovery efforts. Soc. Nat. Res. 2017, 30, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreye, M.M.; Pienaar, E.F.; Soto, J.R.; Adams, D.C. Creating Voluntary Payment Programs: Effective Program Design and Ranchers’ Willingness to Conserve Florida Panther Habitat. Land Econ. 2017, 93, 459–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreye, M. Chapter 2: Forest Ecosystem Services: Cultural Values found in Sills. In Trees at Work: Economic Accounting for For. Ecosystem Services in the U.S.; South. Gen. Tech. Rep., SRS-226; Erin, O., Moore, S.E., Cubbage, F.W., McCarter, K.D., Holmes, T.P., Mercer, D.E., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2017; p. 103. [Google Scholar]
- Kreye, M.M.; Adams, D.C.; Ober, H.K. Protecting imperiled wildlife species on private lands: Forest owner values and response to government interventions. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 149, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brinkman, T.J.; Chapin, T.; Kofinas, G.; Person, D.K. Linking hunter knowledge with forest change to understand changing deer harvest opportunities in intensively logged landscapes. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarrant, M.A.; Cordell, H.K. Amenity values of public and private forests: Examining the value—Attitude relationship. Environ. Manag. 2002, 30, 0692–0703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cubbage, F.; Harou, P.; Sills, E. Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. For. Policy Econ. 2007, 9, 833–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arrow, K.J. Methodological individualism and social knowledge. Am. Econ. Rev. 1994, 84, 9. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, D.; Jay, M.; Jensen, F.S.; Lucas, B.; Marzano, M.; Montagné, C.; Peace, A.; Weiss, G. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R. The analysis of perception via preference: A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landsc. Plan. 1985, 12, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kreye, M.M.; Adams, D.C.; Escobedo, F.J.; Soto, J.R. Does policy process influence public values for forest-water resource protection in Florida? Ecol. Econ. 2016, 129, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tabbush, P. Cultural Values of Trees, Woods and forests; Forest Research: Farnham/Surrey, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Bliss, J.C. Public perceptions of clearcutting. J. For. 2000, 98, 4–9. [Google Scholar]
- Hammitt, W.E.; Patterson, M.E.; Noe, F.P. Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1994, 29, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaaf, K.A.; Broussard, S.R. Private forest policy tools: A national survey exploring the American public’s perceptions and support. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 9, 316–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCool, S.F.; Benson, R.E.; Ashor, J.L. How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: An evaluation of interest group preferences. Environ. Manag. 1986, 10, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradley, G.A.; Kearney, A.R. Public and professional responses to the visual effects of timber harvesting: Different ways of seeing. West. J. Appl. For. 2007, 22, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrosillo, I.; Zurlini, G.; Corliano, M.E.; Zaccarelli, N.; Dadamo, M. Tourist perception of recreational environment and management in a marine protected area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tahvanainen, L.; Tyrväinen, L.; Ihalainen, M.; Vuorela, N.; Kolehmainen, O. Forest management and public perceptions—Visual versus verbal information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 53, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majumdar, I.; Teeter, L.; Butler, B. Characterizing family forest owners: A cluster analysis approach. For. Sci. 2008, 54, 176–184. [Google Scholar]
- Stein, T.; Kil, N.; Frank, A.; Adams, A.E.; Adams, D.C.; Escobedo, F.J. Public land management agencies’ and nonindustrial private forest landowners’ perceptions towards ecosystem services. In Stewardship Ecosystem Services Survey Project; University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kendra, A.; Hull, R.B. Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. For. Sci. 2005, 51, 142–154. [Google Scholar]
- Arrow, K.J. An extension of the basic theorems of classical welfare economics. In Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Berkeley, CA, USA, 31 July–12 August 1950; Neyman, J., Ed.; University of California Press: Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1951; pp. 507–532. [Google Scholar]
- Jacques, P.J.; Dunlap, R.E.; Freeman, M. The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environ. Politics 2008, 349–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCright, A.M.; Dunlap, R.E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s view of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol. Q. 2011, 52, 155–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
- Czech, B.; Borkhataria, R. The relationship of political party affiliation to wildlife conservation attitudes. Politics Life Sci. 2001, 20, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D.; Christian, L.M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys. In The Tailored Design Method; John Wiley Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Schaaf, K.A.; Ross-Davis, A.L.; Broussard, S.R. Exploring the dimensionality and social bases of the public’s timber harvesting attitudes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohte, W.; Maat, K.; Van Wee, B. Measuring attitudes in research on residential self-selection and travel behaviour: A review of theories and empirical research. Transp. Rev. 2009, 29, 325–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallup, Inc. U.S. Part Affiliation by State. 2017. Available online: https://news.gallup.com/poll/226643/2017-party-affiliation-state.aspx (accessed on 6 October 2018).
