The Future of Washington State Family-owned Forests in an Increasingly Fragmented Landscape

1. The Future of Washington State Family-owned Forests in an Increasingly Fragmented Landscape Janean H. Creighton, Keith A. Blatner, David M. Baumgartner Department of Natural Resource Sciences Washington State University

3. The “New” Landowner • Less interest in timber harvest • Oriented towards recreation • Fewer familial ties to the land • Employed outside of forestry • Seek amenities and lifestyle of a rural setting

4. Rural and urban “culture clashes” • Decreased economic viability • Polarization of stakeholders • Inability to compete with urban sprawl • Conversion of lands to non-resource uses • Limited integration in natural resource decision-making

5. Consequences of fragmentation

6. Consequences of fragmentation;Economic • Less timber harvest • Disintegration of existing resource-based economic infrastructures (i.e. extraction)

7. Consequences of fragmentation;Ecological • Disruption of ecosystem functions • Fragmented wildlife habitat • Deteriorating water quality • Increased invasive species • Changes in species composition • Declines in native populations

8. Consequences of fragmentation;Social • Is it reducing community well-being? • Does it increase the polarization of stakeholders? • Is forest fragmentation precipitating a social fragmentation? • Does fragmentation obscure the “social contract” between urban and rural?

10. The Historical Community • Centered around natural resources • Isolated and rural with relative autonomy • “Proximate setting for contact with society” * • Reduced human tendency towards ecological degradation * K.P. Wilkinson, 1991 – “The community in rural America”

11. The Social Contract • Rural communities are caretakers of resources • Goods flow from the rural lands • i.e. food, forest products, clean water, wildlife • Source communities have high social and economic costs, not necessarily shared by all of the benefactors

12. The “breaking” of the social contract:urban expansion • Contract between caretakers and benefactors of natural resources depends on community autonomy • The “proximate setting” for societal contact becomes blurred • Decline in economic reliance of resource extraction, local goods, etc. • Ecological degradation through increased development and fragmentation

13. Current research … Are changes in family-forest landowner demographics obscuring the traditional social contract between urban and rural communities, triggering conflicts over private property rights, and increasing concerns over the growth and development of rural areas? • Is fragmentation impacting large and small landowners in the same way? • Howare urban and rural forest landowners different from each other? • Do urban and rural forest landowners define property rights differently? Public goods?

15. Washington State – Population density by county Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau

16. What is driving high rural residential development rates? • Growth management laws do not restrict • residential development. • Close enough to the city, but away from the crime. • Urban areas becoming centers of low-cost housing • and service oriented jobs. • Development rate is highest in counties • where incomes are higher.

17. Cultural and economic drivers • Entrepreneurial industries replace extractive industries • Change in economic infrastructure • Limited access to forest products markets • “Lone eagles”- high income not tied to local economy

18. Fragmentation: what we don’t know……yet • Impacts on… • Quality of life • Societal well-being • Community agency and identity • Social contract