The need of owner-specific policies and communications to advance forest conversion in small pine plantations

Van Herzele, Ann and Van Gossum, Peter (2007). The need of owner-specific policies and communications to advance forest conversion in small pine plantations. In: Steve Harrison, Annerine Bosch and John Herbohn, Improving the Triple Bottom Line Returns from Small-scale Forestry, Proceedings of an International Conference. Improving the Triple Bottom Line Returns from Small-scale Forestry, Ormoc, the Philippines, (375-382). 18 - 21 June 2007.

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
n43_peter_van_Gossum_FINAL.pdf 43 peter van Gossum FINAL.pdf application/pdf 169.41KB 1160
Author Van Herzele, Ann
Van Gossum, Peter
Title of paper The need of owner-specific policies and communications to advance forest conversion in small pine plantations
Conference name Improving the Triple Bottom Line Returns from Small-scale Forestry
Conference location Ormoc, the Philippines
Conference dates 18 - 21 June 2007
Proceedings title Improving the Triple Bottom Line Returns from Small-scale Forestry, Proceedings of an International Conference
Place of Publication Gatton, Qld, Australia
Publisher The University of Queensland
Publication Year 2007
Sub-type Fully published paper
Editor Steve Harrison
Annerine Bosch
John Herbohn
Volume 1
Start page 375
End page 382
Total pages 8
Collection year 2007
Language eng
Abstract/Summary The conversion of secondary conifer plantations into well-structured native broadleaf forests is a growing issue in both the academic and policy arenas of today. One crucial factor necessary for the implementation of any strategy or program is the readiness of countless small landowners to engage in forest conversion. This paper examines the emerging theme of forest conversion through presenting a recent study among small owners of pine plantations in Flanders (the northern part of Belgium). In order to capture the variety in ownership motivations relevant to decision-making, a typology of forest owners was built using a forest owner survey. Three types of owners were identified, named as the ‘economist’ (wood production and financial investment being the main goals), the ‘recreationist’ (personal amenities and relaxation considered most important), and the ‘passive owner’ (no clear motivations). Focus groups were subsequently used to examine those factors likely to influence small-scale forest owners’ decision-making regarding forest conversion, and how these factors may vary between owner types. Generally, economists would favour a gradual forest conversion scenario (thinning and giving space to broadleaves), recreationists appear to be reluctant to change the forest scenery and passive owners tend to believe that forest conversion happens naturally without need for intervention. The research findings suggest that rapid conversion will not be a feasible option on private land. Policies and communications which could motivate small forest owners to engage in forest conversion include capacity (provide the knowledge, resources, or ability to make the decision towards forest conversion), learning (rely on the interaction between policy targets and policy-makers to determine the best way to address a problem) and symbolic tools (rely on the assumption that if a policy is viewed as consistent with the target population's values, it will be accepted and followed).
Subjects 300000 Agricultural, Veterinary and Environmental Sciences
0705 Forestry Sciences
Keyword Secondary conifer plantations
Native broadleaf forests
Forest conversion
Smallholder forestry
References Bieling,C. (2004), ‘Non-industrial private-forest owners: possibilities for increasing adoption of close-to-nature forest management’, European Journal of Forest Research, 123(4), 293−303. Boon, T.E., Meilby, H. and Thorsen, B.J. (2004), ‘An empirically-based typology of private forest owners in Denmark − improving the communication between authorities and owners’, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19(supp 4): 5−13. Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. De Schrijver, A., Nachtergale, L., Staelens, J., Luyssaert, S. and De Keersmaeker, L. (2004), ‘Comparison of throughfall and soil solution chemistry between a high-density Corsican pine stand and a naturally regenerated silver birch stand’, Environmental Pollution, 131(1), 93−105. Erickson, D.L., Ryan, R.L. and De Young, R. (2002), ‘Woodlots in the rural landscape: Landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case study’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(2−4): 101−112. Gartner, S. and Reif, A. (2004), ‘The impact of forest transformation on stand structure and ground vegetation in the southern Black Forest, Germany’, Plant and Soil, 264(1−2): 35−51. Ingemarson, F., Lindhagen, A. and Eriksson, L. (2006), ‘A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden’, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 21(3): 249−259. Karppinen, H. (1998), ‘Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland’, Silva Fennica, 32(1): 43−59. Kline, J.D., Alig, R.J. and Johnson, R.L. (2000), ‘Fostering the production of nontimber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives’, Forest Science, 46(2): 302−311. Legendre, P. and Legendre, L. (1998), Numerical Ecology, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Marty, T.D., Kurtz, W.B., Gramann, J.H. (1988), ‘PNIF owner attitudes in the Midwest: a case study in Missouri and Wisconsin’ Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 5(3): 194−197. Mutz, R., Borchers, J. and Becker, G. (2002), ‘Analysis of current and potential commitment of private forest owners in North Rhine–Westphalia based on the mixed Rasch model’, Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 121(1): 35−48. Reich, R.B. (1990), Public management in a democratic society, Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliff, New York Salmon, O., Brunson, M. and Kuhns, M. (2006), ‘Benefit-based audience segmentation: A tool for identifying nonindustrial private forest owner education needs’, Journal of Forestry, 104(8): 419−425. Serbruyns, I. and Luyssaert, S. (2006), ‘Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management’, Forest Policy and Economics, 9(3): 285−296. Schaaf, K.A. and Broussard, S.R. (2006), ‘Private forest policy tools: A national survey exploring the American public’s perception and support’, Forest Policy and Economics, 9(4): 316−334. Schneider, A. and Ingram, H. (1990), ‘Behavioural assumptions of policy tools’, The Journal of Politics, 52(2): 510−529. Spiecker, H. (2003), ‘Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe − temperate zone’, Journal of Environmental Management, 67(1): 55−65. Van Gossum, P., Luyssaert, S., Serbruyns, I. and Mortier, F. (2005), ‘Forest groups as support to private forest owners to realise close-to-nature management’, Forest Policy and Economics, 7(4): 589−601. Van Gossum, P. and De Maeyer, W. (2006), ‘Performance of forest groups in achieving multifunctional forestry in Flanders’, Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 5(1): 19−36. Van Herzele, A. (2004), ‘Local knowledge in action: Valuing non-professional reasoning in the planning process’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(2): 197−212. Verheyen, K., Lust, N., Carnol, M., Hens, L. and Bouma, J.J. (2006), Feasibility of forest conversion: Ecological, social and economic aspects (FEFOCON), Final report MA/04. Belgian Science Policy, Brussels. Von Wilpert, K., Zirlewagen, D. and Kohler, M. (2000), ‘To what extent can silviculture enhance sustainability of forest sites under the Immission regime in Central Europe?’, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 122(1−2): 105−120.
Q-Index Code E1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Unknown

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Mon, 03 Sep 2007, 15:01:06 EST by Annerine Bosch on behalf of Faculty Of Nat Resources, Agric & Veterinary Sc