- Sapp, S.G.; Harrod, W.J.; Zhao, L. Socially constructed subjective norms and subjective norm-behavior consistency. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 1994, 22, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, D.C.; Bwenge, A.N.; Lee, D.J.; Larkin, S.L.; Alavalapati, J.R. Public preferences for controlling upland invasive plants in state parks: Application of a choice model. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callegaro, M.; DiSogra, C. Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opin. Q. 2008, 72, 1008–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eysenbach, G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J. Med. Internet Res. 2004, 6, e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, D.; Roe, B.E. Household food waste: Multivariate regression and principal components analyses of awareness and attitudes among US consumers. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, pe0159250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchanan, T.; Allen, L.R. Barriers to recreation participation in later life cycle stages. Ther. Recreat. J. 1985, 19, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
- Mercer, E. Revenues from Forest Based Environmental Service. In National Report on Sustainable Forests-2010; FS-979; USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. II73–II74. [Google Scholar]
- Abercrombie, L.C.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L.; Frank, L.D.; Saelens, B.E.; Chapman, J.E. Income and racial disparities in access to public parks and private recreation facilities. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 34, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ghimire, R.; Green, G.T.; Poudyal, N.C.; Cordell, H.K. An analysis of perceived constraints to outdoor recreation. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2014, 32, 52. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez, E. Race, ethnicity, recreation, and leisure: An assessment of research gaps. In Recreation Visitor Research: Studies of Diversity; Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210; Chavez, D.J., Winter, P.L., Absher, J.D., Eds.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: Albany, CA, USA, 2008; Chapter 7; pp. 75–84. [Google Scholar]
- Klineberg, S.L.; McKeever, M.; Rothenbach, B. Demographic predictors of environmental concern: It does make a difference how it’s measured. Soc. Sci. Q. 1998, 79, 734–753. [Google Scholar]
- De Silva, D.G.; Pownell, R.A.J. Going green: Does it depend on education, gender, or income? Appl. Econ. 2014, 46, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, W.; Liu, W.; Viña, A.; Tuanmu, M.N.; He, G.; Dietz, T.; Liu, J. Nonlinear effects of group size on collective action and resource outcomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 10916–10921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lawrence, A.; Dandy, N. Private landowners’ approaches to planting and managing forests in the UK: What’s the evidence? Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Götmark, F.; Fridman, J.; Kempe, G. Education and advice contribute to increased density of broadleaved conservation trees, but not saplings, in young forest in Sweden. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1081–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Põllumäe, P.; Lilleleht, A.; Korjus, H. Institutional barriers in forest owners’ cooperation: The case of Estonia. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 65, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, T.M.; Wu, H.C. How do environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 557–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hull, R.B.; Robertson, D.P.; Kendra, A. Public understandings of nature: A case study of local knowledge about “natural” forest conditions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2001, 14, 325–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, P.; Brown, G. Values suitability analysis: A methodology for identifying and integrating public perceptions of ecosystem values in forest planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2003, 46, 643–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourke, L.; Luloff, A.E. Attitudes toward the management of nonindustrial private forest land. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1994, 7, 445–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poudyal, N.C.; Moore, R.L.; Young, T.M. Public attitudes toward regulatory and incentive approaches to private forests: An assessment and comparison of resident segments in Georgia, USA. For. Sci. 2015, 61, 1088–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruskotter, J.T.; Enzler, S.A.; Treves, A. Rescuing wolves form politics: Wildlife as a public trust resource. Science 2011, 333, 1828–1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siddiqui, J. Development of corporate governance regulations: The case of an emerging economy. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 91, 253–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heen, M.S.; Lieberman, J.D.; Miethe, T.D. A comparison of different online sampling approaches for generating national samples. Cent. Crime Justice Policy 2014, 1, 8. [Google Scholar]
