EXERCISE 1
Problem Definition: Recent decline in the economic viability of the timber industry in northern Maine and
subsequent predicted future rates of development and fragmentation of large forest parcels (resulting from
large-scale liquidation of landholdings by timber companies) pose a serious threat to the long-term quality
and quantity of forestland in the region, as well as associated wildlife and recreational uses.
Proposed Analysis, Research Goal, and Policy Envelope
The goal of this analysis will be to identify the alternative that has the greatest likelihood of
effectively alleviating the identified problem and subsequently reversing the current forest resources trend
while also being acceptable to stakeholders (i.e. alternative must be politically and economically acceptable).
The policy envelope (range of variables considered) will include impacts of alternatives on: forest resources
and associated wildlife; regional economies; recreational opportunities; land use and development patterns;
private property values and rights; government revenue; and rural character and culture.
I plan to conduct an ex-ante/prospective policy analysis that evaluates alternative policy options that
could be implemented to conserve forestlands at the landscape-scale in northern Maine. Each alternative will
be measured against a comprehensive set of criteria (i.e. political feasibility, effectiveness, equity, etc.).
Background, Issue, and Stakeholders
The economic health and employment of the Katahdin-Moosehead region of Maine has for centuries
been largely dependent on the forest products industry, with timber typically being used for pulp and lumber.
To this day the forest-products industry is the single largest business sector in the Katahdin-Moosehead
region, and Maine remains the largest producer of printing and writing papers in the nation (Rahman and
Wilson, 1999 – I’m looking for a more recent citation). Much of the forestland in the region is owned by the
Seven Islands, Plum Creek, Maibec, International Paper, and Irving timber corporations.* There have been
multiple shifts in acreage among owner groups in the last 45 years. Large private forests have been
experiencing regular changes in ownership, and over the last several decades industrial owners have reduced
their holdings while timber investment management organizations, real estate investment trusts, and limited
liability corporations have increased their holdings (McWilliams et al. 2005).
*
Ownership changes hands quite frequently, and it is often difficult to determine who owns a given woodlot.
Although Maine forests have been harvested for wood products for over 200 years, 90% of the state
remains forested and that makes Maine the most heavily forested state in the country by percentage (Maine
Forest Service, 2005). Maine forests represent the largest contiguous block of undeveloped forestland east of
the Mississippi, and most of this land lies within the unorganized territory of the Katahdin-Moosehead region
where it is largely unoccupied and actively managed for timber (Maine Forest Service, 2005). Roughly 95%
of Maine’s forests are privately owned, and this percentage represents one of the highest percentages in the
country and by far the highest percentage in New England (Maine Forest Service 2005, North East State
Foresters Association 2004). The private forests of Maine have a long history of multiple-use management
and relatively open public access that dates to colonial times and is established in Maine common law.
In addition to possessing a diverse timber resource, the region’s forests also support many other
valuable resources. These resources include thousands of lakes and ponds, copious coldwater rivers and
streams, wetland habitats, and abundant fish and wildlife resources (Maine Forest Service, 2005). In addition
to active management of its forests, the economy the region has also historically been characterized by
having an abundance of outdoor forest-related recreational opportunities (i.e. hunting, hiking, camping,
wildlife viewing, fall foliage viewing, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing). Together, the “working”
forests, outdoor recreation traditions, and an exceptionally low population density have largely formed the
region’s identity.
It is important to note that the relative financial contribution of forest products has declined as the
state’s economy has diversified and developed in recent decades and employment in forest products across
Maine has fallen significantly and is projected to continue to fall (Power 2001). Adjusted for inflation, wages
in the wood products industry have also been in decline, and the combination of job loss and declining wages
has hit timber-dependent communities doubly hard (Power 2001). One of the primary reasons for declines in
timber company landholdings appears to be competition that the U.S. timber industry is facing from foreign
companies who pay appreciably lower corporate tax rates on timber revenues (“Snow Supports Maine
Timber Growers”). However, while the relative contribution of this economic sector is declining statewide,
forest products industry jobs remain an important source of employment in northern Maine communities.
In recent times, rates of employment in region’s forest products industry have been in decline as
local companies have struggled to remain competitive in the world market. As employment and production
in the industry decline, the amount of forestland proposed for subdivision by development interests has been
steadily rising as timber companies sell their land to investment firms and speculators or pursue subdividing
it themselves. Out of concern for habitat loss, many environmental NGOs and high-profile individuals have
begun to aggressively advocate for increased protection of forestlands. Many proposed changes to the status
quo (i.e. creating a “Maine Woods National Park”) have often been labeled as ‘radical’ preservationist ideas
and in turn have been met with significant opposition from many area stakeholders. The result of such
disputes has been the formation of two general camps, each composed of a number of stakeholders and
stakeholder groups. The first camp (“working foresters”) opposes a radical shift in the northern Maine woods
conservation and management paradigm, and wants continued access to the forests for consumptive forms of
recreation (i.e. hunting, trapping, snowmobiling) while simultaneously keeping the region’s forests in private
ownership where they can continue to be harvested for timber by future generations. Stakeholders in this
camp include timber company workers, wood products manufacturers and retailers, industry associations,
property rights advocates, recreationists, elected officials, and a large segment of Maine citizens. The second
camp (“preservationists”) generally supports preserving large blocks of northern Maine forest in perpetuity,
and fears that timber companies and other large-scale forest owners will begin to rapidly sell and subdivide
their land to realize enormous profits from real estate development projects such as recreation-based resorts
and expensive housing developments. Stakeholders in this camp include conservation organizations, tourism
industry, environmental advocates, recreationists, elected officials, and a large segment of Maine citizens.
Information Availability
Initial inspection suggests that very little formal research has investigated alternative approaches to
managing and conserving forestland in northern Maine and the landscape-level. While studies that have
looked at different approaches to collaborative landscape planning and possible policy solutions for
addressing associated problems (i.e. sprawl, habitat loss, etc.) may exist in other parts of the country, it is not
clear to what extent the results of such work could be extrapolated for the purpose of making policy
decisions for the northern forest of Maine (i.e. legal and administrative structures and constraints differ stateto-state, as do economics, industry, and social values, attitudes, and beliefs). Data on the present status of
Maine’s forest resources appears to exist in the form of agency reports, and it these secondary data along
with consultation with state- and federal-level natural resource agency staff, and use of relevant historical
cases from other parts of the country (i.e. BWCA Wilderness, Adirondack Park) that will be used as the
principle sources of information. It appears that much of the data (with the exception of relevant biological
data) will be grounded in anecdote and opinion (i.e. through conversations with agency staff). As a result, the
analysis will call for a more qualitative approach to evaluating and comparing alternatives.
EXERCISE 2
Specific Outcomes to be Measured:

Impacts to forest and ecosystem integrity

Impacts to wildlife populations

Impacts to regional economies (timber, tourism, etc.)

Impacts to quality and quantity of recreational opportunities

Impacts to land use development patterns

Impacts to rural character and regional culture
Proposed Evaluative Criteria (asterisk denotes most important criteria):

Biological/Physical Impacts (What unintended and/or subsequent impacts will a given alternative have
the quality and condition of various environmental components?)

Social/Political Feasibility* (How much support/acceptance exist for this alternative among
politicians, agency heads, interest groups, industry, recreationists, and the general public?)

Equity*(Who wins and who loses if a given alternative is implemented? Does this alternative
disproportionately impact certain types of individuals or stakeholder groups?)

Effectiveness* (this incorporates “ecological integrity” and tries to assess the extent to which a given
alternative produces the intended effect, i.e. abated the defined problem)

Efficiency (Do total benefits exceed total costs? Is the net present value to society is maximized?)

Administrative ease/operability (How difficult or easy would this alternative be to implement given
existing administrative frameworks? Do relevant agencies have statutory/resources authority to act? )
Proposed Measures for Evaluative Criteria:
Political/Social Feasibility

Public Support  Quantifying levels of support among members of the general public for each
alternative (in this case the population of interest could be restricted to Maine residents or be
broadened to include the entire U.S. population given that people outside of Maine and New England
receive benefits from Maine forests). Levels of support might be calculated based on survey results,
public polling (scientific), anecdotal information (i.e. number of editorials written in support or
opposition to a particular issue), and a number of other methods. Ideally, in addition to knowing
whether the general public would vote “yes” or vote “no” for a given alternative, it would also be
valuable to measure the intensity of their opinion (i.e. are they violently against or only moderately
against a given policy option).

Support of Public Officials  Quantifying levels of support among Maine’s congressional delegation,
governor, state legislators, agency heads, and officials in local government. Levels of support might be
calculated based on survey results, voting records, formal interview, anecdotal information (statements
released to media regarding a relevant issue), and a number of other methods. Ideally, in addition to
knowing whether public officials would vote “yes” or “no” for a given alternative, it would also be
valuable to measure the intensity of their opinion.
Equity

Property Rights & Value  How would implementing a given alternative impact the private property
rights & values of various categories of landowners (i.e. family forest owners, industrial forest owners,
etc.)? Would certain landowners be disproportionately impacted in positive (benefits received) or
negative (costs borne) ways? Quantifying impacts to individual properties would require consultation
with a tax assessor and/or real estate developers. Relevant information might also possibly be obtained
by looking at historical records of land values in a given area before and after a significant land
protection action was taken (i.e. what impact did establishing National Park X have on property values
in Towns Y and N?), or by comparing the property values in communities that are nearly identical in
terms of demographics/geography but differ in terms of relative proximity to a protected area.

Municipal Tax Bases and Government Programs How would implementing a given alternative
impact the tax base of various Maine communities? What impact would implementing a given policy
option have on the ability of various Maine communities to fund other public programs? Would certain
communities be disproportionately impacted in positive (benefits received) or negative (costs borne)
ways? Data needed to address this measure would be similar to those required for the first measure.

Forest User Groups  Would implementing a certain policy mean that certain forest users be
disproportionately impacted in positive (benefits received) or negative (costs borne) ways?

Externalities  Would implementing a certain policy impact third parties?
Effectiveness

Forest Condition  How would implementing a given alternative impact the contiguousness,
abundance, and quality (i.e. vegetation diversity) of northern Maine forests? This measure would call
for an extensive amount of biological data so that the current condition of northern Maine forests could
be considered when extrapolating information about how various land protection strategies have
changed the condition of other forestlands across the country.

Wildlife Populations  What impact would implementing a given policy option have on forest- and
wetland-dwelling wildlife in Maine’s northern forest? Outcomes related to this measure would be
projected based on biological data obtained from studies that measured the response of populations of
the same wildlife species to landscape-level management actions that are similar to those alternatives
being considered.

Recreational Use  How would implementing a given alternative impact the quality and quantity of
outdoor recreational opportunities on forestlands in northern Maine? Using this measure will likely
make it necessary to first obtain some baseline information about current levels of access and quality
of opportunities in Maine’s northern forest. Some of this information will be relatively easy to obtain
given that certain policy options may completely prohibit particular recreational activities (i.e. hunting
is prohibited in national parks, and so hunting participation would logically decrease by 100% if a park
were created), but some will likely require speculation and extrapolation based on changes in
recreational opportunities and access that resulted from landscape-level land protection in other areas
of the country.
EXERCISE 1
Problem Definition: Recent decline in the economic viability of the timber industry in northern Maine and
subsequent predicted future rates of development and fragmentation of large forest parcels (resulting from
large-scale liquidation of landholdings by timber companies) pose a serious threat to the long-term quality
and quantity of forestland in the region, as well as associated wildlife and recreational uses.
Proposed Analysis, Research Goal, and Policy Envelope
The goal of this analysis will be to identify the alternative that has the greatest likelihood of
effectively alleviating the identified problem and subsequently reversing the current forest resources trend
while also being acceptable to stakeholders (i.e. alternative must be politically and economically acceptable).
The policy envelope (range of variables considered) will include impacts of alternatives on: forest resources
and associated wildlife; regional economies; recreational opportunities; land use and development patterns;
private property values and rights; government revenue; and rural character and culture.
I plan to conduct an ex-ante/prospective policy analysis that evaluates alternative policy options that
could be implemented to conserve forestlands at the landscape-scale in northern Maine. Each alternative will
be measured against a comprehensive set of criteria (i.e. political feasibility, effectiveness, equity, etc.).
Background, Issue, and Stakeholders
The economic health and employment of the Katahdin-Moosehead region of Maine has for centuries
been largely dependent on the forest products industry, with timber typically being used for pulp and lumber.
To this day the forest-products industry is the single largest business sector in the Katahdin-Moosehead
region, and Maine remains the largest producer of printing and writing papers in the nation (Rahman and
Wilson, 1999 – I’m looking for a more recent citation). Much of the forestland in the region is owned by the
Seven Islands, Plum Creek, Maibec, International Paper, and Irving timber corporations.* There have been
multiple shifts in acreage among owner groups in the last 45 years. Large private forests have been
experiencing regular changes in ownership, and over the last several decades industrial owners have reduced
their holdings while timber investment management organizations, real estate investment trusts, and limited
liability corporations have increased their holdings (McWilliams et al. 2005).
*
Ownership changes hands quite frequently, and it is often difficult to determine who owns a given woodlot.
Although Maine forests have been harvested for wood products for over 200 years, 90% of the state
remains forested and that makes Maine the most heavily forested state in the country by percentage (Maine
Forest Service, 2005). Maine forests represent the largest contiguous block of undeveloped forestland east of
the Mississippi, and most of this land lies within the unorganized territory of the Katahdin-Moosehead region
where it is largely unoccupied and actively managed for timber (Maine Forest Service, 2005). Roughly 95%
of Maine’s forests are privately owned, and this percentage represents one of the highest percentages in the
country and by far the highest percentage in New England (Maine Forest Service 2005, North East State
Foresters Association 2004). The private forests of Maine have a long history of multiple-use management
and relatively open public access that dates to colonial times and is established in Maine common law.
In addition to possessing a diverse timber resource, the region’s forests also support many other
valuable resources. These resources include thousands of lakes and ponds, copious coldwater rivers and
streams, wetland habitats, and abundant fish and wildlife resources (Maine Forest Service, 2005). In addition
to active management of its forests, the economy the region has also historically been characterized by
having an abundance of outdoor forest-related recreational opportunities (i.e. hunting, hiking, camping,
wildlife viewing, fall foliage viewing, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing). Together, the “working”
forests, outdoor recreation traditions, and an exceptionally low population density have largely formed the
region’s identity.
It is important to note that the relative financial contribution of forest products has declined as the
state’s economy has diversified and developed in recent decades and employment in forest products across
Maine has fallen significantly and is projected to continue to fall (Power 2001). Adjusted for inflation, wages
in the wood products industry have also been in decline, and the combination of job loss and declining wages
has hit timber-dependent communities doubly hard (Power 2001). One of the primary reasons for declines in
timber company landholdings appears to be competition that the U.S. timber industry is facing from foreign
companies who pay appreciably lower corporate tax rates on timber revenues (“Snow Supports Maine
Timber Growers”). However, while the relative contribution of this economic sector is declining statewide,
forest products industry jobs remain an important source of employment in northern Maine communities.
In recent times, rates of employment in region’s forest products industry have been in decline as
local companies have struggled to remain competitive in the world market. As employment and production
in the industry decline, the amount of forestland proposed for subdivision by development interests has been
steadily rising as timber companies sell their land to investment firms and speculators or pursue subdividing
it themselves. Out of concern for habitat loss, many environmental NGOs and high-profile individuals have
begun to aggressively advocate for increased protection of forestlands. Many proposed changes to the status
quo (i.e. creating a “Maine Woods National Park”) have often been labeled as ‘radical’ preservationist ideas
and in turn have been met with significant opposition from many area stakeholders. The result of such
disputes has been the formation of two general camps, each composed of a number of stakeholders and
stakeholder groups. The first camp (“working foresters”) opposes a radical shift in the northern Maine woods
conservation and management paradigm, and wants continued access to the forests for consumptive forms of
recreation (i.e. hunting, trapping, snowmobiling) while simultaneously keeping the region’s forests in private
ownership where they can continue to be harvested for timber by future generations. Stakeholders in this
camp include timber company workers, wood products manufacturers and retailers, industry associations,
property rights advocates, recreationists, elected officials, and a large segment of Maine citizens. The second
camp (“preservationists”) generally supports preserving large blocks of northern Maine forest in perpetuity,
and fears that timber companies and other large-scale forest owners will begin to rapidly sell and subdivide
their land to realize enormous profits from real estate development projects such as recreation-based resorts
and expensive housing developments. Stakeholders in this camp include conservation organizations, tourism
industry, environmental advocates, recreationists, elected officials, and a large segment of Maine citizens.
Information Availability
Initial inspection suggests that very little formal research has investigated alternative approaches to
managing and conserving forestland in northern Maine and the landscape-level. While studies that have
looked at different approaches to collaborative landscape planning and possible policy solutions for
addressing associated problems (i.e. sprawl, habitat loss, etc.) may exist in other parts of the country, it is not
clear to what extent the results of such work could be extrapolated for the purpose of making policy
decisions for the northern forest of Maine (i.e. legal and administrative structures and constraints differ stateto-state, as do economics, industry, and social values, attitudes, and beliefs). Data on the present status of
Maine’s forest resources appears to exist in the form of agency reports, and it these secondary data along
with consultation with state- and federal-level natural resource agency staff, and use of relevant historical
cases from other parts of the country (i.e. BWCA Wilderness, Adirondack Park) that will be used as the
principle sources of information. It appears that much of the data (with the exception of relevant biological
data) will be grounded in anecdote and opinion (i.e. through conversations with agency staff). As a result, the
analysis will call for a more qualitative approach to evaluating and comparing alternatives.
EXERCISE 2
Specific Outcomes to be Measured:

Impacts to forest and ecosystem integrity

Impacts to wildlife populations

Impacts to regional economies (timber, tourism, etc.)

Impacts to quality and quantity of recreational opportunities

Impacts to land use development patterns

Impacts to rural character and regional culture
Proposed Evaluative Criteria (asterisk denotes most important criteria):

Biological/Physical Impacts (What unintended and/or subsequent impacts will a given alternative have
the quality and condition of various environmental components?)

Social/Political Feasibility* (How much support/acceptance exist for this alternative among
politicians, agency heads, interest groups, industry, recreationists, and the general public?)

Equity*(Who wins and who loses if a given alternative is implemented? Does this alternative
disproportionately impact certain types of individuals or stakeholder groups?)

Effectiveness* (this incorporates “ecological integrity” and tries to assess the extent to which a given
alternative produces the intended effect, i.e. abated the defined problem)

Efficiency (Do total benefits exceed total costs? Is the net present value to society is maximized?)

Administrative ease/operability (How difficult or easy would this alternative be to implement given
existing administrative frameworks? Do relevant agencies have statutory/resources authority to act? )
Proposed Measures for Evaluative Criteria:
Political/Social Feasibility

Public Support  Quantifying levels of support among members of the general public for each
alternative (in this case the population of interest could be restricted to Maine residents or be
broadened to include the entire U.S. population given that people outside of Maine and New England
receive benefits from Maine forests). Levels of support might be calculated based on survey results,
public polling (scientific), anecdotal information (i.e. number of editorials written in support or
opposition to a particular issue), and a number of other methods. Ideally, in addition to knowing
whether the general public would vote “yes” or vote “no” for a given alternative, it would also be
valuable to measure the intensity of their opinion (i.e. are they violently against or only moderately
against a given policy option).

