Understanding Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners’ Perspectives on the Benefits Associated with Sustainable Forest Management Certification

Abstract

Sustainable forest management provides ecological, economic, and social benefits to society. Sustaining these benefits in Arkansas relies on 345,000 nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners who own 4.2 million hectares (10.4 million acres) of forests. Forest certification is a voluntary and market-based mechanism aimed to enhance such societal benefits while providing incentives or benefits for the landowners. Understanding NIPF landowners’ perspectives on the benefits associated with adopting forest certification programs would be useful in identifying potential participants and in designing outreach and communication programs to elevate the interests of less interested landowners in participating in certification programs. Using data collected from a mixed mode of mail and online (Qualtrics) survey of NIPF landowners in Arkansas, this study examined the potential factors that influence landowners’ perspectives on different benefits associated with adopting sustainable forest management certification by employing binary logistic regression. Results revealed that ownership and forestland characteristics (i.e., ownership size, whether having a harvesting plan), as well as ownership motivations (biodiversity protection, financial investment, hunting), were significantly associated with landowners’ agreement on the benefits of increasing timber growth and health, expanding markets, having a price premium for certified timber, enhancing public recognition, more environmental-friendly harvesting, and better management practices. These findings improve the understanding of landowners’ expectations after certifying their forestland and provide baseline information for improving certification program design to attract more adoption among private and family landowners.

1. Introduction

Forest certification systems arose in the 1990s as the principal nongovernmental means to prescribe and reward sustainable forest management [1]. Since then, forest certification has spread rapidly and certified more than 0.4 billion hectares (one billion acres) of forestlands globally [2]. With developing ecolabel knowledge, environmental attitudes, and trust in certifying organizations among consumers, demand for certified wood products has gained momentum [3]. Meanwhile, consumers are becoming more aware of sustainable behavior to reduce the adverse effects on the environment [4]. Therefore, forest certification is increasingly recognized by both consumers and producers to promote sustainability [5]. Having a forest management plan is the best way for landowners to meet their long-term sustainability objectives, which is required by certification programs. Many components such as forest and property inventory, regeneration/harvesting, water quality, invasive plants and animals, identification of endangered or threatened species, etc. are generally included in a management plan. However, the first step before developing a management plan is defining landowners’ management objectives, which determine what components will be included in a forest management plan. Multiple agencies and organizations such as Forestry Division can assist landowners to develop a management plan based on their management objectives. However, only 13% of forestlands in the United States were enrolled in any certification program [6], despite several benefits of forest certification. Specific to Arkansas, 55% of its total area is covered by forest [7]; thus, Arkansas is one of the top ten states that depend on forestry activities in terms of value-added contributions to their GDP [8]. In addition, most forests in Arkansas are classified as private ownership (80.3%), with nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners representing 45% of the total forestland [9]. Similar to the rest of the U.S., enrollment rates in forest conservation programs remain low with only 2% of the Arkansas NIPFs currently certified [9].

Previous studies have revealed that numerous factors have contributed to the low enrollment of NIPF landowners in forest management certification programs, and the most important one was low familiarity and interest [10,11,12,13,14]. The most recent iteration of the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) found that 70% of NIPF landowners are not at all familiar with certification [9,14], a pattern that has also been reported by previous studies. For example, a study in Alabama reported that 78% of landowners had not heard about forest certification [15]. Nine of the thirteen participants of a focus group discussion in Minnesota had never heard of forest certification [16]. Less than half of the NIPF participants were familiar with the programs in Mississippi and Louisiana [17]. A recent study in Arkansas found that more than two-thirds were not familiar with the certification programs [14].

The cost of enrolling in the certification program is another barrier for private landowners to adopt certification. For example, three-fourths of the NIPF landowners were not willing to pay anything extra for forest certification in Mississippi and Louisiana [17]. Similarly, a recent survey found that the majority of NIPF landowners were not willing to pay for forest certification in Arkansas as well [18]. The total costs incurred in the process of forest certification and audit are primarily influenced by the size of the forestland and certification programs [1]. Landowners who owned a larger tract size were more likely to adopt certification because of economies of scale in certification costs [12]. Cubbage et al. [1] reported that the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification program could be less costly for small owners than the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). On the other side, the price premium of certified forest products is uncertain in the long run given the uncertainties associated with the demand and supply of certified products [19]. A previous study found that a majority of buyers and consumers were not willing to pay more for certified wood [20].

