Working Paper: Forest Management Activity - factors explaining the willingness-to-act of private forest owners in Germany - UEF
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Joint research project:
Climate protection in small private forests – for owners and society (KKEG)
Working Paper: Forest Management Activity – factors explaining the
willingness-to-act of private forest owners in Germany
Christoph Neitzel, Philine Feil, Björn Seintsch
© Christoph © Niedersächsische Landesforsten
Neitzel
Slide 0 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018 FKZ: 28W-C-5-036-99
Background
Forest-related ecosystem services, well-being, challenges and initiatives
Challenges Initiatives
International International
Climate change UNFCCC
Biodiversity loss CBD
Desertification UNCCD
… …
National National
Climate Protection
CC mitigation Strategy
Bioeconomy
CC adaptation Strategy
Fossil-to-Bio Forest Strategy
Environmental vs Strategy on
Species protection Biodiversity
… Conflicting goals and measures …
Slide 1 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018
Problem
Someone must be willing to implement forest managment activities
Basic silvicultural measures:
might individually or in combination benefit or harm different ecosystem services explicitly or implicitly
tree species composition maintain tracks
alien tree species forgo logging
pruning / thinning prohibit entry
logging retain habitat trees
… …
Slide 2 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018
The German forestry case
Forest ownership in Germany + Federal Forest Law
BWaldG § 1: The main objective of the
Corporate forest Private forest Federal Forest Law is
19% < 20 ha
24% 1. To maintain the forest because of its
use, protection and recreation
Public forest -
function, and, if necessary, to
state Private forest increase it and to ensure its proper
29% > 20 ha
24% management in the long term,
Public forest - 2. To promote/support forestry and
federal
4%
3. To bring about a balance between
Figure: Forest ownership types in Germany;
Source: National Forest Inventory (BWI) 2012 the interest of the general public and
the interest of the forest owners.
Slide 3 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018
The German forestry case
National Forest Inventory 2012
Harvest (m³/ha*a) in selected federal states Property type
All property types
Small private forests < 20 ha
Very small private forests < 5 ha
National average: 7,0 m³/ha*a
Average of small private forestst: 6,2 m³/ha*a
Average of very small private forests: 5,8 m³/ha*a
Hennig (2016: 332)
Slide 4 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018
Objective and research question
• Main objective:
• Identifying factors that influence the decision of private
forest owners (PFO) to implement Forest Management
Activities (FMA), i.e. basic silvicultural measures, in the
future.
• Question:
• Which factors explain PFOs’ willingness-to-act (WTA) in
terms of logging wood from their forest holding?
Slide 5 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018
Theoretical framework
Theory of human decision-making to structure variables
WTAlogging
Intervening Feedback
variables
Selection
instances
Objective
environment
Figure: Conceptual framework (modified from Pregerning, 1999)
Slide 6 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018
Material Telephone survey • Basic Population: German-speaking resident population, at least 18 years old • Sample: private forest owners (PFO) • Random sample: 1.202 respondents • Weighting: by gender, age, education and region to compensate bias • Survey period (incl. pre-test): May 22nd until July 21st, 2017 • Interview length: 29 minutes Slide 7 Christoph Neitzel 12.06.2018
Methods
Descriptive and regressive analysis with JMP/SAS
• Step 1: Bivariate statistics with chi²-test (variable-wise)
• PFOs’ WTAlogging x independent variables
• Selecting independent variables that indicate significant differences
• Step 2: Bivariate statistics with chi²-test (variable-wise)
• PFOs’ WTAlogging x independent variables
• Selecting independent variables with a hypothesized effect
• Step 3: Nominal logistic regression (all variables)
• Dependent variable takes the value of one (1), if the set of
independent variables indicates WTAlogging and zero (0) if otherwise
Slide 8 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018
Results
Sub-setting the data set
Block Component # of variables STEP 1 STEP 2
Dependent variables Forest management activities (future) 1 1 1
Response feedback Forest management activities (past) 8 8 2
Intervening variables Social milieus 1 1 1
Attitudes and values 13 10 2
Knowledge structure 15 13 2
Perceived attributes 30 19 2
Selection instances Direct social communication 9 6 2
Indirect communication 12 5 2
Objective environment Human (socio-demographic) 4 3 2
Social 10 8 2
Economic (socio-economic) 5 4 2
Natural (ecological) 10 8 2
Institutional 7 5 2
TOTAL 125 91 24
Slide 9 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018Results
Dependent and independent variables
Variable Type Unit Explanation
WTAlogging Nominal 0/1 Whether or not willing to log wood in the next 10 years.
