What value is provided by family forest land to its owners?: results from the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS)

What value is provided by family forest land to its owners?: results from the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article What value is provided by family forest land to its owners?: results from the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) Jesse Caputo, Amanda Robillard, Stephanie Snyder, Marla Markowski-Lindsay This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9161142/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) was developed in part to understand why private landowners – individuals, families, corporations, and other organizations – own forest land and what benefits and values that land provides. From the NWOS, we know that family forests provide many elements that forestry experts have traditionally emphasized – products such as wood and non-timber forest products and services such as recreation. However, the NWOS has also highlighted that these are not the primary ownership objectives for many family forest owners (FFOs), with other objectives such as privacy, aesthetics, and protection of nature being more important to the majority. The Total Economic Values (TEV) framework provides a theoretically complete typology of human values and is therefore a potentially useful means of fully accounting for the total value that landowners derive from their land. Many traditional products and services associated with private forests are classified in the TEV as direct use values; these include things such as timber and other wood products, and outdoor recreation. In general, these values are already adequately covered by the NWOS and other studies, but TEV also includes indirect use, non-use, and option value. These are generally not as well represented in the NWOS instrument or the empirical FFO literature. To address this knowledge gap, an NWOS survey supplement focused on landowner values was developed and implemented in Arkansas and Massachusetts, USA. This paper summarizes quantitative and qualitative findings, highlighting that family forests provide landowners with multiple sources of use value, non-use value, and option value. Family forest landowners total economic value wood products non-consumptive values Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Family forest ownerships (FFOs) are the largest single forest ownership group in the U.S., owning more than 39% of the forest land (Butler et al. 2021 ). These landowners derive many benefits and ecosystem services from their forest land (Butler et al. 2021 , Caputo and Butler 2017 ). Historically, research efforts on FFOs have disproportionately emphasized timber production, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), hunting, recreation, and other benefits that are directly used and enjoyed by landowners (Butler et al. 2022, Caputo 2012 ). According to the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), these benefits are primarily associated with provisioning services and direct (physical and experiential) cultural services (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018 ), supporting a number of basic human needs. Scholars from Aristotle (1998) to Maslow ( 1970 ) have pointed out, however, that human beings universally express a range of “higher” needs on top of, and in addition to, those basic needs. CICES includes intellectual, representative, spiritual, symbolic, and other interactions among the cultural services. The forestry literature has not focused on these types of services as thoroughly as it has on recreation or timber and other provisioning services, but neither has it ignored them. Research has shown that U.S. forests provide benefits from education and nature interpretation (Hendee and Flint 2014 ), sense-of-place (Gobster et al. 2022 , Mook et al. 2022 ), stewardship (Asah et al. 2012 ), and personal achievement (Kreye et al. 2021 ). International research has identified spiritual (De Pater et al. 2024 , Roux et al. 2022 ) and heritage (Tengberg et al. 2012 ) values as being of additional importance. The Total Economic Value (TEV) framework is a theoretical construct that may be particularly well suited to exploring the value stemming from the multiple benefits FFOs derive from their forest land (Hansjürgens et al. 2017 ). Like most economic frameworks rooted in utility maximization theory, TEV subscribes to a theory of value fundamentally based in people’s own preferences. Forest benefits provide value to landowners and forest users because people prefer the outcomes and consequences of enjoying those benefits (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018 , Potschin and Haines-Young 2016 ). TEV recognizes that these preferences result in value being ascribed across a broad set of dimensions. These dimensions constitute the typology of value categories at the heart of TEV. They include the traditional “direct use” value common to the forestry literature, as well as additional categories of indirect use, non-use and option value (see below) that are not as frequently measured. The idea that there is value in private forest land beyond production of forest products is not a new one (e.g. Hartman 1976 ), but TEV is notable in that it provides a typology intended to cover all possible sources of value (hence, “total” economic value). Direct use comprises both direct consumptive and direct non-consumptive values. Whereas direct consumptive value is derived from the extraction and use of plants and animals, direct non-consumptive value is derived from direct, but passive, interaction with the forest ecosystem. This category includes passive recreation, enjoyment of beauty / scenery (i.e. aesthetic value), enjoyment of peace / quiet, and educational benefits. Indirect use value is provided by benefits from what are often referred to in the ecosystem services literature as regulating and maintenance services (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018 ). These include benefits such as a clean and stable atmosphere, clean water, soil formation, etc. They do not require direct engagement by the landowner and, in fact, the landowner may not even be aware of the scale or scope of the benefits they receive.[1] “Non-use” value consists of three value categories: bequest value, altruist value, and existence value. In the first two cases, the landowner derives some personal satisfaction (and, consequently, value) from knowing that benefits are being enjoyed or will be enjoyed by other people in the present (altruist value) or by future generations (bequest value). Existence value is the satisfaction that a landowner gets from knowing that his or her forest, and all the life and natural resources it contains, just exists . Finally, option value sits between use and non-use value. It consists of the value a landowner derives from their forest providing options for them in the future. For example, standing timber in the present provides the landowner with the option to sell or utilize wood products at a future date. TEV is likely to be a particularly useful tool in understanding U.S. FFOs because of the importance placed on cultural, passive, and non-consumptive uses of forest land in the U.S. (e.g. Baker et al. 2017 , Abrams and Bliss 2013 , Beach et al. 2005 ). This importance is expected given that the significant majority of FFOs in the present day are members of Galbraith’s ( 1960 ) industrialized “affluent society”; they overwhelmingly derive the bulk of their income from sources other than their forest land (Butler et al. 2021 ), do not rely, by-and-large, on land for subsistence resources, and have disposable income similar to the U.S. population at large (Butler et al. 2016 ). The National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS), a product of the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, is USDA’s official source of information on private forest ownerships in the U.S. and their objectives, goals, actions, behaviors, and future intentions. The NWOS, like similar research efforts, has historically focused on direct use of forests – harvesting timber, collecting non-timber forest products (NTFPs), recreation, etc. These uses have been shown to be consistently important over time and across multiple cycles of the NWOS (Caputo and Sass 2024 , Sass et al. 2023 ). At the same time, however, the NWOS has shown that passive, non-consumptive forest ownerships objectives – beauty / scenery, habitat, nature protection, privacy – are held to be more important than consumptive and productive objectives among FFOs (Butler et al. 2021 ). Regardless of that finding, the benefits and values that underlie these objectives have not been fully measured through the standard instrument (i.e. the base survey) or any other NWOS survey. In this paper, we report on the results of an NWOS supplemental survey effort aimed at better understanding these under-measured values through the lens of TEV. As far as the authors are aware, this represents the first attempt to operationalize the TEV framework – or any other theoretically complete values framework – for FFOs in the United States. This effort will add precision to our understanding of the multiple values that landowners derive from their land, providing useful contextual information to foresters, conservationists, program administrators, and other technical service providers who work with or for forest landowners. Through a better understanding of what landowners need and want from their land, these professionals will hopefully have more success in engaging those landowners in practices that are beneficial to themselves as well as society (Caputo et al. 2026 ). Methods The data analyzed in this paper come from a NWOS science module (“sci-mod”). NWOS sci-mods are instruments, supplemental to the base NWOS, that serve to explore a specific research question in more depth. In addition to new questions aimed at this deeper exploration, sci-mods contain a subset of core questions from the base NWOS instrument. The core questions retained from the NWOS enable data users to identify key attributes of ownerships and their forested land, include key covariates for new questions, and serve as a means to link responses to the population of the base instrument. The sci-mod that is the focus of this paper gathered data on the total economic value that FFOs derive from their forest land Sci-mods are implemented as intensifications of the base NWOS sample in one or more states, using the same methodology (Butler et al. 2021 ). The NWOS uses a spatially explicit sample methodology, in which a hexagonal grid is established across the entire area of the United States and a single point is randomly located within each grid cell. The land use at each point is determined and, if found to be forested, the ownership of the land at that point is surveyed. The sampling intensity is determined for each state based on a target of 250 responses per state (FFOs). In the case of the intensification for this FFO values sci-mod, a target of five times the base target was adopted (i.e. a 5X intensification), in two states, Arkansas and Massachusetts. These were selected as examples of heavily forested states, with significant family forest ownership, in different regions of the USA. The first step in implementing this NWOS sci-mod was developing and refining the survey instrument. The sci-mod was originally written as a bank of 11 questions about FFO ownership values, by a committee of NWOS researchers. These questions were intended to address the dimensions of the TEV that were not covered by the questions already contained in the core questions of the base instrument. The questions were then tested via a series of cognitive interviews. Interviewees were FFOs owning at least 1-acre of forest land (the standard NWOS definition of an FFO) across the two study states. Lists of property owners in each state were initially derived from a proprietary data source (LightBox, Inc. 2025) and telephone numbers were obtained for the lists from a third-party vendor. Lists were then randomized and property owners were called sequentially; if they were willing and met the 1-acre forest ownership requirement, an appointment was set up for an approximately 1-hr interview. Eleven interviews were conducted from December 2020 to March 2021. Interviews were conducted virtually (over the Zoom platform), with one member of the research team leading the interview and a second member taking notes. Audio was also recorded for 10 of the 11 interviews (1 not recorded due to a technical error). Landowners who completed the interview were given a monetary incentive. Approvals were obtained through the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB No. 0596 − 0078) and the Institutional Review Board at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (IRB No. 2016–2908). Cognitive interviews were conducted using a mixture of a "think aloud" and verbal probing methods (Willis 2005 ). Probes were a mixture of proactive (i.e. pre-planned) and reactive probes. Interviewees were asked to read aloud each of the 11 questions (as well as some basic demographic and "warm up" questions) and provide an answer. They were then asked to paraphrase each question in their own words, and probed to assess their comprehension, confidence, and recall. The data gathered as part of the cognitive interviews was used to refine the sci-mod questions to make them more comprehensible to respondents and therefore more accurate measures of the underlying concepts. The 11 original questions were rephrased slightly and condensed into 8 questions following the cognitive interviews (Supplement 1). When coupled with the core questions included from the base NWOS instrument, the sci-mod instrument provided a means to measure at least one benefit falling under each dimension of the TEV framework. The core questions asked whether landowners had ever harvested trees from their forest land, gathered non-timber forest products (NTFPs), grazed livestock, fished or hunted, or engaged in passive recreation on their forested land. Timber harvest was measured across the entire tenure of land ownership, whereas the other categories included only the five years prior to the survey. These questions were all asked with a binary framework (i.e. responses were “yes” or “no”). The new sci-mod questions asked respondents to indicate how much they enjoyed various forest-based benefits on a Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (“Do not enjoy”) to 5 (“Greatly enjoy”). These included benefits for the dimensions of direct use (non-consumptive), indirect use, non-use and option values. All benefit metrics are listed in Table 1 . The raw Likert-scale responses to the new sci-mod questions were also collapsed into binary variables for summary purposes using the criterion of whether a respondent had selected the two highest response options, 4 (“Moderately enjoy”) or 5 (“Greatly enjoy”), in common with standard NWOS methodology (Caputo et al. 2023 , Butler et al. 2021 , Butler et al. 2016 ). The survey was implemented in summer 2023 as part of the 2023 NWOS Cycle (Butler et al. In Press.). Data were finalized and item non-response addressed through a multiple imputation approach using standard NWOS methodology (Butler and Caputo 2021 ). Specifically, five imputed values are derived for each missing variable on each survey. Across all variables in the sci-mod (both core and new questions), a median of 3.8% of values were imputed. These imputed values were used in generating population-level estimates in winter 2024 / spring 2025. The standard NWOS estimation procedure utilizes sample weights to account for differences in inclusion probability among ownerships of different sizes (Butler and Caputo 2021 ). Summarization of these population estimates is the primary quantitative analysis presented in this paper. Raw (i.e. non-imputed values) were used for all other analyses. We used the X 2 statistic and Tschuprow’s T to compare the individual metrics of TEV between respondents in each of the two study states. All analysis was conducted in R 4.4.2, using the ‘base’ (R Core Team 2024 ) and ‘DescTools’ (Signorell 2025 ) packages. Code and output for