Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Family Forest Land Future Ownership and Use: Exploring Conservation Bequest Motivations

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Small-scale Forestry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to an aging landowner population, there will be an unprecedented ownership shift in land-based assets in the USA. Approximately 2.7 million family forest owners (FFOs) in the USA over the age of 55 years old, reflecting 80 % of all FFO-owned land, will be deciding the future ownership and use of their land, having significant implications for the landscapes and public benefits these forests provide. Little is known about how FFOs plan for the future ownership and use of their land. This study draws from life-cycle theory and FFO decision cycle research to propose a future ownership and use decision-making framework and to explore the presence of and motivation for FFOs to make “conservation bequests” designed to maintain land in its current, forested form. Qualitative interviews with professionals working with over 1000 FFOs explore what triggers FFOs to consider their options and influence their decisions. Findings suggest triggers are universally-held (e.g. age, health) and can happen any time in an FFO’s life. FFO decisions are complex and often made in the context of family goals and dynamics. FFOs holding deep attachments to their land may be more likely to make conservation bequests. However, despite conservation preferences, due to the complex nature of the process or external influences, decisions may not always lead to conservation bequests. The framework that this study adopts allows future in-depth research on these critical decisions. In particular, additional research with landowners is required to examine the framework in more detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A bequest is the distribution of property or money to another person or organization after death.

References

  • Alig RJ, Plantinga AJ, Haim D, Todd M (2010) Area changes in US forests and other major land uses, 1982 to 2002, with projections to 2062. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Newtown Square PA, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-815

  • Altman I, Low SM (eds) (1992) Place attachment. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Amacher GS, Koskela E, Ollikainen M, Conway MC (2002) Bequest intentions of forest landowners: theory and empirical evidence. Am J Agric Econ 84(4):1103–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amacher GS, Conway MC, Sullivan J (2003) Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study? J For Econ 9(2):137–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Ameriks J, Caplin A, Laufer S, van Nieuwerburgh S (2011) The joy of giving or assisted living? Using strategic surveys to separate public care aversion from bequest motives. J Finance XLVI(2):519–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrio M, Loureiro ML (2010) A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecol Econ 69(5):1023–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G, Raymond C (2007) The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Appl Geogr 27(2):89–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, et al Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: findings from the US Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey. J Forestry (in review)

  • Butler BJ, Dickinson BJ, Hewes JH, et al (2016) US Forest Service National Woodland Owner Survey: national, regional, and state statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 2011–2013. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, Resourc. Bulletin NRS-99

  • Catanzaro P, Markowski-Lindsay M, Millman A, Kittredge D (2014) Assisting family forest owners with conservation-based estate planning: a preliminary analysis. J Ext 52(2):2FEA9

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho S-H, Newman DH, Bowker JM (2005) Measuring rural homeowners’ willingness to pay for conservation easements. For Policy Econ 7(5):757–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway MC, Amacher GS, Sullivan J, Wear D (2003) Decisions nonindustrial forest landowners make: an empirical examination. J For Econ 9(3):181–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Creighton J, Blatner KA, Carroll MS (2015) For the love of the land: generational land transfer and the future of family forests in western Washington State, USA. Small-Scale For. doi:10.1007/s11842-015-9301-2

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNormandie J, Corcoran C, Clarke J (2009) Losing ground: beyond the footprint, patterns of development and their impact on the nature of Massachusetts, 4th edn. Audubon, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan A, Taggart D, Annis I (2007) Effects of population pressures on wood procurement and logging opportunities in northern New England. North J Appl For 24(2):85–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer JR, Knapp D, Meretsky VJ et al (2011) Motivations influencing the adoption of conservation easements. Conserv Biol 25(4):827–834. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01686.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman AM III (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayson AJ (1993) Private forestry policy in western Europe. CAB International, Wallingford

    Google Scholar 

  • Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison SR, Herbohn J, Niskanen A (2002) Non-industrial, smallholder, small-scale and family forestry: What’s in a name? Small-Scale For Econ Manag Policy 1(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Havens JJ, Schervish PG (2003) Why the $41 trillion wealth transfer is still valid: a review of challenges and questions. J Gift Plan 7(1):11–15, 47–50