The perceived benefits of forest certification include the enhancement of forest health and biodiversity, price premium for forest products, greater access to markets, improved workers’ rights, and addressing the public’s social and environmental concerns [1]. As the forest certification program is a market-based incentive, market benefits encourage forest owners to produce more costly but environmentally beneficial forest products [21]. Each forest certifying agency has certain forest management prescriptions that are of clear value to biodiversity among other ecosystem services. For instance, the FSC requires forest owners to make significant changes leading to the adoption of good environmental management practices, prevention of deforestation, and pressure reduction to high conservation value forests [21], all of which are beneficial to conserving forests and biodiversity. The benefits of certification also extend to society in terms of the well-being of workers and surrounding communities. A study conducted in 21 countries found that certification improves communication and conflict resolution with stakeholders, neighbors, and communities, as well as workers’ training, safety, and wages [22]. Certified forestry operations also enhance workers’ living conditions by providing and enhancing access to essential services, such as water supply, housing, electricity, and medical facilities [23]. The environmental and social components of certification create a product differentiation attractive to certain markets. Since certification operates as a market-based approach, certified wood products can earn access to new or environmentally regulated markets and gain price premiums [24]. However, the consumer perception of price premiums for certified products has been changing slowly. Two studies carried out two decades ago showed that consumers were not willing to pay a price premium for certified products [25], and that many industry producers were not receiving price premiums [26]. However, a recent study in the US found that consumers would be willing to pay at least a 10% premium for certified wood products [27]. Additionally, less than one-half of house builders in the central Appalachians were willing to pay up to 4% for certified wood construction materials [28].

Many studies [12,13,14,18] have explored the factors that influence NIPF landowners’ decision making in favor of participating in forest certification programs. For example, Tian and Pelkki [14] found that private landowners’ interests in adopting a certification program were influenced by age, gender, education, timber harvest intentions, and motivations for owning forestland. Nevertheless, it is equally important to know the motivations of NIPF landowners for pursuing certification programs; in other words, a better understanding of the landowners’ perspectives on different certification benefits is necessary for identifying potential participants and designing and implementing outreach, messaging, and education programs to elevate the interests of less interested landowners. Therefore, this study aims to examine NIPF landowners’ perceptions of the potential benefits of adopting forest management certification and the factors associated with their different attitudes. Specifically, we included six major possible benefits: timber growth and forest health increment, market expansion (increased quantity demanded) for certified wood products, the price premium for certified timber products, public recognition for good forestry, better/environmentally friendly harvesting, and better management practices. By identifying the characteristics of NIPF landowners associated with their attitudes toward different benefits related to forest management certification, we provide helpful information in understanding the potential participants in certification programs and in designing appropriate outreach programs to communicate and educate landowners on certification.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

To examine NIPF landowners’ perspectives on different benefits associated with sustainable forest management certification, we conducted a mixed mail and online survey of 4000 Arkansas private landowners in 2020. To be consistent with previous forest landowner surveys, the target population was landowners owning at least four hectares (10 acres) of forestland [10]. The survey implementation followed Dillman [29] protocols. The mailings included both the paper questionnaire and a link to the online survey using Qualtrics. In total, 298 individuals were removed from the initial sample due to invalid mailing addresses or deceased owners. As a result, a total of 562 valid responses were returned, yielding an adjusted response rate of 15.2%. Among those 562 responses, 30 were returned online through Qualtrics, and 532 were received in the mail.

The survey instrument contained three sections inquiring about forest ownership characteristics (e.g., forest size, tenure, ownership motivations, etc.), forest management certification knowledge and preferences (e.g., familiarity, perception of benefits, etc.), and concluded with demographic information. To be specific, age, gender, education, and income were included in the sociodemographic section. The section on forest ownership and management objectives included forest size, acquisition mode, tenure, timber harvesting intention, the existence of a management plan, whether landowners received management advice from others, future ownership plans, and familiarity with forest management certification. The third section consisted of various motivations for owning the forestland, such as enjoying the scenery, protecting biodiversity, financial returns, hunting, and family heritage. Five-point Likert scale style questions measured landowners’ familiarity level with forest certification (1 = not at all familiar, 5 = very familiar), as well as the importance level of different motivations for owing the forestland (1 = not at all important, 5 = very important). All detailed descriptions and definitions for questions/variables are summarized in

Table 1. Definition and description of variables used in the empirical models for estimating the association between the characteristics of NIPF landowners and the benefits of forest certification.

