Throughout Indiana and the United States, interest in forest and agricultural land preservation is increasing, especially as communities are experiencing losses in forest cover and farmland. Within Southern Indiana secondary forest regrowth occurred during the 20th century, but recently urban and residential land use is outpacing regrowth and causing conversion of forest lands along the urban-rural fringe.

The trend toward growth along the urban fringe is common throughout the Untied States as former city and suburb dwellers desire access to natural resources, leisure opportunities, and ecosystem services (Deller, et al., 2001). Exploration of these trends of forest regrowth and urbanization is particularly important in Indiana because much of the forest regrowth is in the form of nonindustrial private forests (NIPFs) (Birch, 1996). Local, state, and national land use and forest policymakers must be aware of the changes in local and regional economic structure that impact NIPFs. There are important policy implications for identifying areas where increased development is impacting private forest cover.

Over the past thirty years, both secondary forest regrowth, due to agricultural abandonment, and forest clearing, due to residential conversion, have been jointly occurring in a complex spatial pattern, Figure 1 illustrates the changes in private forestland by county between 1967 and 1998. The changing landscape is also a result of changing local economies and employment. We define employment in two main sectors, extractive uses such as agriculture and mining, and the nonextractive, service sector, which includes everything from healthcare to restaurants. As can be seen, in Figure 1, five counties gained private forestland between 1967 and 1998. One of these counties lost a percentage service jobs during the time period, while two counties increased their percentage of service jobs by 10 to 25%, one county by 26 to 50%, and the fifth county by 51 to 100%.

There were two counties that suffered large losses of NIPFs, between 30,000 to 45,000 acres. Both of these counties experienced increases in service sector employment. There are many economic development programs focused on creation of service sector jobs in order to increase tourism and protect private and public forestland (Deller, et al., 2001). Interestingly, as mentioned earlier there was one county that experienced a loss in percentage of service jobs and also experienced forest regrowth. Most counties experienced an increase in service jobs indicating a shifting regional economy. We find that after 1986, forest regrowth is linked to increases in service sector jobs (Monroe and York, 2003), but the evidence is mixed for the 1968 to 1986. Changing local economies is only one part of the puzzle associated with forest regrowth and decline. We need to recognize that although Indiana has experienced tremendous forest regrowth since the early 1900s, many counties have experienced forest loss since the 1960s. Much of the forest loss is associated with residential growth along the urban-rural fringe.

Policymakers seeking to protect NIPFs must be aware of the changing economic structure and increased demand for homes in rural areas. As more NIPF landowners are using their land primarily for nonextractive reasons, such as recreation. Forest programs may need to shift to accommodate changing needs. Furthermore, counties and cities must recognize the increasing threat of demand for residential development in Indiana’s forests.

Birch, T. "Private Forest-Landowners of the Northern United States." United States Department of Agriculture, Northeastern Experiment Station.

Deller, S. C., et al. "The Role of Amenities and Quality of Life in Rural Economic Growth." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83, no. 2(2001): 352-365.