Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in
advertisement
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-693 December 2006 Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon Ellen M. Donoghue, N. Lynnae Sutton, and Richard W. Haynes The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Authors Ellen M. Donoghue and Richard W. Haynes are research foresters, N. Lynnae Sutton is a geographic information system specialist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208-3890. Cover photographs by Frank Vanni and other Forest Service staff. Abstract Donoghue, Ellen M.; Sutton, N. Lynnae; Haynes, Richard W. 2006. Considering communities in forest management planning in western Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-693. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 95 p. A recurrent theme in the development of U.S. forest policies has been the assertion of strong positive relations among communities, economies, and natural resource management. Now as a new round of federal land management planning is getting underway, questions are being raised about the strength of that assertion and how to view communities following a decade of reduced federal harvests. This report examines these questions considering the 433 communities in six Bureau of Land Management districts in western Oregon. It discusses the ways that forest-based communities have been considered in the context of federal forest management planning, and it summarizes information on socioeconomic conditions and trends for communities in western Oregon. Keywords: Communities, land management planning, socioeconomic well-being. Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon Introduction A recurrent theme in the development of U.S. forest policies has been the assertion of strong positive relations among communities, economies, and natural resource management. This theme emerged for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1937 with the Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act (O&C Act), which required the management of O&C lands to contribute to economic stability of local communities. For the USDA Forest Service, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Act of October 22, 1976; 16 U.S.C. 1600) required planners to examine the consequences of their planned actions on the stability of forest-dependent communities. By the early 1990s, the term stability was associated with jobs and income generated directly or indirectly through the harvest and processing of forest products by residents of communities (SAF 1989). The goals for forest management were also shifting during the 1990s to focus more on achieving desired future conditions or broad environmental gains and how management for these goals influences local social and economic conditions. There also was a gradual revelation that the indirect and induced jobs and associated economic impacts estimated as part of forest policy discussions generally cannot be verified by looking at how local or regional economies actually changed following changes in federal timberlands (e.g., FEMAT 1993, Robertson 2003). Finally, the commitment of the United States to participate in national and international initiatives such as the Montréal Process for assessing progress toward sustainable forest management increased interest among decisionmakers and researchers in understanding the viability and adaptability of forest-based communities to changing economic conditions. This report is motivated by a new round of federal land management planning that is getting underway and raising questions about how we view communities. These questions are being asked in western Oregon where federal timber harvests dropped 90 percent during the 1990s, altering the relations between federal forests, neighboring communities, and the forest products processing industries. Here the BLM is updating its land use plans and is asking for information on socioeconomic conditions and trends for communities. The purpose of this report is twofold. First we discuss conceptually the ways forest-based communities have been considered in the context of federal forest management planning. Second, we contribute to forest planning in Oregon, in particular to BLM processes, by presenting information on socioeconomic conditions and trends for communities in western Oregon, some of which is presented for the six BLM districts in the area: Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and Lakeview.1 1 For the Lakeview District, only communities in the western portion of the district are included in the data and analysis in this report. GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 This report has three major sections. In the first we discuss the evolution of concepts and the need to understand how land management actions influence the social and economic conditions of associated communities. The second presents our definition of community that we developed for analytical purposes. The third section discusses the conditions and trends in 433 communities that lie in six BLM districts in western Oregon (fig. 1) and presents one approach for assessing the socioeconomic well-being (SEWB) of these communities and how it has changed between 1990 and 2000. Conceptualizations of Forest-Based Communities The past two decades have seen an evolution of concepts used to depict communities and their connections to forest resources and forest management. The evolution of concepts shows a growing emphasis on the complex, dynamic, and interrelated aspects of rural communities and the natural resources that surround them. The earliest concepts dealt with the links between forest management and stable communities achieved through stable employment in the forest sector. Forest policy played a role in developing and institutionalizing these concepts, as the legislation reflected the assumption that timber flows from public forest lands could play an important role in providing economic stability for communities. For instance, the O&C Act of 1937, which placed the administration of Oregon and California Railroad Company lands under the Department of the Interior to be administered by the BLM, explicitly specified a “permanent source of timber supply…contributing to the economic stability of local communities” (Act of August 28, 1937, 50 Stat. 874). With its reference to economic stability of communities, the act continues to influence forest management on O&C lands, and emphasizes the ongoing importance of developing better understanding of how levels of timber harvest on public lands affect economies of forest-based communities. Other key legislation includes the Sustained Yield Unit Management Act of 1944, which promoted the “stability of forest industries, of employment, of communities, and of taxable forest wealth, through continuous supplies of timber…for the purpose of maintaining the stability of such community or communities” (58 Stat. 132; 16 U. S. C. 583-5831). Also, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (Act of June 12, 1960, 16 U.S.C. (note), 528-531), responding to increasing demand for wood, recreation, and water, expanded the principle of sustained yield to include all renewable resources on national forests, omitting mention of the link between sustained yield and stable communities. The National Forest Management Act (1976) required the Forest Service to consider in the sale of forest products “the economic stability of communities whose economies are dependent on such National Forest Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon Columbia River ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Community population centers ! ! ! ! ! ! Community area boundaries Bureau of Land Management Forest Service ! ! ! Metropolitan areas ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Coos Bay ! District ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Upper Klamath ! Lake ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! I-5 ! Medford ! ! District ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4075Miles ! ! ! ! ! Lakeview District ! ! Klamath Marsh ! ! ! ! 