Effect of Development on Private Forest Management

1. Margaret Hamilton ECON 439/539 Effect of Development on Private Forest Management 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.

2. Introduction Increasing human populations and incomes lead to greater demands for building sites. Western Oregon population expected to increase 43% by 2040. 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).

3. Introduction Development concerns among managers and policymakers center around maintaining timber production and habitat by limiting parcelization of forest landscapes. (Azuma et al., 2002a) Oregon and Washington produced 50 million m3 timber annually for the past decade. (Haynes, 2003)

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

5. Question under study To what extent might future development of forestland reduce these management activities: forest stocking precommercial thinning post-harvest tree planting

6. Data Compiled 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

7. Estimated reduction in 1994 basal area given projected forestland development, 1994-2054 Basal Area Reduction Rate

8. Building density and pre-commercial thinning likelihood on private forestland Industry Non-industrial

9. Conclusions Modest declines in forest stocking and precommercial thinning over the next 50 years Greater declines in postharvest replanting. Neighbor effect

10. Policy Implications 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?