MAINTENANCE Nominal 0/1 Whether or not implemented thinning/pruning activities in the past 10 years.
LOGGING Nominal 0/1 Whether or not implemented logging activities in the past 10 years.
MILIEU Categorical Dummy Affiliation to 1 out of 10 social milieus.
FUNCTION Categorical Dummy 3 paired comparisons of „basic“ forest functions regarding an increase in provision.
RELEVANCEsubsistence Nominal 0/1 Whether or not the forest holding is relevant for subsistence in wood supply.
HAZARDS Nominal 0/1 Whether or not the forest holding is threatened by hazards.
SUITsize Nominal 0/1 Whether or not the forest holding is perceived as too small for FMA.
CONSULTFUTURElogging Nominal 0/1 Whether or not more or better counselling services for logging activities are desired.
KNOWLEDGEtimbersale Nominal 0/1 Whether or not contact persons are known to market wood.
PRINCIPAL Categorical Dummy Nomination of 1 out of 7 agents that act as the principal forest manager.
CONSULTspn Categorical Dummy Whether or not counsel/assistance was obtained from professionals in the past 10 years.
INFOjournal Nominal 0/1 Whether or not red a forest-related journal in the past year.
INFOseminar Nominal 0/1 Whether or not visited a forest-related seminar or alike in the past year.
GENDER Nominal 0/1 Male or female
AGE Continuous Years Age of the private forest owner.
HHsize Continuous # Number of persons living in the household.
RESIDENCErural Nominal 0/1 Whether or not the residence is located in a rural areas accroding to EUROSTAT-DEGUBRA.
EQUIPMENT Nominal 0/1 Whether or not owning equipment for forest-related work.
PRIMARY Nominal 0/1 Whether or not someone in the household is or was employed in the primary sector.
SIZE Continuous Hectares Size of the forest holding in total.
ROAD Nominal 0/1 Whether or not the forest holding has road access that is suitable for wood transport.
Slide 10
FOAadopt Christoph
Nominal Neitzel
0/1 Whether or not there is a membership in a forest owner association/cooperation.
12.06.2018
FINANCIALsupport Nominal 0/1 Whether or not forest-related financial support was received in the past 10 years.Results
Logistic regression (all components): FMA (past) + Milieu
WTAlogging model
N 860
LR-testResults
Logistic regression (all components): intervening variables
expected Variable Type Unit Coefficient p-value Odds ratio p-value
FUNCTIONfrs nominal dimensionless 0,0247 **
FUNCTIONfrs[more forestry] 0,542 0,0070 *** FUNCTIONfrs[more forestry-status quo] 2,439 0,0223 **
FUNCTIONfrs[more recreation] -0,192 0,3150 FUNCTIONfrs[more recreation-status quo] 1,171 0,6726
FUNCTIONfns nominal dimensionless 0,0399 **
FUNCTIONfns[more forestry] 0,275 0,3095 FUNCTIONfns[more forestry-status quo] 1,008 0,9886
FUNCTIONfns[more protection] -0,542 0,0145 ** FUNCTIONfns[more protection-status quo] 0,445 0,0832 *
FUNCTIONnrs nominal dimensionless 0,0006 ***
FUNCTIONnrs[more protection] 0,494 0,0677 * FUNCTIONnrs[more protection-status quo] 5,638 0,0002 ***
FUNCTIONnrs[more recreation] 0,742 0,0652 * FUNCTIONnrs[more recreation-status quo] 7,229 0,0026 ***
RELEVANTsubsistence binominal dimensionless 0,225 0,1406 1,569 0,1402
HARZARDS binominal dimensionless 0,037 0,8071 1,076 0,8069
SUITSsize binominal dimensionless -0,179 0,2437 0,699 0,2416
CONSULTFUTURElogging binominal dimensionless 0,743 0,0004 *** 4,422 0,0002 ***
KNOWLEDGEtimbersale binominal dimensionless 0,045 0,7640 1,095 0,7642
*Siginificant at α = 0.10, **Significant at α = 0.05, ***Significant at α = 0.01
Slide 12 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018Results
Logistic regression (all components): selection instances
expected Variable Type Unit Coefficient p-value Odds ratio p-value
PRINCIPALall nominal dimensionlessResults
Logistic regression (all components): objective environment
expected Variable Type Unit Coefficient p-value Odds ratio p-value
GENDER binominal dimensionless 0,364 0,0175 ** 2,072 0,0164 **
