Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Family forest owner preferences for forest conservation programs: A New York case study

  • SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

19 Scopus citations

Abstract

A survey of private landowners owning ≥20 ha in upstate New York was conducted to assess likely enrollment in various forest conservation program types. Based on conjoint analysis, part-worth utilities were estimated for various levels of five program attributes: rights conveyed, timber harvest required, payment mode, payment value, and time commitment. Part-worth utilities were then used to estimate total utility scores for four simulated program types: forest banking, working forest conservation easement, conservation payments, and traditional conservation easement programs, at three levels of time commitment (30, 50, and 99 years), and at three levels of payment value ($4,940/ha, $3,458/ha, and $2,421/ha). Results indicate that payment value and program type significantly affected likely enrollment, whereas time commitment did not. Programs requiring timber harvests and/or the conveyance of timber rights resulted in lower likely enrollment. Overall, high-value traditional conservation easement programs encouraged the highest enrollment rates (between 12 and 15%), whereas low-value, forest banking programs achieved the lowest enrollment rates (<1%). The results from this study illustrate the effects of program attributes on expected enrollment rates and will inform policy decisions regarding the establishment of various forest conservation programs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)597-603
Number of pages7
JournalForest Science
Volume61
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 27 2015

Keywords

  • Carbon markets
  • Conjoint analysis
  • Conservation easement
  • Forest bank
  • NYC watershed

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Family forest owner preferences for forest conservation programs: A New York case study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this