Variables	Mean (SD)	Description
Dependent variables
TIMBER	0.83 (0.38)	Binary, whether landowners believe that “increasing timber growth and health” is a benefit after certifying (1 = yes, 0 = no)
MARKET	0.68 (0.47)	Binary, whether landowners believe that “expanding markets accessibility for harvested timber” is a benefit after certifying (1 = yes, 0 = no)
PREMIUM	0.70 (0.46)	Binary, whether landowners believe that “having a price premium for harvested timber” is a benefit after certifying (1 = yes, 0 = no)
RECOGNITION	0.68 (0.47)	Binary, whether landowners believe that “having public recognition for good forestry” is a benefit after certifying (1 = yes, 0 = no)
ENVHARVEST	0.78 (0.41)	Binary, whether landowners believe that “harvesting timber environmental-friendly” is a benefit after certifying (1 = yes, 0 = no)
MANAGEMENT	0.82 (0.39)	Binary, whether landowners believe that “better management practices” is a benefit after certifying (1 = yes, 0 = no)
Independent variables
Sociodemographic characteristics
AGE	61.30 (13.5)	Continuous, age of private landowners (years)
GENDER	0.71 (0.45)	Binary, gender of landowners (1 = male, 0 = female)
EDUCATION	0.48 (0.50)	Binary, landowners’ education level (1 = college education or more, 0 = otherwise)
INCOME	3.20 (1.29)	Ordinal, landowners’ annual household income level (1 = less than USD 20,000, 2 = USD 20,000 − USD 49,999, 3 = USD 50,000 − USD 79,999, 4 = USD 80,000 − USD 100,000, 5 = more than USD 100,000)
Forest ownership and management objectives
SIZE	74.51 (216.03)	Continuous, forestland acreage being owned by landowners (acres)
ACQUISITION	1.30 (1.19)	Categorical, landowners’ acquisition mode for their forestland (1 = purchased, 2 = inherited, 3 = rented)
TENURE	33.15 (30.80)	Continuous, number of years the forestland has been with landowners’ family
HARVESTPLAN	0.37 (0.48)	Binary, whether landowners plan to harvest timber in the coming five years (1 = yes, 0 = no)
MANAGEPLAN	0.17 (0.38)	Binary, whether landowners have a forest management plan (1 = yes, 0 = no)
ADVICE	0.69 (0.46)	Binary, whether landowners have received management advice from others (1 = yes, 0 = no)
FUTUREPLAN	1.90 (0.97)	Categorical, landowners’ future forestland ownership plan (1 = self-manage, 2 = sell/rent, 3 = family inherit)
FAMILIAR	1.58 (1.02)	Ordinal, landowners’ familiarity level with forest management certification (1 = not familiar at all, 5 = very familiar)
Motivations for owning forestland
SCENERY	4.40 (2.44)	Ordinal, the importance placed by a landowner on enjoying the scenery as ownership motivation (1 = not important at all, 5 = extremely important)
BIODIVERSITY	4.19 (1.08)	Ordinal, the importance placed by a landowner on biodiversity protection as ownership motivation (1 = not important at all, 5 = extremely important)
INVESTMENT	2.99 (1.53)	Ordinal, the importance placed by a landowner on a financial investment as ownership motivation (1 = not important at all, 5 = extremely important)
HERITAGE	3.70 (1.41)	Ordinal, the importance placed by a landowner on family heritage as ownership motivation (1 = not important at all, 5 = extremely important)
WILDLIFE	3.90 (1.20)	Ordinal, the importance placed by a landowner on providing habitat/food for wildlife as ownership motivation (1 = not important at all, 5 = extremely important)
HUNTING	3.33 (1.55)	Ordinal, the importance placed by a landowner on wildlife hunting as ownership motivation (1 = not important at all, 5 = extremely important)
RECREATION	3.30 (1.40)	Ordinal, the importance placed by a landowner on other recreation activities (i.e., family gathering) as ownership motivation (1 = not important at all, 5 = extremely important)
PRIVACY	4.24 (1.17)	Ordinal, the importance placed by a landowner on privacy as ownership motivation (1 = not important at all, 5 = extremely important)

Note: SD denotes standard deviation.

.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

The dependent variable was the respondents’ agreement level with different benefits associated with adopting forest management certification, and six major benefits were included in this study: increased timber growth and health, market expansion, the price premium for certified timber products, public recognition for good forestry, environmentally friendly timber harvesting, and better management practices. To explore the factors associated with each certification benefit, six separate logistic regression models were estimated. The dependent variables were transformed from a five-point Likert scale into a binary response, which took the value of 1 if landowners believe/agree with the benefit after certifying and 0 otherwise. As described above, several explanatory variables were used for the empirical analysis, grouped into sociodemographic characteristics, forest ownership, and management objectives, and ownership motivations. We took landowners’ age (AGE), gender (GENDER), highest education degree earned (EDUCATION), and household annual income (INCOME) in sociodemographic characteristics. For forest ownership and management objectives, we included forestland acreage (SIZE), acquisition mode for their forestland (ACQUISITION), number of years of owing forestland (TENURE), landowner’s timber harvesting plan in the next five years (HARVESTPLAN), presence of a forest management plan (MANAGEPLAN), whether landowners received management advice from others (ADVICE), future forestland ownership plan (FUTUREPLAN), and landowners’ familiarity level with forest certification programs (FAMILIAR). Regarding the ownership motivations, we included the items of enjoying the scenery (SCENERY), protecting biodiversity (BIODIVERSITY), investing financially (INVESTMENT), family heritage (HERITAGE), providing wildlife habitat (WILDLIFE), wildlife hunting (HUNTING), and other recreational activities (RECREATION).