all analyses are included in Supplement 2. Table 1 Dimensions of Total Economic Value (TEV) measured through a National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) Science Module (sci-mod), Arkansas and Massachusetts 2023. a Questions represent core questions from the NWOS base instrument; all others are unique to the sci-mod. Benefit Value dimension Measure Timber products Direct use value (consumptive) Have trees ever been cut while you owned land? a NTFPs Direct use value (consumptive) Have you gathered NTFPs in the past five years? a Grazing / forage Direct use value (consumptive) Have you grazed livestock in your forest in the past five years? a Wild game / fish Direct use value (consumptive) Have you fished or hunted on your forest in the past five years? a Passive recreation Direct use value (non-consumptive) Have you engaged in passive recreation in the past five years? a Beauty / aesthetics Direct use value (non-consumptive) How much do you enjoy the beauty or scenery that your forest provides? Peace and quiet Direct use value (non-consumptive) How much do you enjoy the peace and quiet that your forest provides? Education Direct use value (non-consumptive) How much do you enjoy that your forest provides learning opportunities? Nature benefits Indirect use How much do you enjoy that your forest provides nature benefits? Future benefits for self Option value How much do you enjoy the fact that your forest will provide benefits or opportunities to you in the future? Future benefits for people Bequest value How much do you enjoy that your forest could provide benefits to future generations? Benefits to other people Altruist value How much do you enjoy that your forest currently provides benefits to other people? Existence value Existence value How much do you enjoy that your forest just exists? It is important to note here that we did not attempt to monetize or otherwise aggregate our categorical values. In this, we followed Hansjürgens’ (2017) perspective: “ The TEV framework should not be understood as an accounting scheme to aggregate different value categories into just one, i.e. the ‘total’ economic value. It is rather a heuristic to consider different value dimensions… ” It is also important to note that the value associated with these benefits is a mixture of use value and exchange value[2] . In both cases, however, the economic value being measured benefits the landowners. To contextualize our findings within a market framework, we estimated and mapped a measure of relative (i.e. normalized) forest land value based on the assessed, unimproved value of private forest land. Methods for this measure are included in Supplement 3. In addition to refining the new questions, the information gathered during the cognitive interviews was used as a rich data source for qualitative analysis – in particular, to better understand how landowners perceive non-consumptive, indirect, or non-use values. To begin, the audio from the interviews was transcribed by a third-party vendor (for the one interview for which audio was not captured, the notes taken during the interview were coded instead). Transcribed interviews were then coded using a three-phase, inductive coding approach (see, e.g. Flick 2018). In the first phase, all four members of the research team coded the first question (pertaining to beauty/aesthetics) across all 11 interviews. The team then reconvened to discuss findings and to develop an initial codebook. In the second phase, two members of the research team each independently and completely coded two distinct, complete interviews using the initial codebook, adding new codes as necessary. The team reconvened a second time, to further refine and finalize the codebook based on these four independently coded interviews. In the third phase, a single team member coded the remaining seven interviews using the final codebook. Finally, the entire team came together to discuss the coding, group codes into themes, and analyze the data to better understand how FFOs construct and contextualize the values they derive from their forested land. Coding was done using the open-source software, Taguette (Rampin et al. 2021 ). Results Quantitative The total number of complete surveys from both states was 498, for a cooperation rate of 20.7% in Arkansas (242 surveys) and 23.3% in Massachusetts (256 surveys). The mean relative land value (log scale) – based on assessed un-improved land value – was over 2.3 times as great on a per-acre basis in Massachusetts as compared to Arkansas (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 ). At the population level, there were an estimated 221.8 thousand family forest ownerships in Arkansas (SE = 39.5 thousand ownerships), owning 8,516.0 thousand acres of forest land (SE = 200.3 thousand acres). This equates to a mean size-of-holdings of 38.4 acres (SE = 6.1 acres) and a median of 10 acres (SE = 3.0 acres). In Massachusetts, the estimated population included 273.6 thousand family forest ownerships (SE = 35.5 thousand ownerships) owning 133.7 thousand acres of forest (38.2 thousand acres). This equates to a mean and median size-of-holdings of 4.9 acres (SE = 0.6 acres) and 1.0 acres (0.4 acres), respectively. In Arkansas, landowners derived a mean of 3.6% of their income from their wooded land (SE = 1.1%). In Massachusetts, this value was 0.9% (SE = 0.5%). The distribution of this variable was very left-skewed, however. The median value in both states was 0% (SE = 0%). When all metrics were summarized as binary variables, the population estimates of direct use/non-consumptive, indirect use, non-use, and option values were more frequently found to be important than direct use/consumptive values (Fig. 3 ). At least 43% of landowners moderately or greatly enjoyed the benefits associated with direct use (non-consumptive), indirect use, non-use, and option value. To contrast, most direct use consumptive benefits were enjoyed by less than 15% of landowners. Two exceptions were harvesting wood and hunting. More than 50% of landowners had harvested wood for sale or their own use. In Arkansas, 41.6% of landowners had hunted or fished on their land. The individual dimensions of TEV appeared to differ only slightly at the population-level – with the most visible distinction between the substantially greater enjoyment of hunting and fishing in Arkansas. The population-level estimates (and corresponding error terms) for each of the individual levels of the Likert-scale questions are available in Supplement 2. In terms of the raw data (i.e. not the population estimates), there were statistically significant differences between the two states in terms of grazing / forage (p = 0.0005, Tsuprow’s T = 0.16), hunting / fishing (p = 0.0005, Tsuprow’s T = 0.24), passive recreation (recreation other than hunting/fishing) (p = 0.0270, Tsuprow’s T = 0.09), and option value (p = 0.0035, Tsuprow’s T = 0.12). The first three were from the base NWOS questions and measured on a binary scale. Option value was measured on a 5-point Likert-scale; landowners in Arkansas were more likely to have expressed greater enjoyment of option values than landowners in Massachusetts (Fig. 4 ). Across all Likert-scale questions, the most common response was that landowners “greatly enjoyed” all sources of value – with the top two responses representing a majority of respondents in both states. Qualitative The cognitive interviews were primarily intended to pre-test and refine the questionnaire before fielding the final quantitative survey instrument, but analysis of these interviews provides some additional insights on how FFOs perceive the total economic value of their forest land. Only new sci-mod questions pertaining to indirect and non-use values are considered here; questions pertaining to direct use values are part of the core NWOS instrument and so were not the focus of these interviews. Three overarching themes emerged from the interview process: 1) FFOs do not neatly separate different value dimensions in the way that the TEV typology suggests; they discuss different types of value (and different beneficiaries, etc.) simultaneously, 2) FFOs perceive values more distinctly and more specifically as the personal distance between themselves and those values decreases, and 3) FFOs often identify a spiritual dimension to their land. The TEV typology portrays the different dimensions of economic value as being distinct and theoretically separable, even if bundled together in time and space. In practice, however, FFOs affirm that "discrete" benefits are often bundled together and not easily separable; this result is in line with Hansjürgens’ (2017) perspective that TEV is a means to consider different value dimensions and not an accounting method. We use the word 'conflation' here to refer to all cases where respondents either confused one source of value for another or were unable or reluctant to separate them. This problem seems especially acute when different benefits belong to the same value dimension in the TEV typology. For example, 'aesthetics' and 'peace and quiet' are both types of non-consumptive direct use values. In general, the interviewees seemed to feel that aesthetics was more associated with a visual experience of the forest whereas peace and quiet was more associated with what is audible (or not audible) there. For many, however, the two were not easily separable. For example, one landowner said, " I think it’s wrapped together. In my opinion, that’s part of the beauty of it is the peace that it brings, but because it’s wooded because it’s away from the city, then it naturally brings that privacy and that peace and quiet ." This conflation could be because both benefits seem to stem from reflection on and experience of natural elements, such as plants, animals, water, and, especially, trees, as well as privacy and place attachment. These two benefits are not only conflated with each other, however, but also with several other sources of non-consumptive direct use values. Interviewees seemed to derive value from the aesthetics and quiet of the forest through the mediation of recreation and other active use of the forest, e.g. " Like I said, I do it for exercise as well, fresh air, exercise, health, so that all enters into it as well. The peace and quiet is just an added bonus ." FFOs seem, in general, to consider beauty/aesthetics and peace-and-quiet within a more general value of the woods as a place that is "unspoiled" and that serves as a contrast to more urban environments. This "otherness" provides landowners with value in the form of a generalized source of respite or relief from the pacing or complexity of other less-rural living, work, and social environments – what one landowner called, " the beauty of the other. " Forested lands' otherness is so inherently valuable to some FFOs that landowners seem to be willing to happily incur a number of inconveniences and liabilities (i.e. ecosystem disservices) in order to enjoy living and being in a rural space, e.g. " I really appreciate living out here. I wouldn’t live anywhere else. I mean, I don’t care if it takes me a half hour to get to… Or 40 minutes to get to Home Depot, or to places where I need to go. I don’t mind that. A lot of people do. ", and, " As much, again, of a pain in the butt it was, with the ice, and the slipperiness, you looked out my back deck and it was gorgeous out there with the sun coming up and just glaring through the trees. It was amazing. So I think it’s beauty. I mean, just being out here, I mean, it’s good. " “Otherness” is not only valuable enough to warrant putting up with liabilities, it can also take potential liabilities and recast them as positive benefits. For example, several interviewees identified silence as being the operative condition for peace and quiet, many seemed to make explicit exceptions for the "natural" sounds of the forest, e.g. " I can sit outside in the quiet, and you can hear all the nightly insects, and in the mornings you can hear the birds. I sleep with the windows open, so you can hear the birds chirping in the season. I just enjoy it immensely. And not hearing sirens go by all the time, I mean, that’s what bothered me being in the city .", or " I don’t consider the noise animals make, and I’ve heard some pretty violent noises out here in the middle of the night, with coyotes around and stuff, but I don’t consider that noise. I consider that part of wildlife. " In other words, car sirens and howling coyotes may be equally loud and they may be equally likely to wake a landowner at night, but the one detracts from peace and quiet and the other adds to it. In some cases, values are not conflated per se, but respondents focus on pairs or groups of values that reinforce or facilitate each another (or just naturally occur together). One example was learning. Interviewees did not regularly separate learning opportunities from recreation, aesthetic enjoyment or other active non-consumptive uses of the forest. For example, one interview described "… boy scout troops went on your land and went hiking and studied the trees or a church’s trail leaders, if they would come and enjoy the trees, the woods, hiking in there and going down to the lake and them learning. " Most people described the learning opportunities provided by their forests as those pertaining to trees, wildlife (especially birds), or natural processes, but some also mentioned opportunities to learn or practice skills, such as survival skills or forest management. It was not only the values themselves that were conflated, but also the sources and ultimately the beneficiaries of those values. In the first case, interviewees often struggled to separate the value they derived from their woodlands with the value they derived from their backyards and the pastures, farm fields, etc. that also occurred on their property. To them it was the land as a whole that provided the values in question. Similarly, interviewees did not easily separate the value they derived from the value that others derived from their land. This was often the case when the beneficiary was a friend or family member or the value stemmed from a shared activity, e.g. " I mean my main purpose is… I’m out there is just for that, to maybe go walk through the woods with my grandkids, or just seeing what’s out there, for wildlife, and stuff like that. " Not all values suffered from cognitive conflation, however. Several interviewees drew a sharper distinction between values, especially between consumptive and non-consumptive values. For example, FFOs perceived a tradeoff between timber harvesting and non-consumptive values, even when they supported timber harvesting in general, e.g. " We let them come in and do a little bit of it, but we felt like they were taking the most beautiful trees and that was upsetting. And so we wouldn’t mind some of them cleared, but we wanted the not pretty ones cleared, not the pretty ones cleared. " In other case, interviewees seem entirely unaware of one or more value categories. This was true most consistently for existence values. To some extent this may be due to the difficulty in semantically framing the intuitive idea that species or habitats have inherent value to people, but we cannot discount the possibility that not everybody holds this value. This seemed to be a new idea to many of the respondents, e.g., " It’s just something I’ve never considered before ", " Yeah. I don’t know how to wrap my mind around right and purpose .", " After reading it twice, I’m not clear on that question at all. " Other values that were similarly "invisible" to FFOs were other values that were also psychologically distant – such as option value and bequest value, " I don’t think that’s something that I have a mind to think of, that it’s providing a benefit to future generations. I hadn’t thought of that before. " The second theme that emerged from our qualitative analysis was related to the psychological distance between an FFO and an economic value (e.g. Huff et al. 2017 ) and the impact of that distance on their ability to perceive that value. In general, interviewees were able to talk about values more articulately and more specifically when those values accrued to themselves (or people close to them) in the present time, as opposed to