@article{frey_cubbage_holmes_reyes-retana_davis_megevand_rodríguez-paredes_kraus-elsin_hernández-toro_chemor-salas_2019, title={Competitiveness, certification, and support of timber harvest by community forest enterprises in Mexico}, volume={107}, ISSN={1389-9341}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.009}, DOI={10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.009}, abstractNote={Local communities own approximately 45% of Mexico's forests and have relative autonomy to manage them. Some of these communities have established community forest enterprises (CFEs) in order to generate benefits, such as jobs. However, if CFEs focus mainly on community benefits, and lose sight of financial competitiveness and ecological sustainability, they may fail in the long run. Government support programs and forest certification mechanisms have been established to address these concerns, but little is known about improvements in financial competitiveness. A detailed 2011 survey of the financial inputs and outputs of 27 CFEs in the predominately pine (Pinus spp.) and fir (Abies spp.) forests of Mexico was used to create statistical timber harvest production functions. The production functions showed that the CFEs generally fit the model of competitive firms, indicating that they have not lost sight of the importance of financial viability; however, there is also some evidence that CFEs may balance this with the objective of providing community income (employment and other community payments). Participation in capacity development support programs and forest certification jointly have a positive impact on productivity, but the individual impact of each was not possible to parse.}, journal={Forest Policy and Economics}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Frey, Gregory E. and Cubbage, Frederick W. and Holmes, Thomas P. and Reyes-Retana, Graciela and Davis, Robert R. and Megevand, Carole and Rodríguez-Paredes, Diana and Kraus-Elsin, Yoanna and Hernández-Toro, Berenice and Chemor-Salas, Diana Nacibe}, year={2019}, month={Oct}, pages={101923} }
 @inbook{kramer_holmes_haefele_2003, title={Contingent valuation of forest ecosystem protection}, ISBN={1402010281}, DOI={10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_17}, abstractNote={In recent decades, concerns have arisen about the proper valuation of the world’s forests. While some of these concerns have to do with market distortions for timber products or inadequate data on non-timber forest products, an additional challenge is to uncover the economic worth of nonmarket services provided by forest ecosystems (Kramer et al. 1997). This has led to a growing number of publications addressing the valuation of forest ecosystem services, on topics such as carbon sequestration and endangered species habitat. In this chapter, we focus on the contingent valuation method (CVM) to assess the structure, health, and extent of forest ecosystems.1}, booktitle={Forests in a market economy}, publisher={Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers}, author={Kramer, R. A. and Holmes, T. P. and Haefele, M.}, editor={E. O. Sills and Abt, K. L.Editors}, year={2003} }
 @inbook{englin_holmes_sills_2003, title={Estimating forest recreation demand using count data models}, ISBN={1402010281}, DOI={10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_19}, abstractNote={Forests, along with related natural areas such as mountains, lakes, and rivers, provide opportunities for a wide variety of recreational activities. Although the recreational services supplied by forested areas produce value for the consumers of those services, the measurement of recreational value is complicated by the fact that access to most natural areas is non-priced. Because outdoor recreation often competes with commodity uses of forests, such as timber harvesting or mineral extraction, failure to account for the recreational use of forest land makes it impossible to determine the efficient use of forest resources.}, booktitle={Forests in a market economy}, publisher={Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers}, author={Englin, J. E. and Holmes, T. P. and Sills, Erin}, editor={E. O. Sills and Abt, K. L.Editors}, year={2003} }
 @inbook{sills_lele_holmes_pattanayak_2003, title={Nontimber forest products in the rural household economy}, ISBN={1402010281}, DOI={10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_15}, booktitle={Forests in a market economy}, publisher={Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers}, author={Sills, Erin and Lele, S. and Holmes, T. P. and Pattanayak, S. K.}, editor={E. O. Sills and Abt, K. L.Editors}, year={2003} }
 @inbook{holmes_boyle_2003, title={Stated preference methods for valuation of forest attributes}, ISBN={1402010281}, DOI={10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_18}, abstractNote={The valuation methods described in this chapter are based on the idea that forest ecosystems produce a wide variety of goods and services that are valued by people. Rather than focusing attention on the holistic value of forest ecosystems as is done in contingent valuation studies, attribute-based valuation methods (ABMs) focus attention on a set of attributes that have management or policy relevance (Adamowicz et al. 1998a, Bennett and Blamey 2001). The attribute set might include, for example, measures of biological diversity, areas designated for timber production or set aside for conservation, size of timber harvesting gaps, or watershed protection measures. If human-induced changes in forest ecosystems can be meaningfully represented by a set of attributes, choices made by survey respondents among sets of alternatives can provide resource managers and policy makers with detailed information about public preferences for many potential states of the environment. If price is included as an attribute of the problem, a multidimensional valuation surface can be estimated for use in cost/benefit analysis.}, booktitle={Forests in a market economy}, publisher={Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers}, author={Holmes, T. P. and Boyle, K. J.}, editor={E. O. Sills and Abt, K. L.Editors}, year={2003} }
