Caring for Our Natural Assets

An Ecosystem Services Perspective

Sally Collins and Elizabeth Larry

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

October 2007

Excerpt from PNW-GTR-733
www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices

Cover photo: Holy Cross Wilderness Area, Colorado - Erin Leonard

Cover inset photos:

USDA Photography

Vick Applegate

Custom Fields

Charlie Rahm

Sally Collins is Associate Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Elizabeth Larry is an ecosystem services specialist, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC.



The City of Los Angeles was one of the first cities in the United 

States to address air quality concerns. Pressured by citizens to 

recognize the harmful health effects of smog, the city formed the 

Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District in 1947 and began a 

public campaign to control industrial emissions. In 1959, the State 

of California became the first state to establish air quality standards 

for public health (California Air Resources Board 2007). At the same 

time, California state legislators were refining pesticide regulations in 

response to an increased use of pesticides and a growing awareness 

of their toxicity. Just a few years later Rachel Carson completed her 

landmark text Silent Spring, exposing the environmental and human 

health risks of pesticides. 

For many, the publication of Silent Spring marked the beginning 

of America’s modern environmental movement, leading to the first 

Earth Day in 1970 and a series of federal regulations for environmental protection. Carson’s compelling case successfully captured 

the attention of the American public. She instilled a broad awareness of human life as part of the natural environment, portraying 

both as interconnected and equally vulnerable to the side-effects 

of technological progress. 

Today we are witnessing the stirrings of a new environmental 

movement related to human health and the environment. Climate 

change is the focus. The potential impacts of rising temperatures 

and sea levels around the world are stimulating public discourse 

and political action on a global scale; the energy around the issue 

reminds us of the urgency generated by Silent Spring and the 

environmental spirit that continued to shape the movement of the 

1970s. Today forests are part of the conversation. Forests are a 

key player in climate regulation, but more notably, forests have 

become a symbol of popular environmentalism and sustainability, 

their image displayed in part on any “green” corporate strategy or 

“environmentally friendly” product. 

The climate change issue will continue to mobilize forest awareness and conservation efforts across the globe. As 

society begins to internalize the costs of unsustainable development into the future, natural resource managers have a 

story to tell–a story about managing and investing in forests 

for the continued supply and delivery of ecosystem services.

Indeed, forests as healthy, functioning ecosystems support life and 

human welfare, providing important services in addition to storing 

carbon, such as water purification, erosion control, natural hazard 

regulation, and spiritual and cultural fulfillment.1 

It is this critical relationship between forests and people that 

can lead natural resource managers to a conservation approach or 

perspective that is inherently tied to the dynamic needs of society. 

An ecosystem services perspective involves measuring the flow 

of ecosystem services across a landscape and connecting these 

services to the people who benefit. The approach is forward looking, 

as conservation and restoration objectives focus on the ability of 

ecosystems to adapt to change and to continue to supply benefits. 

It helps forest management remain relevant in a time of growing 

concern about environmental change; forest management that considers water quality, carbon sequestration, ecotourism, bioenergy, 

and other benefits engages and serves a broad public. Finally, an 

ecosystem services perspective involves the private sector in finding 

ways to value and conserve ecosystems. The emergence of markets for new environmental assets, for example, presents financial 

opportunities for working forests that extend beyond traditional 

forest products. Market-based approaches to conservation have 

the potential to provide landowners with additional incentives to 

manage and continue owning forest land.

1

 Ecosystem services are commonly defined as the benefits people obtain from 

ecosystems. A review of the definition and its history is offered by the Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment (2003) and Mooney and Ehrlich (1997). 


Ecosystem Change and the Loss of 

Services

For the City of Los Angeles and for Rachel Carson, the sources 

and impacts of smog and pesticides seemed clear and the solutions 

straightforward: regulated behavior would ameliorate human health 

effects. Today we are aware of a much more complicated picture of 

ecosystem change, a global network of interrelated drivers peppered 

with uncertainty (fig. 1). 

Climate scientists agree that human activities have led to elevated 

atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 

gases that cause global warming, and observed concentrations are 

projected to increase (IPCC 2007b). Why such concern? Climate 

change can intensify the risk of abrupt ecosystem change for terrestrial and marine systems, affecting ecosystem structure, function, 

and productivity. Such change will substantially impact freshwater 

resources, food supplies, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services 

at significant social and economic cost (IPCC 2007a, MA 2005, 

Stern 2006). 

