United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-815

August 2010

Area Changes in U.S. 

Forests and Other Major 

Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, 

With Projections to 2062

Ralph J. Alig, Andrew J. Plantinga, David Haim, and Maribeth Todd 

FOREST

PASTURE

URBAN

RANGE CROP

RESERVE
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

ii

Authors 

Ralph J. Alig is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW 

Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Andrew J. Plantinga is a professor, David 

Haim is a research assistant, and Maribeth Todd was a research assistant at Oregon 

State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Corvallis, 

OR 97331. 

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national 

grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to 

a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

iii

Abstract

Alig, Ralph J.; Plantinga, Andrew J.; Haim, David; Todd, Maribeth. 2010. Area 

changes in U.S. forests and other major land uses, 1982 to 2002, with projections 

to 2062. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-815. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 98 p.

This study updates an earlier assessment of the past, current, and prospective situation for the Nation’s land base. We describe area changes among major land uses 

on the U.S. land base for historical trends from 1982 to 2002 and projections out to 

2062. Historically, 11 million acres of forest, cropland, and open space were converted to urban and other developed uses from 1992 to 1997 on nonfederal land in 

the contiguous United States. The national rate of urbanization increased notably 

compared to the 1982-92 period. The largest percentage increase was in urban use, 

which grew by 10 percent or 7.3 million acres between 1997 and 2001. Forest land 

was the largest source of land converted to developed uses such as urbanization. 

Urban and other developed areas are projected to continue to grow substantially, in 

line with a projected U.S. population increase of more than 120 million people over 

the next 50 years, with population growth the fastest in the West and South. Projected increases in population and income will, in turn, increase demands for use 

of land for residential, urban, transportation, and related uses. Area of nonfederal 

forest-land cover in the United States is projected to decline over the next halfcentury, with a 7-percent reduction by 2062. Projected increases in urban and 

developed uses will likely intensify competition for remaining land between the 

agricultural and forestry sectors. Reversions to forest land have generally been from 

grassland used as pasture. All three major land use classes—cropland, forest land, 

and grassland—have lost area to urbanization, and that trend is projected to 

continue. 

Keywords: Forest area, forest-land area, land-use shifts. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

iv

Summary: Land Base Assessment

The projection envisions a 7-percent reduction in nonfederal forest area in the 

contiguous 48 states by 2062, although projections differ by region. The reduction 

is primarily due to projected conversion of forest area to urban and developed uses. 

Urban and other developed areas are projected to continue to grow substantially, in 

line with a projected U.S. population increase of more than 120 million people over 

the next 50 years, with population growth the fastest in the West and South. 

Historical Area Trends for Major Land Uses 

•	 Of the 2.264 billion acres of land in the United States, 33 percent (751 million 

acres) is forest land and 67 percent (1,513 million acres) is nonforest land. 

Forest land is concentrated in the Pacific Coast, North, and South regions.

•	 The total area of nonfederal forested land remained relatively constant over the 

10-year period from 1982 to 1992. Forest area then increased slightly from 

1992 to 2002, from 403.1 million acres to 405.4 million acres. The largest gain 

in forest came from conversions of pasture to forest land.

•	 Area of urban and developed uses in the United States expanded by more than 

1 million acres annually since 1982, as population and personal incomes 

increased significantly. 

Projected Area Changes for Major Land Uses 

•	 After a slight gain from 1982 to 2002, nonfederal forest area at the national 

level is projected to steadily decline from 2002 to 2062, from 405.4 million 

acres in 2002 to 375.3 million acres in 2062. 

•	 The largest loss of forest will be due to urban development, leading to the 

conversion of 49.7 million acres of forest to urban use by 2062. 

•	 Across rural land uses, a net gain in forest land is expected from conversions 

of pasture to forest, which will offset some of the forest area lost to urban 

development. Between 2002 and 2062, 59.3 million acres of pasture is projected 

to be forested, and 32.2 million acres of forest is projected to be converted to 

pasture, leading to a net gain of 27.1 million acres of forest. 

Regional Changes 

•	 Although overall forest area is projected to decrease, areas of increasing forest 

cover are projected for parts of the Pacific Coast, North, and South regions, 

indicating that in addition to an overall loss of forest, there will also be a 

redistribution of forested land in these regions.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

v

•	 Considerable losses of forest can be seen along the Pacific Coast in Washington, 

Oregon, and northern California. 