To estimate the empirical models, we employed the binary logistic regression specified as follows:

$$P\left(Y_i=1\left|X\right.\right)=P_i=\frac{e^{\beta X_i}}{1+e^{\beta X_i}}$$

(1)

$$P\left(Y_i=0\left|X\right.\right)=1-P_i=1-\frac{e^{\beta X_i}}{1+e^{\beta X_i}}=\frac{1}{1+e^{\beta X_i}}$$

(2)

where $P_i$ is the probability of landowner i agreeing that a specific certification benefit is important, $\beta$ is a vector of regression coefficients, and $X$ is a vector of independent variables.

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to test the difference between the two groups of landowners: those who believe/agree with each benefit (Yes) and those who do not (No). We conducted the comparison in terms of age, forest size, and tenure.

In addition, we used variance inflation factors (VIFs) to examine the multicollinearity among explanatory variables. The VIF was calculated using the artificial regression between independent variables in Equation (3). A VIF greater than 10 considered that the estimation of the explanatory variable was being affected by multicollinearity [30].

$$VI{F}_i=\frac{1}{\left(1-R_i^2\right)}$$

(3)

where $R_i^2$ is the R² of the artificial regression with the ith independent variable.

3. Results

The average age of the respondents was 61 years old, and the majority (71%) of respondents were male, with 29% female. About 48% of respondents reported at least some college education, and 62% indicated that their annual household income was below USD 80,000, while the median household income was USD 52,123 in Arkansas according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Survey participants owned an average of 30.1 hectares (74.5 acres) of forestland with an average ownership tenure of 33 years. In addition, 37% of the participants were planning to harvest timber from their forestland in the next five years, only 17% had a written forest management plan, and 69% had received forest management advice from any sources such as the state division of forestry, extension university employees, private consultants, forest industries, family and friends, etc. The summary statistics of the independent variables are displayed in Table 1.

Regarding respondents’ agreement level on the six major potential benefits after certifying, about 83% of them indicated Yes for improving timber growth and health (TIMBER). Over two-thirds reported Yes for expanding the market for certified timber (MARKET) (68%), enhancing public recognition (RECOGNITION) (68%) for good forestry, having a price premium (PREMIUM) (70%), and environmental-friendly timber harvesting (ENVHARVEST) (78%), while over 81% reported Yes for the benefit of better forest management practices (MANAGEMENT). The ANOVA statistical analysis showed a significant difference between those two groups of landowners’ perceptions of the benefits (

Table 2. ANOVA results for age, ownership size, and tenure with dependent variables.

Benefits	Binary Level	n	Age	p-Value	n	Ownership Size	p-Value	n	Tenure	p-Value
TIMBER	Yes	393	60.26	0.007	401	73.91	0.008	402	33.53	0.640
	No	83	64.61		82	35.70		84	31.76
MARKET	Yes	323	59.79	0.004	325	80.38	<0.001	327	36.24	0.002
	No	150	63.59		154	33.05		154	26.79
PREMIUM	Yes	331	59.82	0.003	334	88.97	0.003	337	35.05	0.060
	No	143	63.71		147	35.01		146	29.31
RECOGNITION	Yes	323	59.58	0.004	327	76.31	0.004	328	34.82	0.210
	No	154	64.19		156	44.29		157	31.04
ENVHARVEST	Yes	376	61.20	0.008	381	73.93	0.003	383	34.14	0.280
	No	101	64.14		103	36.39		104	30.43
MANAGEMENT	Yes	393	59.98	0.003	398	72.27	0.007	399	33.40	0.870
	No	84	65.68		86	36.09		87	32.78

) in terms of age, ownership size, and tenure. Specifically, the ANOVA results indicated that respondents with younger ages and larger forestland sizes were more likely to believe and agree with all six benefits after adopting forest certification than others. Meanwhile, regarding tenure, the results suggested that respondents who owned forestland for a longer time period were more likely to agree on the benefits of market expansion and price premium for certified timber (Table 2), and no marked difference was found for the other four benefits in terms of tenure.

The variance inflation factors (VIFs) calculated (

Table 3. Variance inflation factors (VIFs) among independent variables for all six regression models.

Independent Variables	Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs)
	TIMBER	MARKET	PREMIUM	RECOGNITION	ENVHARVEST	MANAGEMENT
Sociodemographic characteristics
AGE	1.57	1.57	1.57	1.57	1.57	1.57
GENDER	1.14	1.14	1.14	1.14	1.14	1.14
EDUCATION	1.29	1.28	1.27	1.29	1.28	1.29
INCOME	1.56	1.56	1.56	1.56	1.56	1.56
Forest ownership and management objectives
SIZE	1.47	1.45	1.47	1.47	1.47	1.47
ACQUISITION	1.21	1.21	1.21	1.21	1.21	1.21
TENURE	1.32	1.31	1.32	1.32	1.32	1.32
HARVESTPLAN	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09
MANAGEPLAN	1.27	1.27	1.27	1.27	1.27	1.27
ADVICE	1.15	115	1.15	1.15	1.15	1.15
FUTUREPLAN	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25
FAMILIAR	1.28	1.29	1.28	1.28	1.28	1.28
Motivations for owning forestland
SCENERY	2.03	2.07	2.03	2.03	2.03	2.03
BIODIVERSITY	2.34	2.35	2.34	2.34	2.34	2.34
INVESTMENT	1.28	1.28	1.28	1.28	1.28	1.28
HERITAGE	1.51	1.51	1.51	1.51	1.51	1.51
WILDLIFE	2.13	2.13	2.13	2.13	2.14	2.13
HUNTING	1.56	1.56	1.56	1.56	1.56	1.56
RECREATION	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.54
PRIVACY	1.51	1.52	1.51	1.51	1.51	1.51

) were less than a threshold value of 10, indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern for the models in this study [30]. The regression results indicated that several variables in the groups of sociodemographic, forestland characteristics, and ownership motivations were associated with landowners’ various perceptions of forest certification benefits (

Table 4. Regression estimates of the empirical models for private landowners’ attitudes toward potential benefits of TIMBER, MARKET, and PREMIUM related to forest certification (n = 487).

	TIMBER	MARKET	PREMIUM
Variables	Coefficients (S.E.)	Coefficients (S.E.)	Coefficients (S.E.)
Sociodemographic characteristics
AGE	0.009 (0.022)	−0.011 (0.014)	−0.005 (0.015)
GENDER	0.110 (0.502)	0.240 (0.380)	0.019 (0.372)
EDUCATION	0.939 (0.499) **	0.425 (0370)	0.107 (0.372)
INCOME	0.074 (0.217)	0.043 (0.161)	0.093 (0.154)
Forest ownership and management objectives
SIZE	0.001 (0.005)	0.006 (0.004) *	0.004 (0.003) *
ACQUISITION	−0.110 (0.409)	0.375 (0.463)	0.299 (0.449)
TENURE	−0.003 (0.008)	0.009 (0.007)	0.004 (0.007)
HARVESTPLAN	0.336 (1.057) *	0.321 (0.160) **	0.326 (0.155) **
MANAGEPLAN	0.914 (2.231)	−0.293 (0.494)	−0.287 (0.468)
ADVICE	0.201 (0.485)	0.836 (0.366) **	0.750 (0.382) **
FUTUREPLAN	0.436 (1.802)	0.126 (1.136)	−1.059 (1.504)
FAMILIAR	−0.014 (0.296)	0.172 (0.199)	0.053 (0.171)
Motivations for owning forestland
SCENERY	−0.287 (0.311)	0.090 (0.252)	0.386 (0.253) *
BIODIVERSITY	0.442 (0.306) *	0.240 (0.236)	0.236 (0.223)
INVESTMENT	0.356 (0.189) **	0.150 (0.132)	0.310 (0.130) ***
HERITAGE	0.037 (0.180)	−0.063 (0.145)	−0.016 (0.145)
WILDLIFE	0.058 (0.240)	−0.153 (0.241)	−0.152 (0.219)
HUNTING	0.400 (0.173) ***	0.529 (0.130)	0.425 (0.124)
RECREATION	−0.084 (0.211)	−0.069 (0.171)	−0.178 (0.172)
PRIVACY	0.124 (0.208)	−0.164 (0.184)	−0.083 (0.178)

Note: * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

and

Table 5. Regression estimates of the empirical models for private landowners’ attitudes toward potential benefits of RECOGNITION, ENVHARVEST, and MANAGEMENT related to forest certification (n = 487).