Regional climate changes and climate variations over the past 

century have already had a measurable impact on 

our natural systems, including changes in hydrology, 

species distribution and range, population sizes, the 

timing of life cycle events, and, especially in forest 

systems, an increase in the frequency of fire as 

well as pest and disease outbreaks (Brown et al. 

2004; IPCC 2007a; Logan and Powell, in press; 

MA 2005). Globalization and associated changes 

in trade patterns have contributed to some of these 

trends, particularly through the spread of invasive 

species, as have past land management practices, 

which have contributed to forest health problems 

related to fire and fuels.

Land use change is an immediate issue throughout the United States, which is experiencing a loss 

of privately owned forest land owing to conversion to 

developed uses. Over 11 percent–approximately 44.2 

million acres (17.9 million hectares)–of the Nation’s 

private forests are likely to see dramatic increases 

in housing development by 2030 (Stein et al. 2005). 

This projection doesn’t take into account the already 

fragmented woodlots in and around urban areas that 

are subject to local development pressures as cities expand. Indeed, 

urban land in the contiguous United States is expected to nearly 

triple over the next several decades, an increase in area larger than 

the state of Montana (Nowak and Walton 2005). Housing growth is 

also a key concern across the rural landscape, where rural sprawl 

or exurban development affects a much larger area, amplifying 

environmental impacts (Radeloff et al. 2005) (fig. 2). Expanding 

urbanization and rural sprawl affect the Nation’s private forests, 

which compose nearly three-fifths of all forest land, as well as 

public lands and public land management. Forest-land conversion 

is a conservation challenge across a mixed-ownership landscape, 

impacting water quality, wildlife diversity, forest health, recreational 

access, and the many other benefits of open space.

The trends are complicated by their interaction at multiple temporal and spatial scales: changes in climate can affect land cover and 

use, for example, and changes in land cover and use will, in turn, 

affect climate variability (Loveland et al. 2003). It is clear, however, 

that, together and individually, these drivers of ecosystem change 

directly affect the supply and delivery of ecosystem services to the 

United States population and the international community. When 

forest land is developed or degraded we lose a range of goods and 

services provided, further increasing pressures on preserved areas 

to deliver the benefits lost.

Figure 1—A conceptual framework of interactions between biodiversity, ecosystem services, 

human well-being, and drivers of change (MA 2005), modified by Carpenter et al. (2006) to 

illustrate connections among local, regional, and global scales.


Figure 2–Housing density in the contiguous United 

States in 1940 and 2000, and housing density 

projection for 2030. Projection assumes that 

housing growth rates observed during the 1990s 

will continue without change. Units of analysis are 

partial block groups, a subcounty, custom division 

of the Census Bureau’s block groups developed for 

this research. Provided by the U.S. Forest Service 

Northern Research Station and the University of 

Wisconsin-Madison.

Contact: Susan Stewart sistewart@fs.fed.us


An Ecosystem Services Perspective

As population, income, and consumption levels increase, humans put more and more pressure on the natural environment. In 

2005, the United Nations commissioned a study of the extent to 

which human activities have altered ecosystems around the globe. 

Known as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), the study 

catalogued and evaluated the status of a range of ecosystem services 

(fig. 3). The MA framework includes the most basic services from 

nature—provisioning services like the delivery of food, fresh water, 

wood and fiber, and medicine—and services that are less tangible 

and harder to measure but equally as critical, such as regulating, 

supporting, and cultural services. The MA scientists found that 

60 percent of the world’s ecosystem services are currently being 

degraded or used unsustainably; 70 percent of the regulating and 

cultural services evaluated in the assessment are in decline. The 

assessment predicts that the degradation of ecosystem services 

might significantly worsen during the first half of this century, 

substantially affecting human well-being.

The MA framework (2003) provides a new lens through which 

to check the state of the environment, one that rests on “human 

livelihoods, health, and local and national economies” (p. 49). The 

findings raise important questions for natural resource managers: 

Are we adequately conserving the world’s ecosystems? How 

can we keep pace with the growing pressures of human 

populations? How can forest management secure ecosystem 

services into the future? We have moved into a new century with 

a set of conservation challenges that together seem unprecedented. 