when they accrued to other people and/or at a hypothesized future time. In many cases, psychological distance does not just affect a landowners’ ability to perceive a benefit, but also whether or not they value that benefit – or, in some cases, whether they even see it as a benefit. When discussing benefits to 'other people,' interviewees defaulted to discussing their neighbors, family, and friends. This, no doubt, in part reflects the simple reality that landowners' close associates are the people most likely to be using (or on) their land. It also may reflect the reality that landowners are more likely to feel good about providing values to people with whom they share ties and with whom they sympathize, e.g. " we’re a little bit picky about who we bring into the ranch. So it’s yeah, I would say that mostly covers it. Friends and family and church family. " In some cases, FFOs may not think positively about values accruing to strangers or less closely-affiliated individuals, unless they are assured that there is no tradeoff between the strangers' good and their own. According to one interviewee, " If I saw someone with a hunter, a hunter out there, I would say, “No, not on my property.” Even though I got nothing against hunting, I just don’t want it on my property. But, knowing that other people can walk through it from the sides, or the back, I don’t mind that, as long as they don’t mess it up, or try to destroy it, or do anything like that. " Another said, " My purpose in life is not benefits to society; its benefits to myself. " Similarly, some interviewees were less able to form a clear picture of future benefits as compared to current values. When discussing hypothetical future values accruing to other people, interviewees were especially challenged – particularly when those individuals were unknown, indeterminate, and with unknown intentions, " …the future generations are probably going to cut it down and build apartments on it or some other sinister thing. " In terms of psychological distance, existence values and indirect use values are particularly "far" from people and therefore difficult for FFOs to perceive clearly. Interviewees often struggled to understand how these values exactly benefitted themselves or others and often conflated them with direct use values, e.g. " I was thinking that other people who may come and hike on the land or be concerned about what is happening here … I do worry about the species who live in that habitat, being endangered somewhat, losing their habitat, their lifestyle. So I would say pretty much when I read this I was thinking about exactly what I just said, the animals losing their habitat, and perhaps the water quality that is in that brook that those animals do use for a source of water. " Even when FFOs understood the values themselves, they could not differentiate among the beneficiaries involved: themselves, other people, or the natural elements themselves (in the case of existence values). One landowner attempted to incorrectly define indirect-use values, for example, as those accruing on a scale larger than landowners or their close associates, " I don’t know if global is the right word, ecological benefits of the woodland. " The last theme identified pertained to the "spiritual dimension" of value. Several landowners referenced a spiritual dimension to their forests' value. In the TEV typology, "spiritual values" (like cultural services) are included among the non-consumptive direct use values. What is not addressed in the typology, however, is the fact that a spiritual perspective may lead to different and interesting interpretations of the other value classes. For example, one respondent had difficulty understanding 'existence values,' wondering how things can have value in and of themselves when the world belongs to God? - " Does it exist on its own right or does it exist because there’s a God? God made it. It’s all God’s. Well, I’m spiritual. Everything belongs to God. I’m just a steward. " This quote demonstrates another interesting effect of a spiritual perspective. Values that on one hand could be seen as philanthropic or as existence values in the TEV, can instead be seen as humans’ obligation to be stewards of creation (e.g., God). Another example: "… it brings to mind what the native Americans think about the land – that it’s not their land. And we do feel that we were able to get the land because of God’s influence, but we feel like it’s to share with others. So I don’t think it’s, I mean, I feel like we use it with reverence and we take care of it. Like I said, keeping the beautiful trees and that sort of thing. But yeah. I don’t know. I think this question is asking me if you feel like it’s just like the land itself has its own, own right to be left alone and do its own thing without people interfering. " Discussion Family forest landowners in Massachusetts and Arkansas derive economic value from their forest land across multiple sources, i.e. across all dimensions of TEV. This finding is in line with what we know about FFOs’ ownership objectives, which correspond to a full spectrum of consumptive and non-consumptive benefits (Butler et al. 2021 ). This paper builds on that knowledge by identifying more specifically the dimensions of value that FFOs enjoy. As they were quantified in our analysis, landowners derive the greatest value from non-consumptive direct use, indirect use, option, and non-use values compared to consumptive direct use values (Fig. 3 ). That does not mean that sources of consumptive direct use value are unimportant to landowners, however (Caputo and Sass 2024 ). More than 50% of the landowners in the two states have harvested wood products during their ownership tenure, a mixture of commercial and non-commercial products (chiefly firewood). Comparatively, far fewer derive value from animal forage, non-timber wood products, or wild fish and game. This may have to do with differences in the extent to which these products can be commercialized. All these products can at times be sold (i.e. serve as a source of exchange value); but forage, NTFPs, and fish/game are more likely to be used directly by landowners (i.e. providing use value). On the other hand, wood products can be used locally (e.g. firewood) but are more frequently harvested as a commercial product. Family forests provide a significant share – 42% – of wood products produced in the USA (Butler and Sass 2023 ). Since exchange value is mediated by money, landowners may have greater interest in pursuing the production of wood, since the returns are fully fungible and can be used to satisfy multiple landowner needs, as opposed to production of forage or NTFPs, which are more likely to be limited by landowners’ demands for those specific products. Despite substantial differences in estimated land value and mean size-of-holdings between the two states (Figs. 1 and 2 ), landowners in Arkansas and Massachusetts derive similar value profiles from their land (Fig. 3 ). Landowners in Arkansas derive significantly more value from option value, forage, and fish / game than do landowners in Massachusetts. The last item is especially notable. The proportion of Arkansas landowners who hunt or fish on their land is more than three times that of Massachusetts landowners. On the other hand, Massachusetts landowners derive significantly more value from passive recreation. This suggests that there may be regional and/or cultural differences in specific sources of value to landowners and/or holding size may influence opportunities to experience certain value dimensions even if the overall profile across the value dimensions is similar. In this case, it appears that consumptive values are more important to landowners in Arkansas as compared to Massachusetts landowners, even if non-consumptive values are more important to both overall. An important caveat to the quantification of value as undertaken in this study is that the underlying survey questions were measured using different scales. The core questions from the base NWOS survey were binary questions, asking whether landowners engaged in consumptive activities or passive recreation, whereas the new questions from the sci-mod were Likert-scale questions asking respondents to subjectively assess how much they enjoyed specific sources of value. These Likert-scale questions were collapsed to binary variables to compare with the base questions on a similar unit (proportion of ownerships), but it is possible or likely that some of the reason behind the higher scoring of the new sci-mod questions is due to issues with comparisons across different scales. That being said, our conclusions are in line with the base NWOS (Butler et al. 2021 ) and with prior research showing that cultural, passive, and non-consumptive uses of forest land are of primary importance to FFOs in the U.S. (e.g. Baker et al. 2017 , Abrams and Bliss 2013 , Beach et al. 2005 ) Finally, it is safe to conclude that our data show that landowners derive substantial value from at least one source associated with each of the TEV dimensions of value, even if comparisons between them in terms of magnitude are fraught. This paper suggests that TEV is moderately useful as a research framework (Hansjürgens et al. 2017 ) for understanding the multiple uses, values, and benefits that characterize and motivate FFOs. It effectively illustrates that FFOs derive value from their land across multiple dimensions, including indirect use, non-use and option value. However, TEV – like most if not all classification systems – tends to oversimply a complex reality. The qualitative portion of our paper identified significant nuance to how landowners interpret and assess the dimensions of value. Most notably, while they do not separate these dimensions in their minds as neatly or consistently as the TEV framework might suggest, this finding does confirm Hansjürgens’ (2017) perspective that TEV helps understand value dimensions. We found landowners tended to conflate different value categories or failed to distinguish between adjacent dimensions, particularly in the case of non-use value where personal distance was higher. Given the difficulties the FFOs in the interviews experienced in understanding the concepts of existence value and indirect use value, gaps remain in our understanding of the extent to which FFOs acknowledge and experience these dimensions of forest ownership value. Additionally, despite being framed as theoretically complete, TEV may not cover all of the value provided by landowners’ forests and woodlands. We found, for example, that landowners identified a spiritual component to several value dimensions that does not map well onto the current TEV typology. This particular example perhaps highlights an overall shortcoming of a typology grounded in utility maximization theory, that the value of benefits flowing to other beneficiaries must be framed in terms of the subject at hand. This reframing is often awkward and non-intuitive and likely does not fully capture the benefits and values that accrue to non-owners, particularly public benefits (see Hodgeson 2025). Thus, the value that I derive from altruist value is not the value enjoyed by other individuals but the value that I derive from the enjoyment of being an altruistic person. Similarly, existence value is not the value enjoyed by ecosystems and non-human actors, but the value that I derive from knowing these exist and will persist into the future. A similar perspective could be used to add a spiritual dimension to TEV, measuring the value derived by an individual from engaging in spiritual activities or simply viewing their land and themselves as participating in a spiritual or religious plane. This inclusion would move TEV closer to a hypothetical true measure of the “Total” Economic Value provided by family forest land. TEV, even so modified, however, is not likely to become an optimal framework for understanding the spiritual dimension of forest landownership. This – and in fact, all value dimensions enjoyed by landowners – are complex, nuanced, and non-independent. Our findings support the use of TEV as a comprehensive, intuitive, practical tool for identifying and measuring the value provided by family forest land to landowners, but they also suggest the need for a recognition that the value dimensions making up TEV are perhaps not as complete as originally suggested. Our paper is an early and unique attempt to use this framework in the FFO literature and represents a starting place. Furthering our understanding of the full range of values that FFOs hold for their wooded land may aid policy makers and technical service providers when designing and implementing policies, programs and assistance to support landowners in managing and stewarding their lands to achieve desired ownership goals. Declarations Availability of data and material: Raw National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) responses are protected as confidential and private by federal law. Additional population-level estimates are available upon request. Funding for this project came from the USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, including a grant to the University of Massachusetts-Amherst (20-JV-11242305-074). References Abrams J, Bliss JC (2013) Amenity landownership, land use change, and the re-creation of working landscapes. Soc Nat Resour 26(7):845–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.719587 Aristotle., Ross WD, Ackrill JL, Urmson JO (1998) The Nichomachean Ethics. Oxfordshire); New Work, Oxford University Press, Oxford Asah ST, Blahna DJ, Ryan CM (2012) Involving forest communities in identifying and constructing ecosystem services: Millennium assessment and place specificity. J Forest 110(3):149–156 Baker K, Bull GQ, Baylis K, Barichello R (2017) Towards a theoretical construct for modelling smallholders’ forestland-use decisions: What can we learn from agriculture and forest economics? Forests 8(9):345. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8090345 Beach RH, Pattanayak SK, Yang J-C, Murray BC, Abt RC (2005) Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis. For Policy Econ 7(3):261–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00065-0 Butler BJ, Butler SM, Caputo J, Dias J, Robillard A, Sass EM (2021) Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2018: results from the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-199.Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 52 p. [plus 4 appendixes] https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-199 Butler B, Butler SM, Caputo J, Markowski-Lindsay M, Maldonado D, Robillard AL, Smith M Terracciano, Emmalyn. In Press. Family Forest Ownerships of the United States, 2023: Results from the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station Butler BJ, Butler SM, Floress K (2023) Small-Scale Forestry 22(1):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-022-09529-5 . Studies of Family Forest Owners in the USA: A Systematic Review of Literature from 2000 through 2019 Butler BJ, Caputo J (2021) Weighting for the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-198. Northern Research Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Madison, WI, p 24. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRSGTR-198 Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016) Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey. J Forest 114(6):638–647. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-099 Butler BJ, Sass EM (2023) Wood Supply from Family Forests of the United States: Biophysical, Social, and Economic Factors. For Sci 69(6):629–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxad034 Caputo J (2012) Commoditization and the Origins of American Silviculture. Bull Sci Technol Soc 32(1):86–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467612444582 Caputo J, Butler B (2017) Ecosystem Service Supply and Capacity on U.S. Family Forestlands. Forests 8(10):395. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8100395 Caputo J, Butler BJ, Butler SM, Robillard A, Sass EM, Markowski-Lindsay M, Hartsell AJ (2023) Corporate forest ownerships of the United States, 2018: results from the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-216. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 62 p. [plus 4 appendixes]. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-216 Caputo J, Sass EM (2024) Ecological decoupling and family forest landowners: What do we know? In: Crocker, Susan J., ed. 2024. Proceedings of the 2022 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA 2022) science stakeholder meeting: grow. adapt. regenerate—monitoring and responding to global change to promote resilient and productive forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-225. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 102 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-225 Caputo J, Ma Z, Snyder SA (2026) Why don’t landowners just do what they are told? Potential mismatches of values and objectives between family forest landowners and professionals. Land Use Policy 161:107883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107883 De Pater C, Verschuuren B, Greil S, Wals A (2024) Exploring spiritual values in forest management practices in the Netherlands. Trees Forests People 16:100522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100522 Galbraith JK (1960) The Affluent Society (College Edition). The Riverside Press / Houghton Mifflin Company Gobster PH, Weber E, Floress KM, Schneider IE, Haines AL, Arnberger A (2022) Place, loss, and landowner response to the restoration of a rapidly changing forest landscape. Landsc Urban Plann 222:104382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104382 Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) : Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure Hansjürgens B, Schröter-Schlaack C, Berghöfer A, Lienhoop N (2017) Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosyst Serv 23:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.003 Hartman R (1976) The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Econ Inq 14(1):52–58 Hendee JT, Flint CG (2014) Incorporating cultural ecosystem services into forest management strategies for private landowners: An Illinois case study. For Sci 60(6):1172–1179 Hodgson GM (2025) Altruism and morality: some problems for Max U. Front Behav Econ 4:1610022. 10.3389/frbhe.2025.1610022 Huff ES, Leahy JE, Kittredge DB, Noblet CL, Weiskittel AR (2017) Psychological distance of timber harvesting for private woodland owners. For Policy Econ 81:48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.007 Kreye MM, Adams DC, Soto JR, Tanner S, Rimsaite R (2021) Economic and Ethical Motivations for Forest Restoration and Incentive Payments. Soc Nat Resour 34(8):1093–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2021.1938320 LightBox I (2025) Data Platform | LightBox. https://www.lightboxre.com/data/#data . Accessed 10 March 2025 Maslow AH (1970) Motivation and personality, 2nd edn. Harper & Row Mook A, Goyke N, Dwivedi P (2022) Conservation Intentions and Place Attachment among Male and Female Forest Landowners. Rural Sociology, ruso.12434 https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12434 Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2016) Defining and measuring ecosystem services. In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, London and ä New York, pp 25–44 R Core Team (2024) _R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing_. Version 4.4.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. < https://www.R-project.org/ Rampin et al (2021) Taguette: open-source qualitative data analysis. J Open Source Softw 6(68):3522. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03522 Roux J-L, Konczal A, Bernasconi A, Bhagwat S, De Vreese R, Doimo I, Marini Govigli V, Kašpar J, Kohsaka R, Pettenella D, Plieninger T, Shakeri Z, Shibata S, Stara K, Takahashi T, Torralba M, Tyrväinen L, Weiss G, Winkel G (2022) Exploring evolving spiritual values of forests in Europe and Asia: A transition hypothesis toward re-spiritualizing forests. Ecol Soc 27(4):art20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13509-270420 Sass EM, Butler BJ, Caputo J, Huff ES (2023) Trends in United States Family Forest Owners’ Attitudes, Behaviors, and General Characteristics from 2006 to 2018. For Sci 69:689–697. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxad040 Signorell A (2025) _DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics_. R package version 0.99.59. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DescTools Tengberg A, Fredholm S, Eliasson I, Knez I, Saltzman K, Wetterberg O (2012) Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst Serv 2(Journal Article):14–26 Willis GB (2005) Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Footnotes A notable example is that Joseph Priestley did not discover the existence of oxygen until 1774 and, yet, people have always relied on the oxygen provided by plant photosynthesis for their immediate survival. Use value consists of the value derived from directly consuming a good or service, whereas exchange value is the value derived indirectly from selling or trading a good or service in order to obtain what is needed or desired. Eating berries from your woodland is an example of use value. Selling timber in order to pay for a new car is an example of exchange value. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files WhatvaluedoesfamilyCaputoetalSupplement1.pdf WhatvaluedoesfamilyCaputoetalSupplement2.html WhatvaluedoesfamilyCaputoetalSupplement3.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 06 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 06 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 27 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 06 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 02 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 02 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 18 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9161142","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":619850541,"identity":"bb6f8f27-7450-446f-8fdb-3684edcf12d6","order_by":0,"name":"Jesse Caputo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northern Research Station","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jesse","middleName":"","lastName":"Caputo","suffix":""},{"id":619850545,"identity":"fb8d5ef4-b357-4dd0-bb04-052854cc6ae9","order_by":1,"name":"Amanda Robillard","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Massachusetts Amherst","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amanda","middleName":"","lastName":"Robillard","suffix":""},{"id":619850546,"identity":"da6cd500-317f-4e63-a9ec-67a42f501fc8","order_by":2,"name":"Stephanie Snyder","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northern Research Station","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stephanie","middleName":"","lastName":"Snyder","suffix":""},{"id":619850547,"identity":"8bb698ac-109a-4e8f-bfea-7e79e4b62df9","order_by":3,"name":"Marla Markowski-Lindsay","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Massachusetts Amherst","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marla","middleName":"","lastName":"Markowski-Lindsay","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-18 15:38:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9161142/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9161142/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106726697,"identity":"14ffe462-d57f-4b5e-8d3f-3f2b758610ea","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-12 18:37:04","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":145885,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedian relative unimproved land value (log scale), private forest land. Massachusetts. 2018.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9161142/v1/e46f68c897a5b55ebc1d67d6.png"},{"id":106726465,"identity":"13850cc3-a586-49c0-b921-8716b655fced","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-12 18:36:14","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":143946,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedian relative unimproved land value (log scale), private forest land. Arkansas. 2018.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9161142/v1/cfcf1d1ebbca85c75d8bb347.png"},{"id":106726590,"identity":"394c8402-8120-4663-a3f4-d681f5d09991","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-12 18:36:40","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":87306,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDimensions of Total Economic Value (TEV) of family forest woodland in two states, Arkansas and Massachusetts in 2023. Each panel refers to one dimension of the TEV framework and contains one or more individual sources of value: wood = wood products, NTFP = non-timber forest products, forage = grazing or livestock forage, fish/game = fishing or hunting, recreation = passive recreation (not including fishing or hunting), beauty = scenic beauty, peace and quiet = peace and quiet, learning = learning opportunities, nature benefits = nature benefits, future benefits to self = future benefits to self, future benefits to family = future benefits to future generations, benefits to others = current benefits to other people, existence = existence value. The direct consumptive dimensions and recreation are based on binary variables measuring whether a landowner engaged in those activities over the tenure of their ownership (wood) or over the past 5-years (NTFP, forage, fish/game, recreation). The remainder of the variables are constructed variables representing whether a landowner “moderately” or ‘greatly’ enjoys those sources of value.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9161142/v1/d1cc1726be1fc28cef81754b.png"},{"id":106617858,"identity":"f114d2fc-7420-4ebb-b083-76e3f16c3f9e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-10 13:30:17","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64175,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSelected sources of Total Economic Value (TEV) of family forest woodland in two states, Arkansas and Massachusetts in 2023. Beauty = scenic beauty, peace and quiet = peace and quiet, learning = learning opportunities, nature = nature benefits, option = future benefits to self (option value), bequest = future benefits to future generations (bequest value), altruist = current benefits to other people (altruist value), existence = existence value. Variables represent responses to Likert-scale questions asking how much each source of value is enjoyed by landowners. 2023.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9161142/v1/d7fd279a00a61d4f2bdc97c3.png"},{"id":106728433,"identity":"af394362-059c-4ada-9627-eb0525d97f4c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-12 18:42:45","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1543112,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9161142/v1/999b49ad-1ac4-40b1-ab5a-f130ebcb5374.pdf"},{"id":106617855,"identity":"2217ac91-4cbd-4ae5-9e6e-9293cda438f5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-10 13:30:17","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":4524278,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"WhatvaluedoesfamilyCaputoetalSupplement1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9161142/v1/032d0f9025912f89025bba33.pdf"},{"id":106617857,"identity":"b9d71e73-4eb7-4cb9-808e-53691a57a8b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-10 13:30:17","extension":"html","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":745395,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"WhatvaluedoesfamilyCaputoetalSupplement2.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9161142/v1/4f16597d46468fe16ab7b651.html"},{"id":106726680,"identity":"2c1496ea-c332-426e-bf85-4d1ba4bda691","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-12 18:37:02","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":2438767,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"WhatvaluedoesfamilyCaputoetalSupplement3.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9161142/v1/fcca99c0459fd465fea17fa0.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"What value is provided by family forest land to its owners?: results from the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS)","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFamily forest ownerships (FFOs) are the largest single forest ownership group in the U.S., owning more than 39% of the forest land (Butler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These landowners derive many benefits and ecosystem services from their forest land (Butler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, Caputo and Butler \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Historically, research efforts on FFOs have disproportionately emphasized timber production, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), hunting, recreation, and other benefits that are directly used and enjoyed by landowners (Butler et al. 2022, Caputo \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). According to the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), these benefits are primarily associated with provisioning services and direct (physical and experiential) cultural services (Haines-Young and Potschin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), supporting a number of basic human needs. Scholars from Aristotle (1998) to Maslow (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e) have pointed out, however, that human beings universally express a range of \u0026ldquo;higher\u0026rdquo; needs on top of, and in addition to, those basic needs. CICES includes intellectual, representative, spiritual, symbolic, and other interactions among the cultural services. The forestry literature has not focused on these types of services as thoroughly as it has on recreation or timber and other provisioning services, but neither has it ignored them. Research has shown that U.S. forests provide benefits from education and nature interpretation (Hendee and Flint \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), sense-of-place (Gobster et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e, Mook et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), stewardship (Asah et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), and personal achievement (Kreye et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). International research has identified spiritual (De Pater et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e, Roux et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and heritage (Tengberg et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) values as being of additional importance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Total Economic Value (TEV) framework is a theoretical construct that may be particularly well suited to exploring the value stemming from the multiple benefits FFOs derive from their forest land (Hansj\u0026uuml;rgens et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Like most economic frameworks rooted in utility maximization theory, TEV subscribes to a theory of value fundamentally based in people\u0026rsquo;s own preferences. Forest benefits provide value to landowners and forest users because people prefer the outcomes and consequences of enjoying those benefits (Haines-Young and Potschin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, Potschin and Haines-Young \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). TEV recognizes that these preferences result in value being ascribed across a broad set of dimensions. These dimensions constitute the typology of value categories at the heart of TEV. They include the traditional \u0026ldquo;direct use\u0026rdquo; value common to the forestry literature, as well as additional categories of indirect use, non-use and option value (see below) that are not as frequently measured. The idea that there is value in private forest land beyond production of forest products is not a new one (e.g. Hartman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e), but TEV is notable in that it provides a typology intended to cover all possible sources of value (hence, \u0026ldquo;total\u0026rdquo; economic value).