IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v142y2022ics138993412200096x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An assessment of the sustainability of family forests in the U.S.A

Author

Listed:
  • Butler, Brett J.
  • Caputo, Jesse
  • Henderson, Jesse D.
  • Pugh, Scott A.
  • Riitters, Kurt
  • Sass, Emma M.

Abstract

Across the U.S.A., as across many countries, families, individuals, trusts, estates, and family partnerships, collectively referred to as family forest ownerships, own a plurality of the forestland. The Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators (C&I) were used to assess the sustainability of these lands. There are currently 109 million ha of family forestland across the conterminous U.S.A., but this area is decreasing by 1 million ha yr−1 with 64% of this acreage going to non-forest uses and the rest going to other forest ownership classes. While forest-type groups have remained relatively constant, the area of forestland in smaller stand sizes has been decreasing and the area in larger stand sizes has been commensurately increasing. These forests provide critical habitat for many species with an average of 3.3 at-risk species per location. There is an estimated 12.7 billion m3 of wood on these lands with annual timber harvests of 160 million m3. For most species, the ratio of net growth to removals is well above 1.0, but there are notable exceptions, often associated with insects, changing fire regimes, or other departures from historical conditions. Looking only at timber harvesting, family forests are annually supporting an estimated 47.4 thousand jobs with combined wages of USD$2 billion. Land regulations, taxation, and incentives vary considerably across the U.S.A. with regulations ranging from regulatory to voluntary. Overall, the C&I indicate a mixed prognosis for the sustainability of America's family forests: while many of the general ecological and productivity indicators are positive, the loss of family forestland is of notable concern as are the threats posed by specific disturbances and for specific species. To maintain the sustainability of America's family forest, the analysis suggests focusing on policies, such as conservation easements and preferential property tax programs, aimed at keeping family forests as family forests.

Suggested Citation

  • Butler, Brett J. & Caputo, Jesse & Henderson, Jesse D. & Pugh, Scott A. & Riitters, Kurt & Sass, Emma M., 2022. "An assessment of the sustainability of family forests in the U.S.A," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:142:y:2022:i:c:s138993412200096x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993412200096X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102783?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruben N. Lubowski & Andrew J. Plantinga & Robert N. Stavins, 2008. "What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 529-550.
    2. Kilgore, Michael A. & Ellefson, Paul V. & Funk, Travis J. & Frey, Gregory E., 2018. "Private forest owners and property tax incentive programs in the United States: A national review and analysis of ecosystem services promoted, landowner participation, forestland area enrolled, and ma," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 33-40.
    3. Dwivedi, Puneet & Tumpach, Chantal & Cook, Chase & Izlar, Bob, 2018. "Effects of the sustainable forestry initiative fiber sourcing standard on the average implementation rate of forestry best management practices in Georgia, United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 51-58.
    4. B. Deaton, 2012. "A Review and Assessment of the Heirs' Property Issue in the United States," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(3), pages 615-632.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Korhonen, Jaana & Henderson, Jesse D. & Prestemon, Jeffrey, 2023. "National forest timber bids and export price interlinkages in the USA: The bounds testing approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Changchun Feng & Hao Zhang & Liang Xiao & Yongpei Guo, 2022. "Land Use Change and Its Driving Factors in the Rural–Urban Fringe of Beijing: A Production–Living–Ecological Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso & Guci, Ledia, 2018. "An estimator for discrete-choice models with spatial lag dependence using large samples, with an application to land-use conversions," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 77-93.
    3. Chakir, Raja & Lungarska, Anna, 2015. "Agricultural land rents in land use models: a spatial econometric analysis," 150th Seminar, October 22-23, 2015, Edinburgh, Scotland 212641, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Ji, Yongjie & Rabotyagov, Sergey & Kling, Catherine L., 2014. "Crop Choice and Rotational Effects: A Dynamic Model of Land Use in Iowa in Recent Years," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170366, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Ji, Yongjie & Rabotyagov, sergey & Valcu-Lisman, Adriana, 2015. "Estimating Adoption of Cover Crops Using Preferences Revealed by a Dynamic Crop Choice Model," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205799, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Allan, Corey & Kerr, Suzi & Owen, Sally, 2020. "Over-valued or over-looked? A theoretical and empirical investigation of agricultural land values against profitability in Aotearoa New Zealand," Working Paper Series 9129, Victoria University of Wellington, School of Economics and Finance.
    7. Li, Sheng & Nadolnyak, Denis & Hartarska, Valentina, 2019. "Agricultural land conversion: Impacts of economic and natural risk factors in a coastal area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 380-390.
    8. Zack Dorner & Dean Hyslop, 2014. "Modelling Changing Rural Land Use in New Zealand 1997 to 2008 Using a Multinomial Logit Approach," Working Papers 14_12, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    9. Maples, Chellie H. & Hagerman, Amy D. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2022. "Ex-ante effects of the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act’s grassland initiative," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    10. Mariano Mezzatesta & David A. Newburn & Richard T. Woodward, 2013. "Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 722-742.
    11. Elena G. Irwin & Andrew M. Isserman & Maureen Kilkenny & Mark D. Partridge, 2010. "A Century of Research on Rural Development and Regional Issues," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 522-553.
    12. Araujo, Rafael & Costa, Francisco J M & Sant'Anna, Marcelo, 2020. "Efficient Forestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Evidence from a Dynamic Model," SocArXiv 8yfr7, Center for Open Science.
    13. Jacobson, Sarah, 2014. "Temporal spillovers in land conservation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 366-379.
    14. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    15. Heagney, E.C. & Falster, D.S. & Kovač, M., 2021. "Land clearing in south-eastern Australia: Drivers, policy effects and implications for the future," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. Jane Musole Kwenye & Xiaoting Hou Jones & Alan Renwick, 2023. "Understanding Land-Use Trade-off Decision Making Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process: Insights from Agricultural Land Managers in Zambia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, February.
    17. Raja Chakir & Olivier Parent, 2009. "Determinants of land use changes: A spatial multinomial probit approach," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(2), pages 327-344, June.
    18. Lobianco, Antonello & Caurla, Sylvain & Delacote, Philippe & Barkaoui, Ahmed, 2016. "Carbon mitigation potential of the French forest sector under threat of combined physical and market impacts due to climate change," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 4-26.
    19. Si, Chengyu & Nadolnyak, Denis, 2018. "The Effects of Government Payments on Agricultural Land Use," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266628, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. Anna Kożuch & Dominika Cywicka & Aleksandra Górna, 2024. "Forest Biomass in Bioenergy Production in the Changing Geopolitical Environment of the EU," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-20, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:142:y:2022:i:c:s138993412200096x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.