A literature comparison

Margaret HamiltonEcon 539

March 11, 2009

Wear, Liu, Foreman, and Sheffield Examine how expanding populations in

western Virginia may influence the management of forests in 1999.

Munn, Barlow, Evans, and Cleaves Examine how the frequency of timber

harvesting is influenced by urbanization in Mississippi and Alabama in 2002.

Kline, Azuma & Alig Examine how population growth in western and eastern Oregon affects land

management activities in 2004 and 2007.

Wear et al. used:

POP + SITE-INDEX + SLOPE +ACCESS-EASY + ACCESS-HARD

To describe the comparative advantage for commercial forestry.

Munn et al. used: HARVEST-HISTORY, SLOPE, TYPE(PINE, HDWD, MIXED, OPEN), SITE-INDEX, INVENTORY, SIZEFOREST, ROAD, DISTANCE-URBAN, DIST2, POPDEN, INCOME, OWNERSHIP (NF, PUB, NIPF).

Adding socioeconomic factors to describe evidence of harvesting.

Kline et al. used:

BASAL AREAt, BASAL AREAt-1, SITE INDEX, SLOPE, ROAD DISTANCE, HARDWOOD, NIPF, BUILDING DENSITYt , BUILDING DENSITYt-1.

To test evidence of stocking, harvest, precommercial thinning and

post-harvest planting.

Wear et al. looked for relationship between:population density and commercial forestry

Using Census and expert opinion

Found statistical significance

Population reduces timberland area and growing stock volumes by roughly 40% from their measured values.

Munn et al. looked for relationships between: population density and:Proximity to citiesContiguous forest areaHarvestingUsing Census and Forest Service data

They found all were statistically significant and concluded that changes at the urban-

rural interface may have important influence on the future timber supply.

Kline et al. say the results may be statistically significant, but the magnitude is small.

Kline et al. looked for relationships between building density and:StockingHarvestingPre-commercial thinningPost-harvest plantingusing Forest Service data

Found statistical significance in: stocking, thinning and planting in

western Oregon.But concluded: magnitude of significance may not warrant strong conclusions.

Reasons for different findings: Studies conducted in different regions:

Virginia Alabama/Mississippi Western and eastern Oregon.

Population was represented with diffnt data: Census data was used by Wear et al. and Munn et al. Building density data was used by Kline et al.

Dependent variables differed among studies:

Each study was looking for different evidence of forest management.

Wear et al. concluded that concurrent impacts on both timber demand and supply could result in increasing market scarcity and continued upward pressure on timber prices.

Munn et al. concluded that changes at the urban-rural interface may have important influence on the future timber supply.

Kline et al. agreed there is potential for less forestry investment on private forestlands due to: economies of scale in timber production, and change in forest owner characteristics and objectives.

Policy implications: as the U.S. Forest Service attempts to provide

continuous supply of timber and other land uses, it will need to consider potential decreases in timber supply from development and new management activities of new owners.

References

Kline, J. D.; Azuma, D. L. 2007. Evaluating forest land development effects on private forestry in eastern Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-572. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 p.

Kline, J. D.; Azuma, D. L.; Alig, R. J. 2004. Population growth, urban expansion, and private forestry in western Oregon. Forest Science 50(1) p. 33-43.

Munn, I. A.; Barlow, S. A.; Evans, D. L.; and Cleaves, D. 2002. Urbanization's impact on timber harvesting in the south central United States. Journal of Environmental Management 64, 65-76.

Wear, D. N.; Liu, R.; Foreman, J. M.; Sheffield, R. M. 1999. The effects of population growth on timber management and inventories in Virginia. Forest Ecology and Management 118: 107-115.