•	 For the Rocky Mountains region, the area of forest land in each county will 

remain fairly constant, in the range of decreasing by 4 percent to increasing by 

5 percent. Some areas will see more extreme changes. 

•	 Americans continue to move to the South and Pacific Coast, with cities such 

as Atlanta growing much faster than the national average. Growth in some 

metropolitan areas has led to increasing population densities in counties 

surrounding central cores. The top 20 percent of fastest growing U.S. counties 

are primarily in the South. The South is expected to grow by 61.0 million 

people by 2060. Additional development in coastal areas is substantial, leading 

to large increases in asset values along coastlines.

•	 Total forest area in the Pacific Northwest declined from 1982 to 2002, from 

40.3 million acres to 39.4 million acres. Between 1982 and 1997, a significant 

amount of land moved into forest use from other uses, particularly pasture and 

range. However, from 1992 to 1997, forest land transitions were dominated 

by losses to urban and range uses, and this trend is expected to continue in the 

future. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

vi

Contents

	 1	 Introduction

	 3	 National Overview

	 4	 Land-Use Situation

6	 Area Changes for Major Land Uses

13	 Land-Use Projections

29 North Region

	30	 Land-Use Situation

31	 Land-Use Area Changes

37	 South Region

	37	 Land-Use Situation

41	 Land-Use Area Changes

47	 Rocky Mountains Region

	47	 Land-Use Situation

49	 Land-Use Area Changes

55	 Pacific Coast Region

	55	 Land-Use Situation

56	 Land-Use Area Changes

63	 Summary and Discussion

	63	 Trends in Population and Personal Income

65	 Forest Ownership Changes

66	 Land-Use Policies

69	 Climate Change: Impacts on Forests, Adaptation, and Mitigation

73	 Acknowledgments

	74	 Metric Equivalents

	74	 References

	85	 Appendix

	85	 Regional Econometric Models

90	 Incorporating 2003 NRI Data

92	 Range Land in the Lake States and Northeast Regions

93	 Other Land-Use Data Issues

95	 Glossary
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

1

Introduction

We project changes in forest area and provide regional and national-level 

summaries. Changes in forest area can alter the goods and services derived from 

forests and can affect sustainable management options. Interest in sustainable 

management of the world’s forest resources was heightened by the United Nations 

Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 (USDA FS 2001). Various 

countries have joined together to discuss and attempt to reach consensus on ways 

to evaluate progress toward the management of their forest ecosystems within 

a sustainability context. The United States participates in the Montreal Process, 

designed to use a set of criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable 

management of temperate and boreal forests. More recently, concerns over global 

climate change have complicated assessing and evaluating a country’s progress 

toward sustainability at the national level. 

The complex dependence of humankind on ecosystem services generated by 

forest ecosystems includes a wide range of economic and ecological phenomena. 

Individually, these systems are quite complex. Integrating effects between these 

systems adds additional complexity. Considerable uncertainty also exists about 

projections of the future, particularly projections that look forward 50 years. Past 

land base assessments have typically focused on one “business as usual” future, 

although there have been variations of the “business as usual” future in analyzing 

additional scenarios. For example, varying assumptions about future population 

have been used to create high/medium/low trajectories of supply and demand. Now 

with the growing interest in markets for carbon as an ecosystem service, we are able 

to compare our results to those of other studies that explicitly include carbon price 

scenarios (e.g., Alig et al. 2010). 

This land base assessment updates earlier ones in providing information about 

the current forest area situation and prospective changes over the next 50 years. 

Within rapidly changing social and biophysical environments, such information can 

help shape perceptions about whether we can sustain both increasing consumption 

of forest products and forest resource conditions (Alig and Haynes 2002). Related 

data illustrate the dynamics of our Nation’s land base, and how adjustments are 

likely to continue in the future. The projections of land use changes can also provide inputs into a larger system of models that project forest resource conditions 

and harvests, wildlife habitat, and other natural resource conditions (e.g., USDA

FS 2001). Current debates about sustainability and concerns about climate change 

involve both physical notions of sustainability and competing socioeconomic goals 

for public and private land management. The fixed land base necessitates viewing 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

2

Figure 1—Resources Planning Act regions and subregions.