	RECOGNITION	ENVHARVEST	MANAGEMENT
Variables	Coefficients (S.E.)	Coefficients (S.E.)	Coefficients (S.E.)
Sociodemographic characteristics
AGE	0.005 (0.015)	0.017 (0.019)	0.012 (0.021)
GENDER	−0.137 (0.373)	−0.176 (0.421)	0.083 (0.531)
EDUCATION	0.045 (0.359)	0.423 (0.469)	0.511 (0.592)
INCOME	0.255 (0.156) *	0.208 (0.217)	0.287 (0.245)
Forest ownership and management objectives
SIZE	−0.001 (0.002)	0.002 (0.003)	0.002 (0.003)
ACQUISITION	0.178 (0.305)	0.043 (0.366)	−0.087 (0.328)
TENURE	0.005 (0.006)	0.000 (0.008)	−0.002 (0.009)
HARVESTPLAN	0.171 (0.147)	0.409 (0.246) **	0.379 (0.288) *
MANAGEPLAN	0.161 (0.432)	0.452 (0.549)	0.337 (1.055)
ADVICE	0.465 (0.376)	0.204 (0.434)	0.526 (0.480)
FUTUREPLAN	−0.608 (0.756)	−0.166 (1.947)	0.072 (2.488)
FAMILIAR	0.329 (0.210) *	−0.024 (0.253)	−0.019 (0.267)
Motivations for owning forestland
SCENERY	0.114 (0.222)	0.021 (0.262)	0.004 (0.287)
BIODIVERSITY	0.436 (0.225) **	0.524 (0.241) **	0.571 (0.305) **
INVESTMENT	0.398 (0.130) ***	0.290 (0.150) **	0.349 (0.190) **
HERITAGE	−0.133 (0.131)	−0.302 (0.188) *	0.298 (0.210) *
WILDLIFE	0.170 (0.207)	0.266 (0.257)	0.081 (0.299)
HUNTING	0.225 (0.111) **	0.153 (0.157)	0.154 (0.169)
RECREATION	0.069 (0.151)	−0.231 (0.198)	0.160 (0.217)
PRIVACY	−0.107 (0.462)	0.093 (0.196)	−0.081 (0.197)

Note: * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

).

3.1. Timber Growth and Health

Among four sociodemographic variables, only education was found to be significantly and positively related to landowners’ agreement with timber growth and health improvement after certifying. This result indicated that respondents with a higher education level were more likely to believe that adopting certification could improve timber growth and health. Similarly, we found a significant and positive association with HARVESTPLAN, suggesting that respondents who had a timber harvesting plan were more likely to agree on this benefit related to forest certification. In addition, regarding the ownership motivations, significant and positive agreement on this certification benefit was found for those who put high importance on protecting nature and biodiversity (BIODIVERSITY), financial investment (INVESTMENT), and wildlife hunting (HUNTING).

3.2. Market Expansion

The regression results on MARKET revealed that all independent variables included in the sociodemographic group were not significantly related to respondents’ agreement on the market expansion benefit. On the contrary, forestland acreage (SIZE), whether having timber harvesting plans (HARVESTPLAN), and whether receiving management advice (ADVICE) from others were positively and significantly related to respondents’ belief in this benefit. The results implied that respondents who own a larger forestland tract and have a harvesting plan for the next five years and have received outside management advice were more likely to believe that participating in a forest management certification program could help access and expand the timber markets. Specific to motivation-related variables, the results indicated that none of them were significantly related to respondents’ perspectives on marketing benefits.

3.3. Price Premium

We did not find a significant association between the variables included in the sociodemographic group and landowners’ agreement on the price premium benefit after certifying. By contrast, a positive and significant association was found for forestland acreage (SIZE), having a harvest plan (HARVESTPLAN), and receiving management advice (ADVICE), which indicates that respondents who owned larger forest tracts, had a plan for harvesting in the next five years, and received management advice from others were more likely to agree on price premiums as a possible benefit of certification. Likewise, we found a positive and significant association between ownership motivations of enjoying the scenery (SCENERY) and financial investment (INVESTMENT), indicating that respondents who placed high importance on enjoying the scenery and financial investment were more likely to believe that there was a price premium for the certified timber products.

3.4. Public Recognition

Among the sociodemographic variables, income (INCOME) was found to have a positive and significant relationship with the landowner’s belief in the public recognition benefit of good forestry practices. Likewise, familiarity (FAMILIAR) with forest certification programs, among the variables under the forest ownership and management objectives category, was statistically associated with the landowner’s agreement on this benefit. In addition, a positive association was found between the public recognition benefit and biodiversity protection (BIODIVERSITY), financial investment (INVESTMENT), or wildlife hunting (HUNTING), suggesting that respondents who own their forestland for biodiversity protection, consider their forests a financial investment, and engage in wildlife hunting were more likely to agree on the recognition benefit after adopting certification.

3.5. Environmental-Friendly Timber Harvesting

None of the socioeconomic variables were significant on the landowner’s belief in harvesting timber in a more environmental-friendly mode after enrolling in certification programs. However, a positive and significant association was found for the variable of having a harvesting plan (HARVESTPLAN), which suggests that respondents who have the harvesting intention were more likely to believe that certified forestlands have carried out environmental-friendly timber harvesting practices. Similarly, landowners’ motivation for biodiversity protection (BIODIVERSITY) and financial investment (INVESTMENT) were positively and significantly associated with this benefit. Interestingly, family heritage (HERITAGE) was negatively and significantly correlated with the belief in this benefit.

