Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T13:00:28.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of Timberland Use by Ownership and Forest Type in Alabama and Georgia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2005

Rao V. Nagubadi  and
Daowei Zhang
Rao V. Nagubadi
Affiliation:
School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL
Daowei Zhang
Affiliation:
School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Land use changes and timberland use by ownership and forest type in Alabama and Georgia between 1972 and 2000 are analyzed using a modified multinomial logit approach. Low average land quality, federal cost-share incentives, and favorable returns to forestry relative to agriculture were the main factors associated with timberland increase. Higher forestry returns helped increase industrial timberland but not nonindustrial private forests. An increase in hardwood forests at the expense of softwood and mixed forests was driven by increasing hardwood returns. Increasing softwood returns and tree planting assistance programs alleviated declines in softwood forests. Because factors influencing timberland use changes differ by ownership and forest type, treating all timberland as one major category may lead to incorrect predictions.

Keywords

forest typeland use determinantsmodified multinomial logittimberland ownershipQ15Q23R15
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , April 2005 , pp. 173 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2005

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

Ahn, S., Abt, R.C., and Plantinga, A.J.. “Land Use in the South Central United States: A Further Investigation on Land Use Practices by Forest-land Ownership.” Forest Law and Economics. Zhang, D. and Mehmood, S., eds., pp. 165–71. Southern Forest Economics Workgroup, 2001.Google Scholar
Ahn, S., Plantinga, A.J., and Alig, R.J.. “Predicting Future Forestland Area: A Comparison of Econometric Approaches.” Forest Science 46(June 2000):363–76.Google Scholar
Ahn, S., Plantinga, A.J., and Alig, R.J.. “Historical Trends and Projections of Land Use for the South Central United States.” Research Paper PNW-RP-530. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, March 2001.Google Scholar
Ahn, S., Plantinga, A.J., and Alig, R.J.. “Determinants and Projections of Land Use in the South Central United States.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 26(February 2002):78–84.Google Scholar
Alig, R.J. “Econometric Analysis of Factors Influencing Forest Acreage Trends in the Southeast.” Forest Science 32(February 1986):119–34.Google Scholar
Amemiya, T., and Nold, F.. “A Modified Logit Model.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 57(May 1975):255–57.10.2307/1924015Google Scholar
Basnyat, P., Teeter, L.D., Flynn, K.M., and Lockaby, B.G.. “The Use of Remote Sensing and GIS in Watershed Level Analyses of Non-point Source Pollution Problems.” Forest Ecology and Management 128(March 2000):65–73.10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00273-XGoogle Scholar
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Regional Economic Information System (REIS), Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income. Internet site: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis (Accessed March 15, 2003).Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1993.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. LIMDEP Version 7.0. User's Manual. Bellport, NY: Econometric Software, Inc., 1995.Google Scholar
Hardie, I.W., and Parks, P.J.. “Land Use in a Region with Heterogeneous Land Quality: An Application of an Area Base Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(May 1997): 299–310.10.2307/1244131Google Scholar
Hardie, I.W., Parks, P.J., Gottlieb, P., and Wear, D.N.. “Responsiveness of Rural and Urban Land Uses to Land Rent Determinants in the U.S. South.” Land Economics 78(November 2000): 659–73.Google Scholar
Harvey, A.C. “Estimating Regression Models with Multiplicative Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica 44(May 1976):461–65.10.2307/1913974Google Scholar
Howard, J.L. “U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics 1965-1999.” Research Paper FPL-RP-595. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, April 2001.Google Scholar
Kline, J.D., Butler, B.J., and Alig, R.J.. “Tree Planting in the South: What Does the Future Hold?” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 26(May 2002):99–107.Google Scholar
Klingebiel, A.A., and Montgomery, P.H.. Land-Capability Classification. U.S.D.A. Agricultural Handbook No. 210. Washington, DC, September 1961.Google Scholar
Li, Y., and Zhang, D.. “Tree Planting in the U.S. South: A Panel Data Analysis.” Working Paper. School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, 2003.Google Scholar
Mauldin, T.E., Plantinga, A.J., and Alig, R.J.. “Land Use in the Lake States Region: An Analysis of Past Trends and Projections of Future Changes.” Research Paper PNW-RP-519. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station, July 1999.Google Scholar
Miller, D.J., and Plantinga, A.J.. “Modeling Land Use Decisions with Aggregate Data.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81 (February 1999): 180–94.10.2307/1244459Google Scholar
Parks, P.J., and Murray, B.C.. “Land Attributes and Land Allocation: Nonindustrial Forest Use in the Pacific Northwest.” Forest Science 40(August 1994):558–75.Google Scholar
Parks, R.W. “On the Estimation of Multinomial Logit Models from Relative Frequency Data.” Journal of Economics 13(August 1980):293–303.10.1016/0304-4076(80)90081-0Google Scholar
Plantinga, A.J., and Buongiorno, J.. “Determinants of Changes in Nonindustrial Private Timberland Ownership in the United States.” Journal of World Forest Resource Management 5(1990): 29–46.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A.J., Mauldin, T.E., and Alig, R.J.. “Land Use in the Lake States Region: An Analysis of Past Trends and Projections of Future Changes.” Research Paper PNW-RP-519. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station, June 1999.Google Scholar
Powell, L.A., Lang, J.D., Conroy, M.J., and Krementz, D.G.. “Effects of Forest Management on Density, Survival, and Population Growth of Wood Thrushes.” Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2000): 11–23.10.2307/3802970Google Scholar
Prestemon, J.P., and Pye, J.M.. “A Technique for Merging Areas in Timber Mart-South Data.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 24(November 2000):219–29.Google Scholar
Reynolds, J.E. “Land Use Change and Competition in the South.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33(August 2001):271–81.Google Scholar
Timber Mart-South (TMS). Timber Mart-South Quarterly Report. Norris Foundation, Daniel B. Warnell School of Forest Resources, Athens, GA: University of Georgia, 1977-2000.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics. Washington, DC, Various Years.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. “A Statistical History of Tree Planting in the South, 1925-1985.” Miscellaneous Report SA-MR 8. Atlanta, GA: Cooperative Forestry, State and Private Forestry, Southern Region, 1986.Google Scholar
Vesterby, M., and Heimlich, R.E.. “Land Use and Demographic Change: Results from Fast-Growth Counties.” Land Economics 67(August 1991):279–91.10.2307/3146423Google Scholar
Wear, D.N., and Greis., J.G., eds. “Southern Forest Resource Assessment.” General Technical Report SRS-53. Ashville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2002.Google Scholar
Williston, H.L. “A Statistical History of Tree Planting in the South, 1925-1979.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Miscellaneous Report SA-MR 8. Atlanta, GA: Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, 1980.Google Scholar
Wu, J., and Segerson, K.. “The Impact of Policies and Land Characteristics on Potential Groundwater Pollution in Wisconsin.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77(November 1995):1033–47.10.2307/1243826Google Scholar