“sustainability” across the entire land base and across sectors, in contrast to the 

current typical sector approach, as in examining “sustainable forest management” 

(Alig and Haynes 2002). 

Land-use projections in this study update those reported by Alig and Plantinga 

(2004). Methods and data sources used in projecting area changes are described in 

the appendix. In general, since around 1980, land-use projections have moved from 

reliance on expert opinions (e.g., Wall 1981) to systematic models, as described in 

the appendix. 

We discuss the land-use situation and give projections of land-use changes for 

the four Resources Planning Act (RPA) regions of the United States used by Alig 

and Plantinga (2004): North, South, Rocky Mountains, and Pacific Coast (fig. 1). 

Land-use changes were modeled for the 11 subregions shown in figure 1, and the 

results are aggregated to the four regions presented in this report. For each RPA 

region, we present historical changes in land uses depicted by USDA’s National 

Resources Inventory (NRI). The NRI provides estimates of transitions among major 

land uses, including agriculture, forestry, and developed uses. We report projections 

of land-use changes for the nonfederal land base. We conclude with a discussion of 

other key driver variables such as land use and carbon sequestration policies and 

technology that may lead to futures different than those projected in this study. 
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

3

National Overview

Of the 2.264 billion acres of land in the United States, 33 percent (751 million 

acres) is forest land (see glossary) and 67 percent (1,513 million acres) is nonforest 

land (Smith et al. 2007). Forests are found in significant amounts in every region 

of the Nation. They range from sparse scrub forests of the arid, interior West to 

the highly productive forests of the Pacific Coast and the South, and from pure 

hardwood forests to multispecies mixtures and coniferous forests. About twothirds (514 million acres) of the Nation’s forests are classed as timberland (fig. 2), 

productive forests capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood 

annually and not legally reserved from timber harvest. An additional 75 million 

Figure 2—Timberland is a subset of forest land, that portion that meets a productivity threshold 

and is available for timber management.

Emily Jederlinch
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

4

acres of forest, reserved for nontimber uses, is managed by public agencies as 

parks or wilderness areas. The remaining 162 million acres of forest land that is not 

timberland is not capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood 

annually. However, such areas are of major importance for watershed protection, 

wildlife habitat, domestic livestock grazing, and other uses and services. More than 

90 percent of the “other” forests are in the West, with more than half in Alaska. 

Although these other forest lands currently produce little industrial roundwood, they 

do produce other wood and tree products, which are often important for local use. 

Fuelwood is a primary use in many areas having nontimberland forests, such as the 

pinyon-juniper forests of the southwestern portion of the country.

Land-Use Situation

The land base for this study is defined as all nonfederal land in the contiguous 48 

states, a total of 1.4 billion acres. Although Alaska is home to a significant amount 

of forested land, NRI transitions data are not available for the state, so Alaska has 

been omitted from this analysis. The NRI is a longitudinal survey of land use, with 

the first estimates for 1982 as described in the appendix. 

Figure 3 depicts the allocation of nonfederal land base into six major land-use 

categories. The vast majority (92 percent) of land is in rural uses, including forests, 

crops, pasture, and range. More than 90 percent of land-use changes on nonfederal 

lands in recent decades have been among these four rural land uses (USDA NRCS 

2001). Where climate and physiography permit, these rural uses can compete for 

the same land. Market forces often result in shifts in the use of rural lands between 

agricultural production and forest production. Increasingly, global markets are 

Figure 3—Allocation of U.S. nonfederal land to six major use categories, 

2002. CRP = Conservation Reservice Program.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

5

also affected by technological improvements, and since World War II, increases in 

cropland yields per acre have been larger in general than corresponding changes in 

forestry yields. Although this has resulted in increased use of land for agriculture 

in some areas, increases in aggregate agricultural yields and downward pressure on 

agricultural market prices decreased pressure to convert forest land. 

The distribution of nonfederal land between uses differs considerably among the 

four RPA regions (fig. 4). For example, the North, South, and Pacific Coast regions 

have between 37 and 41 percent forest land, but the Rocky Mountains region has 

only 6 percent. Percentage of cropland ranges from 17 percent in the South region 

to 38 percent in the North region. The North region holds the largest share of cropland of the four regions in this study, and the South region is home to the largest 

area of nonfederal forest land in the country. The Rocky Mountains region is largely 

range and cropland and also has the largest area of land enrolled in the Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP). The Pacific Coast region is by far the smallest of the four 

Figure 4—Allocation of nonfederal land by major use by region for the United States, 2002. 

CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

6

regions. As of 2002 (base year from NRI data, as described in the appendix), nonfederal land in the Pacific Coast region was primarily range and forest land. Each of 

these regions will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters. 

Area Changes for Major Land Uses

Table 1 shows the historical use allocations of the land base for the contiguous 

48 states of 1.9 billion acres. These figures are based on NRI data or estimates 

they assemble (e.g., federal ownership data from agencies), which include the 

six primary land-use categories as well as a category for “other land uses” (see 

glossary). This “other land uses” category includes federally owned land and other 

minor land-use categories (e.g., windbreaks, barren land), as shown in table 2. 

In previous NRI reports, land devoted to urban and rural transportation uses was 

considered to be part of a broader category called developed land. However, this 

study will focus only on the urban component of developed land. We do not attempt 

to project areas for “other” uses shown in table 2 because the underlying projection 

model relies on net financial returns to each use. The amount of land owned by the 

federal government or devoted to rural transportation or water uses is typically not 

determined by market forces and therefore cannot be modeled in this context. In 

the case of minor rural land use, the category itself is not precise enough to identify 

net returns to the use. The rest of this report will focus on the six major land-use 

categories: crop, pasture, forest, urban, CRP, and range.

Although pre-1930 trends in land-use shifts have moderated, rural land use 

remains mutable in the short term. Substantial land areas have shifted back and 

forth between uses. Based on a data times series longer than the NRI, over a recent 

40-year period, an average of 1.8 million acres per year of cropland and the same 

area of pastureland have been converted either into or out of the agriculture base 

Table 1—Historical allocations of land in the contiguous 48 states to major use 

categories, 1982 to 2001

 Land uses

Year Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range Otherb Total

 Million acres

1982 420.2 131.2 401.2 51.6 0.0 415.6 517.9 1,937.7

1987 406.0 127.3 403.1 57.7 13.8 410.0 519.8 1,937.7

1992 381.7 125.3 403.1 65.0 34.0 406.2 522.3 1,937.7

1997 376.4 119.5 404.7 75.9 32.7 404.8 523.6 1,937.7

2001 369.5 119.2 404.8 83.2 31.8 404.9 524.3 1,937.7

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program. 

b

 Includes all federal land. See table 2 for a full description of “other” land.

Data source: USDA National Resources Inventory. 

Although pre-1930 

trends in land-use 

shifts have moderated, rural land use 

remains mutable in 

the short term.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

7

Table 2—Historical land uses included in “other” use class for the 

contiguous 48 states, 1982 to 2001

 Land uses

Minor Rural Water Total

Year land uses transportation uses Federal other

 Million acres

1982 49.0 21.2 48.6 399.1 517.9

1987 49.3 21.3 49.8 399.4 519.8

1992 50.0 21.4 49.3 401.5 522.3

1997 50.4 21.6 49.9 401.7 523.6

2001 50.2 22.0 50.3 401.9 524.5

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

Data source: USDA National Resources Inventory. 

(Vesterby and Krupa 2001). At the same time, a combined total of 1.5 million acres 

per year has moved into or out of forestry. 

According to the NRI land-use surveys, total cropland area has trended downward since 1982. Between 1982 and 2001 (table 1), total acreage of cropland 

decreased by 50.7 million acres. Trends in major field crops (e.g., corn, soybeans, 

and wheat) are relevant from a forestry perspective because of the competition for 

land. Food crop acres have tended to increase over the past 30 years, while livestock 

feed and other crops have declined (Daugherty 1995). Among crops used mostly for 

food, area in wheat production is higher now than in the 1960s, but down from the 

early 1980s. Harvested acres of soybeans reached a record high of about 75 million 

acres in 2006 after experiencing declines during the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 

2007, 62.8 million acres of soybeans were harvested, and the 2008 harvested area 

was estimated to be about 74.5 million acres (USDA NASS 2008a). Among crops 

used primarily for feed grains, corn planting reached a high of 110 million acres 

in 1932, decreased to a little over 80 million acres in the late 1950s, and has since 

ranged from the low 60 millions to the low 80 millions through 2000. Use of corn 

for ethanol production pushed corn area to record levels, with 94 million acres 

planted in 2007 (USDA NASS 2009), the highest amount since 1946. Hay area has 

changed little since the late 1970s (Vesterby 2001).