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect use comprises both direct consumptive and direct non-consumptive values. Whereas direct consumptive value is derived from the extraction and use of plants and animals, direct non-consumptive value is derived from direct, but passive, interaction with the forest ecosystem. This category includes passive recreation, enjoyment of beauty / scenery (i.e. aesthetic value), enjoyment of peace / quiet, and educational benefits. Indirect use value is provided by benefits from what are often referred to in the ecosystem services literature as regulating and maintenance services (Haines-Young and Potschin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These include benefits such as a clean and stable atmosphere, clean water, soil formation, etc. They do not require direct engagement by the landowner and, in fact, the landowner may not even be aware of the scale or scope of the benefits they receive.[1]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn1\" id=\"#FNLinkFn1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u0026ldquo;Non-use\u0026rdquo; value consists of three value categories: bequest value, altruist value, and existence value. In the first two cases, the landowner derives some personal satisfaction (and, consequently, value) from knowing that benefits are being enjoyed or will be enjoyed by other people in the present (altruist value) or by future generations (bequest value). Existence value is the satisfaction that a landowner gets from knowing that his or her forest, and all the life and natural resources it contains, just \u003cem\u003eexists\u003c/em\u003e. Finally, option value sits between use and non-use value. It consists of the value a landowner derives from their forest providing options for them in the future. For example, standing timber in the present provides the landowner with the option to sell or utilize wood products at a future date.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTEV is likely to be a particularly useful tool in understanding U.S. FFOs because of the importance placed on cultural, passive, and non-consumptive uses of forest land in the U.S. (e.g. Baker et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, Abrams and Bliss \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, Beach et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). This importance is expected given that the significant majority of FFOs in the present day are members of Galbraith\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1960\u003c/span\u003e) industrialized \u0026ldquo;affluent society\u0026rdquo;; they overwhelmingly derive the bulk of their income from sources other than their forest land (Butler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), do not rely, by-and-large, on land for subsistence resources, and have disposable income similar to the U.S. population at large (Butler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS), a product of the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, is USDA\u0026rsquo;s official source of information on private forest ownerships in the U.S. and their objectives, goals, actions, behaviors, and future intentions. The NWOS, like similar research efforts, has historically focused on direct use of forests \u0026ndash; harvesting timber, collecting non-timber forest products (NTFPs), recreation, etc. These uses have been shown to be consistently important over time and across multiple cycles of the NWOS (Caputo and Sass \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e, Sass et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, however, the NWOS has shown that passive, non-consumptive forest ownerships objectives \u0026ndash; beauty / scenery, habitat, nature protection, privacy \u0026ndash; are held to be more important than consumptive and productive objectives among FFOs (Butler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Regardless of that finding, the benefits and values that underlie these objectives have not been fully measured through the standard instrument (i.e. the base survey) or any other NWOS survey.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this paper, we report on the results of an NWOS supplemental survey effort aimed at better understanding these under-measured values through the lens of TEV. As far as the authors are aware, this represents the first attempt to operationalize the TEV framework \u0026ndash; or any other theoretically complete values framework \u0026ndash; for FFOs in the United States. This effort will add precision to our understanding of the multiple values that landowners derive from their land, providing useful contextual information to foresters, conservationists, program administrators, and other technical service providers who work with or for forest landowners. Through a better understanding of what landowners need and want from their land, these professionals will hopefully have more success in engaging those landowners in practices that are beneficial to themselves as well as society (Caputo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe data analyzed in this paper come from a NWOS science module (\u0026ldquo;sci-mod\u0026rdquo;). NWOS sci-mods are instruments, supplemental to the base NWOS, that serve to explore a specific research question in more depth. In addition to new questions aimed at this deeper exploration, sci-mods contain a subset of core questions from the base NWOS instrument. The core questions retained from the NWOS enable data users to identify key attributes of ownerships and their forested land, include key covariates for new questions, and serve as a means to link responses to the population of the base instrument. The sci-mod that is the focus of this paper gathered data on the total economic value that FFOs derive from their forest land\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSci-mods are implemented as intensifications of the base NWOS sample in one or more states, using the same methodology (Butler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The NWOS uses a spatially explicit sample methodology, in which a hexagonal grid is established across the entire area of the United States and a single point is randomly located within each grid cell. The land use at each point is determined and, if found to be forested, the ownership of the land at that point is surveyed. The sampling intensity is determined for each state based on a target of 250 responses per state (FFOs). In the case of the intensification for this FFO values sci-mod, a target of five times the base target was adopted (i.e. a 5X intensification), in two states, Arkansas and Massachusetts. These were selected as examples of heavily forested states, with significant family forest ownership, in different regions of the USA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first step in implementing this NWOS sci-mod was developing and refining the survey instrument. The sci-mod was originally written as a bank of 11 questions about FFO ownership values, by a committee of NWOS researchers. These questions were intended to address the dimensions of the TEV that were not covered by the questions already contained in the core questions of the base instrument. The questions were then tested via a series of cognitive interviews. Interviewees were FFOs owning at least 1-acre of forest land (the standard NWOS definition of an FFO) across the two study states. Lists of property owners in each state were initially derived from a proprietary data source (LightBox, Inc. 2025) and telephone numbers were obtained for the lists from a third-party vendor. Lists were then randomized and property owners were called sequentially; if they were willing and met the 1-acre forest ownership requirement, an appointment was set up for an approximately 1-hr interview. Eleven interviews were conducted from December 2020 to March 2021. Interviews were conducted virtually (over the Zoom platform), with one member of the research team leading the interview and a second member taking notes. Audio was also recorded for 10 of the 11 interviews (1 not recorded due to a technical error). Landowners who completed the interview were given a monetary incentive. Approvals were obtained through the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB No. 0596\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0078) and the Institutional Review Board at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (IRB No. 2016\u0026ndash;2908).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCognitive interviews were conducted using a mixture of a \"think aloud\" and verbal probing methods (Willis \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Probes were a mixture of proactive (i.e. pre-planned) and reactive probes. Interviewees were asked to read aloud each of the 11 questions (as well as some basic demographic and \"warm up\" questions) and provide an answer. They were then asked to paraphrase each question in their own words, and probed to assess their comprehension, confidence, and recall.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data gathered as part of the cognitive interviews was used to refine the sci-mod questions to make them more comprehensible to respondents and therefore more accurate measures of the underlying concepts. The 11 original questions were rephrased slightly and condensed into 8 questions following the cognitive interviews (Supplement 1). When coupled with the core questions included from the base NWOS instrument, the sci-mod instrument provided a means to measure at least one benefit falling under each dimension of the TEV framework. The core questions asked whether landowners had ever harvested trees from their forest land, gathered non-timber forest products (NTFPs), grazed livestock, fished or hunted, or engaged in passive recreation on their forested land. Timber harvest was measured across the entire tenure of land ownership, whereas the other categories included only the five years prior to the survey. These questions were all asked with a binary framework (i.e. responses were \u0026ldquo;yes\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;no\u0026rdquo;). The new sci-mod questions asked respondents to indicate how much they enjoyed various forest-based benefits on a Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (\u0026ldquo;Do not enjoy\u0026rdquo;) to 5 (\u0026ldquo;Greatly enjoy\u0026rdquo;). These included benefits for the dimensions of direct use (non-consumptive), indirect use, non-use and option values. All benefit metrics are listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The raw Likert-scale responses to the new sci-mod questions were also collapsed into binary variables for summary purposes using the criterion of whether a respondent had selected the two highest response options, 4 (\u0026ldquo;Moderately enjoy\u0026rdquo;) or 5 (\u0026ldquo;Greatly enjoy\u0026rdquo;), in common with standard NWOS methodology (Caputo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e, Butler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, Butler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey was implemented in summer 2023 as part of the 2023 NWOS Cycle (Butler et al. In Press.). Data were finalized and item non-response addressed through a multiple imputation approach using standard NWOS methodology (Butler and Caputo \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, five imputed values are derived for each missing variable on each survey. Across all variables in the sci-mod (both core and new questions), a median of 3.8% of values were imputed. These imputed values were used in generating population-level estimates in winter 2024 / spring 2025. The standard NWOS estimation procedure utilizes sample weights to account for differences in inclusion probability among ownerships of different sizes (Butler and Caputo \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummarization of these population estimates is the primary quantitative analysis presented in this paper. Raw (i.e. non-imputed values) were used for all other analyses. We used the X\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e statistic and Tschuprow\u0026rsquo;s T to compare the individual metrics of TEV between respondents in each of the two study states. All analysis was conducted in R 4.4.2, using the \u0026lsquo;base\u0026rsquo; (R Core Team \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and \u0026lsquo;DescTools\u0026rsquo; (Signorell \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) packages. Code and output for all analyses are included in Supplement 2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimensions of Total Economic Value (TEV) measured through a National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) Science Module (sci-mod), Arkansas and Massachusetts 2023. \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003eQuestions represent core questions from the NWOS base instrument; all others are unique to the sci-mod.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBenefit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue dimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTimber products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect use value (consumptive)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHave trees ever been cut while you owned land?\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNTFPs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect use value (consumptive)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHave you gathered NTFPs in the past five years?\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrazing / forage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect use value (consumptive)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHave you grazed livestock in your forest in the past five years?\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWild game / fish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect use value (consumptive)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHave you fished or hunted on your forest in the past five years?\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePassive recreation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect use value (non-consumptive)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHave you engaged in passive recreation in the past five years?\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeauty / aesthetics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect use value (non-consumptive)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow much do you enjoy the beauty or scenery that your forest provides?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeace and quiet\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect use value (non-consumptive)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow much do you enjoy the peace and quiet that your forest provides?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect use value (non-consumptive)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow much do you enjoy that your forest provides learning opportunities?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNature benefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndirect use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow much do you enjoy that your forest provides nature benefits?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture benefits for self\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOption value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow much do you enjoy the fact that your forest will provide benefits or opportunities to you in the future?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture benefits for people\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBequest value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow much do you enjoy that your forest could provide benefits to future generations?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBenefits to other people\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAltruist value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow much do you enjoy that your forest currently provides benefits to other people?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExistence value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExistence value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow much do you enjoy that your forest just exists?