Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceived values of benefits from Mississippi's forestry Best Management Practices

  • Published:
Water, Air and Soil Pollution: Focus

Abstract

Numerous studies in the United States have shown that, in addition to accomplishing their primary objective of preventing or reducing non-point source (NPS) pollution, silvicultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) provide additional direct and indirect benefits. These benefits are valuable to a host of forestry-related groups because they improve forest habitat, improve the public's perception of the timber industry, and increase the overall value of the timber asset. In an effort to gauge the perceived value that forestry-related groups place on BMPs, Mississippi non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners (n=63), forestry consultants (n=30), and timber industry professionals (n=8) were surveyed using a combination of in-person, telephone interviews, and mail surveys in spring 2001. Each group was asked to rank 35 potential benefits from 1 to 5 (1 being least beneficial; 5 being most beneficial) according to their perceived value of the benefit. Results showed little variation in the overall mean response for all benefits among groups. In general, all groups assigned a ranking of average, more beneficial, or most beneficial to 31 of 35 (88%) potential benefits. Results indicated that, although these groups may have differing perceptions of the value of some benefits, all have a largely positive perception of the potential benefits from BMPs.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AF&PA.: 2001, ‘Mississippi, forest & paper industry at a glance’, American Forest & Paper Association Brochure, 2 pp.

  • Alden, A. M.: 1997, ‘Timber harvester perceptions of benefits and costs of applying water quality best management practices in Minnesota’, Minn. Agric. Exp. Sta., Staff Pap. 22,133, 61 pp.

  • Aust, W. M., Shaffer, R. M. and Burger, J. A.: 1996, ‘Benefits and costs of forestry best management practices in Virginia’, S. J. Appl. For. 20, 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, S.H., Gunter, J. E., Doolittle, M. L. and Arano, K. G.: 2002, ‘Discount rates for nonindustrial private forest landowners in Mississippi: How high a hurdle?’, S. J. Appl. For. 26, 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cubbage, F. and Lickwar, P.: 1991, ‘Estimating the costs of water quality protection on private forestlands in Georgia’, Georgia For. Comm. Res. Div., Georgia For. Res. Pap. 86, 11 pp.

  • Dillman, D. A.: 2000, Mail and Internet Surveys — The Tailored Design Method, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 464 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, O. J.: 1964, ‘Multiple comparisons using rank sums’, Technometrics 6, 241–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellefson, P. V. and Miles, P. D.: 1985, ‘Protecting water quality in the Midwest: Impact on timber harvesting costs’, N. J. Appl. For. 2, 57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, W. H.: 1952, ‘A nonparametric test for the several sample problem’, Annals Math. Stats. 23, 525–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, W. H. and Wallis, W. A.: 1952, ‘Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis’, J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 47, 583–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lickwar, P., Hickman, C. and Cubbage, F. W.: 1992, ‘Costs of protecting water quality during harvesting on private forestlands in the Southeast’, S. J. Appl. For. 16, 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • MFC.: 2000, ‘Mississippi BMPs, BestManagement Practices for forestry in Mississippi’, Mississippi Forestry Commission, 35 pp.

  • NCASI: 1994, ‘Benefits and costs of programs for forestry nonpoint pollution control in Washington and Virginia’, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Tech. Bull. No. 660, 45 pp.

  • Ribaudo, M. O. and Young, C. E.: 1989, ‘Estimating the water quality benefits from soil erosion control’, Water Resour. Bull. 25, 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, R. M., Haney, H. L., Jr., Worrell, E. G. and Aust, W. M.: 1998, ‘Forestry BMP implementation costs for Virginia’, For. Prod. J. 48, 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheskin, D. J.: 2000, Handbook of Parametric and Nonparaemetric Statistical Procedures, 2nd edn, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 982 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • SPSS, Inc.: 1999, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 10.0 for Windows, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, J. C. and Groothius, P. A.: 1992, ‘Economic benefits of improved water quality: A case study of North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico River’, Rivers 3, 170–178.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, College of Forest Resources, Mississippi State University, Box 9681, Mississippi State, MS, 39762, U.S.A

    A. L. Husak, S. C. Grado & S. H. Bullard

Authors
  1. A. L. Husak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. C. Grado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. H. Bullard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. C. Grado.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Husak, A.L., Grado, S.C. & Bullard, S.H. Perceived values of benefits from Mississippi's forestry Best Management Practices. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus 4, 171–185 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:WAFO.0000012820.88013.88

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:WAFO.0000012820.88013.88

Search

Navigation