20 Crater Lake ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Waldo Lake ! ! !! ! o ! ! Roseburg District ! !! ! !! ! ! Eugene District ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Eugene-Springfield ! ! ! O R E G O N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! Salem-Keizer ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! Salem District ! ! ! ! Columbia River ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 4 I-8 ! !! ! Lakes and rivers 10 ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Major roads ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! BLM district boundaries 0 Portland-Vancouver ! !! ! I-5 ! W A S H I N G T O N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C A L I F O R N I A Figure 1—Community boundaries and population centers found within the six western Oregon Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Districts. GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 materials.” The ensuing Forest Service guidelines led to a list of dependent communities (defined by proportion of employment in the wood products industry) and continued descriptions of community stability as “the rate of change with which people can cope without exceeding their capacity to deal with it” (Schallau 1990: 74). These changes led to an informal alliance between the timber industry (those parts purchasing federal timber) and communities where processing or logging facilities were located. Both sets of stakeholders advocated that the provision of continuous supplies of forest products constitutes the basis for determining whether community stability was being achieved. Over time, maintaining status quo in timber employment emerged as the defining attribute of community stability. The original broader intent–the well-being of forest-based communities–became obscured by the adoption of mandates of nondeclining even flow of timber, such as those adopted by the Forest Service in 1974. Most early research tested the premise that sustained yield would result in community stability (Drielsma et al. 1990). Questions about whether even flows of timber ensured stability in aspects of community life such as population and social structure emerged, particularly when technological advances began reducing labor demands. Some economists questioned the “even-flow” and “nondeclining even-flow” policies, and rural sociologists challenged the limited focus on timber harvests. These concerns were echoed in later studies emphasizing community diversity (Fortmann et al. 1989) and community well-being (Kusel and Fortmann 1991), drawing on Kaufman and Kaufman’s position that “how well they live” was more complex and relevant than “what people do for a living” (Kusel 2001). By the late 1980s, the notion that sustained-yield management led to community stability was being called into question (Lee 1990, Schallau 1989). Although the use of the term “stability” continued to endure in policy debates, concern was raised about the lack of a clear definition of stability and how it might be measured (Fortmann et al. 1989, Lee 1989, Machlis and Force 1988, Richardson 1996). Some researchers began looking beyond employment indicators to other aspects of community life to assess community well-being (Doak and Kusel 1996, Kusel and Fortmann 1991). In addition to economic measures, indicators for poverty, education, crime, and other sociodemographic measures have been used to assess conditions in communities. Research during past decades has documented the significant challenges faced by forest-based communities, such as mill closures, and abilities of communities to cope with socioeconomic changes (Gray et al. 2001, Kusel and Adler 2003). The concept of forest dependence expanded to include economic ties beyond those based on wood products, such as recreation. Social scientists also expanded the Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon concept of forest dependence to include noneconomic connections to forests such as the amenity values and symbolic living traditions people have with forested places (Stedman 2003). More recently, researchers have dropped the connotation of dependence altogether, simply referring to forest-based communities (Donoghue and Sutton 2006b). The debate about concepts that adequately reflect forest-based communities is part of an international discussion related to sustainable forest management, initiated as part of the Montréal Process for criteria and indicators (Montréal Process Working Group 1998). The basic tenet is that when managed sustainably, forests can supply society with goods and services, conserve biodiversity, and stabilize the environment for future generations. Although not formally defined, the concepts of community viability and adaptability are central to one of the criteria for sustainable forest management. Two related concepts that emerged in the past decade are community capacity and community resiliency, both defined similarly as the ability of a community to adapt to changes and take advantage of opportunities to meet the needs of residents (Doak and Kusel 1996, Harris et al. 2000, Kusel 1996). Developed as part of social assessments associated with broad-scale resource management planning processes, the concepts have application beyond the resource management sector. Intentionally, these concepts have different connotations than the traditional notion of stability. Capacity and resiliency are understood in terms of the attributes maintained by a community, such as leadership and civic cohesiveness. In contrast, stability is generally understood in terms of the effects of external actions (namely changes in the timber sector) on the community. Although today social scientists focus more on measures of community capacity and community resiliency, these analyses are consistent with the original intent of the laws that addressed the concerns about community stability. Although several measures of SEWB, community capacity, and community resiliency have been developed, no universally accepted measures exist. Measures of socioeconomic well-being have been used in connection with discussions of community viability and adaptability (Donoghue and Haynes 2002), and measures of socioeconomic status have been related to measures of community capacity and community resiliency in bioregional social assessments (Doak and Kusel 1996, Harris et al. 2000). No adequate proxies for resiliency and capacity that are based on secondary data, such as from the census, have been developed. One reason for this is that community capacity and community resiliency are fundamentally about dynamic processes that involve the actions of community leaders and residents. Such actions, namely leadership, social cohesion, and decisionmaking, Although several measures of SEWB, community capacity, and community resiliency have been developed, no universally accepted measures exist. GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 are important to how a community adapts to change and betters the lives of its residents, but they are not attributes found in the socioeconomic data of the census. Community Socioeconomic Well-Being The evolution in thinking on the part of decisionmakers, researchers, resource managers, and the public about the relations between communities and forests reflects a consistent concern for the ways that forest management influences community socioeconomic well-being. Perspectives about the determinants of well-being as related to forest management have evolved from those largely concerned with employment in the timber sector to those that consider well-being in conjunction with other influences on community life, such as global and regional economic trends. Although the concept of “well-being” has been widely discussed, it lacks a precise definition. Well-being has been distinguished on the basis of capabilities and achievements of individuals (Sen 1985) and on the social, cultural, and psychological needs of people and communities (Wilkinson 1991). Studies of community well-being have focused on understanding the contribution of the economic, social, cultural, and political components of a community in maintaining itself and fulfilling the needs of local residents (Christakopoulou et al. 2001, Force and Machlis 1997, Kusel and Fortmann 1991). Until recently, the Forest Service and other land management agencies developed lists of dependent communities for use in planning. These lists played various roles in planning processes, including a way to frame the social and economic impacts associated with different management actions. The definition of dependency involved (1) 50-percent reliance on national forest sales for log supplies and (2) the forest products industry accounting for at least 10 percent of employment. The last list was compiled in 1987 and listed 62 communities in western Oregon as being dependent on national forest timber sales. Lists like this, and the lists of distressed communities used by the state of Oregon, focus more on economic measures and not the broader concept of socioeconomic well-being. In this report, we present an index that serves as a proxy for community socioeconomic well-being for communities in the Pacific Northwest, with specific focus on western Oregon communities. Causality between changes in forest management policy and community socioeconomic conditions is difficult to demonstrate. However, information about socioeconomic conditions and trends enables forest managers and community development specialists to identify areas where further information or work may be needed in anticipation of policy changes. Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon Defining Communities for Analytical Purposes In addition to conceptual concerns, considerations about defining the community are important to socioeconomic assessment processes associated with forest planning and other purposes. Defining the community-level unit of analysis is usually one of the first steps in social assessments. The concept of community is a sociological phenomenon that continues to be shaped by differing interpretations of social structures, processes, relations, actions, and change related to human groupings. Understanding the relational and territorial dimensions of community life (Gusfield 1975) as part of defining the community unit of analysis may be important, but it rarely is used in large social assessments because resources are lacking. Social interactions contribute to defining a community as much as, or arguably more than, the place itself (Kaufman 1959, Luloff 1998, Wilkinson 1991), but such interactions are difficult to measure in a single community case study let alone hundreds of communities in a regional assessment. Thus, broad-scale social assessments often rely on secondary data sources with predefined boundaries of communities and limited socioeconomic measurements. In the United States, social science research at the small scale is influenced by the availability of census and other secondary data. Secondary data influence how the geographic boundary of the unit of analysis is defined and what indicators and measures are used to assess socioeconomic conditions and processes. One of the most commonly used designations of communities in social assessments is a census place. Census places include incorporated places and census-designated places, which are unincorporated communities that meet criteria defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Census places only represent a portion of the population, however, and often do not represent people in rural, natural-resource-based areas. This limitation may be problematic for socioeconomic assessments and planning processes that focus on understanding relations between communities and the management of public lands. Also, timeframes of social assessments that are based on secondary data are limited by the frequency of original data collection. Communities in Western Oregon Many people in western Oregon live in unincorporated localities near public forest lands. Thus, choosing the community-level unit of analysis is critical, particularly when the analysis is subject to the constraints of secondary data. As part of the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) community socioeconomic assessment, we used census data to define communities across the region, encompassing 72 counties of western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California. We developed a process for aggregating 7,776 block groups (the smallest census geography for GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 which all socioeconomic data are available) from the 1990 census into 1,314 communities and 10 metropolitan areas in the region. This definition of communities represents all communities and all people in the Plan region. We used a proportional measurement that allowed us to compare 1990 and 2000 census data across a number of indicators. More information about defining the community-level unit of analysis and the census block group aggregation process is available in Donoghue (2003) and Donoghue and Sutton (2006b). The data presented for the 433 communities in western Oregon in the tables and maps of this report are based on the definition of the community-level unit of analysis for the 1,314 communities in the region. We defined place-based communities, rather than communities of interest (groups of like-minded people who gain strength from their relations and associations). We recognize that place-based communities are not the only form of community affected by changes in resource management, but agree it may be an appropriate unit of analysis for assessing the effects of landscape-scale resource management on local people (Force and Machlis 1997). In this report, we do not include data on