Search this site:

5.3 Ownership Reasons and Objectives

Various regional and State surveys of southern NIPF owners have been conducted to determine reasons for ownership and related management objectives. Different surveys, however, have offered different arrays of choices from which single or multiple selections could be made by NIPF owners. Birch (1996), for example, found that the four most popular primary reasons for ownership in the South, accounting for over two-thirds of all owners and one-third of all private timberland acreage, included residential use, estate use, land investment, and aesthetic enjoyment. "Aesthetic enjoyment" was the most popular benefit expected in the future decade. The second most popular benefit expected was "farm and domestic use" (Birch 1996). More than a third of North Carolina NIPF owners indicated that their desire to pass on an estate to heirs was one major reason for owning forest land. Owning forest land as part of a residence and for the enjoyment of owning green space were tied for the second most popular reason (Megalos 2000). The most significant multiple ownership reasons of Virginia NIPF owners included preserving nature (63 percent), maintaining scenic beauty (59 percent), and viewing wildlife (47 percent) (Hodge 1996). Arkansas NIPF landowners included living in a rural environment (58 percent), enjoying green space (54 percent), providing a place for wildlife (54 percent), and creating an estate for heirs (44 percent) as their most popular objectives, selected from a list of 11 choices (Kluender and Walkingstick 2000).

It is assumed that the management strategies of forest industry owners are designed primarily for long-term profit from timber production. This does not suggest that such owners do not also manage forests for secondary, non timber benefits. As a matter of both good business sense and environmental concerns, many private industry owners in the South are strong proponents of practices that ensure sustainability of multiple resource values.

Only 5 to 6 percent of southern private timberland owners were found by Birch (1996) to have an interest in recreation as a primary or secondary reason for ownership. Recreation was also chosen by only 7 percent of all owners as a future expected benefit. Megalos (2000) found that 21 percent of North Carolina landowners favored "recreation" (such as hunting, camping, fishing, and bird watching) as one reason for owning forest land. About 40 percent of NIPF owners in Arkansas chose "personal recreation opportunity" as an ownership objective (Kluender and Walkingstick 2000).

Financial returns from timber production and growth in real estate values are important objectives for many forest land owners. Birch (1996) found about 4 percent of southern timberland owners, holding 35 percent of the total private acreage, owned forests primarily for timber production. About 7 percent of all private owners expected to receive "income from timber" within the following decade. Another 27 percent of all private timberland owners expected "land value increase" to be a future ownership benefit (Birch 1996).

Timber production was an important ownership objective of almost one-quarter of North Carolina NIPF owners (Megalos 2000). In Virginia, timber production was an important ownership reason for 27 percent of all forest land owners (Hodge 1996). "Growing trees for timber to sell" was selected as at least one multiple ownership objective by a third of Arkansas NIPF owners (Kluender and Walkingstick 2000). Timber production was found by Newman and others (1996) to be the most popular ownership reason chosen by new forest land purchasers in Georgia. This finding could have been influenced by the fact that only owners of tracts of at least 75 acres were surveyed.

Results of a nationwide recreation study, as reported in Chapter SOCIO-6, showed that about 7 percent of southern landowners selected "making money" as a primary or secondary emphasis of forest land ownership. In Virginia, "real estate investment" was chosen by 40 percent of forest owners as one important reason for ownership (Hodge 1996). Over half of Arkansas NIPF owners indicated they would "emphasize using land to make money, but will also consider natural aspects" as a future management objective. About 13 percent of these owners included "making money by charging others for hunting, fishing, and other recreation" among their ownership objectives. Only 5 percent of all owners intended to " mostly use land to just make money" (Kluender and Walkingstick (2000).

Ownership reasons and objectives are no doubt greatly influenced by personal beliefs and values. These values, in turn, may be influenced by external factors such as local and regional economies, land management traditions, and basic land characteristics. As one moves the focus of a landowner study from regional to substate levels, these factors become more narrowly defined and unique. Several southern researchers have addressed possible differences in various landowner characteristics from this basic perspective. Williams and others (1996), for example, found significant differences between Delta and Southwest Arkansas NIPF owners regarding forest land use preferences. Megalos (2000) found "unequivocal regional differences" in forest land ownership objectives among North Carolina landowners. These differences were thought related to factors such as historical land use, local timber markets, and site productivity. Mountain region landowners, for example, were more likely to enjoy owning their forests for green space and as a place of residence than landowners in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions. Landowners in the Coastal Plains, where farming and forest industry are predominant employers, were found to be focused more on farm and timber-related objectives. Kluender and others (1999) determined that Arkansas NIPF owner groups of different physiographic regions had different management objectives and tendencies. Strong variations were also found among NIPF owners within individual physiographic regions.