Transitions between the major land use categories from the NRI surveys are 

shown in table 3. The primary conversions affecting cropland during this period 

were enrollment in the CRP and movements between crops and pasture. The CRP 

was established in 1985, so the transitions shown here include the initial enrollment 

period for the program. From 1982 to 1997, 27.6 million acres of cropland was 

converted to pasture while 23.4 million acres of pasture was converted to cropland, 

indicating that land frequently moves between these two uses. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

8

Table 3—Nonfederal land-use transactions for major uses in the 

United States, 1982 to 1997

Initial New land use

land use Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa	 Range

 Thousand acres

Crop — 27,648 5,037 6,434 34,200 3,557

Pasture 23,391 — 14,797 4,074 1,401 2,859

Forest 2,223 4,417 — 9,888 126 2,266

Urban 3 2 3 — 0 1

CRPa 2,264 797 185 7 — 297

Range 7,872 2,961 3,176 2,984 471 — a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program. 

— = not applicable.

Data source: USDA National Resources Inventory.

The trend in U.S. pasture and range area has been downward for several decades. From 1982 to 2002, the area of land in pasture decreased more than 10 percent, or about 13.8 million acres. Rangeland has decreased in area by 10.7 million 

acres. Several reasons for the downward trend include improved productivity so 

that less pastureland and rangeland are needed to sustain grazing herds. A shift to 

animal confinement feeding has also contributed, giving the operators better control over animal diet (Blayney 2002). Also, the number of domestic farm animals, 

particularly sheep and draft animals, has declined in recent years, further reducing 

the need for pasture and range (Vesterby 2001). One of the factors affecting dynamics of the U.S. cattle population, which has undergone cycles since the 1880s, is the 

distribution of the size of the livestock operations (Mitchell 2000). The vast majority of U.S. cattle operations are too small to sustain economically without operators 

having other sources of income such as farming or outside jobs.

Total area of forested land at a national level remained relatively constant over 

the 10-year period from 1982 to 1992. Forest area then increased slightly from 1992 

to 2002, from 403.1 million acres to 405.4 million acres. The largest gain in forest 

came from conversions of pasture to forest land (table 3). Between 1982 and 1997, 

14.8 million acres of pasture was converted into forest, while 4.4 million acres of 

forest was cleared to create new pasture. National Resource Inventory transition 

data indicate that conversions from pasture have consistently been a significant net 

source of new forest in the recent past (fig. 5). However, 9.9 million acres of forest 

was lost to urban development from 1982 to 1997. Forest land was converted to 

urban development at an increasing rate during each 5-year NRI survey period from 

1982 to 1997, from 2.4 million acres between 1982 and 1997 to 4.5 million acres 

between 1992 and 1997. 

Between 1982 and 

1997, 14.8 million 

acres of pasture 

was converted into 

forest, while 4.4 

million acres of 

forest was cleared to 

create new pasture.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

9

Figure 5—Historical net transitions of forest area to or from other major uses on nonfederal land in the 

United States, 1982 to 1997. For example, negative numbers represent loss of forest to other uses.

Changes in the areas of cropland, forest land, and grassland during the last half 

century have clearly been affected by governmental policies. In recent decades, the 

CRP converted more than 30 million acres of erodible cropland to grass cover (Osborn et al. 1995, Plantinga et al. 2001). From 1987 to 1990, the CRP operated similarly to a competitive market for conservation lands, in that farmers were allowed to 

enroll as many acres as desired at a specified price (Plantinga et al. 2001). 

The CRP has been effective in enhancing wildlife habitat in some areas (Brady 

and Flather 1998), such as the northern Great Plains, although costs of keeping land 

out of production are likely to determine the long-term fate of CRP lands. Mitchell 

(2000) indicated that a significant long-term increase in rangeland area for grazing 

owing to the CRP has not been forecast. Whether future additions of more grass 

cover will offset conversions of grassland to other uses elsewhere remains to be 

seen.