We need to enhance our ecosystem management approach accordingly, with a new logic and a fresh, forward-looking perspective that 

can meet these challenges. 

Interpretations of ecosystem management evolved throughout the 

early to mid-1990s in response to a continuing loss of biodiversity 

(Grumbine 1994). For national forest managers, ecosystem management emerged as a new approach to multiple-use, sustainedyield management that incorporated the public’s changing desires 

and needs. Resting on the concept of sustainability, ecosystem 

management is described as the optimum integration of human 

needs and requirements, the ecological potential of a landscape, 

and economic and technical considerations (Jensen and Everett 

1994, Zonneveld 1988). The main principle, then, is to sustain the 

integrity of ecosystems (i.e., ecosystem functions, composition, and 

structure) for future generations while providing immediate goods 

and services to an increasingly diverse public (Jensen and Everett 

1994, Overbay 1992).

Figure 3—Ecosystem services classified by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). The assessment evaluated 

the global status of provisioning, regulating, and cultural services.


Grumbine (1994: 34) argued that ecosystem management is 

an early stage in a fundamental reframing of the role of humans 

in nature. How, then, does an ecosystem services perspective advance this thinking? An ecosystem services perspective encourages 

natural resource managers to extend the classification of “multiple 

uses” to include a broader array of services or values; managing for 

water, wildlife, timber, and recreation addresses the need to sustain 

“provisioning” services, but land managers are also stewards of 

regulating, cultural, and supporting services, all of which are critical 

to human health and well-being.

An ecosystem services perspective encourages natural 

resource managers to consider the following:

Managing natural capital 

Ecosystem services make up our natural life support system 

and are a form of natural capital. Like financial capital, manufactured capital, and human capital, natural capital is a requisite for 

economic progress and human welfare (Hawken et al. 1999). Yet 

natural capital is usually absent from government or corporate 

balance sheets; in some cases, it can take the form of a liability. 

An ecosystem services perspective leads natural resource managers to regard landscapes as natural capital and to account for the 

assets they are managing. Accounting for natural assets requires 

measuring the stocks and flows of ecosystem services (and their 

indicators or appropriate surrogates) and making sure the people 

who rely on these assets know their value and the cost of losing 

them. Information relating to the status, trends, and, to the extent 

possible, the economic worth of ecosystem services can better 

inform policymakers and the public. Understanding the extent to 

which a forested landscape purifies the air or moderates coastal 

flooding, for example, can lend priority to regional investments in 

land management and conservation. 

Urban forestry specialists have pioneered this ecosystem services 

approach. In urban forestry research, management, and communications, trees are regarded as natural assets that contribute to energy 

savings, better air and water quality, reduced stormwater runoff, 

local climate moderation, increased property values–even reductions 

in city crime and personal stress. Empowered by this information, 

municipalities across the country are setting tree canopy goals and 

investing in tree planting efforts to enhance public benefits. 

Connecting ecosystem services to the people who benefit

Ecosystem management accommodates human values and 

uses, but management goals are structured around the protection of 

ecosystems. Common themes include maintaining viable populations 

of native species, representing native ecosystem types across their 

natural range of variation, and maintaining the evolutionary potential 

of species and ecosystems (Grumbine 1994). From an ecosystem 

services perspective, by contrast, management objectives are motivated by the supply and delivery of ecosystem services. Ecosystem 

functions are associated with a set of life-supporting services valued 

by humans, and management activities are designed to maintain or 

enhance these services. Measures of ecosystem health, then, extend 

beyond forest condition to incorporate the ability of an ecosystem 

to deliver services to a changing population. 

In practice, managers first identify the ecosystem services 

provided by a landscape, then assess human use and dependency 

on these services at local, regional, and global scales (Heal et al. 

2001). Key management questions driving this process are: Who 

benefits from these services? Have they identified themselves 

as stakeholders? Are they aware of the value of these services? 

Are there services at risk or in decline? How can we prevent their 

degradation? What are the management tradeoffs? Answering 

these questions across a landscape engages a broader set of 

disciplines, stakeholders, and decisionmakers. 

