Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:30:20.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Private Forest Owners and Invasive Plants: Risk Perception and Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

A. Paige Fischer  and
Susan Charnley
A. Paige Fischer*
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment Center, Corvallis, OR, 97331
Susan Charnley
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR 97208
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We investigated nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners' invasive plant risk perceptions and mitigation practices using statistical analysis of mail survey data and qualitative analysis of interview data collected in Oregon's ponderosa pine zone. We found that 52% of the survey sample was aware of invasive plant species considered problematic by local natural resource professionals; 70% was concerned about these species; and 46% had treated invasive plants on their parcels. Owners' perceptions of invasive plant risks fell along a spectrum ranging from a lack of awareness or concern, to the view that invasive plant infestations have discrete causes and controllable consequences, to the perception that incursions by invasive plants have diffuse causes and uncontrollable effects. Being aware or concerned about invasive plant species were predictors (p ≤ 0.001) of whether owners treat their parcels to control invasive plants. Holding wildlife habitat and/or biodiversity as an important forest management goal was also a predictor (p ≤ 0.08) of whether owners treated their parcels to control invasive plants. Some owners were sensitive to the risks of invasive plant infestations from nearby properties, and a surprisingly high percentage of respondents had cooperated with others in forest management activities previously. Our findings suggest three approaches to increasing the frequency of invasive plant mitigation by NIPF owners that hold promise: (1) raising awareness and concern about invasive plants and their impacts on forest management goals that owners care about, such as wildlife habitat and/or biodiversity; (2) providing assistance to help owners mitigate invasive plants they feel unable to control; and (3) engaging owners in coordinated efforts across ownership boundaries to address invasive plant risks.

Keywords

Ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex C. LawsonNonindustrial private forest ownersponderosa pine zoneinvasive plant mitigationforest management policy
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 375 - 389
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America