three metropolitan areas in Oregon, namely Portland, Eugene, and Salem, because this work was conducted as part of an ongoing research project related to the Northwest Forest Plan. As directed by the Plan’s record of decision, the focus of the research has been on rural communities (USDA and USDI 1994). The block group aggregation process identified 433 communities in western Oregon. For analytical purposes, each community was spatially represented as a polygon and a point. The community polygons are contiguous and span all of western Oregon (fig. 1, see also maps in app. A 2). Some communities that are relatively small in population may be geographically large, as designated by the census block groups. The boundaries of many communities contain public lands. Also, many polygons contain several population centers or small localities. A single community point was located in each polygon to reflect the largest population center. These points should not be interpreted as reflecting the only location of the people within the polygon. Block group aggregation allowed us to examine socioeconomic data for all residents in western Oregon. Although further aggregation of block groups may have more accurately reflected some communities, we believe that this data set, containing perhaps more communities, provides opportunities for further aggregation to reflect questions of interest. 2 The nine maps display points and polygons for each of the six BLM districts. These maps contain a community identification number that can be used to reference community-level socioeconomic data available in other appendixes. Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon Readers interested in socioeconomic data for communities in western Oregon, northern California, and western Washington may be interested in a companion Community Socioeconomic Information System (CSIS) tool available on compact disk (CD-ROM) from the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station (Donoghue and Sutton 2006a). The CSIS CD-ROM tool includes a spatial data set of community boundaries and data on a variety of socioeconomic indicators based on the 1990 and 2000 censuses. The tool includes applications for viewing and reporting data. There is also an application that allows users to build their own community by further aggregating the community block group aggregations and obtaining socioeconomic data based on the newly created aggregations. This fea- Readers may be interested in a companion Community Socioeconomic Information System (CSIS) tool available on compact disk (CD-ROM). ture in the CSIS tool for defining custom communities is intended to help broaden the discussion about “communities at risk” and “forest-dependent” communities. Historically, such discussions have been limited to rather small sets of communities, and are largely based on data associated with income and employment in the timber sector. Socioeconomic data for these communities are often at the census place level, thus leaving out large sectors of the population that live in unincorporated places, many of them in proximity to public forests (Donoghue 2003). Conditions and Change in Western Oregon Communities This section presents conditions and trends for a selection of demographic measures for communities in western Oregon. It also presents methods and findings for a composite measure of community SEWB. Additional community-level socioeconomic data based on census data are available in the appendixes. Appendix B contains several tables of socioeconomic data: table 4 presents population data; table 5 contains race and ethnicity data; table 6 contains data on age; and table 7 has data on income. These and other data are available in electronic form in the CSIS CD tool mentioned above. Demographic Conditions and Trends The size of a community is often considered an important factor influencing whether a community has the institutional structure to meet the needs of its residents (Wilkinson 1991). Population and population density have been used as proxies for civic infrastructure and have been included in composite measures of socioeconomic resiliency, viability, and adaptability (Haynes 2003, Horne and Haynes 1999). Recent regional social assessments suggested that the higher the population in a rural community, the greater the infrastructure and the higher the socioeconomic resilience (Harris et al. 2000). GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 Population in western Oregon increased slightly more than the United States overall population between 1990 and 2000. Total population for the entire United States increased between 1990 and 2000 by 13.2 percent, with the highest increases in the West (20 percent) and South (17 percent) and the lowest increases in the Midwest (8 percent) and Northeast (6 percent). Not including the Portland, Salem, and Eugene metropolitan areas, the total population in western Oregon went from 1.18 million in 1990 to 1.37 million in 2000, an increase of 16.3 percent. Although population increased for all BLM districts, the percentages of increase differ (table 1). In 2000, the population of communities in western Oregon ranged from 110 to 62,828 (fig. 2), with the majority of communities having between 501 and 2,000 people (fig. 3). The average population in the communities in 1990 was 2,718 and in 2000 was 3,161. Table 1—Population change by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) district Number of BLM district communities Coos Bay 47 Eugene 51 Lakeview 15 Medford 49 Roseburg 34 Salem 237 Total district Total district population population 1990a 2000a Percent 90,307 93,208 94,933 104,477 55,610 61,048 211,150 258,202 84,202 90,628 640,830 761,030 Change in total district population 3.2 10.1 9.8 22.3 7.6 18.8 a The total population excludes Portland, Salem, and Eugene. Changes in population and population density are important because of the possible effects on land use planning and quality of life. Although population is increasing in western Oregon, one-quarter of the communities (25.6 percent) experienced population decreases between 1990 and 2000 (fig. 4). Throughout the Pacific Northwest, communities that lost population between 1990 and 2000 tended to be fairly small, with the majority between 2,000 and 5,000 people (Donoghue and Sutton 2006b). Population density (fig. 5) was calculated as the total community population divided by the area of the community polygon not including acres of public lands. Public lands are BLM, Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state lands, and military lands. Often in social assessments, population density measures include public lands, thereby providing a sense of relative rurality of localities in an area. Such measures, however, do not provide information about limits to growth in rural areas. Our measure of density does not include public lands and instead reflects how much a community can grow within the area that 10 Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon Population, 2000 W A S H I N G T O N 110–500 501–2,000 2,001–5,000 Portland-Vancouver 5,001–50,000 Columbia River 50,000–62,828 I-84 BLM district boundaries Metropolitan areas Salem-Keizer Major roads Lakes and rivers Salem District I-5 O R E G O N Eugene-Springfield Eugene District Waldo Lake Coos Bay District o 0 10 20 I-5 Roseburg District Klamath Marsh Crater Lake Lakeview District Upper Klamath Lake 40 Miles Medford District C A L I F O R N I A Figure 2—Community population, 2000. 