Anticipating future change

Forest management traditionally assumes an historical perspective. Forestry models are based on former conditions and 

assumptions, and although management objectives address a 

desired future condition, they are often driven by past realities. The 

emergence of ecosystem management reflected a growing awareness of landscapes, dynamic processes, multiple objectives, and 

adaptive response. But the tendency to mimic historical processes 

and patterns remains, and management goals for healthy, functioning forests rarely incorporate change. An ecosystem services 

perspective leads managers to focus on a future landscape in 

recognition that human needs are increasing, historical patterns are 

being disrupted, and natural processes are challenged by climate 

change. Conservation aims shift to address the ability of forested 

landscapes to adapt to change and continue to provide ecosystem 

services. Within this context a “restored” ecosystem might not mirror 

the original landscape, but it will be a healthy, productive system 

capable of meeting societal needs for a broad array of ecosystem 

services (MA 2005). 

Managing for an uncertain future is a difficult task. Resource 

managers and decisionmakers who take ecosystem services into 

account must rely on scenario building, assessments of risk and 

ecological tradeoffs, economic valuation, and other methods of 

managing uncertainty (Carpenter et al. 2006, Heal et al. 2001, 


MA 2005). An ecosystem services approach underscores the 

importance of assessing alternative management strategies and 

takes demographic, economic, sociopolitical, and cultural factors 

into account, in addition to direct drivers of ecosystem change 

(Carpenter et al. 2006). 

Embracing a new language

Natural resource managers now have a new language to describe 

the benefits of forest management–a language that helps them connect a changing population to the land and the services it provides. 

Too often resource specialists rely on the technical language of their 

profession to describe their work. Technical language enhances 

professional credibility and enables research and application, but 

it can also be highly exclusive. An ecosystem services perspective 

moves land managers to frame a purpose that reflects a broader set 

of values, with greater potential to resonate with the public. It helps 

build bridges of understanding between different interest groups. 

Investing in Natural Capital: MarketBased Approaches to Conservation

The ecosystem services framework developed as part of the 

MA is effective. It explains the full extent to which people depend 

on healthy ecosystems—and how much they take for granted. 

Whereas provisioning services are valued by society–they are, for the 

most part, measured, counted, and fiscally inventoried–the rest are 

typically absent from conventional accounting. By default, regulating, supporting, and cultural services are public goods or common 

resources, in most cases considered free and limitless. 

Without market data or evaluation in monetary terms, the contribution of these services is often misrepresented or ignored in policy 

formulation and decisionmaking. Measures of economic progress and 

wealth do not take natural assets into account, let alone the costs of 

environmental degradation. A devastating oil spill, for example, will 

increase a Nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) because each of 

the monetary transactions involved in its cleanup equate to positive 

economic growth. Similarly, an increase in a developing country’s 

agricultural exports may register as a growth in GDP, but social costs 

associated with the local loss of these goods are not weighed, nor 

is the decline in regulating and cultural services caused by the land 

conversion required to increase production.

Economists have long studied how to assign monetary value 

to public goods in an effort to account for environmental externalities. Economic approaches to valuing the environment form 

the backbone of any natural resource economics text-book. But 

nature is priceless, some say; how can we capture its full value? 

Nature is priceless indeed; but unless a monetary value can be 

assigned, the importance of flood regulation, the role of nutrient 

cycling, or the restorative power of a scenic vista might be lost. 

Without investments in natural capital, life support systems are at 

risk. Nowhere is this clearer than on private lands, which account 

for almost 60 percent of the Nation’s forests and are critical to the 

supply of ecosystem services. Because ecosystem services aren’t 

valued financially, private forest landowners lack many incentives 

and resources to consider them in land use decisions (Kline et al. 

2004). The result can be poor forest management, or forest-land 

conversion to developed uses. 

The solution is not simple or clear, nor is it immediate. To help 

slow the loss and degradation of ecosystem services, economic and 

financial motivations need to incorporate a conservation objective. 

New technologies and new business models are needed to help 

integrate environmental goals into decisionmaking. Economic norms 

and accounting measures must be broadened. A necessary step is 

to align individual incentives with the collective interest. 

In response to these needs, market-based conservation attempts 

to capture the value of natural capital and make land stewardship 

profitable. Markets for ecosystem services connect natural assets 

to beneficiaries who are willing to pay for their stewardship. In many 

cases, investments in ecosystem protection are more cost-effective 

alternatives to building new, or improving existing infrastructure 

designed to meet the same societal goals. 