References

Literature Cited

Alig, R. J., Lee, K. J., and Moulton, R. 1990. Likelihood of management on nonindustrial private forests: evidence from research studies. Asheville, NC USDA Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experiment Station. Rep. SE-60. 17 p.Google Scholar
Amacher, G. S., Conway, M. C., and Sullivan, J. 2003. Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study? J. Forest Econ. 9:137–164.Google Scholar
Amacher, G. S., Malik, A. S., and Haight, R. G. 2005. Nonindustrial private landowners, fires, and the wildland–urban interface. Forest Policy Econ. 7:796–805.Google Scholar
Arano, K. G. and Munn, I. A. 2006. Evaluating forest management intensity: A comparison among major forest landowner types. Forest Policy Econ. 9:237–248.Google Scholar
ATLAS.ti. Version 5.2 [Computer software] (2008). Berlin Scientific Software Development GmbH.Google Scholar
Azuma, D. L. H. B. A. and Dunham, P. A. 2005. The western juniper resource of eastern Oregon, 1999. Portland, OR U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 p.Google Scholar
Beach, R. H., Pattanayak, S. K., Yang, J. C., Murray, B. C., and Abt, R. C. 2005. Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: A review and synthesis. Forest Policy Econ. 7:261–281.Google Scholar
Brook, A., Zint, M., and Young, R. D. 2003. Landowners' responses to an Endangered Species Act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conserv. Biol. 17:1638–1649.Google Scholar
Butler, B. J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Newtown Square, PA U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p.Google Scholar
Butler, B. J. and Leatherberry, E. C. 2004. America's family forest owners. J. Forest. 102:4–9.Google Scholar
Conway, M. C., Amacher, G. S., Sullivan, J., and Wear, D. 2003. Decisions nonindustrial forest landowners make: An empirical examination. J. Forest Econ. 9:181–203.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. A., Wahren, C. H. A., Kyle, S., and Moir, W. H. 2001. Responses of exotic plant species to fires in Pinus ponderosa forests in northern Arizona. J. Vegetation Sci. 12:261–268.Google Scholar
Daubenmire, R. F. 1975. Floristic plant geography of eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Oxford, UK Blackwell Scientific. 18 p.Google Scholar
Dessai, S., Adger, W., Hulme, M., Turnpenny, J., Köhler, J., and Warren, R. 2004. Defining and Experiencing Dangerous Climate Change. Climatic Change 64:11–25.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York J. Wiley. 375 p.Google Scholar
Dodson, E. K. and Fiedler, C. E. 2006. Impacts of restoration treatments on alien plant invasion in Pinus ponderosa forests, Montana, USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:887–897.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. A., Jachetta, J. J., Brown, M. L., Carrithers, V. F., Clark, J. K., DiTomaso, J. M., Lym, R. G., McDaniel, K. C., Renz, M. J., and Rice, P. M. 2004. Assessing the Economic, Environmental, and Societal Losses from Invasive Plants on Rangeland and Wildlands1. Weed Technol. 18:1411–1416.Google Scholar
Epanchin-Niell, R. S., Hufford, M. B., Aslan, C. E., Sexton, J. P., Port, J. D., and Waring, T. M. 2010. Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8:210–216.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. P. 2011. Reducing hazardous fuels on nonindustrial private forests: Factors influencing landowner decisions. J. Forest. 109:260–266.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. P. and Bliss, J. C. 2008. Behavioral assumptions of conservation policy: Conserving oak habitat on family–forest land in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Conservation Biol. 22:275–283.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. P. and Bliss, J. C. 2009. Framing conservation on private lands: Conserving oak in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Soc. Natur. Resour. 22:884–900.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. P. and Charnley, S. 2012. Risk and cooperation: Managing hazardous fuel in mixed ownership landscapes. Environ. Manage. 49:1192–1207.Google Scholar
Franklin, J. F. and Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Portland, OR U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 427 p.Google Scholar
Fulé, P. Z., Laughlin, D. C., and Covington, W. W. 2005. Pine–oak forest dynamics five years after ecological restoration treatments, Arizona, USA. Forest Ecol. Manag. 218:129–145.Google Scholar
Grossmann, E. B., Kagan, J. S., Ohmann, J. A., May, H., Gregory, M. J., and Tobalske, C. 2008. Final Report on Land Cover Mapping Methods, Map Zones 2 and 7, PNW ReGAP. Corvallis, OR Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. 66 p.Google Scholar
Grothmann, T. and Patt, A. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environ. Chang. 15:199–213.Google Scholar
Hamilton, L. C. 1992. Regression with Graphics. Belmont, CA Duxbury Press. 363 p.Google Scholar
Harris, P. and Cranston, R. 1979. An economic evaluation of control methods for diffuse and spotted knapweed in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:375–382.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., and Erev, I. 2004. Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychol. Sci. 15:534–539.Google Scholar
Holmes, T. P., Aukema, J. E., Von Holle, B., Liebhold, A., and Sills, E. 2009. Economic Impacts of Invasive Species in Forests. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1162:18–38.Google Scholar
Jacobson, M., Abt, R., and Carter, D. R. 2000. Attitudes toward joint forest planning among private landowners. J. Sustainable Forest. 11:95–111.Google Scholar
Jarrett, A., Gan, J., Johnson, C., and Munn, I. A. 2009. Landowner awareness and adoption of wildfire programs in the southern United States. J. Forest. 107:113–118.Google Scholar
Joshi, S. and Arano, K. G. 2009. Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners. Forest Policy Econ. 11:118–125.Google Scholar
Keeley, J. E. 2006. Fire management impacts on invasive plants in the western United States. Conservation Biol. 20:375–384.Google Scholar