3.6. Better Forest Management Practices

Any variables under socioeconomic group were not found to be significant in landowners’ perspectives on this benefit. However, the harvesting plan (HARVESTPLAN) was a positive and significant variable with the respondents’ belief in better forest management practices. Similarly, the motivation-related variables of biodiversity protection (BIODIVERSITY) and financial investment (INVESTMENT) were positively related to the landowners’ agreement with this benefit, and a similar relation was indicated for family heritage (HERITAGE).

4. Discussion

This study examined Arkansas NIPF landowners’ perceptions of the potential benefits of forest certification by identifying the influencing factors such as sociodemographic characteristics, landowners’ forest ownership and management objectives, and motivations for owning forestland.

Overall, our results displayed a statistically insignificant association between sociodemographic characteristics and landowners’ agreement on certification benefits. Only education and income were correlated with increased timber growth/health and public recognition benefits. Tian et al. [31] observed a similar correlation in China where landowners with high education and income levels were more likely to be interested in certification. The ANOVA analysis results also revealed differences between those who agree and disagree with the benefits, such that younger landowners tend to agree significantly more than others. While age is not an important predictor in the regression analysis, the ANOVA result signals that landowners’ attitudes toward the benefits measured in this study can vary based on age. This result is consistent with Floress et al. [32]’s literature review, which suggested that even though age was usually not found to be significant, older landowners tend to have less positive beliefs about the benefits of forest management and conservation practices. Forestland bequest motivations have been negatively associated with landowners’ management decisions, particularly for timber harvesting [33,34]. According to Amacher et al. [34], timber bequest motivates landowners’ preference for nontimber amenities provided by the forest, such as nonconsumptive use and hunting activities from unharvested stands. Our results, however, do not indicate that other amenity-related objectives, such as enjoying the scenery, wildlife hunting, recreation, or privacy, have a significant negative or positive influence on landowners’ acceptance of these benefits.

Further, the regression results suggest that forest size had a significant association with landowners’ agreement on the market-related benefits, including greater market access and price premiums. Ma et al. [12] concluded that forest size was a consistent factor in predicting landowners’ participation in several forest conservation programs, including certification, meaning that owning more forestland increased the chance of program participation. Our results add to this finding by showing that this interest by larger ownerships to participate in certification programs might be driven in part by the possibility of earning access to new markets and gaining price premiums. Usually, larger ownerships are motivated by economic factors when managing their land since they have a greater chance to achieve economies of scale, an assumption that is also confirmed by the positive correlation between the financial investment as an ownership objective and the price premium benefit. European companies also depict similar behavior; for instance, larger companies in Spain find certification beneficial in terms of increasing their participation share in foreign markets (e.g., increased ability to export wood products) [35]. It is important to note that while certification is often marketed as a market-based mechanism, the market-related benefits have many limitations and are not always realized, especially by small owners. Instead, landowners’ satisfaction with certification can be derived from the programs’ ability to develop organizational assurances that reduce risks when it comes to market transactions of goods and services that involve environmental impacts [24].

Landowners who received forest management advice and planned to harvest in the next five years were positively correlated with the agreement on market access and price premiums as potential benefits of certification. Usually, landowners would resort to consulting foresters to conduct harvesting operations, market their timber, and secure fair prices for their products (not necessarily premium prices). According to a study of managers and consulting foresters from the northeastern U.S., 45% of them received preference in the market, in the form of market access, for being certified, but only one respondent reported receiving a price premium [36]. Admittedly, working with a consulting forester would provide landowners with a larger network (e.g., loggers, mills, etc.) that could facilitate the achievement of these market benefits [37].

Management-related certification benefits, such as increasing timber growth and health, adoption of better management practices, and environmentally friendly timber harvesting obtained higher acceptance than the benefits of expanding markets and price premiums (Table 1). This showcases that landowners’ motivations and objectives are also related to the environmental component of certification rather than the market opportunities. For instance, the regression result presented that landowners who put high importance on nature and biodiversity protection are significantly associated with all benefits except for market expansion and price premiums. This indicates that landowners seem to recognize that management prescriptions and requirements of certification are a tool to enhance the biodiversity values of the forest. According to Overdevest and Rickenbach [24], besides being a market tool, certification can also be viewed as a “learning mechanism” for landowners via technology transfer (e.g., knowledge, skills, and practices are transferred from ecologists to foresters) or awareness of their environmental impact (e.g., internal monitoring and documentation of management activities) to help them meet their environmental goals in forest production. Evidence from Latin America and Africa shows an important impact on forest management practices with the inclusion of sustainable harvesting plans [38], as well as the reduction of deforestation and rehabilitation of natural ecosystems [39]. Additionally, Rubino et al. [40] provided recommendations on strategic messaging to highlight the relationship between protecting biodiversity and these management-related certification benefits as a means to increase landowners’ enrollment in certification programs.

