Social vulnerability and family forest owners in the United States

Abstract

Social equity, and the related topic of social vulnerability, is an important issue that is impacting many facets of society, including forests. A substantial portion, 39 %, of forests in the United States are owned by families, individuals, trusts, estates, and family partnerships, collectively referred to as family forest owners. There are many programs and services intended to help family forest owners conserve and better manage their land, but participation rates are relatively low, the efficacy of many programs has been called into question, and the social equitability of access is largely unknown. The social vulnerability of family forest owners in the United States was assessed by intersecting data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) with data from the USDA Forest Service's National Woodland Owner Survey. Family forest owners have a similar SVI compared to the general US population, but the values vary substantially for some SVI themes including family forest owners having higher values for SVI Theme 2 (household composition and disabilities) and lower values for SVI Themes 3 (minority status and language) and 4 (housing type and transportation). Based on logistic regression models, the relationships among social vulnerability metrics and selected family forest owner attributes were found to vary. SVI Theme 1 (socioeconomic status) has positive relationships with amenity and financial ownership objectives, timber harvesting, collection of nontimber forest products, and recreational activity and negative relationships with management plans and advice. SVI Theme 2 has negative relationships with timber harvesting, management plans, advice, and program participation. SVI Theme 3 has negative relationships with timber harvesting, collection of nontimber forest products, and recreational activity. SVI Theme 4 has a positive relationship with collection of nontimber forest products. Programs and services could be redesigned and retargeted to maintain and enhance the social benefits that are accruing and mitigate the shortcomings.