11 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 300 60.5% 200 150 22.4% 100 11.3% 4.6% 28 00 62 01 – 50 ,0 00 1– 5, ,8 50 ,0 00 ,0 00 15 2, 2, 00 0 0 0.5% 50 1– 11 0– 25 0 0 0.7% 50 50 25 1– Number of communities 250 Total population category, 2000 Figure 3—Number of communities in western Oregon by total population categories, 2000. is not public land. The contribution of public open spaces to a sense of rurality can be interpreted from land ownerships displayed on the map. Over half of communities in western Oregon (60.7 percent) had between 1 and 100 people per square mile on nonpublic lands, and slightly less than one-third (29.1 percent) had between 101 and 500 people per square mile. Larger communities tended to have higher population densities, and smaller communities tended to have lower population densities, although exceptions exist for both types. However, regional data for western Oregon, western Washington, and northern California revealed that of the communities with the highest percentage increase in population between 1990 and 2000, half had the lowest population density in 2000 (Donoghue and Sutton 2006b). From a planning perspective, it may be useful to identify those communities adjacent to large areas of public lands that have high percentage increases in population and relatively high or increasing population density, as such changes may affect issues associated with quality of life. In the context of the Montréal Process criteria and indicators process (Montréal Process Working Group 1998), there is an emphasis on understanding the relations between indigenous communities and forests. For instance, indicator 12 Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon ## * # ## ### * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #* * # # # # # Salem-Keizer Salem District O R E G O N # # # # * # # # # * # # # # # # * # Eugene District # Waldo Lake # # # # # * # # * # * # I-5 # * # * # # # * # * # * # * # * # * # # # #* * # # # # * # # * # * # * # * # # # # * # # # * ## # # # # ## ## # # # # # * ## * # * # #* * # # # ## # * ## * * ## * I-5 #* * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # * # * # ## # # # # # # # # * # # # # # # # # * # * # # * # * # * # # # # # # # # # # # # * # # # # ## # # # # * * ## # #* * # * # ## # # # # * #* # # # # * # #* * # * # * # # Medford District Upper Klamath Lake Lakeview District # * # # # # # # # # Coos Bay District Klamath Marsh # * # # * # * # # ## * # ## * # * # # # # * # * # ## * # * # # # Crater Lake # # # # # ## * # # # # Roseburg District # # # # * # # ## # * ## # # # ## # # # # * # # # * # # # * # # # # #* * # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # * # ## * # # # ## # * # * # ## # # # # # # # * * # # # * # # # * # # # * # # # ## # # # * ## # # * # # ##### # ## ### # # * * # # ## # # * # # # # # Eugene-Springfield # # # # # * # # # * * # # * # * # # # # # # # # #* * # ## 40 Miles # * 20 # # # # # ## # # # # ### # 10 # # # * # 0 # # Major roads Lakes and rivers o # * Metropolitan areas I-84 # ##* * # # BLM district boundaries Columbia River # # # * Very high increase in population (75–200+) # # # # High increase in population (21–75) # Population increased, below regional average (1–20) Portland-Vancouver # # # * Decreased population (-74–0) W A S H I N G T O N ## * # # # # Percent change in population, 1990–2000 C A L I F O R N I A Figure 4—Change in community population, 1990–2000. 13 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 Number of people per square mile on nonpublic lands, 2000 W A S H I N G T O N 1–100 Portland-Vancouver 101–500 501–1,500 Columbia River I-84 1,501+ BLM district boundaries Salem-Keizer Metropolitan areas Major roads Lakes and rivers Salem District Land ownership Bureau of Land Management O R E G O N Forest Service National Park Service I-5 State lands Tribal lands Eugene-Springfield Eugene District U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Waldo Lake Coos Bay District I-5 Roseburg District Crater Lake o 0 10 20 Upper Klamath Lake 40 Miles Medford District Figure 5—Community population density on nonpublic lands, 2000. 14 Klamath Marsh C A L I F O R N I A Lakeview District Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon 46 of criterion 6 of the Montréal Process addresses “the viability and adaptability to changing economic conditions, of forest-dependent communities, including indigenous communities” (Montréal Process Working Group 1998). In 2000, people of American Indian descent made up 0.87 percent of the population in the United States. For over half of the communities in western Oregon, 1 percent or less of the residents were of Native American decent in 2000; for 176 communities, between 1.06 percent and 4.23 percent of the population were of Native American descent. And, 20 communities had populations from 4.25 percent to 21.24 percent Native Americans.3 Unfortunately, change in racial composition cannot be reported from census data because information on race was collected differently in the 1990 and 2000 censuses. The percentages among races for the United States in 2000 were White 75.10 percent, Black 12.21 percent, American Indian 0.87 percent, Asian and Pacific Islanders 3.75 percent, other 5.49 percent, and two or more races 2.58 percent. Compared to the Nation, communities in western Oregon had higher percentages of White (90.69 percent) and American Indian (1.38 percent), and lower percentages of Black (0.38 percent) and Asian and Pacific Islanders (3.47 percent) people. Census data are comparable between 1990 and 2000 for the population of people defined by the census as of Spanish, Hispanic, and Latino origin. For the United States, the percentage of the population of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin was 9.0 percent in 1990 and 12.5 percent in 2000 (39 percent increase). On average, the percentage of people of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin in communities in western Oregon increased from 3.3 percent in 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000 (42 percent increase). Measuring Community Socioeconomic Well-Being Although no definitive conceptual or operational definition of community SEWB exists, it is an accepted notion that measures of SEWB should represent multiple dimensions of the human community, such as social, economic, and human concerns (Force and Machlis 1997). There is increased emphasis on the need to combine secondary data with primary data from fieldwork in communities to fully understand the relations between socioeconomic indicators and community well-being (Beckley 1995, Kusel 1996, Parkins 1999). Because we wanted to examine change in community SEWB for hundreds of communities in a large region where collecting primary data was not feasible, we relied on census data to develop an index that served as a proxy for community 3 These 20 communities are located in the following BLM districts: Coos Bay (6), Roseburg (2), Lakeview (2), Eugene (1), and Salem (9). 