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is important to note here that we did not attempt to monetize or otherwise aggregate our categorical values. In this, we followed Hansj\u0026uuml;rgens\u0026rsquo; (2017) perspective: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe TEV framework should not be understood as an accounting scheme to aggregate different value categories into just one, i.e. the \u0026lsquo;total\u0026rsquo; economic value. It is rather a heuristic to consider different value dimensions\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; It is also important to note that the value associated with these benefits is a mixture of use value and exchange value[2]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn2\" id=\"#FNLinkFn2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e. In both cases, however, the economic value being measured benefits the landowners. To contextualize our findings within a market framework, we estimated and mapped a measure of relative (i.e. normalized) forest land value based on the assessed, unimproved value of private forest land. Methods for this measure are included in Supplement 3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to refining the new questions, the information gathered during the cognitive interviews was used as a rich data source for qualitative analysis \u0026ndash; in particular, to better understand how landowners perceive non-consumptive, indirect, or non-use values. To begin, the audio from the interviews was transcribed by a third-party vendor (for the one interview for which audio was not captured, the notes taken during the interview were coded instead). Transcribed interviews were then coded using a three-phase, inductive coding approach (see, e.g. Flick 2018). In the first phase, all four members of the research team coded the first \u003cspan type=\"ItalicUnderline\" class=\"ItalicUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003equestion\u003c/span\u003e (pertaining to beauty/aesthetics) across all 11 interviews. The team then reconvened to discuss findings and to develop an initial codebook. In the second phase, two members of the research team each independently and completely coded two distinct, complete interviews using the initial codebook, adding new codes as necessary. The team reconvened a second time, to further refine and finalize the codebook based on these four independently coded interviews. In the third phase, a single team member coded the remaining seven interviews using the final codebook. Finally, the entire team came together to discuss the coding, group codes into themes, and analyze the data to better understand how FFOs construct and contextualize the values they derive from their forested land. Coding was done using the open-source software, Taguette (Rampin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQuantitative\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total number of complete surveys from both states was 498, for a cooperation rate of 20.7% in Arkansas (242 surveys) and 23.3% in Massachusetts (256 surveys). The mean relative land value (log scale) \u0026ndash; based on assessed un-improved land value \u0026ndash; was over 2.3 times as great on a per-acre basis in Massachusetts as compared to Arkansas (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the population level, there were an estimated 221.8 thousand family forest ownerships in Arkansas (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;39.5 thousand ownerships), owning 8,516.0 thousand acres of forest land (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;200.3 thousand acres). This equates to a mean size-of-holdings of 38.4 acres (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.1 acres) and a median of 10 acres (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.0 acres). In Massachusetts, the estimated population included 273.6 thousand family forest ownerships (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35.5 thousand ownerships) owning 133.7 thousand acres of forest (38.2 thousand acres). This equates to a mean and median size-of-holdings of 4.9 acres (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.6 acres) and 1.0 acres (0.4 acres), respectively. In Arkansas, landowners derived a mean of 3.6% of their income from their wooded land (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.1%). In Massachusetts, this value was 0.9% (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5%). The distribution of this variable was very left-skewed, however. The median value in both states was 0% (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen all metrics were summarized as binary variables, the population estimates of direct use/non-consumptive, indirect use, non-use, and option values were more frequently found to be important than direct use/consumptive values (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). At least 43% of landowners moderately or greatly enjoyed the benefits associated with direct use (non-consumptive), indirect use, non-use, and option value. To contrast, most direct use consumptive benefits were enjoyed by less than 15% of landowners. Two exceptions were harvesting wood and hunting. More than 50% of landowners had harvested wood for sale or their own use. In Arkansas, 41.6% of landowners had hunted or fished on their land. The individual dimensions of TEV appeared to differ only slightly at the population-level \u0026ndash; with the most visible distinction between the substantially greater enjoyment of hunting and fishing in Arkansas. The population-level estimates (and corresponding error terms) for each of the individual levels of the Likert-scale questions are available in Supplement 2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of the raw data (i.e. not the population estimates), there were statistically significant differences between the two states in terms of grazing / forage (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0005, Tsuprow\u0026rsquo;s T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.16), hunting / fishing (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0005, Tsuprow\u0026rsquo;s T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.24), passive recreation (recreation other than hunting/fishing) (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0270, Tsuprow\u0026rsquo;s T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09), and option value (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0035, Tsuprow\u0026rsquo;s T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12). The first three were from the base NWOS questions and measured on a binary scale. Option value was measured on a 5-point Likert-scale; landowners in Arkansas were more likely to have expressed greater enjoyment of option values than landowners in Massachusetts (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Across all Likert-scale questions, the most common response was that landowners \u0026ldquo;greatly enjoyed\u0026rdquo; all sources of value \u0026ndash; with the top two responses representing a majority of respondents in both states.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQualitative\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe cognitive interviews were primarily intended to pre-test and refine the questionnaire before fielding the final quantitative survey instrument, but analysis of these interviews provides some additional insights on how FFOs perceive the total economic value of their forest land. Only new sci-mod questions pertaining to indirect and non-use values are considered here; questions pertaining to direct use values are part of the core NWOS instrument and so were not the focus of these interviews. Three overarching themes emerged from the interview process: 1) FFOs do not neatly separate different value dimensions in the way that the TEV typology suggests; they discuss different types of value (and different beneficiaries, etc.) simultaneously, 2) FFOs perceive values more distinctly and more specifically as the personal distance between themselves and those values decreases, and 3) FFOs often identify a spiritual dimension to their land.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe TEV typology portrays the different dimensions of economic value as being distinct and theoretically separable, even if bundled together in time and space. In practice, however, FFOs affirm that \"discrete\" benefits are often bundled together and not easily separable; this result is in line with Hansj\u0026uuml;rgens\u0026rsquo; (2017) perspective that TEV is a means to consider different value dimensions and not an accounting method. We use the word 'conflation' here to refer to all cases where respondents either confused one source of value for another or were unable or reluctant to separate them. This problem seems especially acute when different benefits belong to the same value dimension in the TEV typology. For example, 'aesthetics' and 'peace and quiet' are both types of non-consumptive direct use values. In general, the interviewees seemed to feel that aesthetics was more associated with a visual experience of the forest whereas peace and quiet was more associated with what is audible (or not audible) there. For many, however, the two were not easily separable. For example, one landowner said, \"\u003cem\u003eI think it\u0026rsquo;s wrapped together. In my opinion, that\u0026rsquo;s part of the beauty of it is the peace that it brings, but because it\u0026rsquo;s wooded because it\u0026rsquo;s away from the city, then it naturally brings that privacy and that peace and quiet\u003c/em\u003e.\" This conflation could be because both benefits seem to stem from reflection on and experience of natural elements, such as plants, animals, water, and, especially, trees, as well as privacy and place attachment. These two benefits are not only conflated with each other, however, but also with several other sources of non-consumptive direct use values. Interviewees seemed to derive value from the aesthetics and quiet of the forest through the mediation of recreation and other active use of the forest, e.g. \"\u003cem\u003eLike I said, I do it for exercise as well, fresh air, exercise, health, so that all enters into it as well. The peace and quiet is just an added bonus\u003c/em\u003e.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFFOs seem, in general, to consider beauty/aesthetics and peace-and-quiet within a more general value of the woods as a place that is \"unspoiled\" and that serves as a contrast to more urban environments. This \"otherness\" provides landowners with value in the form of a generalized source of respite or relief from the pacing or complexity of other less-rural living, work, and social environments \u0026ndash; what one landowner called, \"\u003cem\u003ethe beauty of the other.\u003c/em\u003e\" Forested lands' otherness is so inherently valuable to some FFOs that landowners seem to be willing to happily incur a number of inconveniences and liabilities (i.e. ecosystem disservices) in order to enjoy living and being in a rural space, e.g. \"\u003cem\u003eI really appreciate living out here. I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t live anywhere else. I mean, I don\u0026rsquo;t care if it takes me a half hour to get to\u0026hellip; Or 40 minutes to get to Home Depot, or to places where I need to go. I don\u0026rsquo;t mind that. A lot of people do.\u003c/em\u003e\", and, \"\u003cem\u003eAs much, again, of a pain in the butt it was, with the ice, and the slipperiness, you looked out my back deck and it was gorgeous out there with the sun coming up and just glaring through the trees. It was amazing. So I think it\u0026rsquo;s beauty. I mean, just being out here, I mean, it\u0026rsquo;s good.\u003c/em\u003e\" \u0026ldquo;Otherness\u0026rdquo; is not only valuable enough to warrant putting up with liabilities, it can also take potential liabilities and recast them as positive benefits. For example, several interviewees identified silence as being the operative condition for peace and quiet, many seemed to make explicit exceptions for the \"natural\" sounds of the forest, e.g. \"\u003cem\u003eI can sit outside in the quiet, and you can hear all the nightly insects, and in the mornings you can hear the birds. I sleep with the windows open, so you can hear the birds chirping in the season. I just enjoy it immensely. And not hearing sirens go by all the time, I mean, that\u0026rsquo;s what bothered me being in the city\u003c/em\u003e.\", or \" \u003cem\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t consider the noise animals make, and I\u0026rsquo;ve heard some pretty violent noises out here in the middle of the night, with coyotes around and stuff, but I don\u0026rsquo;t consider that noise. I consider that part of wildlife.\u003c/em\u003e\" In other words, car sirens and howling coyotes may be equally loud and they may be equally likely to wake a landowner at night, but the one detracts from peace and quiet and the other adds to it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn some cases, values are not conflated per se, but respondents focus on pairs or groups of values that reinforce or facilitate each another (or just naturally occur together). One example was learning. Interviewees did not regularly separate learning opportunities from recreation, aesthetic enjoyment or other active non-consumptive uses of the forest. For example, one interview described \"\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003eboy scout troops went on your land and went hiking and studied the trees or a church\u0026rsquo;s trail leaders, if they would come and enjoy the trees, the woods, hiking in there and going down to the lake and them learning.\u003c/em\u003e\" Most people described the learning opportunities provided by their forests as those pertaining to trees, wildlife (especially birds), or natural processes, but some also mentioned opportunities to learn or practice skills, such as survival skills or forest management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt was not only the values themselves that were conflated, but also the sources and ultimately the beneficiaries of those values. In the first case, interviewees often struggled to separate the value they derived from their woodlands with the value they derived from their backyards and the pastures, farm fields, etc. that also occurred on their property. To them it was the land as a whole that provided the values in question. Similarly, interviewees did not easily separate the value they derived from the value that others derived from their land. This was often the case when the beneficiary was a friend or family member or the value stemmed from a shared activity, e.g. \" \u003cem\u003eI mean my main purpose is\u0026hellip; I\u0026rsquo;m out there is just for that, to maybe go walk through the woods with my grandkids, or just seeing what\u0026rsquo;s out there, for wildlife, and stuff like that.\u003c/em\u003e\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot all values suffered from cognitive conflation, however. Several interviewees drew a sharper distinction between values, especially between consumptive and non-consumptive values. For example, FFOs perceived a tradeoff between timber harvesting and non-consumptive values, even when they supported timber harvesting in general, e.g. \"\u003cem\u003eWe let them come in and do a little bit of it, but we felt like they were taking the most beautiful trees and that was upsetting. And so we wouldn\u0026rsquo;t mind some of them cleared, but we wanted the not pretty ones cleared, not the pretty ones cleared.\u003c/em\u003e\" In other case, interviewees seem entirely unaware of one or more value categories. This was true most consistently for existence values. To some extent this may be due to the difficulty in semantically framing the intuitive idea that species or habitats have inherent value to people, but we cannot discount the possibility that not everybody holds this value. This seemed to be a new idea to many of the respondents, e.g., \"\u003cem\u003eIt\u0026rsquo;s just something I\u0026rsquo;ve never considered before\u003c/em\u003e\", \"\u003cem\u003eYeah. I don\u0026rsquo;t know how to wrap my mind around right and purpose\u003c/em\u003e.\", \"\u003cem\u003eAfter reading it twice, I\u0026rsquo;m not clear on that question at all.\u003c/em\u003e\" Other values that were similarly \"invisible\" to FFOs were other values that were also psychologically distant \u0026ndash; such as option value and bequest value, \"\u003cem\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t think that\u0026rsquo;s something that I have a mind to think of, that it\u0026rsquo;s providing a benefit to future generations. I hadn\u0026rsquo;t thought of that before.\u003c/em\u003e\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second theme that emerged from our qualitative analysis was related to the psychological distance between an FFO and an economic value (e.g. Huff et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and the impact of that distance on their ability to perceive that value. In general, interviewees were able to talk about values more articulately and more specifically when those values accrued to themselves (or people close to them) in the present time, as opposed to when they accrued to other people and/or at a hypothesized future time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn many cases, psychological distance does not just affect a landowners\u0026rsquo; ability to perceive a benefit, but also whether or not they value that benefit \u0026ndash; or, in some cases, whether they even see it as a benefit. When discussing benefits to 'other people,' interviewees defaulted to discussing their neighbors, family, and friends. This, no doubt, in part reflects the simple reality that landowners' close associates are the people most likely to be using (or on) their land. It also may reflect the reality that landowners are more likely to feel good about providing values to people with whom they share ties and with whom they sympathize, e.g. \"\u003cem\u003ewe\u0026rsquo;re a little bit picky about who we bring into the ranch. So it\u0026rsquo;s yeah, I would say that mostly covers it. Friends and family and church family.\u003c/em\u003e\" In some cases, FFOs may not think positively about values accruing to strangers or less closely-affiliated individuals, unless they are assured that there is no tradeoff between the strangers' good and their own. According to one interviewee, \"\u003cem\u003eIf I saw someone with a hunter, a hunter out there, I would say, \u0026ldquo;No, not on my property.\u0026rdquo; Even though I got nothing against hunting, I just don\u0026rsquo;t want it on my property. But, knowing that other people can walk through it from the sides, or the back, I don\u0026rsquo;t mind that, as long as they don\u0026rsquo;t mess it up, or try to destroy it, or do anything like that.\u003c/em\u003e\" Another said, \"\u003cem\u003eMy purpose in life is not benefits to society; its benefits to myself.\u003c/em\u003e\" Similarly, some interviewees were less able to form a clear picture of future benefits as compared to current values. When discussing hypothetical future values accruing to other people, interviewees were especially challenged \u0026ndash; particularly when those individuals were unknown, indeterminate, and with unknown intentions, \"\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip;the future generations are probably going to cut it down and build apartments on it or some other sinister thing.\u003c/em\u003e\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of psychological distance, existence values and indirect use values are particularly \"far\" from people and therefore difficult for FFOs to perceive clearly. Interviewees often struggled to understand how these values exactly benefitted themselves or others and often conflated them with direct use values, e.g. \"\u003cem\u003eI was thinking that other people who may come and hike on the land or be concerned about what is happening here \u0026hellip; I do worry about the species who live in that habitat, being endangered somewhat, losing their habitat, their lifestyle. So I would say pretty much when I read this I was thinking about exactly what I just said, the animals losing their habitat, and perhaps the water quality that is in that brook that those animals do use for a source of water.\u003c/em\u003e\" Even when FFOs understood the values themselves, they could not differentiate among the beneficiaries involved: themselves, other people, or the natural elements themselves (in the case of existence values). One landowner attempted to incorrectly define indirect-use values, for example, as those accruing on a scale larger than landowners or their close associates, \"\u003cem\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t know if global is the right word, ecological benefits of the woodland.\u003c/em\u003e\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe last theme identified pertained to the \"spiritual dimension\" of value. Several landowners referenced a spiritual dimension to their forests' value. In the TEV typology, \"spiritual values\" (like cultural services) are included among the non-consumptive direct use values. What is not addressed in the typology, however, is the fact that a spiritual perspective may lead to different and interesting interpretations of the other value classes. For example, one respondent had difficulty understanding 'existence values,' wondering how things can have value in and of themselves when the world belongs to God? - \"\u003cem\u003eDoes it exist on its own right or does it exist because there\u0026rsquo;s a God? God made it. It\u0026rsquo;s all God\u0026rsquo;s. Well, I\u0026rsquo;m spiritual. Everything belongs to God. I\u0026rsquo;m just a steward.\u003c/em\u003e\" This quote demonstrates another interesting effect of a spiritual perspective. Values that on one hand could be seen as philanthropic or as existence values in the TEV, can instead be seen as humans\u0026rsquo; obligation to be stewards of creation (e.g., God). Another example: \"\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003eit brings to mind what the native Americans think about the land \u0026ndash; that it\u0026rsquo;s not their land. And we do feel that we were able to get the land because of God\u0026rsquo;s influence, but we feel like it\u0026rsquo;s to share with others. So I don\u0026rsquo;t think it\u0026rsquo;s, I mean, I feel like we use it with reverence and we take care of it. Like I said, keeping the beautiful trees and that sort of thing. But yeah. I don\u0026rsquo;t know. I think this question is asking me if you feel like it\u0026rsquo;s just like the land itself has its own, own right to be left alone and do its own thing without people interfering.\u003c/em\u003e\"\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eFamily forest landowners in Massachusetts and Arkansas derive economic value from their forest land across multiple sources, i.e. across all dimensions of TEV. This finding is in line with what we know about FFOs\u0026rsquo; ownership objectives, which correspond to a full spectrum of consumptive and non-consumptive benefits (Butler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This paper builds on that knowledge by identifying more specifically the dimensions of value that FFOs enjoy. As they were quantified in our analysis, landowners derive the greatest value from non-consumptive direct use, indirect use, option, and non-use values compared to consumptive direct use values (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). That does not mean that sources of consumptive direct use value are unimportant to landowners, however (Caputo and Sass \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). More than 50% of the landowners in the two states have harvested wood products during their ownership tenure, a mixture of commercial and non-commercial products (chiefly firewood). Comparatively, far fewer derive value from animal forage, non-timber wood products, or wild fish and game. This may have to do with differences in the extent to which these products can be commercialized. All these products can at times be sold (i.e. serve as a source of exchange value); but forage, NTFPs, and fish/game are more likely to be used directly by landowners (i.e. providing use value). On the other hand, wood products can be used locally (e.g. firewood) but are more frequently harvested as a commercial product. Family forests provide a significant share \u0026ndash; 42% \u0026ndash; of wood products produced in the USA (Butler and Sass \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Since exchange value is mediated by money, landowners may have greater interest in pursuing the production of wood, since the returns are fully fungible and can be used to satisfy multiple landowner needs, as opposed to production of forage or NTFPs, which are more likely to be limited by landowners\u0026rsquo; demands for those specific products.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite substantial differences in estimated land value and mean size-of-holdings between the two states (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), landowners in Arkansas and Massachusetts derive similar value profiles from their land (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Landowners in Arkansas derive significantly more value from option value, forage, and fish / game than do landowners in Massachusetts. The last item is especially notable. The proportion of Arkansas landowners who hunt or fish on their land is more than three times that of Massachusetts landowners. On the other hand, Massachusetts landowners derive significantly more value from passive recreation. This suggests that there may be regional and/or cultural differences in specific sources of value to landowners and/or holding size may influence opportunities to experience certain value dimensions even if the overall profile across the value dimensions is similar. In this case, it appears that consumptive values are more important to landowners in Arkansas as compared to Massachusetts landowners, even if non-consumptive values are more important to both overall.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn important caveat to the quantification of value as undertaken in this study is that the underlying survey questions were measured using different scales. The core questions from the base NWOS survey were binary questions, asking whether landowners engaged in consumptive activities or passive recreation, whereas the new questions from the sci-mod were Likert-scale questions asking respondents to subjectively assess how much they enjoyed specific sources of value. These Likert-scale questions were collapsed to binary variables to compare with the base questions on a similar unit (proportion of ownerships), but it is possible or likely that some of the reason behind the higher scoring of the new sci-mod questions is due to issues with comparisons across different scales. That being said, our conclusions are in line with the base NWOS (Butler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and with prior research showing that cultural, passive, and non-consumptive uses of forest land are of primary importance to FFOs in the U.S. (e.g. Baker et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, Abrams and Bliss \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, Beach et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) Finally, it \u003cem\u003eis\u003c/em\u003e safe to conclude that our data show that landowners derive substantial value from at least one source associated with each of the TEV dimensions of value, even if comparisons between them in terms of magnitude are fraught.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper suggests that TEV is moderately useful as a research framework (Hansj\u0026uuml;rgens et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) for understanding the multiple uses, values, and benefits that characterize and motivate FFOs. It effectively illustrates that FFOs derive value from their land across multiple dimensions, including indirect use, non-use and option value. However, TEV \u0026ndash; like most if not all classification systems \u0026ndash; tends to oversimply a complex reality. The qualitative portion of our paper identified significant nuance to how landowners interpret and assess the dimensions of value. Most notably, while they do not separate these dimensions in their minds as neatly or consistently as the TEV framework might suggest, this finding does confirm Hansj\u0026uuml;rgens\u0026rsquo; (2017) perspective that TEV helps understand value dimensions. We found landowners tended to conflate different value categories or failed to distinguish between adjacent dimensions, particularly in the case of non-use value where personal distance was higher. Given the difficulties the FFOs in the interviews experienced in understanding the concepts of existence value and indirect use value, gaps remain in our understanding of the extent to which FFOs acknowledge and experience these dimensions of forest ownership value. Additionally, despite being framed as theoretically complete, TEV may not cover \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e of the value provided by landowners\u0026rsquo; forests and woodlands. We found, for example, that landowners identified a spiritual component to several value dimensions that does not map well onto the current TEV typology. This particular example perhaps highlights an overall shortcoming of a typology grounded in utility maximization theory, that the value of benefits flowing to other beneficiaries must be framed in terms of the subject at hand. This reframing is often awkward and non-intuitive and likely does not fully capture the benefits and values that accrue to non-owners, particularly public benefits (see Hodgeson 2025). Thus, the value that \u003cem\u003eI\u003c/em\u003e derive from altruist value is not the value enjoyed \u003cem\u003eby other individuals\u003c/em\u003e but the value that I derive from the enjoyment of being an altruistic person. Similarly, existence value is not the value enjoyed by ecosystems and non-human actors, but the value that \u003cem\u003eI\u003c/em\u003e derive from knowing these exist and will persist into the future. A similar perspective could be used to add a spiritual dimension to TEV, measuring the value derived by an individual from engaging in spiritual activities or simply viewing their land and themselves as participating in a spiritual or religious plane. This inclusion would move TEV closer to a hypothetical true measure of the \u0026ldquo;Total\u0026rdquo; Economic Value provided by family forest land. TEV, even so modified, however, is not likely to become an \u003cem\u003eoptimal\u003c/em\u003e framework for understanding the spiritual dimension of forest landownership. This \u0026ndash; and in fact, \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e value dimensions enjoyed by landowners \u0026ndash; are complex, nuanced, and non-independent. Our findings support the use of TEV as a comprehensive, intuitive, practical tool for identifying and measuring the value provided by family forest land to landowners, but they also suggest the need for a recognition that the value dimensions making up TEV are perhaps not as \u003cem\u003ecomplete\u003c/em\u003e as originally suggested. Our paper is an early and unique attempt to use this framework in the FFO literature and represents a starting place. Furthering our understanding of the full range of values that FFOs hold for their wooded land may aid policy makers and technical service providers when designing and implementing policies, programs and assistance to support landowners in managing and stewarding their lands to achieve desired ownership goals.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAvailability of data and material: Raw National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) responses are protected as confidential and private by federal law. Additional population-level estimates are available upon request. Funding for this project came from the USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, including a grant to the University of Massachusetts-Amherst (20-JV-11242305-074).\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbrams J, Bliss JC (2013) Amenity landownership, land use change, and the re-creation of working landscapes. Soc Nat Resour 26(7):845\u0026ndash;859. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.719587\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08941920.2012.719587\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAristotle., Ross WD, Ackrill JL, Urmson JO (1998) The Nichomachean Ethics. Oxfordshire); New Work, Oxford University Press, Oxford\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAsah ST, Blahna DJ, Ryan CM (2012) Involving forest communities in identifying and constructing ecosystem services: Millennium assessment and place specificity. J Forest 110(3):149\u0026ndash;156\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaker K, Bull GQ, Baylis K, Barichello R (2017) Towards a theoretical construct for modelling smallholders\u0026rsquo; forestland-use decisions: What can we learn from agriculture and forest economics? Forests 8(9):345. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/f8090345\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/f8090345\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeach RH, Pattanayak SK, Yang J-C, Murray BC, Abt RC (2005) Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis. For Policy Econ 7(3):261\u0026ndash;281. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00065-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00065-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButler BJ, Butler SM, Caputo J, Dias J, Robillard A, Sass EM (2021) Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2018: results from the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-199.Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 52 p. [plus 4 appendixes] \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-199\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2737/NRS-GTR-199\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButler B, Butler SM, Caputo J, Markowski-Lindsay M, Maldonado D, Robillard AL, Smith M Terracciano, Emmalyn. In Press. Family Forest Ownerships of the United States, 2023: Results from the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButler BJ, Butler SM, Floress K (2023) Small-Scale Forestry 22(1):1\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-022-09529-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11842-022-09529-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Studies of Family Forest Owners in the USA: A Systematic Review of Literature from 2000 through 2019\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButler BJ, Caputo J (2021) Weighting for the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-198. Northern Research Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Madison, WI, p 24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2737/NRSGTR-198\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2737/NRSGTR-198\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016) Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA Forest Service\u0026rsquo;s National Woodland Owner Survey. J Forest 114(6):638\u0026ndash;647. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-099\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5849/jof.15-099\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButler BJ, Sass EM (2023) Wood Supply from Family Forests of the United States: Biophysical, Social, and Economic Factors. For Sci 69(6):629\u0026ndash;642. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxad034\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/forsci/fxad034\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaputo J (2012) Commoditization and the Origins of American Silviculture. Bull Sci Technol Soc 32(1):86\u0026ndash;95. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0270467612444582\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0270467612444582\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaputo J, Butler B (2017) Ecosystem Service Supply and Capacity on U.S. Family Forestlands. Forests 8(10):395. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/f8100395\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/f8100395\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaputo J, Butler BJ, Butler SM, Robillard A, Sass EM, Markowski-Lindsay M, Hartsell AJ (2023) Corporate forest ownerships of the United States, 2018: results from the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-216. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 62 p. [plus 4 appendixes]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-216\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2737/NRS-GTR-216\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaputo J, Sass EM (2024) Ecological decoupling and family forest landowners: What do we know? In: Crocker, Susan J., ed. 2024. Proceedings of the 2022 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA 2022) science stakeholder meeting: grow. adapt. regenerate\u0026mdash;monitoring and responding to global change to promote resilient and productive forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-225. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 102 p. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-225\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2737/NRS-GTR-225\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaputo J, Ma Z, Snyder SA (2026) Why don\u0026rsquo;t landowners just do what they are told? Potential mismatches of values and objectives between family forest landowners and professionals. Land Use Policy 161:107883. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107883\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107883\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Pater C, Verschuuren B, Greil S, Wals A (2024) Exploring spiritual values in forest management practices in the Netherlands. Trees Forests People 16:100522. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100522\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100522\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGalbraith JK (1960) The Affluent Society (College Edition). The Riverside Press / Houghton Mifflin Company\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGobster PH, Weber E, Floress KM, Schneider IE, Haines AL, Arnberger A (2022) Place, loss, and landowner response to the restoration of a rapidly changing forest landscape. Landsc Urban Plann 222:104382. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104382\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104382\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) : Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHansj\u0026uuml;rgens B, Schr\u0026ouml;ter-Schlaack C, Bergh\u0026ouml;fer A, Lienhoop N (2017) Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosyst Serv 23:9\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHartman R (1976) The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Econ Inq 14(1):52\u0026ndash;58\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHendee JT, Flint CG (2014) Incorporating cultural ecosystem services into forest management strategies for private landowners: An Illinois case study. For Sci 60(6):1172\u0026ndash;1179\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHodgson GM (2025) Altruism and morality: some problems for Max U. Front Behav Econ 4:1610022. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/frbhe.2025.1610022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/frbhe.2025.1610022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuff ES, Leahy JE, Kittredge DB, Noblet CL, Weiskittel AR (2017) Psychological distance of timber harvesting for private woodland owners. For Policy Econ 81:48\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKreye MM, Adams DC, Soto JR, Tanner S, Rimsaite R (2021) Economic and Ethical Motivations for Forest Restoration and Incentive Payments. Soc Nat Resour 34(8):1093\u0026ndash;1110. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2021.1938320\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08941920.2021.1938320\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLightBox I (2025) Data Platform | LightBox. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.lightboxre.com/data/#data\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.lightboxre.com/data/#data\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 10 March 2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaslow AH (1970) Motivation and personality, 2nd edn. Harper \u0026amp; Row\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMook A, Goyke N, Dwivedi P (2022) Conservation Intentions and Place Attachment among Male and Female Forest Landowners. Rural Sociology, ruso.12434 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12434\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ruso.12434\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePotschin M, Haines-Young R (2016) Defining and measuring ecosystem services. In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, London and \u0026auml; New York, pp 25\u0026ndash;44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR Core Team (2024) _R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing_. Version 4.4.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. \u0026lt;\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.R-project.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.R-project.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRampin et al (2021) Taguette: open-source qualitative data analysis. J Open Source Softw 6(68):3522. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03522\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21105/joss.03522\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoux J-L, Konczal A, Bernasconi A, Bhagwat S, De Vreese R, Doimo I, Marini Govigli V, Kašpar J, Kohsaka R, Pettenella D, Plieninger T, Shakeri Z, Shibata S, Stara K, Takahashi T, Torralba M, Tyrv\u0026auml;inen L, Weiss G, Winkel G (2022) Exploring evolving spiritual values of forests in Europe and Asia: A transition hypothesis toward re-spiritualizing forests. Ecol Soc 27(4):art20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13509-270420\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-13509-270420\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSass EM, Butler BJ, Caputo J, Huff ES (2023) Trends in United States Family Forest Owners\u0026rsquo; Attitudes, Behaviors, and General Characteristics from 2006 to 2018. For Sci 69:689\u0026ndash;697. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxad040\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/forsci/fxad040\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSignorell A (2025) _DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics_. R package version 0.99.59. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DescTools\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DescTools\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTengberg A, Fredholm S, Eliasson I, Knez I, Saltzman K, Wetterberg O (2012) Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst Serv 2(Journal Article):14\u0026ndash;26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWillis GB (2005) Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e A notable example is that Joseph Priestley did not discover the existence of oxygen until 1774 and, yet, people have always relied on the oxygen provided by plant photosynthesis for their immediate survival.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Use value consists of the value derived from directly consuming a good or service, whereas exchange value is the value derived indirectly from selling or trading a good or service in order to obtain what is needed or desired. Eating berries from your woodland is an example of use value. Selling timber in order to pay for a new car is an example of exchange value.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"small-scale-forestry","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ssfo","sideBox":"Learn more about [Small-scale Forestry](http://link.springer.com/journal/11842)","snPcode":"11842","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ssfo/default2.aspx","title":"Small-scale Forestry","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Family forest landowners, total economic value, wood products, non-consumptive values","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9161142/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9161142/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) was developed in part to understand why private landowners \u0026ndash; individuals, families, corporations, and other organizations \u0026ndash; own forest land and what benefits and values that land provides. From the NWOS, we know that family forests provide many elements that forestry experts have traditionally emphasized \u0026ndash; products such as wood and non-timber forest products and services such as recreation. However, the NWOS has also highlighted that these are not the primary ownership objectives for many family forest owners (FFOs), with other objectives such as privacy, aesthetics, and protection of nature being more important to the majority. The Total Economic Values (TEV) framework provides a theoretically complete typology of human values and is therefore a potentially useful means of fully accounting for the total value that landowners derive from their land. Many traditional products and services associated with private forests are classified in the TEV as direct use values; these include things such as timber and other wood products, and outdoor recreation. In general, these values are already adequately covered by the NWOS and other studies, but TEV also includes indirect use, non-use, and option value. These are generally not as well represented in the NWOS instrument or the empirical FFO literature. To address this knowledge gap, an NWOS survey supplement focused on landowner values was developed and implemented in Arkansas and Massachusetts, USA. This paper summarizes quantitative and qualitative findings, highlighting that family forests provide landowners with multiple sources of use value, non-use value, and option value.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"What value is provided by family forest land to its owners?: results from the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-10 13:30:12","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9161142/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-07T03:59:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-06T18:34:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-27T19:25:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"233345578082833857985431196745764847949","date":"2026-04-18T20:41:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"169226255969411882140329866581241915821","date":"2026-04-08T18:24:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-06T19:05:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-02T09:46:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-02T09:45:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Small-scale Forestry","date":"2026-03-18T15:20:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"small-scale-forestry","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ssfo","sideBox":"Learn more about [Small-scale Forestry](http://link.springer.com/journal/11842)","snPcode":"11842","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ssfo/default2.aspx","title":"Small-scale Forestry","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5598da7e-331b-41c3-a93d-4086ad6f1d34","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 10th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-07T03:59:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-06T18:34:39+00:00","index":17,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-07T04:10:00+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-10 13:30:12","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9161142","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9161142","identity":"rs-9161142","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}