The carbon market is one example of associating a monetary 

value with nature’s services. Other ecosystem service markets for 

wetlands, water quality, endangered species habitat, ecotourism, and 

bioenergy are also evolving–and with them, a chance to supplement 

traditional forest revenues and promote sustainable management, 

especially when used together with other conservation tools.

Although traditional conservation approaches have brought us far 

in safeguarding landscapes and biodiversity, we need to look beyond 

our own circle to find new tools, stakeholders, and environmental 

leaders. An ecosystem services perspective encourages us to be 

creative and entrepreneurial in bringing people together to design 

effective solutions. 

There is no better time. Growing concern about climate change 

is inspiring a renewed public awareness of nature and its connection 


Forest Service Snapshot

Ten things the U.S. Forest Service can do in the spirit of ecosystem services. Adapted from Associate Chief Collins’ 

opening remarks at the National Silviculture Workshop in Ketchikan, Alaska (May 7, 2007)

1. Bring certainty to the ecosystem marketplace. Uniform standards, established baselines, risk mitigation, and early 

demonstration can accelerate and lend credibility to emerging ecosystem service markets. Our effort to help shape 

the 2007 Farm Bill to facilitate market-based conservation is one step in this direction.

2. Provide the most reliable and trusted information on forests for all audiences. We are helping to reconnect children 

to nature through education and involvement; at the same time we’re informing policymakers of the positive role that 

forestry can play in a climate change strategy.

3. Experiment and learn on the national forests. National forest land serves as a natural laboratory for testing ideas. 

Demonstration projects can serve as a resource as we help private landowners benefit from market-based conservation.

4. Become market savvy. New markets for ecosystem services require an understanding of how natural assets can 

be enhanced through forest management. We also need to know how the demand side works–how we can attract 

investments in conservation and connect conservation buyers to land stewards.

5. Reduce our environmental footprint and be the environmental leader we expect others to be.

6. Lead in research that can answer critical questions about climate change and about carbon sequestration and 

other ecosystem services. 

7. Refresh our language. Much of our vocabulary came from the production forestry era; our words often reinforce 

practices and a mindset that might need to evolve.

8. Rethink forest plans—what goes into them and how we consider them. Do we need to build climate change 

scenarios? How can we incorporate a management approach that sustains the flow of ecosystem services across the 

landscape?

9. Resist the impulse to jump on the ecosystem services “bandwagon” without some thinking–and resist the impulse 

to dismiss the ecosystem services concept as the latest in a series of attempts to redefine forestry. At the very least, 

we can appreciate the dialogue that the concept is stimulating.

10. Learn as much as we can. Read, share, and connect with the issues in forestry today, and consider how they 

relate to the agency’s mission and each of our own individual programs. Learning is a key part of our work–and we 

have important work to do.




to human health, an awareness characterized in part by business 

action and involvement. Companies are beginning to recognize the 

link between environmental health and their business interests; in 

some cases, it is their shareholders or customers who seek a corporate environmental pledge. Markets for ecosystem services have 

the potential to seize the enthusiasm, catalyze private investments, 

and organize community leadership around a shared conservation 

objective. 

Conclusion

Natural resource managers have long recognized the fundamental link between nature and society. As early as 1864, George Perkins 

Marsh explored the causal effects of human-induced deforestation 

on regional climate in his seminal work, Man and Nature. But we 

haven’t always articulated the returns from investing in nature’s 

services, or the cost of losing them. We haven’t explicitly served as 

natural asset managers. As populations develop and prosper, the 

full weight of human impact on Earth’s resources becomes more 

apparent, as does the importance of managing and accounting for 

these resources as natural capital that supports human well-being. 

Connecting ecosystem services with the people who benefit can 

help us manage our resources more effectively and prevent their 

decline. 

Public interest in the state of the world’s resources is on the 

rise, and the emergence of an ecosystem services perspective could 

not be timelier. We have new tools for valuing ecosystems, a new 

language to help us impart the benefits of forest management and 

conservation, and, most importantly, a restored purpose for serving 

as nature’s stewards. 

References

Brown, T.J.; Hall, B.L.; Westerling, A.L. 2004. The impact of 

twenty-first century climate change on wildland fire danger 

in the Western United States: an applications perspective. 

Climatic Change. 62(1): 365-388.

California Air Resources Board. 2007. California’s air quality 

history key events. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/

history.htm. (April 23, 2007).

Carpenter, S.R.; DeFries, R.; Dietz, T. [et al.]. 2006. 

Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science. 

314: 257-258. 

Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin 

Company. 368 p. 

Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? 

Conservation Biology. 8(1): 27-38.

Hawken, P.; Lovins A.; Lovins, L.H. 1999. Natural capitalism: 

creating the next industrial revolution. New York: Little, Brown 

and Company. 396 p. 

Heal, G.; Daily G.C.; Ehrlich, P.R. [et al.]. 2001. Protecting 

natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanford 

Environmental Law Journal. 20: 333-364. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 

2007a. Climate change 2007: climate change impacts, 

adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group 

II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change: summary for policymakers. Geneva, 

Switzerland: IPCC Secretariat. 22 p. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 

2007b. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 

summary for policymakers. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC 

Secretariat. 18 p. 

Jensen, M.E.; Everett, R. 1994. An overview of ecosystem 

management principles. In: Jensen, M.E., Bourgeron, P.S., 

tech. eds. Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles 

and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 376 p. 
10

Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J.; Garber-Yonts, B. 2004. Forestland 

social values and open space preservation. Journal of 

Forestry. 102(8): 39-45. 

Logan, J.A.; Powell, J.A. [In press]. Ecological consequences 

of climate change altered forest insect disturbance regimes. 

In: Wagner, F.H., ed. Climate change in western North 

America: evidence and environmental effects. Salt Lake City, 

UT: Utah University Press

Loveland, T.; Gutman, G.; Buford, M. [et al.]. 2003. Land 

use and land cover change. In: The U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program: vision for the program and highlights of the 

scientific strategic plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/

stratplan2003/final/ccspstratplan2003-chap6.htm. (August 

22, 2007).

Marsh, J.P. 1864 [reprinted 2003]. Man and nature: 

or, physical geography as modified by human action. 

Lowenenthal, D., ed. Weyerhauser Environmental Classics 

Series. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. 

472 p. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MA]. 2003. 

Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for 

assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 212 p. http://

www.millenniumassessment.org. (August 22, 2007).

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MA]. 2005. 

Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 137 p. http://www.millenniumassessment.

org. (August 22, 2007).

Mooney, H.A.; Ehrlich, P.R. 1997. Ecosystem services: a 

fragmentary history. In: Daily, G.C., ed. Nature’s services: 

societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: 

Island Press. 392 p. 

Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T. 2005. Projected urban growth 

(2000-2050) and its estimated impact on the US forest 

resource. Journal of Forestry. 103(8): 377-382.

Overbay, J.C. 1992. Ecosystem management. In: Proceedings 

of the national workshop: taking an ecological approach 

to management. WO-WSA-3. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Watershed and Air 

Management: 3-15. 

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I. 2005. Rural and 

suburban sprawl in the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000 

and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conservation Biology. 

19(3): 793-805.

Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Alig, R.J. [et al.]. 2005. 

Forests on the edge: housing development on America’s 

private forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-636. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 16 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/

projects/fote/. (August 22, 2007).

Stern, N. 2006. The economics of climate change: the Stern 

review. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 712 p. 

Zonneveld, I.S. 1988. Basic principles of land evaluation 

using vegetation and other land attributes. In: Kuchler 

A.W.; Zonneveld, I.S., eds. Vegetation mapping. Dordrecht, 

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 499-517.
Acknowledgements

We thank those who reviewed this paper and provided comments, including U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service Employees Hutch Brown, Josh Trapani, and Denise Ingram, policy analysts; Linda Langner, National 

Program Leader for the Renewable Resources Planning Act Assessment; Ariel Lugo, Director of the International 

Institute of Tropical Forestry; Trey Schillie, ecosystem services specialist; Charly Studyvin, forest silviculturist, 

Mark Twain National Forest; Katherine Prussian, hydrologist, Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest; 

and Michael Landram, Silviculture Group Leader, Pacific Southwest Region. We also thank Susan Stewart, social 

research scientist at the Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, for working with us to provide historical 

and projected housing density figures. 

Excerpt from PNW-GTR-733 Integrated Restoration of Forested Ecosystems to Achieve Multi-Resource

Benefits: Proceedings of the 2007 National Silviculture Workshop.

May 7-11, 2007 Ketchikan, Alaska

Robert L. Deal, Technical Editor