Kerns, B. K., Thies, W. G., and Niwa, C. G. 2006. Season and severity of prescribed burn in ponderosa pine forests: Implications for understory native and exotic plants. Ecoscience 13:44–55.Google Scholar
Kittredge, D. B. 2005. The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: International examples and potential application in the United States. Forest Policy Econ. 7:671–688.Google Scholar
Maddux, J. E. and Rogers, R. W. 1983. Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol. 19:469–479.Google Scholar
Moore, M. M., Casey, C. A., Bakker, J. D., Springer, J. D., Fulé, P. Z., Covington, W. W., and Laughlin, D. C. 2006. Herbaceous Vegetation Responses (1992–2004) to Restoration Treatments in a Ponderosa Pine Forest. Rangeland Ecol. & Manag. 59:135–144.Google Scholar
Morishita, D. W. 1999. Canada thistle. Pages 162–174 in Petroff, R.L.S.a.J.K., ed. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, C. R., Halpern, C. B., and Agee, J. K. 2008. Thinning and burning result in low-level invasion by nonnative plants but neutral effects on natives. Ecol. Appl. 18:762–770.Google Scholar
Niemeyer, S., Petts, J., and Hobson, K. 2005. Rapid Climate Change and Society: Assessing Responses and Thresholds. Risk Analysis 25:1443–1456 p.Google Scholar
Ohmann, J. L. and Gregory, M. J. 2002. Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, U.S.A. Can. J. Forest Res. 32:725–741.Google Scholar
Olson, L. J. 2004. The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature. Agr. and Resour. Econ. Rev. 35:178–194.Google Scholar
[ODA] Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2011. http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/plant/weeds/. Accessed December 13, 2011.Google Scholar
Parks, C. G., Radosevich, S. R., Endress, B. A., Naylor, B. J., Anzinger, D., Rew, L. J., Maxwell, B. D., and Dwire, K. A. 2005. Natural and land-use history of the Northwest mountain ecoregions (USA) in relation to patterns of plant invasions. Perspect. Plant Ecol. 7:137–158.Google Scholar
Peek, L. A. and Miletti, D. S. 2002. The history & future of disaster research. Pages 511–524 in Bechtel, R. B. and Churchman, A., eds. Handbook of environmental psychology. New York J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Pierson, E. A. and Mack, R. N. 1990. The population biology of Bromus tectorum in forests: Effect of disturbance, grazing, and litter on seedling establishment and reproduction. Oecologia 84:526–533.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States. BioScience 50:53–65.Google Scholar
Rickenbach, M. G. and Reed, A. S. 2002. Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed context: The sentiments of private forest landowners. Environ. Manage. 30:584–594.Google Scholar
Rickenbach, M., Zeuli, K., and Sturgess-Cleek, E. 2005. Despite failure: The emergence of “new” forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scand. J. Forest Res. 20:503–513.Google Scholar
Roche, B. F., Talbot, C. J., and Piper, G. L. 1986. Knapweeds of Washington. Pullman, WA Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service. 36 p.Google Scholar
Roche, C. T. and Roche, B.F.J. 1988. Distribution and amount of four knapweed (Centaurea L.) species found in eastern Washington. Northwest Sci. 62:242–253.Google Scholar
Romm, J., Tuazon, R., and Washburn, C. S. 1987. Relating forestry investment to the characteristics NIPF owners in northern California. Forest Sci. 33:197–209.Google Scholar
Sample, V. A. 1994. Building partnerships for ecosystem management on mixed ownership landscapes. J. Forest. 92:41–44.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Carpinelli, M. F. 1998. Distribution, biology, and management of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Weed Technol. 12:353–362.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. 1999. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press. 438 p.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 19:689–701.Google Scholar
Steele, J. C., Rakesh, S., Grafton, William N., Huebner, Cynthia D. and McGill, David W. 2006. Awareness and management of invasive plants among west Virginia woodland owners. J. Forest. 104:248–253.Google Scholar
Tierney, K. J. 1999. Toward a Critical Sociology of Risk. Sociol. Forum 14:215–242.Google Scholar
Tyser, R. W. and Key, C. H. 1988. Spotted Knapweed in Natural Area Fescue Grasslands: An Ecological Assessment. Pullman, WA Washington State University Press. Pp. 151–160.Google Scholar
USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management: USDA Forest Service. Pages 17 p.Google Scholar
Executive order 13112, Invasive Species, February 3, 1999, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-02-08/pdf/99-3184.pdf.Google Scholar
Vavra, M., Parks, C. G., and Wisdom, M. J. 2007. Biodiversity, exotic plant species, and herbivory: The good, the bad, and the ungulate. Forest Ecol. Manag. 246:66–72.Google Scholar
Vokoun, M., Amacher, G. S., and Wear, D. N. 2006. Scale of harvesting by non-industrial private forest landowners. J. of Forest Econ. 11:223–244.Google Scholar
West, P. C., Fly, J. M., and Blahna, D. J. 1988. The communication and diffusion of NIPF management strategies. North. J. Appl. For. 5:265–270.Google Scholar
Willard, E. E., Bedunah, D. J., Marcum, C. L., and Mooers, G. 1988. Environmental factors affecting spotted knapweed. Biennial Report 1987–1988. Missoula, MT University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 21 p.Google Scholar
Yaffee, S. L. 1998. Cooperation: A strategy for achieving stewardship across boundaries. Pages 299–324 in Knight, R. L. and Landes, P., eds. Stewardship Across Boundaries. Washington, DC Island Press.Google Scholar
Young, J. A., Hedrick, D. W., and Keniston, R. F. 1967. Forest cover and logging: Herbage and browse production in the mixed coniferous forest of northeastern Oregon. J. Forest. 65:807–813.Google Scholar
Youngblood, A., Max, T., and Coe, K. 2004. Stand structure in eastside old-growth ponderosa pine forests of Oregon and northern California. Forest Ecol. Manag. 199:191–217.Google Scholar