- Andersson, K.P.; Ostrom, E. Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sci. 2008, 41, 71–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Topic | Attitudinal Dimension | Item | |
---|---|---|---|
Timber harvesting | Production | 1. | Harvesting is good for the economy. |
2. | Cutting and removing trees is sometimes necessary to provide economic profits to the forest owner. | ||
3. | Forests should be used to produce products such as paper or lumber that humans can use. | ||
Management | 4. | Forests should be left untouched by humans. | |
5. | Cutting trees can sometimes be good for a forest. | ||
6. | Some forest management by humans is necessary. | ||
7. | Cutting and removing trees should be followed by planting trees. | ||
8. | When necessary, trees should be cut and removed from forests to prevent forest fires. | ||
Government involvement | Authority tools | 1. | The government should be able to regulate the use of forests located on private land to protect public benefits. |
2. | The government should have the right to tell private forest owners how to best manage their forests. | ||
3. | There should be regulations regarding how trees are managed on private forest land. | ||
4. | The government should fine private forest owners who fail to use best management practices. | ||
Empowerment tools | 5. | The government should use financial incentives to help or encourage private forest owners to change management practices. | |
6. | The government should conduct workshops on forest best management practices for private forest owners. | ||
7. | The government is responsible for promoting and understanding of forest conservation. | ||
8. | The government and private forest owners should work together towards forest conservation. | ||
9. | The government should use positive images and cultural symbols to promote forest conservation. |
Florida n = 423 N = 20,984,400 | Georgia n = 407 N = 10,429,379 | Mississippi n =410 N = 2,984,100 | South Carolina n = 429 N = 5,024,369 | Southeastern US * n = 1669 N = 39,422,248 | 4 States US Census(2017 estimates) ** N=39,422,248 | US Census (2017 estimates) ** N=325,719,178 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Race (%) | |||||||
White | 75.2 | 77.6 | 82 | 78.8 | 78.4 | 56.9 | 60.7 |
Non-White | 24.8 | 22.4 | 18 | 21.2 | 21.6 | n/a | n/a |
African American | 10.2 | 10.8 | 14.9 | 12.6 | 12.1 | 28.6 | 13.4 |
Asian/ Pacific Islander | 5.2 | 5.4 | 2 | 4 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 6 |
Native American | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0.5 | 1.3 |
Hispanic | 9.5 | 6.1 | 1.2 | 4.7 | 5.4 | 11 | 18.1 |
Multi-racial | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1.9 | 2.7 |
Age (median in years) | 45–64 | 25–44 | 25–44 | 25–44 | 25–44 | 38.3 | 37.7 |
Gender(%) | |||||||
Female | 51.3 | 54.1 | 66.6 | 54.6 | 56.6 | 51.4 | 50.8 |
Male | 48.7 | 46 | 33.4 | 45.5 | 43.4 | 48.7 | 49.2 |
Education (%) | |||||||
Some high school | 3.8 | 3 | 5.6 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 9.3 | 7.4 |
High school degree | 23.6 | 22.1 | 24.6 | 22.1 | 23.1 | 29.3 | 27.5 |
Higher than high school*** | 61.9 | 59 | 57.8 | 62.7 | 60.4 | 46.6 | 48 |
Professional/grad degree | 10.4 | 15.7 | 11.5 | 12.1 | 12.4 | 9.7 | 11.5 |
Income (median) | US$35,000–< $50,000 | US$50,000–< $75,000 | US$35,000–< $50,000 | US$35,000–< $50,000 | US$35,000–< $50,000 | US$48,919 | US$57,617 |
Political party (%)**** | |||||||
Republican | 39 | 40 | 45 | 47 | 42.8 | 38 | |
Neither (independent) | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 17.5 | 17 | |
Democrat | 42 | 42 | 38 | 37 | 39.8 | 45 | |
Location (%)***** | |||||||
Urban | 43 | 35.9 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 21.1 | 70.5 | 80.7 |
Rural | 57 | 64.1 | 98.5 | 99.5 | 79.9 | 29.5 | 19.3 |
- *
- Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina
- **
- 2017 US Census estimates were obtained from the following sources. Population (N), Race (%) and Gender (%): 2017 US Census Annual Population Estimates Program; Age and Education (%): 2012–2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Income: Household Income: 2016, American Community Survey Briefs (2016 dollars)
- ***
- This category combines respondents that received technical, associate or bachelor’s degrees.