15 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 SEWB, and was comparable between the 1990 and 2000 censuses. Developing an index enabled us to reduce a large data set of socioeconomic indicators to a convenient single numeric score while still retaining the meaning of underlying variables. Indices and proxies are useful for revealing patterns and areas for further inquiry. But they have their limitations, and perhaps may be most effective when used in conjunction with other socioeconomic information. Our basic assumption of the concept and measure of community SEWB is that it can be enhanced or reduced. Thus, indicators must clearly contribute in a positive or negative way to community SEWB. Although secondary data are sometimes perceived as useful in social science research because they are generally easy to collect, not based on perception, and generally understandable, secondary data also have many limitations (Diener and Suh 1997). For census data, many indicators are not measured in the same way from one census to the next, and complex procedures to make data comparable are only available for some indicators. For instance, we applied a “crosswalk” provided by the census to make one of the measures in the SEWB index, diversity of employment by industry, comparable between 1990 and 2000. The SEWB index consists of six indicators derived from U.S. census data: diversity of employment by industry, percentage of population 25 years and older with bachelor’s degree or higher, percentage unemployed, percentage of persons living below the poverty level, household income inequality, and the average travel time to work. The index is the summation of equally weighted socioeconomic indicators and was calculated as SEWB = EmD + Ed - PUn - PP - InIn - ATT (see table 2 for definitions).4 Two indicators, diversity of employment by industry and percentage of the population with bachelor’s degree or higher, positively contribute to the SEWB index. The other four indicators, percentage unemployed, percentage in poverty, household income inequality, and average travel time to work, are thought of as negatively contributing to the SEWB index. The assumption is that higher amounts of education and employment diversity in a community indicate higher SEWB, but higher unemployment, poverty, income inequality, and commute time indicate lower SEWB. To assess change in community SEWB, we categorized the 1990 well-being data and treated them as a baseline. We normalized the raw data for both years to a range of 0 to 100. Using the boundaries for the 1990 categories, we fit the 2000 data into them, allowing us to see, on a scale of 0 to 100, how communities increased or decreased relative to each other in SEWB between the two decades. 4 The index is a linear summation of standardized z-scores that were normalized on a scale of 0 to 100. 16 Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon Table 2—Indicators included in socioeconomic well-being index Indicator Indicator name Description EmD Diversity of employment Employment by industry relates to the kind by industry of business conducted by the organization where the person is employed. Diversity of employment by industry is a single measure of diversity, or variety, of industries that employ people from the community (the actual place of employment may be outside the community). This measure was genera ted for each community by using a Shannon Weaver index. The diversity index ranges from a value of 0 (least diverse) for commu nities with only a single employment industry to 1 (most diverse) for communities having equal employment among all of the reported employment industries. Ed Percentage of population Persons with a bachelor’s degree or higher are 25 years and older having those who have received a bachelor’s degree bachelor’s degree or higher from a college or university, or a master’s, professional, or doctorate degree. These data include only persons 25 years old and over. PUn Percentage of the All civilians 16 years old and over are classified population unemployed as unemployed if they (1) were neither “at work” nor “with a job but not at work” during the reference week, and (2) were looking for work during the last 4 weeks, and (3) were available to start a job. Also included as unemployed are civilians who did not work at all during the reference week but were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off and were available for work except for temporary illness. (For more information on census unemployment data, see http://www.census.gov.) PP Percentage of persons Number of persons below poverty threshold living below the divided by total population for whom poverty poverty line status is determined. Total population for whom poverty status is determined does not include people in institutions, military group quarters, or college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old. (For more information on census poverty data, see http://www.census.gov.) InIn Household income Ratio of total household income of the 50 percent of households earning the highest income to total household income of the 50 percent of households earning the lowest income. Higher ratios indicate greater income inequality. Calculations used group data. ATT Average travel time to work Average travel time to work (in minutes) for workers ages 16 years and older. Calculations used group data. 17 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 Twenty-seven percent of communities in western Oregon had SEWB scores that decreased by more than 3 percent between 1990 and 2000, 28 percent stayed relatively the same, and 45 percent of communities increased in their SEWB score by greater than 3 percent. The SEWB scores for western Oregon communities presented here were developed as part of the Northwest Forest Plan Socioeconomic Economic Monitoring report (Donoghue and Sutton 2006b). Thus, the SEWB score for a given community in the region was relative to the scores of the other 1,313 communities. The western Oregon data presented here are from this larger data set and have not been adjusted to reflect scores relative only to those communities in western Oregon. Socioeconomic well-being of western Oregon communities— Many communities in western Oregon either increased or decreased in their SEWB score between 1990 and 2000. Specifically, 27 percent of communities in western Oregon had SEWB scores that decreased by more than 3 percent between 1990 and 2000; 28 percent stayed relatively the same (within plus or minus 3 percent); and 45 percent of communities increased in their SEWB score by greater than 3 percent (figs. 6 and 7). Table 3 presents average community SEWB scores for the six BLM districts, with Eugene, Roseburg, and Salem districts showing statistically significant (P <0.05) increases in SEWB scores. Appendix C (table 8) contains the community SEWB scores for the 433 communities in western Oregon, sorted by BLM district, as well as data on the six measures that make up the SEWB index for the year 2000. Each population size class, say of small, medium, and large communities, had communities with a range of SEWB scores. In general, however, the smaller community size classes (e.g., 501 to 2,000 people) had proportionately more communities with relatively lower scores, whereas the larger population size classes of 2,001 to 5,000 people and 5,001 to 50,000 people had proportionately more communities with higher SEWB scores (Donoghue and Sutton 2006b). Table 3—Averages and differences in community socioeconomic well-being scores for all communities, by Bureau of Land Management district, 1990 and 2000 District 1990 2000 Difference Coos Bay Eugene Lakeview Medford Roseburg Salem 61.51 67.82 59.69 63.00 62.99 70.90 62.44 70.76 59.39 64.08 66.94 73.68 0.93 2.94* -.30 1.08 3.95* 2.77* *Significant at P < 0.05 level. 