Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:14:35.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Program Participation Behavior of Nonindustrial Forest Landowners: A Probit Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Venkatarao Nagubadi ,
Kevin T. McNamara ,
William L. Hoover  and
Walter L. Mills Jr.
Venkatarao Nagubadi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics
Kevin T. McNamara
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics
William L. Hoover
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University
Walter L. Mills Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study provides an analysis of nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners' participation in forestry assistance programs. A probit model was used for data collected from a random sample of 329 Indiana landowners. The analysis revealed that total land owned, commercial reasons for ownership, government sources of information, and membership in forestry organizations influenced NIPF landowners' program participation. Age, fear of loss of property rights, and duration since the first wooded tract was acquired also influenced program participation. Location of landowners' residence on their wooded land and landowners' knowledge of and willingness to participate in a conservation easement influenced the participation in cost-share programs.

Keywords

classified forestry programscost-share programsnonindustrial private forest landownersparticipation behaviorprobit
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , December 1996 , pp. 323 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, J.H., and Nelson, F.D.. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. New York: Sage Publications, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amemiya, T. “Qualitative Response Models: A Survey.” J. Econ. Lit. 19(1981):1483–1536.Google Scholar
Bell, C.D., Roberts, R.K., English, B.C., and Park, W.M.. “A Logit Analysis of Participation in Tennessee's Forest Stewardship Program.” J. Agr. and Appl. Econ. 26,2(1994):463–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. “Government Support of Nonindustrial Production: The Case of Private Forests.” S. J. Econ. 51(1984):89–107.Google Scholar
Clawson, M.The Economies of U.S. Nonindustrial Private Forests. Research Pub. No. R-14, Resources for the Future, Washington DC, 1979.Google Scholar
Domencich, T.A., and McFadden, D.. “Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis.” In Contributions to Economic Analysis, eds., Tinbergen, J., Jorgenson, D.W., and Waelbroeck, J.. Amsterdam/London: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1975.Google Scholar
Ervin, C.A., and Ervin, D.E.. “Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications.” Land Econ. 58(1982):277–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W.H.LIMDEP (LIMited DEPendent) User's Manual. Bellport NY: Econometric Software, Inc., 1989.Google Scholar
Hammen, A.L., Cubbage, F.W., and Luppold, W.G.. “A Logistical Regression Model of Southern Hardwood Lumber Export Participation.” Wood and Fiber Sci. 24,3(1992):315–29.Google Scholar
Hodges, D.G., and Cubbage, F.W. “Adoption Behavior of Technical Assistance Foresters in the Southern Pine Region.” Forest Sci. 36,3(1990):516–30.Google Scholar
Hyberg, B.T. “Multiattribute Decision Theory and Forest Management: A Discussion and Application.” Forest Sci. 33,4(1987):835–45.Google Scholar
Jones, S.B. “Understanding the NIPF Landowner—It's Time to Stop Talking and Start Listening.” Paper presented at annual meeting of the New England Society of American Foresters. Forest Resources Extension, Pennsylvania State University, March 1994.Google Scholar
Korsching, P.F., Stofferahn, C.W., Nowak, P.J., and Wagener, D.. “Adoption Characteristics and Adoption Patterns of Minimum Tillage: Implications for Soil Conservation Programs.” J. Soil and Water Conserv. 38(1983):428–30.Google Scholar
Kurtz, W., and Lewis, B.. “Decision-Making Framework for Nonindustrial Private Forest Owners: An Application in the Missouri Ozarks.” J. Forestry 79,5(1981):285–88.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. “The Measurement of Urban Demand.” J. Public Econ. 3(1974):308–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K.T., Wetzstein, M.E., and Douce, G.K.. “Factors Affecting Peanut Producer Adoption of Integrated Pest Management.” Rev. Agr. Econ. 13,1(1991):129–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagubadi, V. “Private Forest Landowner Forestry Program Participation Behavior.” Unpublished M.S. thesis, Purdue University, 1995.Google Scholar
Napier, T.L., Thraem, C.S., Gore, A., and Goe, W.R.. “Factors Affecting Adoption of Conventional and Conservation Tillage Practices in Ohio.” J. Soil and Water Conserv. 38(1984):205–08.Google Scholar
Palmer, M.A., Doolittle, M.L., Straka, T.J., and Weaver, G.H.. “Socioeconomic Characteristics, Adoption of Innovations, and Nonindustrial Private Forest Regeneration.” Info. Bull. No. 72, Mississippi Agr. and Forestry Exp. Sta., Stark-ville MS, 1985.Google Scholar
Rahm, M.R., and Huffman, W.E.. “The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 66(1984):405–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E.M.Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed. New York: The Free Press, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1983.Google Scholar
Royer, J.P. “The Effects of Markets and Public Policies on the Reforestation Behavior of Southern Landowners.” SCFER Work. Pap. No. 12, Southeast Center for Forest Economic Research, Research Triangle Park NC, 1985.Google Scholar
SAS Institute, Inc. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th ed., vol. 2. Cary NC: SAS Institute, Inc., 1989.Google Scholar
Smith, W.B., and Golitz, M.F.. “Indiana Forest Statistics, 1986.” USD A/Forest Service Resour. Bull. NC-108, North Central Forestry Exp. Sta., St. Paul MN, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasan, S. “Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners in Indiana: Characteristics, Beliefs, and Attitudes.” Unpublished M.S. thesis, Purdue University, 1994.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. “landowners' Attitudes Toward Government Programs to Improve Water Quality.” Unpublished M.S. thesis, Purdue University, 1993.Google Scholar
Young, A.R., and Reichenbach, M.R.. “Factors Influencing the Timber Harvesting Intentions of Nonindustrial Private Forest Owners.” Forest Sci. 33,2(1987):381–93.Google Scholar
Zavoina, R., and McKelvey, W.. “A Statistical Model for Analysis of Ordinal Level of Dependent Variables.” J. Mathematical Sociol. 4(Summer 1975):103–20.Google Scholar