Support of Public Officials  Quantifying levels of support among Maine’s congressional delegation,
governor, state legislators, agency heads, and officials in local government. Levels of support might be
calculated based on survey results, voting records, formal interview, anecdotal information (statements
released to media regarding a relevant issue), and a number of other methods. Ideally, in addition to
knowing whether public officials would vote “yes” or “no” for a given alternative, it would also be
valuable to measure the intensity of their opinion.
Equity

Property Rights & Value  How would implementing a given alternative impact the private property
rights & values of various categories of landowners (i.e. family forest owners, industrial forest owners,
etc.)? Would certain landowners be disproportionately impacted in positive (benefits received) or
negative (costs borne) ways? Quantifying impacts to individual properties would require consultation
with a tax assessor and/or real estate developers. Relevant information might also possibly be obtained
by looking at historical records of land values in a given area before and after a significant land
protection action was taken (i.e. what impact did establishing National Park X have on property values
in Towns Y and N?), or by comparing the property values in communities that are nearly identical in
terms of demographics/geography but differ in terms of relative proximity to a protected area.

Municipal Tax Bases and Government Programs How would implementing a given alternative
impact the tax base of various Maine communities? What impact would implementing a given policy
option have on the ability of various Maine communities to fund other public programs? Would certain
communities be disproportionately impacted in positive (benefits received) or negative (costs borne)
ways? Data needed to address this measure would be similar to those required for the first measure.

Forest User Groups  Would implementing a certain policy mean that certain forest users be
disproportionately impacted in positive (benefits received) or negative (costs borne) ways?

Externalities  Would implementing a certain policy impact third parties?
Effectiveness

Forest Condition  How would implementing a given alternative impact the contiguousness,
abundance, and quality (i.e. vegetation diversity) of northern Maine forests? This measure would call
for an extensive amount of biological data so that the current condition of northern Maine forests could
be considered when extrapolating information about how various land protection strategies have
changed the condition of other forestlands across the country.

Wildlife Populations  What impact would implementing a given policy option have on forest- and
wetland-dwelling wildlife in Maine’s northern forest? Outcomes related to this measure would be
projected based on biological data obtained from studies that measured the response of populations of
the same wildlife species to landscape-level management actions that are similar to those alternatives
being considered.

