In the early nonindustrial private forest (family forest) research literature, size of forest holding was identified as a critical variable impacting the propensity of family forest owners to invest in and manage small forest properties. This literature discusses relationships between size of forest holding and variables like forest owners’ financial and asset positions, forest management objectives, use of a forest management plan and professional forestry advice, and use of forestry cost-share funding. Since then, the literature has expanded and now relates to the major problem of forest parcelization. We reviewed this literature for historical themes, technical considerations, and continuing ownership problems, emphasizing the current circumstances of forest parcelization and its historical roots in the size of forest holding problem. Many of the sociological, economic, financial, and technical relationships identified earlier as foundations of the size of forest holding problem are shown to be also fundamental to the parcelization problem in forestry. We suggest that today’s parcelization issues are partially a continuation of the size of forest holding problem and that earlier research may be relevant to parcelization problems. We provide a detailed literature review that relates parcelization to the size of forest holding problem.
References
[1]
Butler, B.J. Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006. General Technical Report NRS-27; U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2008.
[2]
Best, C. America’s private forests: Challenges for conservation. J. For. 2002, 100, 14–17.
[3]
Majumdar, I.; Laband, D.; Teeter, L.; Butler, B. Motivations and land-use intentions of nonindustrial private forest landowners: Comparing inheritors to noninheritors. For. Sci. 2009, 55, 423–432.
[4]
Baker, F.S. The timber problem in conservation. J. For. 1933, 31, 167–176.
[5]
Folweiler, A.D. Forest Land Ownership in Louisiana and Its Influence on Timber Production. Station Bulletin Number 377; Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 1944.
[6]
Folweiler, A.D.; Vaux, H.J. Private forest landownership and management in the loblolly shortleaf pine type in Louisiana. J. For. 1944, 42, 783–790.
[7]
James, L.M.; Hoffman, W.P.; Payne, M.A. Private Forest Landownership and Management in Central Mississippi. Technical Bulletin 33; Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station: State College, MS, USA, 1951.
[8]
Straka, T.J. Recognition of wildlife amenity values in defining the small forest ownership problem in the United States—A literature review. Wildl. Biol. Pract. 2011, 7, 1–22.
[9]
Dana, S.T.; Fairfax, S.K. Forest and Range Policy: Its Development in the United States, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
[10]
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. Timber Depletion, Lumber Prices, and the Concentration of Timber Ownership, Report on Senate Resolution 311. Capper Report; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1920.
[11]
Cubbage, F.W.; O’Laughlin, J.; Bullock, C.S. Forest Resource Policy; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
[12]
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. Forests and National Prosperity: A Reappraisal of the Forest Situation in the United States. Miscellaneous Publication No. 668; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1948.
[13]
Le Master, D.C. Timber supply, nonindustrial private forest land, and the conventional view. J. For. 1978, 76, 365–367.
[14]
Clawson, M. Will there be enough timber? J. For. 1978, 76, 274–276.
[15]
Clawson, M. The Economics of U.S. Nonindustrial Private Forests. Research Paper R-14; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 1979.
[16]
Royer, J. Conclusions from a Review of 50 Years of Small Woodland Owner Studies. In Proceedings of Southern Forest Economics Workshop, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 21–22 March 1979; Southern Forest Economics Workers (SOFEW), Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University: Mississippi State, MS, USA, 1980.
[17]
Schaaf, K.A.; Broussard, S.R. Private forest policy tools: A national survey exploring the American public’s perceptions and support. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 9, 316–334, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.10.001.
[18]
Davis, M.L.E.S.; Fly, J.M. Do you hear what I hear: Better understanding how forest management is conceptualized and practiced by private forest landowners? J. For. 2010, 108, 321–328.
[19]
Stoddard, C.H., Jr. Future of private forest land ownership in the Northern Lake States. J. Land Public Util. Econ. 1942, 18, 267–283, doi:10.2307/3159057.