18 Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon À À À LM À L 6 ÀÀ À St y6 Hw À À ÀÀ À À À À À À À ÀÀ À M H Very low, low Medium H M H H H H M High, very high H H BLM district boundaries M H Bureau of Land Management H M À À M L H H M M M M À À À À H H H Major roads À M H Lakes and rivers M L M À H H M M M H H H H H M H M H M M H M H H H US Hwy 101 w À M w H St À L M À M À o L M H M M H M H H À ÀÀ 20 Miles L À À À M ÀÀÀ À M M MM H M 38 St Hwy L À LH M L À M L Coos Bay District À L H L H M M L M L L L À M L M M H M À M M M H M M M L M 228 M À M H H H L M À L H H M 26 wy 1 M À St H À H M L H Eugene District H LM À À M H M H M M M À L M H L À M L H H M M H Salem District M St Hwy H M L M ML M Eugene-Springfield H L H H H H M À À M H À À ÀÀ À À St À H H M H H H H H H H M M M M H H M H M H H HH H H HH M M ÀÀ L À H H M M H HH H H M À ÀÀ ÀÀÀ H H H H HH H H H M 6 y3 H H HH H L H H H H H M M H M M L M M L M M H À À H M M M H H H St À À À I-84 À À À ÀÀ 18 À wy À wy H 22 St ÀÀ 4 À À À Salem-Keizer H y M H À H M H H 34 H À À H H H M M M H H I-5 À Metropolitan areas À H M À H a River umbi Col H H H H H HM H Forest Service Portland-Vancouver À À À À À À À À À À À À ÀÀ ÀÀ ÀÀ À À À À À ÀÀ À À À À À ÀÀ À À À ÀÀ À ÀÀ ÀÀ À À À À À À ÀÀ À À ÀÀ ÀÀÀ ÀÀ ÀÀ À À À À À À À À À À À À ÀÀ ÀÀ ÀÀ À À À À À ÀÀ À ÀÀ À ÀÀÀ ÀÀ À À ÀÀÀ À ÀÀ À À ÀÀ ÀÀ À À M À M M M H M L St Hwy 99w À Status of socioeconomic well-being, 2000 M H À Increase (>3) À ÀÀ L À y2 M L ÀÀÀÀ À ÀÀ À À L À Hw W A S H I N G T O N M y 30 US M M HL M LL L Hw À À À Decrease (<3) 10 M M H 0 H M M H Little change (-3 to 3) "L M " H " L US À À À À À À M M H H H Change in socioeconomic well-being score from 1990 to 2000 À M H À À M M M St Hw À Ày 58 L M L L M À M À M M M M H L HH O R E G O N Roseburg District L H M Figure 6—Change in community socioeconomic well-being, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eugene and Salem Districts. Low, medium, and high categories are based on standard deviations from the mean. See Donoghue and Sutton (2006b). 19 0 20 Miles L M À H M H M M ÀÀ M À LL H L H H M L M À M M À M M ÀÀÀ À M M MM M L L L L À L L L À H À HM À Coos Bay District L L L À L St L L M À À H H H M M M H M L H MH M L L L L À L L À M L L 99 H H M À M ML M L M M M L M H M H M M H H M H M H À ML L M M M M M À À M H LM M H À À À H M M M M H St 46 M H L M HM M À À M L M H À À M M L À L M À M À L Crater Lake St Hwy 66 M À 8 Waldo À À St HLake wy 5 C A L I F O R N I A H H M M L M M À L L À 26 wy 1 M St H Eugene District H Roseburg District H Medford District H ÀÀ M L L ÀÀ À À M L M M L L M M À À HH M MM L À M M À L M Eugene-Springfield M y t Hw S 8 Hwy 3 Hw wy 10 o Lakes and rivers Major roads Metropolitan areas Forest Service Bureau of Land Management BLM district boundaries High, very high Medium Very low, low L ÀÀ L St À L M H 14 H M L L À L H L H M À H À Upper Klamath Lake M L À L L Lakeview District Klamath Marsh O R E G O N Figure 7—Change in community socioeconomic well-being, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coos Bay, Medford, Lakeview, and Roseburg Districts. Low, medium, and high categories are based on standard deviations from the mean. See Donoghue and Sutton (2006b). "L M " H " Status of socioeconomic well-being, 2000 À À Increase (>3) À M H À À Little change (-3 to 3) M L À À À À À À À À 1 US Hwy 10 À À À Decrease (<3) À 01 I-5 M 199 H 0w À À À À À wy 1 62 wy St H H ÀÀ À À À À US H US Hwy 97 M À À À Hwy À ÀÀ US ÀÀ 7 US H 97 wy À À À À À À À ÀÀ À À À À À À À À ÀÀ 22 St wy À À 6 y3 L À À À ÀÀ ÀÀ ÀÀÀ ÀÀ À À À À ÀÀ À À 20 St y Hw À À Change in socioeconomic well-being score from 1990 to 2000 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon Conclusion From a planner’s perspective, maps like those shown in figure 1 suggest that there are far more communities than generally perceived and that in western Oregon many are in proximity to BLM and Forest Service lands. This adds complexity to management goals that try to support community development. First, there are the obvious questions about which communities are likely to be impacted and what are the capacities of communities to deal with largely exogenous changes. Second, the diversity in communities (here demonstrated by using SEWB) is large, with some being moderate in size but with high or increasing SEWB, and some large with relatively unchanged socioeconomic conditions. And, third, how do agencies decide the communities on which to focus their limited resources for engaging, collaborating, and contributing to community SEWB? It is difficult to demonstrate how changes in forest management affect the well-being of communities; these data can be used to identify areas where more indepth assessment that combines quantitative and qualitative analyses may be needed. Some may question the need for community-level analysis, but it is essential when research or management objectives emphasize forest-based communities. Traditional community-level units of analysis, such as census places with their focus on incorporated, and often larger, communities, may not reflect forest-based populations. Our findings indicate that there are many communities in western Oregon, and many of them are close to BLM and Forest Service lands. Some communities may be quite small and may have strong connections to nearby forests. Again, a companion Community Socioeconomic Information System CD tool, available from the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station (Donoghue and Sutton 2006a), contains 1990 and 2000 socioeconomic data for communities in western Oregon, northern California, and western Washington. The range in socioeconomic well-being among communities is large. The intense scrutiny of the Northwest Forest Plan area has increased the awareness of the numerous and diverse communities that are close to forests (Charnley 2006). It also led to a widespread examination of how changes in federal land management influence the well-being of communities. It has revealed that there are broader concerns than just notions of stability reflecting only employment in the timber sector. Interested analysts and stakeholders are increasingly examining the extent that the relations between communities and forests reflect a range of values, including amenity, recreation, cultural, sense of place, and economic. They ask how can forest management meet complex needs and interests? Although these are difficult relations to define, attempting to understand the basic socioeconomic conditions of forest-based communities may reveal various aspects helpful to managers as they explain the consequences of their land management actions. 