Recreational Use  How would implementing a given alternative impact the quality and quantity of
outdoor recreational opportunities on forestlands in northern Maine? Using this measure will likely
make it necessary to first obtain some baseline information about current levels of access and quality
of opportunities in Maine’s northern forest. Some of this information will be relatively easy to obtain
given that certain policy options may completely prohibit particular recreational activities (i.e. hunting
is prohibited in national parks, and so hunting participation would logically decrease by 100% if a park
were created), but some will likely require speculation and extrapolation based on changes in
recreational opportunities and access that resulted from landscape-level land protection in other areas
of the country.
EXERCISE 3
Possible Alternatives:
 No action alternative
 Creation of a national park
 Creation of a national forest
 Adaptation of the Pinelands National Preserve model (NJ)
Alternative 1 – No action
1) Cost1: Continuing the status quo would not create new programs or other changes to existing management
frameworks, and so new costs are not predicted. Of course, as the condition of forest resources in the region
changes over time due to increased development and associated fragmentation, it is possible that costs borne
by relevant agencies will change in ways that are hard to predict. For instance, the cost of fee-simple land
acquisition and development rights should rise as demand for undeveloped land increases and supply
decreases. However, it does not appear that forest loss would increase operating costs borne by agencies or
timber companies. Rising land values will make it more difficult for timber companies to buy new woodlots.
Simplicity2: Because this would require no changes to existing programs, state and federal statutes, or
administrative rules it would appear that the status quo would be the simplest alternative to implement.
Compatibility3: Because the status quo developed in the context of existing social norms, industry activity,
local economies, agency operations, and outdoor recreation traditions, it seems that sustaining the present
arrangement would be compatible with existing socioeconomic conditions and administrative structures.
2) How Alternative Addresses the Problem: Because the Maine Forest Service has begun to lay out a plan
that includes forest tax incentives, methods for promoting the region’s forest products (i.e. through forest
certification and niche marketing), and use of conservation easements and other non-regulatory tools, there
may be reason to believe that the problem will resolve itself without the need for an alternative model. That
is, because future trends may not merely be an extension of current trends, it is possible that there are enough
proposed changes to the current framework to negate the need for a more radical policy intervention.
Alternative 2 – Creation of a National Park
Cost – Can the relevant party/parties afford the option? Will it be cost-effective?
Simplicity – Is the policy option easy to implement (i.e. low administrative hassle)?
3
Compatibility – Is the option compatible with existing social norms, industry activity, agency practices, etc.?
1
2
1) Cost: Financial and economic costs associated with creating a 3.2 million acre national park in northern
Maine (as proposed in the past) are a very important consideration, and it forecasting such costs is not an
easy task in the absence of contributions from experts in the fields such as resource economics, business,
forestry, and tourism. Creating a national park would require the National Park Service (NPS) to purchase
over three million acres from various timber companies and other private landowners, and even if a very
conservative figure such as $1000/acre is used the cost of purchasing the land still exceeds $3 billion. Given
that the mean annual operating budget of the NPS for FYs 1996-2007 was roughly $2.5 billion (in 2006
dollars), purchasing such a large area of land could be cost-prohibitive. Also, the NPS would have to secure
additional financial resources to pay the salaries and fringe benefits of hundreds of employees (and this
represents but a fraction of the park’s total operating budget). Monies would also have to be allocated for
capital improvements. Losses in regional timber industry revenue and tax revenues generated by hunting and
snowmobiling in the region need to be considered, but these losses may be more than offset by increased
spending by park visitors.
Simplicity: The relative ease with which this alternative can be implemented appears to be somewhat unclear.
First, creating the national park would congressional approval, and so the alternative cannot be implemented
without authorizing legislation. Also, though transferring such a large amount of privately owned forest land
to the NPS would be a complicated endeavor given the number of corporations and individuals that own land
in the region (not to mention the potential for legal challenges based on “takings” and whether or not eminent
domain is justified in this case), the long-term complexity of this alternative may be relatively low. That is,
once the title to all individual parcels is transferred to NPS there is very little ambiguity over management
authority.
Compatibility: This alternative would present a radical diversion from the way the forests of northern Maine
are used and managed. In general, residents of the region are highly independent and resistant to government
intervention. The forest products industry has been a vital artery to the region’s economy and an important
part of regional identity for centuries, and this alternative would be unpopular among locals because it would
hasten the demise of an already struggling forest products industry. Secondly, because neither hunting nor
snowmobiling are permitted on national park lands, there would be opposition to the alternative because it
would subsequently limit opportunities and access to participate in these cherished outdoor traditions.
2) How Alternative Addresses the Problem: Placing roughly 3.2 million acres of the northern Maine forest
into federal ownership would unquestionably eliminate the threat that residential and commercial
development poses to the forest land within the park boundary. That is, outside of constructing a limited
number of administrative offices, campgrounds, and interpretive centers the remainder of park lands would
be preserved in perpetuity. Because gravel logging roads and a limited number of paved highways already
exist in the area it is likely that no new transportation routes would need to be constructed to serve park
visitors. Also, while huge amounts of land would be protected, wildlife that inhabits early-successional forest
may be displaced as the forest matures in the absence of timber harvesting. Also, development in areas
outside the park boundary may be accelerated as second home owners are drawn to the area and eco-tourism
establishes itself.
Alternative 3 – Applying the Pinelands National Reserve Model
1) Cost: A number of new costs would present themselves if this alternative were implemented. These costs
include: federal budgetary outlays to finance the purchase of forest patches within the park boundary; state
expenditures to cover the operating costs (i.e. overhead) of a new state-level agency charged with overseeing land-use and resource management decisions within the park, and also capital expenditures for
construction of administrative offices; potential tax increases as property values rise; reduced budget outlays
to other state agencies and programs.
Simplicity: This could be a potentially complicated alternative to implement because it involves the transfer
of certain private forest lands over time to the federal government, and also gives a state agency the power to