Some idled agricultural land in the past has reverted to forest through successional forces or been available for tree planting. The amount of idled agricultural 

land affects market prices and can change competition for land among sectors. As 

of 2008, land idled under the CRP is at 34.7 million acres (Cowan 2008). This is 

down from a peak of 78 million acres idled by all federal programs in 1983, before 

the CRP was established. Acres idled through participation in the CRP differs greatly by farm production region, with the most area in the Northern Plains and Mountain States (Vesterby 2001). The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 

of 1996 (the 1996 Farm Act) eliminated the authority of USDA to implement an 

1982–1987 1987–1992 1992–1997
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

10

annual Acreage Reduction Program and other annual acreage diversions. As a result, 

after 1996 no land has been idled under annual commodity programs. This contrasts 

with 18 million acres in 1995 and a range of 13 to 60 million acres idled annually 

from 1986 to 1996. However, emergency aid provided to farmers through legislation in 1998-2001 reflected uncertainty about the direction of the policy transition. 

With lower agricultural prices than in the mid-1990s, debate about the 2002 Farm 

Bill was further evidence of interest in changing the thrust of the 1996 Farm Act, 

e.g., new types of countercyclical farm policies. 

The national Farm Bills have increasingly included environmental provisions. 

The 2008 Farm Bill continued the CRP and affected all contracts due to expire from 

2007 to 2010. Contracts were divided into quintiles based on the environmental 

benefit index. The highest quintile was offered new 10- or 15-year contracts, and the 

rest were offered 2- to 5-year extensions.

Although cropland area has trended downward over the historical period, the 

amount of surplus or idle agricultural land has been substantial at times. Between 

1982 and 1997, the Census of Agriculture reported a figure solely for idled cropland. During these years, idled cropland ranged from a low of 13.7 million acres in 

1982 to a high of 37.5 million acres in 1987. In 1997, the amount of idled cropland 

was about 19 million acres or 2 percent of all land in farms, and 13.5 million acres 

in a related category of cropland “used for cover crops or soil improvement but not 

harvested and not pastured or grazed.” After 1997, the Census of Agriculture combined these two categories. Land in this category combination was about 37 million 

acres in both 2002 and 2007, or about 4 percent of 2007 farm land. 

Estimates of idle cropland from the Census of Agriculture are largely consistent 

with those reported in the Economic Research Service major land uses data (USDA

ERS 2009). Over that longer period going back to 1945, idled cropland ranged from 

18 million acres in 1954, to 51 million acres in 1969, to 39 million in 2002. 

The 1989 RPA Assessment (USDA FS 1989b) examined the availability of idle 

cropland as a possible source of new forest land under an “Alternative Future” (fig. 

6). The Second Resources Conservation Act (RCA) Appraisal by the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service) (USDA SCS 1987) 

projected 128.5 million acres of cropland would be idle by 2030, in addition to 39.8 

million acres assumed to be enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). 

The RCA model assumed relatively large increases in agricultural yields, thereby 

freeing up a substantial amount of cropland in the future, thus termed surplus cropland. Of the 128.5 million acres of surplus cropland, most was projected to revert 

to range cover, a total of 96 million acres. An additional 15.6 million acres was 

The national Farm 

Bills have increasingly 

included environmental provisions.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

11

Figure 6—Land-use competition among forestry and agricultural uses is affected substantially by 

development influences, and this affects costs of terrestrial carbon storage to address climate change.

projected to revert to hardwoods, 15.4 million acres to hardwood/softwood, and 1.5 

million acres to softwood types. 

A notable trend among major land uses has been the increase in the area of 

urban and developed uses. The area of urban and developed uses steadily increased 

between 1982 and 2002, from 53.9 to 84.4 million acres, an increase of nearly 57 

percent, accommodating a U.S. population increase of about 56 million people. 

Despite this growth, urban land remains a fairly small part of the national land base. 

In 2002, urban and other developed land occupied just over 5 percent of the nonfederal surface of the contiguous 48 states (USDA NRCS 2001). The fraction of 

the land base occupied by urban uses differs considerably among subregions of the 

country (table 4). The Northern Plains and Mountain subregions had the smallest 

percentage of land in urban use, at 1.2 and 2.1 percent, respectively. The Northeast 

and Southeast were the most developed with 12.7 and 14.0 percent of land, respectively, in urban use in 2002.

