Abstract
The state-level distribution of the size of family forest holdings in the contiguous United States was examined using data collected by the USDA Forest Service in 1993 and 2003. Regressions models were used to analyze the factors influencing the mean size and structural variation among states and between the two periods. Population density, percent of the population at least 65 years of age, percent of the population residing in urban areas, per capita income, income inequality, and per capita private forestland were found to be significantly correlated with the structure of landholding size. This paper suggests that the number and proportion of small-scale family forest owners in the United States are both increasing due to the increasing importance of non-timber amenities to forest landowners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The logic of this argument is that people who use timberlands frequently (e.g. as hunting lease, bird watching, or simply enjoying the peace and or amenities) would be better off (in terms of saving transaction costs) by owning the timberland than purchasing the services owned by someone else.
References
Allen DW, Lueck D (1998) The nature of the farm. J Law Econ 41(2):343–386
Befort WA, Luloff AE, Morrone M (1988) Rural land use and demographic change in a rapidly urbanizing environment. Landsc Urban Plan 16(4):345–356
Binder JJ (1985) Measuring the effects of regulation with stock price data. Rand J Econ 16(2):167–183
Birch TW (1996) Private forestland owners of the United States, 1994. USDA For Serv Northeast For Exp Stat Resour Bull NE-138, Delaware, OH
Birch TW, Lewis DG, Kaiser HF (1982) The private forest-land owners of the united states. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Resour Bull WO-1. Washington DC
Bliss JC, Sisock ML, Birch TW (1998) Ownership matters: forestland concentration in rural Alabama. Soc Nat Resour 11(4):401–410
Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J Forestry 102(7):4–14
Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC, Williams MS (2005) Design, implementation, and analysis methods for the National Woodland Owner Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. Gen Tech Rep NE-GTR–336, p 43
Decoster LA (1998) The boom in forest owners—a bust for forestry? J Forestry 96(5):25–28
Gilles JL, Dalecki M (1988) Rural well-being and agricultural change in two farming regions. Rural Sociol 53(1):40–55
Gobster PH, Rickenbach MG (2003) Private forestland parcelization and development in Wisconsin’s Northwoods: perceptions of resource-oriented stakeholders. Landsc Urban Plan 69(2/3):165–182
Goldschmidt W (1978) As you sow: three studies in the social consequences of Agribusiness. Montclair, NJ, Allenhead, Osmun
Harrison S, Herbohn J, Niskanen A (2002) Non-industrial, smallholders, small-scale and family forestry: what’s in a name? Small-scale Forest Economics. Manage Policy 1(1):1–11
Fortmann L, Kusel J, Kawamura Y, Olson M, Danks C (1991) The effects of forest control and use on county well-being. In: Jonathan K, Louise F (eds) Well-being in forest-dependent communities, vol 1. Berkeley, California: Department of Forestry and Resource Management, University of California, Berkeley, pp 49–67
Labao LM, Michael DS (1991) Farming patterns, rural restructuring, and poverty: a comparative regional analysis. Rural sociol 56(4):565–602
Mather AS (2001) Forests of consumption: postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 19(2):249–268
Mehmood SR, Zhang D (2001) Forest Parcelization in the United States. J Forestry 99(4):30–34
Nagubadi RV, Zhang D (2005) Determinants of timberland use by ownership and forest type in Alabama and Georgia. J Agric Appl Econ 37(1):173–186
Pan Y, Zhang Y, Butler BJ (2007) Trends among family forest owners in Alabama, 1994–2004. Southern J Appl Forestry 31(3):117–123
Ripatti P (1996) Factors affecting partitioning of private forest holdings in finland: a logit analysis. Acta Forest Fenn 252 (monograph)
Sisock ML (1998) Unequal shares: forest land concentration and well-being in the rural Alabama. Master Thesis, Auburn University. Auburn
Smith WB, Miles PD, Vissage JS et al (2004) Forest resources of the United States, 2002. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. Gen Tech Rep NC-241
Swanson LE (1988) Agriculture and community change in the U.S. Boulder. Westview Press, CO
US Census Bureau (1990) Census 1990 data for the United States http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet. Viewed 1 Aug 2006
US Census Bureau (2000) Census 2000 data for the United States http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet. Viewed 1 Aug 2006
Volscho TW (2004) Gini Index of Family Income by U.S. County, 2000. University of Connecticut, Dept of Sociology: http://vm.uconn.edu/~twv00001/counties.htm. Viewed 15 July 2006
Wang S, van Kooten GC (2000) Forestry and new institutional economics: an application of contract theory to forest silvicultural investment. Ashgate, Aldershort
Zhang Y (2001) Economics of transaction costs saving forestry. Ecol Econ 36(2):197–204
Zhang Y, Zhang D, Schelhas J (2005) Small-scale non-industrial private forest ownership in the United States: Rational and Implications for forest management. Silva Fenn 39(3):443–454
Acknowledgments
This research was financially supported by the McIntire-Stennis program of the USDA (Project number ALAZ00032), the USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, and Auburn University’s Center for Forest Sustainability. We appreciate comments and suggestions from Dr. Indrajit Majumdar. We would especially thank Dr. Steve Harrison for comments and language editing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, Y., Liao, X., Butler, B.J. et al. The Increasing Importance of Small-Scale Forestry: Evidence from Family Forest Ownership Patterns in the United States. Small-scale Forestry 8, 1–14 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-008-9050-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-008-9050-6