[20]
Barraclough, S.; Rettie, J.C. The Ownership of Small Private Forest-Land Holdings in 23 New England Towns. Station Paper No. 34; USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: Upper Darby, PA, USA, 1950.
[21]
Webster, H.H.; Stoltenberg, C.H. What ownership characteristics are useful in predicting response to forestry programs? Land Econ. 1959, 35, 292–295, doi:10.2307/3144826.
[22]
Chamberlin, H.H.; Sample, L.A.; Hayes, R.W. Private Forest Land Ownership and Management in the Loblolly-Shortleaf Type in Southern Arkansas, Northern Louisiana, and Central Mississippi. Louisiana Bulletin No. 393; Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 1945.
[23]
Poli, A.; Griffith, D.T. Forest Land Ownership in Northern Mendocino County, California. Forest Survey Release 5; USDA Forest Service, California Forest and Range Experiment Station: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1948.
[24]
Southern, J.H.; Miller, R.L. Ownership of Land in the Commercial Timber Area of Southeast, Texas, 1955. Progress Report 1853; Texas Agricultural Experiment Station: College Station, TX, USA, 1956.
[25]
Somberg, S.I. Characteristics of Private Nonindustrial Forest Landowners in Alabama. Circular 185; Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station: Auburn, AL, USA, 1971.
[26]
Perry, J.D.; Guttenberg, S. Southwest Arkansas’ Small Woodland Owners. Occasional Paper 170; USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: New Orleans, LA, USA, 1959.
[27]
Cole, A.B.; Smith, R.C. The Forest Resources of Rural Householders in Dent. County, Missouri. Research Bulletin 740; Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station: Columbia, MO, USA, 1960.
[28]
Worley, D.P. The Small Woodland Owner in Eastern Kentucky: His Attitudes and Environment. Technical Paper 175; USDA Forest Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station: Columbus, OH, USA, 1960.
[29]
Hutchison, O.K.; McCauley, O.D. The Small Woodland Owner in Ohio. Technical Paper 183; USDA Forest Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station: Columbus, OH, USA, 1961.
[30]
McMahon, R.O. Private Nonindustrial Ownership of Forest Land. Bulletin No. 68; Yale University School of Forestry: New Haven, CT, USA, 1964.
[31]
Fontenot, R.W.; Marlin, C.B. Characteristics of Owners of Small Timber Tracts in Southwest Louisiana. LSU Forestry Note No. 106; Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 1974.
[32]
Kingsley, N.P. The Forest-Land Owners of Southern New England. Resource Bulletin NE-41; USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: Upper Darby, PA, USA, 1976.
[33]
Birch, T.W.; Butler, B.J. Private Forest-Land Ownerships of New York: 1980 and 1994. Resource Bulletin NE-153; USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2001.
[34]
Leatherberry, E.C. Wisconsin’s Private Timberland Owners: 1997. Research Paper NC-339; USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2001.
[35]
Zivnuska, J.A. Private Forestry in Norway—A Case Study in Small Woodland Management and Policy; Society of American Foresters: Washington, DC, USA, 1959.
[36]
Keniston, R.F. The forest owner—A person. J. For. 1962, 60, 249–254.
[37]
Preston, J.F. Is farm forestry on the wrong trail? Am. For. 1956, 62, 8–11, 50–52.
[38]
Quinney, D.N. The “farm woodlot” revisited. J. For. 1961, 59, 601–602.
[39]
Plair, T.B. Opportunities in small woodlands. For. Farmer 1962, 21, 8–9, 15–17, 19.
[40]
Yoho, J.G. Small woodland owners. What is the problem? In 1962 Pulpwood Annual; American Pulpwood Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1962; pp. 89–91.
[41]
Stoltenberg, C.H.; Gottsacker, J.H. Forest owner attitudes toward forestry. Iowa State J. Sci. 1967, 42, 83–87.
[42]
Glasscock, H.R., Jr. Greater outputs from NIPFs: What programs are cost-effective? J. For. 1978, 76, 268, 299, 310–312.
[43]
Gould, E.M., Jr. Wanted: High-satisfaction forestry. J. For. 1978, 76, 715–718.
[44]
Sedjo, R.A.; Ostermeier, D.M. Policy Alternatives for Nonindustrial Private Forests; Society of American Foresters: Washington, DC, USA, 1978.
[45]
Kaiser, F.; Birch, T.; Lewis, D. New findings on private forest landowners. Am. For. 1982, 88, 28–30, 44.
[46]
Duerr, W.A. The small, low-income landholding: A problem in forest conservation. Iowa State Coll. J. Sci. 1948, 22, 349–361.
[47]
Clawson, M. Economic size of forestry operations. J. For. 1957, 55, 521–526.
[48]
Row, C. Economies of tract size in timber growing. J. For. 1978, 76, 576–579.
[49]
Cubbage, F.W. Economics of Forest Tract Size: Theory and Literature. General Technical Report SO-41; USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: New Orleans, LA, USA, 1983.
[50]
Straka, T.J.; Wisdom, H.W.; Moak, J.E. Size of forest holding and investment behavior of nonindustrial private owners. J. For. 1984, 82, 495–496.
[51]
Cubbage, F.W. Economies of Forest Tract Size in Southern Pine Harvesting. Research Paper SO-184; USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: New Orleans, LA, USA, 1982.
[52]
Karppinen, H. Forest owners’ choice of reforestation method: An application of the theory of planned behavior. For. Pol. Econ. 2005, 7, 393–409, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2003.06.001.
[53]
Straka, T.J.; Wisdom, H.W. Fundamental Relationships Affecting Nonindustrial Private Forest Timber Output. In Proceedings of Southern Forest Economics Workshop, Charleston, SC, USA, 1–2 April 1982; Southern Forest Economics Workers (SOFEW), Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University: Mississippi State, MS, USA, 1983; pp. 44–57.
[54]
Streyffert, T. Influence of Ownership and Size Structure on Forest Management in Sweden: A Study of Fundamentals. Bulletin No. 23b; Royal School of Forestry: Stockholm, Sweden, 1957.
[55]
Knight, H.A. Size of Timber Stands in the Piedmont of South Carolina. Research Note SE-267; USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 1978.
[56]
Gunter, J.E. “Intermediate technology” key to small woodlands productivity. For. Ind. 1979, 106, 64–66, 70.
[57]
Thompson, R.P.; Jones, J.G. Classifying nonindustrial private forestland by tract size. J. For. 1981, 79, 288–291.
[58]
Fecso, R.S.; Kaiser, H.F.; Royer, J.P.; Weidenhamer, M. Management Practices and Reforestation Decisions for Harvested Southern Pinelands. SRS Staff Report Number AGES821230; USDA Statistical Reporting Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1982.
[59]
Wiersum, K.F.; Elands, B.H.; Marjanke, A.H. Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: Characteristics and future potential. Small Scale For. 2005, 4, 1–19.
[60]
Bliss, J.C.; Kelly, E.C. Comparative advantage of small-scale forestry among emerging forest tenures. Small Scale For. 2008, 7, 95–104, doi:10.1007/s11842-008-9043-5.
[61]
Zhang, Y.; Liao, X.; Butler, B.J.; Schelhas, J. The increasing importance of small-scale forestry: Evidence from family forest ownership patterns in the United States. Small Scale For. 2009, 8, 1–14, doi:10.1007/s11842-008-9050-6.
[62]
DeCoster, L.A. The boom in forest owners—A bust for forestry? J. For. 1998, 96, 25–28.
[63]
Sampson, R.N.; DeCoster, L.A. Public Programs for Private Forestry: A Reader on Programs and Options; American Forests Forest Policy Center: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
[64]
Mundell, J.; Taff, S.J.; Kilgore, M.; Snyder, S. Assessing Trends in Forest Parcelization and Development in Minnesota: An Itasca County Case Study, University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources, St. Paul, MN, USA, 2007.
[65]
Germain, R.H.; Anderson, N.; Berilacqua, E. The effects of forestland parcelization and ownership transfers on nonindustrial private forestland forest stocking in New York. J. For. 2007, 105, 403–408.
[66]
Moldenhauer, M.C.; Bolding, M.C. Parcelization of South Carolina’s private forestland: Loggers reactions to a growing threat. For. Prod. J. 2009, 59, 37–43.
[67]
Haines, A.L.; Kennedy, T.T.; McFarlane, D.L. Parcelization: Forest change agent in Northern Wisconsin. J. For. 2011, 109, 101–108.
[68]
Schallau, C.H. Small Forest Ownership in the Urban. Fringe Area of Michigan. Station Paper No. 103; USDA Forest Service, Lake States Forest Experiment Station: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1962.
[69]
Schallau, C.H. Fragmentation, Absentee Ownership, and Transfer of Forest Land in Northern Lower Michigan. Research Paper LS-17; USDA Forest Service, Lake States Forest Experiment Station: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1965.
[70]
Vince, S.W.; Duryea, M.L.; Macie, E.A.; Hermansen, L.A. Forests at the Wildland-Urban Interface: Conservation and Management; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005.
[71]
Kluender, R.A.; Walkingstick, T.L. Rethinking how nonindustrial landowners view their lands. South. J. Appl. For. 2000, 24, 150–158.
[72]
Megalos, M.A. North. Carolina Landowner Responsiveness to Forestry Incentives. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 15 December 1999.
[73]
Stein, S. Recent USDA Forest Service Experiences with Forestry Incentives: What Have We Achieved? In Proceedings of Global Initiatives and Policies: First International Conference on Private Forestry in the 21st Century, Atlanta, GA, USA, 25–27 March 2001; Teeter, L., Ed.; Auburn University Forest Policy Center: Auburn, AL, USA, 2001; pp. 112–124.
[74]
Greene, J.L.; Straka, T.J.; Dee, R.L. Nonindustrial private forest owner use of federal income tax provisions. For. Prod. J. 2004, 54, 59–66.
[75]
Daniels, S.E.; Kilgore, M.A.; Jacobson, M.G.; Greene, J.L.; Straka, T.J. Examining the compatibility between forestry incentive programs in the US and the practice of sustainable forest management. Forests 2010, 1, 49–64, doi:10.3390/f1010049.
[76]
Royer, J. Determinants of reforestation behavior among Southern landowners. For. Sci. 1987, 33, 654–667.
Hyberg, B.T.; Holthausen, D.M. The behavior of nonindustrial forest landowners. Can. J. For. Res. 1989, 19, 1014–1023, doi:10.1139/x89-155.
[79]
Lorenzo, A.B.; Beard, P. Factors Affecting the Decisions of NIPF Owners to Use Assistance Programs. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Non-Industrial Private Forests: Learning from the PastProspects for the Future, Washington, DC, USA, 18–20 February 1996; Baughman, M.J., Ed.; University of Minnesota Extension Services Special Programs: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1996; pp. 264–275.
[80]
Amacher, G.; Conway, C.; Sullivan, J.; Hensyl, C. Effects of Shifting Populations and Preferences on the Behavior of Nonindustrial Landowners and Forest Industry: Empirical Evidence from Virginia. SOFAC Report No. 12; Southern Forest Resource Assessment Consortium: Raleigh, NC, USA, 1998.
[81]
Arano, K.G.; Munn, I.A. Evaluating forest management intensity: A comparison among major forest landowner types. For. Pol. Econ. 2006, 9, 237–248, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.07.011.
[82]
Bliss, J.C.; Nepal, S.K.; Brooks, R.T., Jr.; Larsen, M.D. In the mainstream: Environmental attitudes of mid-south forest owners. South. J. Appl. For. 1997, 21, 37–43.
[83]
Gunter, J.E.; Bullard, S.H.; Doolittle, M.L.; Aranao, K.G. Reforestation of Harvested Timberlands in Mississippi: Behavior and Attitudes of Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners. Bulletin FO172, Mississippi State University Forestry and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State, MS, USA, 2001.
[84]
Kilgore, M.A.; Blinn, C.R. Policy tools to encourage the application of sustainable timber harvesting practices in the United States and Canada. For. Pol. Econ. 2004, 6, 111–127, doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00116-8.
[85]
Muench, J. Private Forests and Public Programs in North. Carolina; North Carolina Forestry Association: Raleigh, NC, USA, 1965.
[86]
Cloud, M.C. Promoting forest management with owners of medium-sized parcels of land. J. For. 1966, 64, 536–537.
[87]
Guttenberg, S. The rate of interest in forest management. J. For. 1950, 48, 3–7.
[88]
Redman, J.C. Economic aspects of the farm woodland enterprise. J. Farm. Econ. 1956, 38, 901–910, doi:10.2307/1234233.
[89]
Bethune, J.E.; LeGrande, W.P. Profitable small-forest management—A case history. For. Farmer 1960, 13, 12, 13, 38.
[90]
Coutu, A.J. Is forestry financially practical for the small timberland owner? For. Farmer 1960, 20, 8–10, 32–33, 35.
[91]
Herrick, A.M. Investment aspects of building a forest from bare land. For. Farmer 1960, 20, 14–15, 28–30.
[92]
Aaltonan, A.; Herr, C.S.; Barraclough, K.E. The cooperative marketing of forest products. J. For. 1938, 36, 203–215.
[93]
Cope, J.A. Farm woodland owners’ cooperatives. J. For. 1943, 41, 169–173.
[94]
Josephson, H.R. Cooperatives—An appraisal of their place in Forestry. For. Farmer 1963, 22, 6–8.
[95]
Stoddard, C.H. The need for associations of forest landowners in the United States. J. For. 1964, 62, 163–166.
[96]
Dempsey, G.P. Forest Cooperatives—A Bibliography. Research Paper NE-82; USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: Broomall, PA, USA, 1967.
[97]
Simon, D.M.; Scoville, O.J. Forestry Cooperatives: Organization and Performance. ACS Research Report No. 25; USDA Agricultural Cooperative Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1982.
[98]
Rosen, B.N.; Kaiser, H.F.; Baldeck, M. Nonindustrial private forest landowners as timber marketers: A field study of search for market information and decision quality. For. Sci. 1989, 35, 732–744.
[99]
Sturgess, E.; Zeuli, K.; Rickenbach, M. A Brief. Reflection on Forestry Cooperatives in the US. Bulletin No. 7, University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, Madison, WI, USA, 2004.
[100]
Hull, R.B.; Ashton, S. Forest cooperatives revisited. J. For. 2008, 106, 100–105.
[101]
Kittredge, D.B. The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: International examples and application in the United States. For. Pol. Econ. 2005, 7, 671–688, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2003.12.004.
Kuuluvainen, J.; Karppinen, H.; Ovaskainen, V. Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. For Sci. 1996, 42, 300–309.
[104]
James, L.M. Determining forest landownership and its relation to timber management. J. For. 1950, 48, 257–260.
[105]
Lord, W.B. A reconsideration of the farm forestry problem. J. For. 1963, 61, 262–264.
[106]
Birch, T.W. Private Forest-Land Owners of the Northern United States,1994. Resource Bulletin 136; USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: Radnor, PA, USA, 1996.
[107]
Hodgdon, B.; Tyrrell, M. Literature Review: An Annotated Bibliography on Family Forest Owners. GISF Research Paper 002; Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry: New Haven, CT, USA, 2003.
[108]
Wicker, G. Motivation for private forest landowners. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Technical Report GTR-SRS-53; Wear, D.N., Greis, J.G., Eds.; USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2002. Chapter 9; pp. 225–237.
Butler, B.J.; Zhao, M. Family forest owner trends in the Northern United States. North. J. Appl. For. 2011, 28, 13–18.
[111]
Streyffert, T. Management of small woodlots in Sweden. Am. For. 1961, 67, 16–19, 52, 54, 57–58.
[112]
Turner, B.J.; Finley, J.C.; Kingsley, N.P. How reliable are woodland owners’ intentions? J. For. 1977, 75, 498–499.
[113]
Kingsley, N.P. How important is timber production to small owners? For. Farmer 1979, 38, 8–15.
[114]
Williams, R.A.; Voth, D.E.; Hitt, C. Arkansas’ NIPF Landowners’ Opinions and Attitudes Regarding Management and Use of Forested Property. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Non-Industrial Private Forests: Learning from the PastProspects for the Future, Washington, DC, USA, 18–20 February 1996; Baughman, M.J., Ed.; University of Minnesota Extension Services Special Programs: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1996; pp. 230–237.
[115]
Butler, B.J.; Leatherberry, E.C. America’s family forest owners. J. For. 2004, 102, 4–9.
[116]
Stein, J.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Alig, R.J.; Nelson, M.D.; Theobald, D.M.; Eley, M.; Dechter, M.; Carr, M. Forests on the Edge: Housing Development on America’s Private Forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-636; USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 2005.
[117]
D’Amato, A.W.; Catanzaro, P.F.; Damery, D.T.; Kittredge, D.B.; Ferrare, K.A. Are family forest owners facing a future in which forest management is not enough? J. For. 2010, 108, 32–38.
[118]
Mundell, J.; Taff, S.J.; Kilgore, M.A.; Snyder, S.A. Using real estate records to assess forest land parcelization and development: A Minnesota case study. Landsc. Urban Plan 2010, 94, 71–76, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.08.001.
[119]
Kilgore, M.A.; Snyder, S.A.; Block-Torgerson, K.; Taff, S.J. Challenges in characterizing a parcelized forest landscape: Why metric, scale, and threshold matter. Landsc. Urban Plan 2013, 110, 36–47, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.009.
[120]
Harris, T.; DeForest, C. Policy Implications of Timberland Loss, Fragmentation, and Urbanization in Georgia and the Southeast. In Proceedings of 1984 Southern Forest Economics Workshop, Memphis, TN, USA, 13–15 March 1984; Southern Forest Economics Workers (SOFEW), Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University: Mississippi State, MS, USA, 1984; pp. 70–83.
[121]
Shands, W.E. Problems and prospects at the urban-forest interface. J. For. 1991, 89, 23–26.
[122]
Wear, D.N.; Liu, R.; Foreman, J.M.; Sheffield, R.M. The effects of population growth on timber management and inventories in Virginia. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 118, 107–115, doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00491-5.
[123]
Harrison, S.; Herbohn, J.; Niskanen, A. Non-industrial, smallholder, small-scale and family forestry: What in a name? Small Scale For. 2002, 1, 1–14.
[124]
Rickenbach, M.G.; Gobster, P.H. Stakeholders’ perceptions of parcelization in Wisconsin’s Northwoods. J. For. 2003, 101, 18–23.
[125]
Robinson, D.T. Land-cover fragmentation and configuration of ownership parcels in an exurban Landscape. Urban. Ecosyst. 2012, 15, 53–69, doi:10.1007/s11252-011-0205-4.
Bradley, G.A. Land Use and Forest Resources in the Changing Environment: The Urban/Forest Interface; University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA, USA, 1984.
[128]
Macie, E.A.; Hermansen, L.A. Human Influences on Forest Ecosystems: The Southern Wildland.-Urban. Interface Assessment. General Technical Report SRS-55; USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2002.
[129]
Kline, J.D.; Azuma, D.L.; Alig, R.J. Population growth, urban expansion, and private forestry in Western Oregon. For. Sci. 2004, 50, 33–43.
[130]
Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T. Projected urban growth (2000–2050) and its estimated impact on the US forest resource. J. For. 2005, 103, 383–389.
[131]
Creighton, J.H.; Blatner, K.A.; Baumgartner, D.M. The Future of Washington State Family-Owned Forests in an Increasingly Fragmented Landscape. In Proceedings of Human Dimensions of FamilyFarmand Community Forestry International Symposium, Pullman, WA, USA, 29 March–1 April 2004. Extension MISC0526; Baumgartner, D.M., Ed.; Washington State University: Pullman, WA, USA, 2004; pp. 51–55.
[132]
Cleaves, D.A.; Bennett, M. Holding Size and Behavior of Nonindustrial Private Landowners: A Cautious Second Look. In Proceedings of Southern Forest Economics Workshop, Savannah, GA, USA, 27–29 March 1994; Southern Forest Economics Workers (SOFEW), Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University: Mississippi State, MS, USA,, 1995; pp. 196–209.
[133]
Mehmood, S.R.; Zhang, D. Forest parcelization in the United States: A study of contributing factors. J. For. 2001, 99, 30–34.
[134]
Bliss, J.C. Sustaining family forests in rural landscapes: Rationale, challenges and an illustration from Oregon, USA. Small Scale For. 2003, 2, 1–8.
[135]
Kittredge, D.B.; Mauri, M.J.; McGuire, E.J. Decreasing woodlot size and the future of timber sales in Massachusetts: When is an operation too small? North. J. Appl. For. 1996, 13, 96–101.
[136]
Zhang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Schelhas, J. Small-Scale Non-Industrial Private Forest Ownership in the United States: Rationale and Ownership Implications for Forest Management. In Proceedings of 2004 Southern Forest Economics Workshop, St. Augustine, FL, USA, 14–16 March 2004; Department of Forestry: Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA; pp. 178–192.
[137]
Moss, S.A.; Hedderick, D.B. An economic evaluation of small-scale timber harvesting operations in Western Maryland, USA. Small Scale For. 2012, 11, 101–117, doi:10.1007/s11842-011-9171-1.
[138]
Drzyzga, S.A.; Brown, D.G. Land Parcelization and Forest Cover Fragmentation in Three Forested Counties in Northern Lower Michigan. In Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters 1998 National Convention, SAF Publication SAF-99-01, Traverse City, MI, USA, 19–23 September 1998; Society of American Foresters: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1999; pp. 129–135.
[139]
Germain, R.H.; Brazill, K.; Stehman, S.V. Forestland parcelization in upstate New York despite economic stagnation and a declining population. North. J. Appl. For. 2006, 23, 280–287.
[140]
Donnelly, S.; Evans, T.P. Characterizing spatial patterns of land ownership at the parcel level in South-Central Indiana, 1928–1997. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2008, 84, 230–240, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.08.004.
[141]
Kittredge, D.B.; D’Amato, A.W.; Catanzaro, P.; Fish, J.; Butler, B. Estimating ownership and parcels of nonindustrial private forestland in Massachusetts. North. J. Appl. For. 2008, 25, 93–98.
[142]
Pan, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Majumdar, I. Population, economic welfare and holding size distribution of private forestland in Alabama. Silva. Fenn. 2009, 43, 161–171.
[143]
Yoho, J.G. Needed: An Economic Definition of the Small Forest Ownership Problem. In Proceedings Association of Southern Agricultural Workers 56th Annual Convention, Memphis, TN, USA, 2–4 February 1959; Association of Southern Agricultural Workers: Clemson, SC, USA, 1959; pp. 135–136.
