Kline, Jeffrey D. and Alig, Ralph J. 2005.

Forestland development and private forestry

with examples from Oregon (USA) Forest Policy and Economics p. 709-720 www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol.

Effect of Development on Private Forest Management

Margaret HamiltonECON 439/539

Increasing human populations and incomes

lead to greater demands for building sites.

Western Oregon population expected to increase 43% by 2040.

Introduction

Thirteen percent of U.S. forestland is located in major metro counties and 17% is located in small/intermediate metro counties. (Hammer, et. al., 2004).

Development concerns among managers and policymakers center around maintaining timber production and habitat by limiting

parcelization of forest landscapes. (Azuma et al., 2002a)

Introduction

Oregon and Washington produced 50 million m3 timber annually for the past decade. (Haynes, 2003)

Most development in western Oregon is expected on: • Edges of Willamette Valley• Non-industrial private forestlands• Agricultural lands

Prior Research

To what extent might future development of forestland reduce these management activities:

• forest stocking• precommercial thinning• post-harvest tree planting

Question under study

Merging 3 Data Sets:1. Photo observations of buildings Counts of number of buildings of any size or type within 32- and 259-hectar circles surrounding pin pricks on aerial photos on nonfederal land for the 19 counties in Oregon west of the crest of the Cascades.

2. Forest condition field data Describes forest conditions and management

3. Projected building Densities

Data Compiled

Estimated reduction in 1994 basal area given projected forestland development, 1994-2054

Basal AreaReduction

Rate

Building density and pre-commercial thinning likelihood on private forestland

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Buildings per square mile

Lik

elih

ood

Industry

Non-industrial

• Modest declines in forest stocking and precommercial thinning over the next 50 years

• Greater declines in postharvest replanting.

• Neighbor effect

Conclusions

Private land is not a public good, but people derive benefit from it.

How can non-timber

goods and services be valued

on the market and considered in land management

decisions?

Policy Implications