  • Kittredge DB (2004) Extension/outreach implications for America’s family forest owners. J For 102(7):15–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittredge DB, Mauri MJ, McGuire EJ (1996) decreasing woodlot size and the future of timber sales in Massachusetts: When is an operation too small? North J Appl For 13(2):96–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopczuk W, Lupton JP (2007) To leave or not to leave: the distribution of bequest motives. Rev Econ Stud 74(1):207–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laitner J, Juster FT (1996) New evidence on altruism: a study of TIAA-CREF retirees. Am Econ Rev 86(4):893–908

    Google Scholar 

  • LeVert M, Stevens T, Kittredge D (2009) Willingness-to-sell conservation easements: a case study. J For Econ 15(4):261–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidestav G (2010) In competition with a brother: women’s inheritance positions in contemporary Swedish family forestry. Scand J For Res 25(S9):14–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma Z, Butler BJ, Kittredge DB, Catanzaro P (2012) Factors associated with landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the US: implications for policy design and outreach. Land Use Policy 29(1):53–61. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majumdar I, Laband D, Teeter L, Butler B (2009) Motivations and land-use intentions of nonindustrial private forest landowners: comparing inheritors to noninheritors. For Sci 55(5):423–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehmood SR, Zhang D (2001) Forest parcelization in the United States: a study of contributing factors. J For 99(4):30–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Modigliani F (1986) Life cycle, individual thrift, and the wealth of nations. Am Econ Rev 76(3):297–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Modigliani F, Brumberg R (1954) Utility analysis and the consumption function: an interpretation of cross-section data. In: Kurihara KK (ed) Post Keynesian economics. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp 388–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Modigliani F, Brumberg R (1980) Utility analysis and aggregate consumption functions: an attempt at integration. In: Abel A (ed) The collected papers of Franco Modigliani, vol. 2, The life cycle hypothesis of saving. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickenbach M, Kittredge DB (2009) Time and distance: comparing motivations among forest landowners in New England, USA. Small-Scale For 8(1):95–108. doi:10.1007/s11842-008-9071-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RN, DeCoster L (2000) Forest fragmentation: implications for sustainable private forests. J For 98(3):4–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith WB, Miles PD, Perry CH, Pugh SA (2009) Forest resources of the United States, 2007. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein SM, McRoberts RE, Alig RJ et al (2005) Forests on the edge: housing development on America’s private forests. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JE, Norris JE (2000) Sibling relationships, fairness, and conflict over transfer of the farm. Fam Relat 49(3):277–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, FAO, MCPFE, CEPF (2007) Enquiry on private forest ownership in Europe. http://www.unece.org/forests/fr/outputs/privateforest.html. Accessed 12 Sep 2014

  • US Census Bureau (2014) 2012 national population projections. https://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/2012.html. Accessed 14 April 2014

  • Williams DR, Vaske JJ (2003) The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalisability of a psychometric approach. For Sci 49(6):830–840

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Wendy Ferris and Jay Rasku for their interviewing efforts as well as the interview participants themselves who provided their insights into the estate planning process. This material is based upon work supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station and Department of Environmental Conservation at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, under Project Number MAS 000017. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the USDA or NIFA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Family Forest Research Center, USDA Forest Service – University of Massachusetts Amherst, Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA

    Marla Markowski-Lindsay & David Kittredge

  2. Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA

    Paul Catanzaro, Anita Milman & David Kittredge

Authors
  1. Marla Markowski-Lindsay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Catanzaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anita Milman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Kittredge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marla Markowski-Lindsay.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. David Kittredge is a member of the Editorial Board of Small-scale Forestry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Markowski-Lindsay, M., Catanzaro, P., Milman, A. et al. Understanding Family Forest Land Future Ownership and Use: Exploring Conservation Bequest Motivations. Small-scale Forestry 15, 241–256 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9320-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9320-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation