============================================================================== Center for Community Economic Development University of Wisconsin-Extension Community Economics Newsletter No. 271 May 1999 ============================================================================== A Newsletter from the Center for Community Economic Development; Community, Natural Resource and Economic Development Programs, and University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension Service ============================================================================== Alternative Forest Uses and Resource-Dependent Communities: Is the Glass Half-empty or Half-full? by Dave Marcouiller /1 Forests provide the basis for much of the economic activity that takes place throughout the Lake States. This is particularly true in the northern parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan where tourism and forestry provide mainstays to local economies. In the past, there has been much disagreement among local residents, interested stakeholder groups, and industry representatives. Traditionally, many have viewed the simultaneous use of forests for extraction and recreation as being mutually exclusive. Recent empirical work, however, suggests that a more compatible coexistence among alternative forest uses exists./2 Community development efforts in rural forested regions can benefit from a better understanding of this set of compatibility issues. Multiple forest uses provide valuable contributions to the economic vitality of rural resource-dependent communities. Recent applied research focused on two of the primary market -based linkages that are key to community development. These included recreational use of forests to regional tourism and timber production to wood processing. Both of these forest uses provide value added opportunities and appear to represent equally important directions of forest use. More importantly, however, both also rely upon the health, productivity, and management of the same raw material --- the forest and natural resource base. Indeed, forests provide a foundation for much of the economic activity in rural resource-dependent regions. Forest-based Recreation and Tourism. Recreation is an important driver of regional economic activity. On an annual basis, forest-based recreationists spend approximately $2.5 billion locally within Wisconsin communities. This spending provides a significant portion of the receipts of tourism-sensitive businesses throughout resource-dependent communities. In total, these businesses account for roughly 6 percent of the state's gross output (roughly $14 billion of $242 billion during 1994). The use of forest land for recreation depends on land ownership. A surprising amount of forest-based recreation takes place on privately owned lands. Clearly, "quiet" recreationists rely heavily on county, state, and federal public lands while hunters focus their use on nonindustrial private forest lands. Motorized use is more difficult to characterize and has the highest levels of use on "unidentifiable" ownerships (motorized recreationists are generally less aware of whose land they were recreating on). Timber and Wood Processing. The average annual value of timber removals statewide during the past decade was just over $200 million per year. Timber production in the region provides raw material inputs into the primary, secondary, and reconstituted wood product sectors. These sectors make up another 6 percent of the State's gross output (roughly $15 billion of $242 billion during 1994). The majority of timber removals takes place on nonindustrial private forest lands with a surprising amount of sawtimber value being realized in the southwestern part of the state. Household Income. Forest-based activities impact the ability of households to generate income. The employee compensation (e.g. wages paid to workers) portion of value added accounts for approximately 25 percent of total wood-products output and 35 percent of tourism-sensitive output. Average jobs in tourism-sensitive businesses throughout the state earned almost $11,000 per year during 1994 while wood-based industries paid approximately $36,800 per year. These figures are compared to average statewide earnings per job across all sectors of almost $25,000 per year. People and households in rural resource-dependent regions of Wisconsin have traditionally relied upon the natural resource base for economic sustenance. Indeed, it is this level of economic dependence (or reliance) that, in large part, helps us understand why people view forest resources from different positions, ideologies, and values. Compatibility of Alternative Forest Uses. In general, results of this study suggest that timber production and recreational use of forests were generally compatible land uses. This was more apt to be the case with hunters and motorized recreationists than with the broad category of "passive" forest recreationists. Furthermore, forest-based recreationists generally felt that balanced use (for both timber and recreation) was an important component of local economic conditions for resource-dependent communities and that forest land managers should account for these localized effects on rural populations in decision-making. Indeed, we firmly believe that there are more compatibilities among forest use alternatives than incompatibilities. This runs counter to much of the traditional thought, both among academics and policymakers. The key to more integrative solutions lies within both parochial ideologies. Those who view timber as predominant need to realize the simple reality of human-centered forest management that is sensitive to more than just timber production. Conversely, proponents of nature-based tourism need to realize and internalize the dynamic nature of forest growth, the benefits of scientifically sound silvicultural techniques, and the need to interpret the "working" forest resource. Open communication and dialogue as to the implementation of these suggestions is required and remains a critical future planning need. Although more work is required to fully understand the linkages between forests and community development, there are clear implications of this research for both development policy and forest management policy. Development of rural forested regions benefits from a clear understanding of the tourism and forestry sectors. Whereas the tourism industry needs to better recognize the latent value of forests as a basis for demand, forest managers and the forest products industry need to continue their efforts at managing forests in a sensitive and scientifically sound manner that more fully accounts for both timber and nontimber values. 1 Dave Marcouiller is an Associate Professor and Extension Specialist in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Wisconsin - Madison/Extension and can be reached at (608) 262-2998 or by email at dave@macc.wisc.edu. 2 This issue of Community Economics reports on a three-year study of the role forests play in community development as reported in the booklet entitled Forests and Regional Development, by Dave Marcouiller and Terry Mace; Publication G3694, University of Wisconsin - System, Madison, WI. Ron Shaffer Community Development Specialist Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8, and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Carl O'Connor, Cooperative Extension, University of Wisconsin-Extension. University of Wisconsin-Extension, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Wisconsin counties cooperating. UW-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming, including Title IX and ADA.