- ****
- Data from 2017 Gallup Polls.
- *****
- Decennial Census, US Census Bureau 2010. In our survey “urban” was defined as more than 1000 people per square mile, US Census urban definition included population in urbanized areas (at least 50,000 people) and urban clusters (at least 2500 and less than 50,000 people).
Items | Recreation Oriented | Management Oriented | Few Experiences | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. | I care about forests | 0.6654 | −0.964 | 0.1462 |
2. | I know a lot about ecosystems | 0.3092 | 0.488 | −0.013 |
3. | I don’t have a lot of experiences with forests | −0.1238 | −0.1777 | 0.9588 |
4. | Forests are included in parts of my profession | −0.1141 | 0.6016 | 0.1278 |
5. | I often make management decisions about forests | −0.1905 | 0.5888 | 0.1717 |
6. | Forests are an important part of my recreation | 0.6404 | 0.111 | −0.1158 |
Note: bold values indicate loadings greater than 0.3 |
Items | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Neutral (3) | Agree (4) | Strongly Agree (5) | Total Number of Responses | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | I care about forests | 3.89 | 4.01 | 7.19 | 20.37 | 64.53 | 1669 |
2. | I know a lot about ecosystems | 10.01 | 18.99 | 38.89 | 19.47 | 12.64 | 1669 |
3. | I don’t have a lot of experiences with forests | 12.94 | 16.84 | 30.02 | 18.15 | 22.05 | 1669 |
4. | Forests are included in parts of my profession | 46.97 | 17.32 | 17.91 | 7.97 | 9.83 | 1669 |
5. | I often make management decisions about forests | 57.88 | 13.18 | 14.62 | 5.51 | 8.81 | 1669 |
6. | Forests are an important part of my recreation | 5.09 | 6.77 | 17.68 | 19.77 | 50.69 | 1669 |
Socio-Demographic Variables | Recreation Orientation | Profession Orientation | Few Experiences | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | p-Value | Coefficient | p-Value | Coefficient | p-Value | |
Income | 0.0083 | 0.000 | 0.0404 | 0.000 | −0.0088 | 0.000 |
Education | −0.0068 | 0.001 | 0.0048 | 0.027 | −0.0194 | 0.000 |
Male | −0.0001 | 0.98 | 0.3897 | 0.000 | −0.0634 | 0.000 |
Age | 0.0901 | 0.000 | −0.328 | 0.000 | 0.1030 | 0.000 |
White | 0.1759 | 0.000 | −0.2578 | 0.000 | −0.1794 | 0.000 |
Constant | −0.374 | 0.000 | 0.6673 | 0.000 | −0.007 | 0.000 |
df | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||
R-squared | 0.0084 | 0.0654 | 0.0011 |
Items | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Neutral (3) | Agree (4) | Strongly Agree (5) | Total Number of Responses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Production | 1. | Harvesting is good for the economy. | 2.4 | 6.1 | 26.8 | 41 | 23.8 | 1669 |
2. | Cutting and removing trees is sometimes necessary to provide economic profits to the forest owner. | 4.3 | 9.7 | 28.5 | 35.1 | 22.5 | 1669 | |
3. | Forests should be used to produce products such as paper or lumber that humans can use. | 3.7 | 10.8 | 30.4 | 34.1 | 21.1 | 1669 | |
Mean | 3.5 | 8.8 | 28.6 | 36.7 | 22.5 | |||
Management | 4. | Forests should be left untouched by humans (rev). | 10.4 | 16 | 36.5 | 25.3 | 11.7 | 1669 |
5. | Cutting trees can sometimes be good for a forest. | 4.0 | 6 | 21.3 | 30.5 | 38.2 | 1669 | |
6. | Some forest management by humans is necessary. | 3.5 | 5.5 | 20.1 | 32.2 | 38.7 | 1669 | |
7. | Cutting and removing trees should be followed by planting trees. | 2.6 | 2.9 | 12 | 18.9 | 63.5 | 1669 | |
8. | When necessary, trees should be cut and removed from forests to prevent forest fires. | 5.2 | 6.9 | 23.6 | 29.8 | 34.5 | 1669 | |
Mean | 5.1 | 7.4 | 22.7 | 27.3 | 37.3 |
Socio-Demographic Variables | Timber Harvesting | Empowerment Tools | Authority Tools | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | p-Value | Coefficient | p-Value | Coefficient | p-Value | |