21 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 Finally empirical measures, such as the SEWB index, attempt to assemble complex, community-level, indicators into a single measure so that communities can be assessed across a large region. This information provides a baseline for further inquiry into understanding socioeconomic change of specific communities or types of communities. Such inquiries may benefit from multi-method approaches that combine quantitative and qualitative analyses for understanding the links between forest management and community socioeconomic well-being. Acknowledgments We thank Anne Schneider and Gosia Bryja for data compilation and consultation related to the 1990 census block group aggregation process. Thanks to Susan Charnley and Jon Martin for supporting the development of the SEWB index. Thanks to Rebecca McLain, Susan Charnley, and Christina Caswell for helpful review comments. Thanks to Judy Mikowski for review and formatting. Literature Cited Beckley, T.M. 1995. Community stability and the relationship between economic and social well-being in forest-dependent communities. Society and Natural Resources. 8(3): 261–266. Charnley, S., tech ed. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan: The first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 6 vol. Christakopoulou, S.; Dawson, J.; Gari, A. 2001. The community well-being questionnaire: theoretical context and initial assessment of its reliability and validity. Social Indicators Research. 56: 321–351. Diener, E.; Suh, E. 1997. Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research. 40: 189–216. Doak, S.; Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Part 2: A social assessment. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress—assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA: University of California, Center for Water and Wildland Resources: 375–402. Vol. 2. Donoghue, E.M. 2003. Delimiting communities in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-570. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p. 22 Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon Donoghue, E.M.; Haynes, R.W. 2002. Assessing the viability and adaptability of Oregon communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-549. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p. Donoghue, E.M.; Sutton, N.L. 2006a. Community socioeconomic information system [CD-ROM]. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Donoghue, E.M.; Sutton, N.L. 2006b. Socioeconomic conditions and trends for communities in the Northwest Forest Plan region, 1990 to 2000. In: Charnley, S., tech. ed. Northwest Forest Plan: the first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. Volume III: Rural communities and economies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 7–35. Chapter 2. Drielsma, J.; Miller, J.; Burch, W., Jr. 1990. Sustained yield and community stability in American forestry. In: Burch, W., Jr.; Field, D.; Lee, R., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 55–68. Force, J.E.; Machlis, G.E. 1997. The human ecosystem. Part II: Social indicators in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources. 10: 369–382. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [et al.]. [Irregular pagination]. Fortmann, L.; Kusel, J.; Fairfax, S. 1989. Community stability: the foresters’ fig leaf. In: LeMaster, D.C.; Beuter, J.H., eds. Community stability in forest-based economies: proceedings of a conference. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 44–50. Gray, G.J.; Enzer, M.J.; Kusel, J., eds. 2001. Understanding community-based forest ecosystem management. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press. 447 p. Gusfield, J.R. 1975. Community: a critical response. New York: Harper and Row. 120 p. Harris, C.C.; McLaughlin, W.; Brown, G.; Becker, D. 2000. Rural communities in the inland Northwest: an assessment of small communities in the interior and upper Columbia River basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 120 p. 23 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693 Haynes, R.W. 2003. Assessing the viability and adaptability of forest-dependent communities in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-567. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 33 p. Horne, A.L.; Haynes, R.W. 1999. Developing measures of socioeconomic resiliency in the interior Columbia basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-453. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 41 p. (Quigley, T.M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). Kaufman, H. 1959. Towards an interactional conception of community. Social Forces. 38(1): 8–17. Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest dependent communities. Part 1: a new approach. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Status of the Sierra Nevada: final report to Congress. Davis, CA: University of California, Wildland Resources Center: 361–374. Vol. 2. Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest-dependent communities. In: Gray, G.J.; Enzer, M.J.; Kusel, J., eds. Understanding community-based forest ecosystem management. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press: 359–384. Kusel, J.; Adler, E., eds. 2003. Forest communities, community forests. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 297 p. Kusel, J.; Fortmann, L. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry, Forest and Rangeland Protection Program. 245 p. Lee, R.G. 1989. Community stability: Symbol or social reality? In: LeMaster, D.C.; Beuter, J.H., eds. Community stability in forest-based economies: proceedings of a conference. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 36–43. Lee, R.G. 1990. Sustained yield and social order. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, W.J., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 83–94. Luloff, A.E. 1998. What makes a place a community? The fifth Sir John Quick Bendigo lecture. Bendigo, Australia: La Trobe University. 23 p. Machlis, G.E.; Force, J.E. 1988. Community stability and timber-dependent communities. Rural Sociology. 53: 220–234. 24 Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon Montréal Process Working Group. 1998. The Montréal Process. http://www.mpci.org. (January 9, 2002). Parkins, J. 1999. Enhancing social indicators research in a forest-dependent community. The Forestry Chronicle. 75(5): 771–780. Richardson, C.W. 1996. Stability and change in forest-based communities: a selected bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-366. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p. Robertson, G. 2003. A test of the economic base hypothesis in the small forest communities of southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-592. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Paciļ¬c Northwest Research Station. 101 p. Schallau, C.H. 1989. Sustained yield versus community stability: An unfortunate wedding? Journal of Forestry. 87(9): 16–23. Schallau, C.H. 1990. Community stability: issues, institutions, and instruments. In: Burch, W., Jr.; Field, D.; Lee, R., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 69–81. Sen, A. 1985. Commodities and capabilities. New York: North Holland. 130 p. Society of American Foresters [SAF]. 1989. Community stability. SAF 89-06. Bethesda, MD. 42 p. Stedman, R.C. 2003. Sense of place and forest science: toward a program of quantitative research. Forest Science. 49(6): 822–829. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and guidelines]. Wilkinson, K.P. 1991. The community in rural America. New York: Greenwood Press. 152 p. 25
