landowner response and opt for a public/private 
partnership of investment through continued pro- 
grams of cost-sharing and tax incentives. This is not 
to say that we should ignore ways to improve the 
administration of these programs, nor that we 
should cease to seek ways to improve market incen- 
tives. For example, we might experiment with lower 
cost-share ratios or making the tax credit and cost- 
sharing exclusive programs. We might also experi- 
ment with higher cost-share ratios for low-cost natu- 
ral regeneration techniques, those that may attract 
landowners concerned about compromising non- 
timber objectives. Federal and State responsibilities 
for providing financial assistance might also be ex- 
amined; perhaps cost-share dollars need not be 
Federal. 
The weight of the evidence from the literature on 
investment behavior suggests that cost-sharing 
and the reforestation tax credit and amortization are 
effective in stimulating landowner investments. In 
this regard, "The South's Fourth Forest" states, "If 
growth in income and employment in [the South's] 
forest industries is to be sustained, action must be 
taken to increase investments in those public and 
private programs that are effective in increasing for- 
est productivity." It further notes that "this can be 
done in a variety of ways--but it must be done." | 
tend to agree. 
References Cited 
Binkley, Clark S. 1981. 
Timber supply from private nonindustrial 
forests. Bull.92. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. 
97 p. 
Boyd, Roy. 1984. 
Government support of nonindustrial produc- 
tion: the case of private forests. Southern 
Jounal of Economics. 51: 89-107. 
Brooks, David J. 1985. 
Public policy and long-term timber supply in the 
South. Forest Science. 31(2): 342-357. 
de Steiguer, J.E. 1984. 
Impact of cost-share programs on private refor- 
estation investment. Forest Science. 30(8): 
697-704. 
86 
Fecso, R.S.; Kaiser, H.F.; Royer, J.P.; Wiedenhamer, 
M. 1982. 
Management practices and reforestation deci- 
sions for harvested southern pinelands. Staff 
Rep. AGES821230. Washington, DC: U.S. De- 
partment of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting 
Service. 74 p. 
Gregersen, H. 1979. 
Economics of public forestry incentives pro- 
grams: a case study of cost-sharing in Min- 
nesota. Tech. Bull. 315. St. Paul, MN: University 
of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 
65 p. 
Holmes, T.P. 1986. 
An economic analysis of timber supply from 
nonindustrial private forests in Connecticut. 
Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut. 130 p. 
Ph.D. dissertation. 
Hyberg, Bengt. 1986. 
The development and testing of a utility maxi- 
mizing model for NIPF landowner forest man- 
agement behavior. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina 
State University. 210 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 
Max, W. 1983. 
Landowner response to altenative tax policies in 
Santa Cruz County, California. In: Royer, Jack 
P.; Risbrudt, Christopher D., eds. Nonindustrial 
private forest: a review of economic and policy 
studies. Durham, NC: Duke University: 134-141. 
McMahon, Robert O. 1964. 
Private nonindustrial ownership of forest land. 
For. Bull. 68. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 
School of Forestry. 122 p. 
Mills, T.J.; Cain, D. 1979. 
Financial efficiency of the 1974 FIP. Journal of 
Forestry. 77(10): 661-666. 
Risbrudt, C.D.; Kaiser, H.F.; Ellefson, P.V. 1983. 
Cost-effectiveness of the 1979 Forestry Incen- 
tives Program. Journal of Forestry. 81(5): 
298-301. 
Romm, Jeff; Washburn, Courtland; Tuazon, Raul; 
Bendix, Judy. 1985. 
Forest owners and the State: California policy 
for growing trees on non-industrial land. Berke- 
lh lt ee ee ee ee ce ee a ey ey ee eee - = 