Area of urban and developed uses in the United States expanded by more than 

1 million acres annually since 1982 (USDA NRCS 2001), as population and personal incomes increased significantly. According to estimates from the U.S. Census 

Bureau (USDC Census Bureau 2009), the Nation’s population grew from just over 

200 million people in 1970 to more than 300 million in 2007 (fig. 7). A positive 

relationship between population and personal income and developed land area 

is consistent with earlier research findings (e.g., Alig and Healy 1987, Alig et al. 

Ralph Alig

The area of urban 

and developed uses 

steadily increased 

between 1982 and 

2002, from 53.9 to 

84.4 million acres, an 

increase of nearly 57 

percent, accommodating a U.S. population 

increase of about 56 

million people. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

12

Table 4—Percentage of nonfederal land in 

urban use by subregion, 1982 and 2002

 Urban use

Subregion 1982 2002

Percent

Northern Plains 0.9 1.2

Mountain 1.1 2.1

Lake States 4.5 6.6

Corn Belt 5.0 7.0

Northeast 8.4 12.7

Pacific Northwest East 1.1 2.0

Pacific Northwest West 5.9 9.6

Pacific Southwest 7.1 10.8

South Central 3.6 6.4

South Plains 2.3 3.9

Southeast 7.0 14.0

Conterminous 48 states 3.6 5.9

Data source: USDA National Resources Inventory. 

Figure 7—Historical population estimates for the United States, 1977 to 2007.

2004b). USDA’s NRI shows that nationally nearly 11 million acres of forest, cropland, and open space were converted to urban and other uses from 1992 to 1997. 

The annual average rate of land conversion for those 5 years, 2.3 million acres, is 

50 percent more than the rate of 1.4 million acres annually from 1982 to 1992. 

Increasing urbanization has reduced the supply of economically productive 

rural lands. Net areas of rangeland, pasture land, and cropland decreased between 

1982 and 1997, while forest area grew slightly. Pressure from the growing urban 
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

13

sector increases competition among the rural uses, in some cases, to replace land 

converted to developed uses. 

According to NRI statistics, forests accounted for over one-third of rural land 

converted to urban and developed uses between 1982 and 1997 (USDA NRCS 

2001). Outside urban areas, rural residential land conversion comes from rangeland, 

pasture land, and cropland, in addition to forest land. In addition to conversions 

to urban and rural residential uses, some rural land has been converted for infrastructure (e.g., roads), commercial and industrial buildings and parking areas, and 

miscellaneous and special uses (Vesterby 2001, Vesterby and Krupa 2001). Much of 

the expansion in urban area is near existing urban areas, although some fast-growth 

counties have been in largely rural areas (Heimlich and Anderson 2001). 

Increased per-capita incomes can increase demand for developed land (fig. 8). 

During the last decade (1990s), the United States was in a period of substantial economic growth (e.g., stock markets with relatively large gains). As shown in figure 9, 

real (adjusted for inflation or deflation) per-capita personal income increased from 

just over $23,000 in 1996 to around $36,700 in 2006.

Land-Use Projections

Projections of land use by area are made for the major land-use categories: 

crop, pasture, forest, urban, CRP, and range. The projections are based on an 

Figure 8—Changes in personal income can affect land values, affecting land conservation and 

sustainablity of forestry and agricultural ecosystem.

Ralph Alig

According to NRI 

statistics, forests 

accounted for over 

one-third of rural land 

converted to urban 

and developed uses 

between 1982 and 

1997.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

14

Figure 9—Estimates of historical per capita personal income for the United States, 1977 to 2006. 

Data source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Advisors (USDC BEA 2009).

econometric analysis of land-use change estimated with data on nonfederal land in 

the contiguous 48 states (Lubowski 2002). The model explains land-use changes 

in terms of economic returns and site characteristics such as land quality. Using 

the results of the econometric analysis, a projection algorithm was developed to 

generate land-use projections, by county, to 2062 (see appendix). For the present 

research as compared to that reported by Alig and Plantinga (2004), the land-use 

projection model has been updated by including separate econometric models 

for four regions where the national model did not fit the data well (see appendix) 

(Plantinga et al. 2007). Even with these modifications, the national and regional 

models will estimate county-level land use with error, and this should be kept in 

mind when interpreting the county-level projections.