regulate land-use development practices within the park boundary. Establishing a new state-level agency
would require authorization by the state legislature, and so the political acceptability of this alternative has to
be evaluated. Land-use decisions have historically been the domain of the Land Use Regulatory Commission
(LURC) in those areas of Maine that are unincorporated, and so it may reduce complication if the authority
and role of LURC are merely expanded so that a new state-level agency does not have to be created. It may
also be complicated to determine what role incorporated municipal governments within the park would retain
after more land-use regulatory authority were transferred to a state-level agency.
Compatibility: Any alternative that would provide greater land-use regulatory authority to the state and
transfer large chunks of privately owned forest for addition to the existing system of state lands will be met
with opposition. Many stakeholders will be concerned about what impact such actions will have on the
regional timber industry and associated jobs, local property values/taxes, and the quality and availability of
forestlands for recreation purposes. However, an alternative that provides the state with more management
authority would likely better comport with social norms than one that ceded control to a federal agency.
2) How Alternative Addresses the Problem: Creating a large publicly protected area administered by the State
of Maine would address potential fragmentation and forest loss due to commercial and residential
development by creating a number of regulatory land use controls to be formulated and enforced by a statelevel land management agency. Creating this type of park in the southern NJ has helped protect and conserve
millions of acres of forests, wildlife populations, aquatic systems, and recreational and aesthetic values.
EXERCISE 4
Data Types and Sources
1)
Qualitative data collected from phone interviews: This primary data type refers to information
collected by conducting in-depth interviews with individuals over the phone. Depending on the individual
being spoken to, questions would ask the subject for their opinion on the social and political feasibility,
administrative operability, and overall effectiveness of different policy options. Specifically, subjects
would be asked questions such as the following:
 Has Policy Option X been considered by agency officials and other Maine decision-makers
previously? If so, when? What were the motivating factors for considering this alternative?
 How has this policy option been used in other states? What were the motivating factors in these
cases? Has the policy option been successful? What has undermined its success? Are successes and
failures of other applications of this policy option applicable to its application in Maine?
 What interest groups and other stakeholders would likely oppose/support this policy option? What
level of support would you expect this alternative to have among natural resource managers and
agency officials in the State of Maine?
 How effective do you feel this alternative would be in addressing the problem? Would the overall
condition of Maine’s northern forest be better under this policy option than under the status quo?
 How would this policy option fit in to the existing management framework? Are there legal
constraints that would prevent this alternative from being adopted/implemented?
 What monetary (i.e. tourism revenue) and non-monetary benefits (i.e. naturalistic benefits) do you
think that this alternative would provide in both the short- and long-term?
 What financial costs would be associated with this alternative (i.e. operating costs, capital
expenditures, loss of tax revenue, etc.)? What about costs that are less direct or harder to monetize
(i.e. opportunity costs, effects on wood products industry revenue, impacts on outdoor recreation)?
 In your opinion would the long-term benefits of this alternative outweigh the costs?
Sources: These interviews would ideally be conducted with the following categories of individuals: staff in
leadership positions in relevant agencies at the state- and federal-level (i.e. Maine Forest Service, Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, USDA Forest Service, NPS); state-level elected officials (i.e.
state legislators) or their staff; members of regional planning commission; timber industry executives;
representatives of environmental organizations, recreation groups, and property rights advocates;
individuals (i.e. agency officials, scholars) familiar with similar how similar policy options were applied in
other states. However, given the logistic constraints inherent with this particular assignment I will likely
confine my interviews to natural agency administrators employed by the State of Maine. Finally,
depending on the preferences of individual subjects, I suspect that interviews will be conducted both over
the phone and via email. It is also worth noting that I anticipate reviewing articles in newspapers and other
forms of media coverage (i.e. internet-based articles) that discuss the future of Maine’s forest and that may
provide insight into how popular a given alternative might be among public officials, industry
representatives, interest groups, and the general public.
2)
Studies that forecast future conditions of northern Maine forests and associated land-use patterns:
Because I will not have the time or resources to collect my own biophysical or economic data I will have to
rely heavily on secondary data and findings presented in previously completed studies and reports that
address how forest coverage and regional land use patterns will change over time in the absence of a policy
intervention. In addition to papers considering these issues in northern Maine, I will also review literature
that evaluates similar processes taking place in areas of the country that might be somewhat comparable
(i.e. projected land-use changes and associated effects on forest cover in upper Midwest states). Data in
these reports will likely be presented in a number of different ways depending on the focus of each study.
Some may invoke the use of spatial data tools such as GIS and remote sensing to quantify present
conditions and forecast future changes to specific habitat types (i.e. spruce-fir forest) in the northern Maine
forest, and other studies may consider landscape change and development patterns in a more holistic
context and subsequently rely more heavily on intuitive forecasting techniques on the part of the author.
Use of these types of data will require me to determine the applicability of the findings to my own policy
analysis question, evaluate the design and data collection instruments/methods used in a given study,
assess the data analysis methods and overall rigor of the conducted analysis, and evaluate how accurate the
results were interpreted. Because different reports and studies were designed to address research questions
different than my own it will likely be challenging to determine which studies will serve as the most
appropriate sources of secondary data and information in my analysis. Finally, because raw data and
detailed information pertaining to methodology is typically not provided in succinct articles or reports it
may be necessary for me to request additional information from the authors of these reports as needed.
Sources: I expect to draw on reports/studies prepared by government agencies (particularly USDA Forest
Service and Maine Forest Service) and studies presented in the scholarly journals that have natural
resource, wildlife management, forestry, policy studies, and land-use planning themes.
3)
Studies that estimate value (i.e. market and non-market valuation) of forestlands: In order to assess
how well each of the policy options considered in my analysis will address the stated problem it will be