Income | 0.1113 | 0.000 | −0.0761 | 0.000 | 0.0044 | 0.4225 |
Education | 0.1391 | 0.000 | 0.1688 | 0.000 | 0.0604 | 0.000 |
Male | 0.8873 | 0.000 | 0.0177 | 0.307 | 0.353 | 0.000 |
Age | 1.257 | 0.000 | 0.5134 | 0.000 | −0.3288 | 0.000 |
White | 1.4192 | 0.000 | −0.042 | 0.054 | −1.4911 | 0.000 |
Constant | 24.691 | 0.000 | 17.669 | 0.000 | 14.1423 | 0.000 |
df | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||
R-squared | 0.0857 | 0.0178 | 0.0293 |
All States | Florida | Georgia | Mississippi | South Carolina | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD |
Timber Harvesting1 | 30.15 | 5.5 | 29.26 | 5.48 | 30.19 | 5.38 | 30.94 | 5.23 | 30.27 | 5.7 |
Empowerment tools2 | 19.33 | 4.1 | 19.44 | 4.1 | 19.04 | 4.29 | 19.56 | 3.85 | 19.13 | 4.17 |
Authority tools3 | 12.53 | 4.45 | 13.55 | 4.20 | 12.13 | 4.71 | 11.73 | 4.38 | 12.49 | 4.44 |
- 1
- Scores ranging from 26 to 32 indicate moderate agreement with timber harvesting.
- 2
- Scores ranging from 15 to 19 indicate moderate agreement with empowerment tools.
- 3
- Scores ranging from 12 to 15 indicate moderate agreement with authority tools.
Items | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Neutral (3) | Agree (4) | Strongly Agree (5) | Total Number of Responses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Authority tools | 1. | The government should be able to regulate the use of forests located on private land to protect public benefits. | 15.2 | 14.7 | 29.5 | 19.9 | 20.7 | 1669 |
2. | The government should have the right to tell private forest owners how to best manage their forests. | 21.3 | 18.4 | 29.6 | 17.4 | 13.2 | 1669 | |
3. | There should be regulations regarding how trees are managed on private forest land. | 12 | 13.3 | 26.6 | 27.3 | 20.7 | 1669 | |
4. | The government should fine private forest owners who fail to use best management practices. | 16.2 | 11.9 | 27.5 | 22.3 | 22.1 | 1669 | |
Financial incentives | 5. | The government should use financial incentives to help or encourage private forest owners to change management practices. | 4.6 | 7.7 | 35 | 27.5 | 25.2 | 1669 |
Empowerment tools | 6. | The government should conduct workshops on forest best management practices for private forest owners. | 2.8 | 5 | 22.3 | 34.5 | 35.4 | 1669 |
7. | The government is responsible for promoting and understanding of forest conservation. | 4.1 | 8.9 | 32 | 29.5 | 25.5 | 1669 | |
8. | The government and private forest owners should work together towards forest conservation. | 2.8 | 4 | 16.7 | 26.8 | 49.7 | 1669 | |
9. | The government should use positive images and cultural symbols to promote forest conservation. | 2.8 | 4.4 | 21.8 | 32.2 | 38.7 | 1669 | |
Authority tools, average percentages | 16.2 | 14.6 | 28.3 | 21.7 | 19.2 | |||
Empowerment tools, average percentages | 3.1 | 5.6 | 23.2 | 30.8 | 37.3 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kreye, M.M.; Rimsaite, R.; Adams, D.C. Public Attitudes about Private Forest Management and Government Involvement in the Southeastern United States. Forests 2019, 10, 776. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090776
Kreye MM, Rimsaite R, Adams DC. Public Attitudes about Private Forest Management and Government Involvement in the Southeastern United States. Forests. 2019; 10(9):776. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090776
Chicago/Turabian StyleKreye, Melissa M., Renata Rimsaite, and Damian C. Adams. 2019. "Public Attitudes about Private Forest Management and Government Involvement in the Southeastern United States" Forests 10, no. 9: 776. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090776