The timber harvesting intention and financial investment objective are also associated with the management-related benefits of certification (e.g., timber growth and health, environment-friendly harvesting activities, and better management practices). Accordingly, Ma et al. [12] found that landowners who intend to harvest are more likely to become certified; on the contrary, those who own the forest for financial motivations are less likely to adopt certification. The rationale the authors provided suggested that certification would interfere with landowners’ financial goals given the higher cost of obtaining the certification and the lack of guaranteed access to markets. Our study, however, found a positive correlation in terms of the benefits of certification that would lead to enhanced forest conditions, thus possibly increasing the value of the derived forest products. Certification standards can also include several components related to tree improvement in forest research and operations [41], leading to better tree form and wood fiber quality, which are highly sought characteristics in wood procurement activities.

Whereas Crow and Danks [11] reported that public image was an important factor in becoming certified for forest landowners in Vermont, our sample ranked this benefit the lowest (together with market access). Contrary to Arkansas, Vermont has some of the earliest adopters of certification, as well as a relatively advanced knowledge of certification and the development of certified markets [11]. Tian and Pelkki [14] found that about 70% of Arkansas landowners have low familiarity with the concept of forest certification, and low familiarity has been reported to prevent landowners from adopting certification. We found that well-informed landowners understand that credibility and recognition of the quality of their forest management can be achieved. Forest certification is also referred to as a “signaling mechanism” that functions as an alternative to market-based incentives [24] through which landowners can demonstrate that their practices follow predefined standards of sustainability. As a non-market incentive (e.g., public image), it makes sense that landowners with financial motivations and higher income seek to promote their timber product not through market-related mechanisms that are not guaranteed, but through other behaviors and gestures that communicate to buyers their commitment to good forest management.

This study revealed several patterns that can be useful to identify tools to improve landowner engagement in forest certification. First, forest landowners’ age and legacy objectives indicate that current certification benefits are not attractive to the older segment of forest landowners. It is well known that the forest landowner population in the U.S. is aging and that wide-scale transfers of forestland are expected [42,43]. In this sense, the new generation of owners would likely be more receptive to forest certification and its related benefits; therefore, targeting younger landowners can be a more efficient strategy to increase enrollment. Second, as expected, the size of the forest impacts the value placed on the different benefits of certification (e.g., large ownerships are more interested in market-related benefits). Certification programs, such as the American Tree Farm System and the FSC, now offer group certification options that allow family forest landowners to aggregate their acreage under a single certificate, reducing certification costs and possibly expanding their market opportunities. In addition, several financial incentive programs are already in place that can reduce management costs, thus allowing the allocation of economic resources to the certification implementation. For instance, states offer property tax reductions to private ownerships that enhance ecosystem services. Likewise, cost-share programs can cover a substantial amount of conservation practices that are also compatible with certification standards.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study sheds new light on the characteristics and motivations of private and family landowners who believe that adopting forest certification could bring them different potential benefits. First, the majority of landowners agree that certifying forestland could bring about benefits even though some difference exists in different benefits’ aspects. Second, landowners’ perspectives on the potential benefits of forest certification were associated with ownership and forestland characteristics as well as ownership motivations. For example, landowners with a larger ownership size, having timber harvesting plans, and having received forest management advice such as from state foresters, loggers, and family/friends were more likely to agree on the benefits of expanding markets and having a price premium for harvested timber. Regarding ownership motivations, if protecting nature and biodiversity is a landowner’s ownership motivation, he/she is more likely to agree on all benefits except for market expansion and price premium for harvested timber. Information like this would be crucial in designing policy and market protocols, message strategies, as well as incentive mechanisms for encouraging more private/family landowners to adopt forest management certification programs. In addition, these findings can provide baseline information for improving certification programs to satisfy landowners’ expectations to attract more landowners’ participation.

Finally, a few caveats of this study should be noted. First, there was no follow-up survey conducted due to budget constraints, but the response rate was on par with several recent landowners’ surveys in the region and considerable similarities were found with results of the National Woodland Owner Survey in Arkansas [9] in key demographics. For example, the average age of the sample landowners in our survey was 61, compared to the average age of 67 in the National Woodland Owner Survey in Arkansas [14,18,44]. Second, we found that ownership motivations for forestland have a significant impact on landowners’ belief of benefits associated with forest certification, and future research could take message and communication approaches to reveal the optimal channels for motivating landowners to adopt forest certification. Third, the survey conducted in this study did not include species-related attributes such as pine or hardwood forests, which might impact landowners’ attitudes towards certification programs; thus, we recommend future research integrates those factors into their studies. In addition, future studies could attempt to estimate landowners’ minimum willingness to accept compensation for adopting certification and understand their attitudes toward more specific aspects (e.g., time commitment, compliance requirement) of forest certification adoption agreement.