AGE continuous years -0,018 0,0765 * 0,982 0,0761 *
HHsize continuous persons 0,037 0,7640 1,038 0,7635
RESIDENCErural binominal dimensionless 0,917Discussion Theoretical framework • Is the theoretical approach suitable for the research question? Material and methods • Data quality: quantitative data with ad hoc response • Variables mainly “nominal” and only some “continuous” • Finding subsets that fit well: theory-driven vs. stepwise? • Comparison with non-DACH countries not yet exhaustive. Results • # of observations 840 out of 1.202 • 11 out of 23 variables are not significant • 3 out of 23 variables have a sign contrary to our expectation. Slide 15 Christoph Neitzel 12.06.2018
Conclusions preliminary The willingness to act (in terms of implementing logging activities) is mainly explained (in terms of significance) by: • FMA of logging in the past • milieu affiliation • a stated preference in more forestry activities compared to the status quo • a stated interest in more counselling services regarding logging • a public forester being mainly in charge of the private forest holding • obtained public or private counselling services in the past • being a male private forest owner • being younger • living in a rural “physical” environment • having road access to the forest holding • having greater forest holding sizes Slide 16 Christoph Neitzel 12.06.2018
Literature*
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical Lettmann, A., 1995. Akzeptanz von Extensivierungsstrategien: Eine empirische Untersuchung bei
research. Psychological bulletin 84, 888. Landwirten in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Wehle, Witterschlick/Bonn.
Bieling, C., 2003. Naturnahe Waldbewirtschaftung durch private Eigentümer Akzeptanz und Umsetzung Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being - Synthesis, Washington, D.C.
naturnaher Bewirtschaftungsformen im Kleinprivatwald des Südschwarzwaldes, Remagen Kessel 2003.
Mrosek, T., Kies, U., Schulte, A., 2005. Privatwaldbesitz in Deutschland-Neue Erkenntnisse im Rahmen der
BMEL, 2012. Dritte Bundeswaldinventur (2012) - Ergebnisdatenbank, in: Thünen-Insitut (Ed.). Clusterstudie Forst und Holz in Deutschland. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift-Der Wald, 1211-1213.
Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft.
Neitzel, C., Wachenfeld-Schell, A., 2018. KKEG-Projekt: Telefonbefragung. AFZ - Der Wald 73, 19-20.
BMEL, 2014. Der Wald in Deutschland. Ausgewählte Ergebnisse der Bundeswaldinventur.
Nickles, 2005. Bäuerliche Beteiligung an der grenzüberschreitenden Initiative BIO ALPE ADRIA. Eine
BMELV, 2011. Waldstrategie 2020: Nachhaltige Waldbewirtschaftung - eine gesellschaftliche Chance und qualitative Untersuchung mit Biobäuerinnen und Biobauern in Kärnten. Master / Diploma Thesis - Institut
Herausforderung. Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (BMELV), für Ökologischer Landbau (IFÖL), BOKU-Universität für Bodenkultur. .
Bonn, p. 36.
Polley, H., Hennig, P., 2015. Waldeigentum im Spiegel der Bundeswaldinventur. AFZ-Der Wald, 34-36.
BMUB-BfN, 2014. Naturbewusstsein 2013. Bevölkerungsumfrage zu Natur und biologischer Vielfalt.
Pregernig, M., 1999. Die Akzeptanz wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse. Determinanten der Umsetzung
BMUB-UBA, 2015. Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2014. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen wissenschaftlichen Wissens am Beispiel der österreichischen "Forschungsinitiative gegen das
Bevölkerungsumfrage. Waldsterben".
Borgstädt, K., 2005. Motivationale Faktoren bei Kleinprivatwaldbesitzern - Leitfaden zur Typisierung der Rau, T., 1989. Umweltprobleme und umweltorientierte Landbewirtschaftung / Environmental problems
Teilnehmer des Testbetriebsnetz Kleinprivatwald (5-200 ha) hinsichtlich ihrer Einstellung zum Waldbesitz and environmentally oriented cultivation.
und zur Waldnutzung.