important to review studies that have investigated how highly forestlands are valued by Americans and
also what components and uses of forest ecosystems (i.e. timber, wildlife, ecosystem services, recreation,
aesthetics) are most valuable. Because forests provide both market and non-market values (including use
and non-use benefits) to humans it will be important to review both revealed preference and stated
preference valuation studies in order to obtain a more complete and balanced assessment of total values
provided by forest resources. Incorporating secondary data from these sorts of studies into my analysis will
require using the benefit-transfer method. That is, I will estimate economic values of northern Maine forest
resources by transferring existing benefit estimates from studies already completed for another location or
issue. Specifically, I will follow these general steps: 1) review scholarly literature for similar and relevant
studies (i.e. those studies with topical relevance, population characteristics similar to those in Maine, and
similar site characteristics); 2) assess the quality of the study (i.e. What methods were used? What survey
questions were asked? Was there bias in the sample selection? Were results interpreted correctly?), and; 3)
adjust values to fit the present problem/situation. A final step in the use of benefit-transfer methods would
be to close any gaps in previous research with primary data from my site and target population, but I will
not be able to do this because of training and logistical constraints.
Sources: Although certain government agencies (i.e. USDA Forest Service, NPS, USFWS) may have
commissioned completely internal economic valuation studies for forest resources and various relevant
ecosystem components that were presented in an agency report, it is likely that the vast majority of relevant
studies will have been published in the scholarly literature in journals with natural resource, environmental
and resource economics, and policy studies themes.
Analytic Methods
Combination of Extrapolative and Intuitive Forecasting: I anticipate using historical data (i.e. timber
harvest levels, changes in forest cover, population growth rates, land urbanization rates) to forecast current
conditions under a “no action” alternative. Additionally, I plan to infuse expert opinion that I am able to
collect from interviews to supplement the data when forecasting these future conditions. That is, I will be
combine qualitative opinion and quantitative data collected in the past when projecting outcomes
associated with maintaining the status quo. While sophisticated intuitive forecasting methodology would
invoke the use of strategies such as the Delphi method and cross-impact analysis, because of logistical
constraints my analysis, I will be relying on the opinions of experts (primarily natural resource agency
officials) when crafting the qualitative component of this forecasting approach.
Pros: Relatively simple to use assuming I can access necessary historical data and expert opinion. In
practice, ‘persistence predictions’ have proven to be just as accurate (or even more accurate) than more
sophisticated methods (i.e. theoretical modeling) for forecasting future conditions.
Cons: Past trends are not always reflective of future trends. From a statistical point of view it is
generally considered poor practice to extrapolate beyond the existing data. Trends may appear to be
linear over a relatively short timeframe when in fact they will not be linear in the long-run.
Combination of Political Feasibility and Implementation Analysis: Each alternative considered in the
analysis needs to be evaluated with respect to political feasibility (i.e. assessing how much support would a
given alternative would have among elected officials, agency administrators, industry representatives,
interest groups, and members of the general public). A thorough understanding of the beliefs and
motivations of the primary actors is a necessary component of this analysis, as well as the amount of
financial resources and political influence that each of these actors has to both promote, oppose, or help
implement a given policy option. Similarly, it is important to evaluate the present sociopolitical climate in
a holistic manner to determine whether or not the political window exists for a particular alternative.
Similarly, the feasibility of implementing a given alternative once it has been selected also needs to be
considered. For instance, the policymakers and ‘implementers’ of policy are typically different individuals,
and so it is important to determine if those entities responsible for implementing a policy will be able to do
so successfully (i.e. what is the magnitude of change associated with a given alternative and will those
responsible for implementation be able to make sense of what they have to do?).
Pros: It will be relatively easy to obtain a qualitative assessment of an alternative’s political feasibility
by conducting interviews with agency officials, reviewing newspapers and other sources of opinion
pieces, assessing situations in other areas of the country where similar alternatives have been
successfully or unsuccessfully employed, and by reviewing relevant scholarly literature that investigates
public perceptions and opinion toward different types of policy options.
Cons: Without collecting extensive primary data through mail or in-person surveys it is not possible to
draw concrete conclusions about political feasibility because I am will be relying on extrapolating
results from other areas of the country that might not be completely applicable and the opinions of
agency experts may or may not be reflective of general political support. Also, it will be difficult to
assess implementation feasibility without actually implementing a given policy or at least discussing the
operability of an alternative with all entities that would be involved in implementation.
Scenario Writing: This method will be useful in presenting the results of my policy analysis and ultimately
allow for a useful way to visually compare different alternatives and confront tradeoffs between them.
Using this analytic method I will structure a table to compare various alternatives under different scenarios
(i.e. optimistic, worst-case, and mid-range scenarios and also different assumption about regional
economic change and development patterns).
Pros: Scenario writing will be relatively simple to complete as I will be able to use the same data
collected for the two pervious types of analysis (i.e. the qualitative primary interview data and the
quantitative secondary data obtained from previous studies) when projecting outcomes associated with
different scenarios. Similarly, by putting this information in a well ordered table I will be able to
compare best- and worst-case scenarios with relative ease and subsequently be able to determine how
the costs/risk associated with the worst case scenario compare with the benefits associated with the bestcase scenario. Scenario writing can also help generate new ideas about how to modify various
alternatives to make them more feasible and avoid unnecessary implementation problems.
Cons: As with the other analysis methods described, my ability to project logical outcomes associated
with different policy options will require me to make sound subjective judgments as I consider how
much weight to assign to data collected during my analysis. That is, my primary and secondary data
may wind up in disagreement and the burden will fall on me to make a judgment about a future state
using my own intuition. There is no “cookbook” for deciding the probability that a best- or worst-case
scenario will occur and so my subjective assessment of these probabilities will heavily influences which
policy option I ultimately select for implementation.