 @inbook{pattanayak_abt_holmes_2003, title={Timber and amenities on nonindustrial private forest land}, ISBN={1402010281}, DOI={10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_14}, abstractNote={Economic analyses of the joint production timber and amenities from nonindustrial private forest lands (NIPF) have been conducted for several decades. Binkley (1981) summarized this strand of research and elegantly articulated a microeconomic household model in which NIPF owners maximize utility by choosing optimal combinations of timber income and amenities. Most follow-up attempts have been limited to either simulations based on stylized characterization of joint production (Max and Lehman 1988) or to empirical representations hampered by data limitations— particularly with regard to measuring amenity production (Hyberg and Holthausen 1989). In attempting to redress this gap, Holmes (1986) was limited to binary representations of timber and amenities and did not get conclusive results. In this chapter, we use data from North Carolina that includes timber output and amenity indices to illustrate a method for empirically characterizing Binkley’s household model.}, booktitle={Forests in a market economy}, publisher={Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers}, author={Pattanayak, S. K. and Abt, K. L. and Holmes, T. P.}, editor={E. O. Sills and Abt, K. L.Editors}, year={2003} }
 @article{moffat_cubbage_holmes_e o'sullivan_2001, title={Characterizing the sustainable forestry issue network in the United States}, volume={2}, ISSN={["1389-9341"]}, DOI={10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00033-8}, abstractNote={Issue network analysis techniques were applied to the issue of sustainable forestry in the United States to identify potential public and private outcomes for the issue. A quantitative approach based on work by Laumann and Knoke [The Organizational State (1987)] was utilized in conjunction with the Delphi method. Results suggest that the parity in the distribution of influence among network sectors means that moving the issue of sustainable forestry onto the formal policy agenda will require more consensus on problems and solutions than exists at the present time. Accordingly, broad policy actions resulting from the expansion of the issue of sustainable forestry are unlikely in the short-term. However, experts on the Delphi panel anticipate that changes will occur in response to sustainability issues. At the federal and state level, this is likely to result in changes to public forest management and to the objectives assigned to the USDA Forest Service and to the state forestry agencies. States are projected to draft new and to change old private forest practices regulations as a result of sustainable forestry concerns. In the private sector, the trend of applying criteria and indicator-based sustainable forestry management standards and certification programs will continue. Non-industrial private forest owners are projected to make the fewest direct accommodations. Finally, where directly comparable, the Delphi study's results were not significantly different from the quantitative approach, suggesting that Delphi has promise for network research applications.}, number={3-4}, journal={FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS}, author={Moffat, SO and Cubbage, FW and Holmes, TP and E O'Sullivan}, year={2001}, month={Jul}, pages={307–318} }
 @article{ahn_de steiguer_palmquist_holmes_2000, title={Economic analysis of the potential impact of climate change on recreational trout fishing in the Southern Appalachian Mountains: An application of a nested multinomial logit model}, volume={45}, ISSN={["1573-1480"]}, DOI={10.1023/A:1005511627247}, number={3-4}, journal={CLIMATIC CHANGE}, author={Ahn, S and De Steiguer, JE and Palmquist, RB and Holmes, TP}, year={2000}, month={Jun}, pages={493–509} }
 @article{schaberg_holmes_lee_abt_1999, title={Ascribing value to ecological processes: an economic view of environmental change}, volume={114}, ISSN={["1872-7042"]}, DOI={10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00363-6}, abstractNote={Decisions made by individual landowners and public land managers can have a significant impact on the rates of ecological change. Interdisciplinary cooperation is desirable if economists and ecologists are to correctly interpret the impacts of individual choices for landscape management. This paper reports results from two studies of the residents of North Carolina which contrast individual preferences for utilitarian forest benefits and financial returns with less tangible benefits of forest amenities and ecosystem stability. One study reports preliminary findings from a forest-benefit mail survey on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests; the second study presents an analysis of harvest decisions by private landowners. Economic methods pertinent to valuation of environmental goods are briefly considered. Individual behavior is described which suggests that segments of the public recognize welfare benefits specifically from forest amenities, and from `natural' production of environmental goods and services. The two studies suggest how economic tools may be extended to help quantify complex social and biological values associated with ecological processes.}, number={2-3}, journal={FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT}, author={Schaberg, RH and Holmes, TP and Lee, KJ and Abt, RC}, year={1999}, month={Feb}, pages={329–338} }