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York : Free Press.
Cai, Z., Narine, L.L., D'Amato, A., Aguilar, F.X., 2016. Attitudinal and revenue effects on non-industrial
private forest owners' willingness-to-harvest timber and woody biomass. Forest Policy and Economics Ruschko, 2002. Waldeigentümer in Österreich. Eine repräsentative Telefonbefragung. Diplomarbeit. Univ.
63, 52-61. für Bodenkultur Wien.
Fietkau, H.-J., Kessel, H., 1981. Umweltlernen: Veränderungsmöglichkeiten des Umweltbewusstseins: Schaffner, S., 2008. Waldbesitzertypisierungen und ihre Relevanz für die Holzmobilisierung| Classifications
Modelle, Erfahrungen. Königstein/Ts.: Hain. of forest owners and their relevance for timber mobilization. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen
159, 435-440.
Hennig, P., 2016. Kleinprivatwald: höhere Vorräte, geringere Nutzung. Holz-Zentralblatt, 330-332.
Schraml, 2006. Der urbane Waldbesitzer - das unbekannte Wesen. LWF aktuell 52.
Hennig, P., 2018. Holznutzung im Kleinprivatwald. AFZ - Der Wald 73, 12-15.
Schraml, Härdter, 2002. Urbanität von Waldbesitzern und von Personen ohne Waldeigentum–Folgerungen
Huff, E.S., Leahy, J.E., Kittredge, D.B., Noblet, C.L., Weiskittel, A.R., 2017. Psychological distance of timber aus einer Bevölkerungsbefragung in Deutschland. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung, 173. JAHRGANG 2002
harvesting for private woodland owners. Forest Policy and Economics 81, 48-56. HEFT 7/8 JULI/AUGUST JD SAUERLANDER’S VERLAG· FRANKFURT AM MAIN 173, 140-146.
Judmann, F.K.L., 1998. Die Einstellungen von Kleinprivatwaldeigentümern zu ihrem Wald: eine Schraml, U., 2018. 100 Jahre Kleinprivatwaldforschung in Deutschland. AFZ - Der Wald 5/2018.
vergleichende Studie zwischen Baden-Württemberg und dem US-Bundesstaat Pennsylvania, Forstwiss.
Fak. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau, p. 243. SINUS-Institut, 2017. Informationen zu den SINUS-Milieus. SINUS Markt- und Sozialforschung GmbH,
Heidelberg/ Berlin.
Karppinen, H., 1998. Values and Objectives of Non-industrial Private Forest Owners in Finland. Silva
Fennica 32 (1). Volz, K.-R., 2001. Waldeigentum im Spannungsfeld von privatem und allgemeinem Interesse. Der deutsche
Wald.
Krott, M., Neitzel, C., 2018. Moderner Kleinprivatwald - Eigentümer "first". AFZ - Der Wald 73, 21-23.
von der Lippe, P., 2004. Induktive Statistik: Formeln, Aufgaben, Klausurtraining.
Laakkonen, A., Zimmerer, R., Kähkönen, T., Hujala, T., Takala, T., Tikkanen, J., 2018. Forest owners'
attitudes toward pro-climate and climate-responsive forest management. Forest Policy and Economics Wentingmann, U., 1988. Umweltkenntnisse und -bewusstsein bei Junglandwirten. / Environmental
87, 1-10. knowledge and consciousness of young farmers. German. Ausbildung und Beratung in Land und
Hauswirtschaft.
Langenheder, W., 1975. Theorie menschlicher Entscheidungshandlungen. Stuttgart, Enke, 1975.
Ziegenspeck, S., Härdter, U., Schraml, U., 2004. Lifestyles of private forest owners as an indication of social
change. Forest Policy and Economics 6, 447-458.
*non-exhaustive reference list
Slide 17 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018Thank you for your attention!
christoph.neitzel@thuenen.de www.waldklimafonds.de/projekte
Joint research project: Climate protection in small private forests – for owners and society (KKEG)
© Christoph © Niedersächsische Landesforsten
Neitzel
Slide 18 Christoph Neitzel
12.06.2018 FKZ: 28W-C-5-036-99You can also read