The NRI is the primary data set used to estimate the national econometric landuse model used in this study. The NRI is a panel survey of land use and land characteristics on nonfederal lands conducted at 5-year intervals from 1982 to 1997 over 

the entire United States, excluding Alaska. The NRI provides information on landuse transitions over the three periods 1982-87, 1987-92, and 1992-97. The current 

land-use projection model also incorporates more recently available NRI data on 

state-level land use for 2003. For additional details of the land-use projection model, 

see Plantinga et al. (2007). The appendix to this report details the changes that were 

made to the model for this study.

Historical land-use trends are shown in figure 10, along with the projected 

trajectories through 2062. The reference case or initial conditions case we use in this 
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

15

Figure 10—Historical and projected land-use trends (under initial conditions) on nonfederal land in the 

contiguous 48 states, 1982 to 2062.

study uses scenarios for the 2010 RPA Assessment that are linked to the 4th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) storylines (Langner, n.d.). The U.S. 

population projection is linked to the IPCC A1 storyline, updated to more recent 

projections done by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the income projection is an 

average of the income projections from the three RPA scenarios linked to the IPCC 

GDP projections A1, A2, and B2 storylines (Langner, n.d.). Areas of crop, forest, 

and range land are expected to decrease in the future; however, these three uses will 

continue to be the dominant land uses in the United States. Urban land is projected 

to increase dramatically, in line with urban development over the previous 20 years. 

The land-use projection results shown in table 5 indicate that cropland is projected to decline from 369.3 million acres in 2002 to 356.7 million acres in 2062, a 

loss of 3.4 percent of cropland area. Projected transitions between land uses can be 

Table 5—Projected areas for six major land uses on nonfederal land in the 

contiguous 48 states, 2002 to 2062, under initial conditions

 Land uses

Year Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range Total area

 Million acres

2002 369.3 117.4 405.4 84.4 31.7 404.9 1,413.1

2012 368.9 110.6 400.7 101.8 27.3 404.0 1,413.1

2022 367.9 103.1 396.2 118.2 24.7 403.0 1,413.1

2032 365.9 97.2 391.3 133.7 23.0 402.0 1,413.1

2042 363.2 92.6 386.1 148.6 21.8 400.8 1,413.1

2052 360.1 89.1 380.8 162.8 20.9 399.6 1,413.1

2062 356.7 86.2 375.3 176.4 20.2 398.2 1,413.1

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a CRP = Conservation Reserve Program. 

Areas of crop, forest, 

and range land are 

expected to decrease 

in the future; however, 

these three uses will 

continue to be the 

dominant land uses 

in the United States.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

16

seen in table 6. Movements between cropland and pasture will continue at a relatively high rate in the future, with more than 100 million acres moving between the 

two uses but very little net change in the total area of either use. The largest net loss 

in cropland will come from urban expansion, as the model projects that 21.0 million 

acres of cropland will be developed for urban use.

Figure 11 maps the percentage of each county in the United States that is 

projected to be in cropland use in 2002 and 2062. This figure indicates that most 

of the Nation’s cropland is located in the Midwest, which encompasses the eastern 

portion of the Rocky Mountains RPA region and the western portion of the North 

RPA region. Figure 12 shows the expected change in the percentage of each county 

allocated to crops over the 60-year projection period. Some of the larger percentage 

losses can be seen in eastern Oregon and Washington, where the percentage of each 

county in cropland is expected to decrease between 20 and 57 percent. Other areas 

facing significant cropland losses are shown in red and orange throughout California and Minnesota and along the Mississippi River in Arkansas and Mississippi. A 

smaller hotspot of rapid cropland loss can be seen in the area surrounding the city 

of Chicago, Illinois. Another notable feature of cropland changes in figure 12 is the 

areas in Missouri and Iowa where cropland is expected to increase significantly. The 

areas shown in blue indicate counties where the percentage of land devoted to crops 

will increase between 21 and 51 percent.

After a slight gain in acreage from 1982 to 2002, forest area at the national level 

is projected to steadily decline from 2002 to 2062, from 405.4 million acres in 2002 

to 375.3 million acres in 2062. The transitions in table 6 indicate that the largest 

loss of forest will be due to urban development, leading to the conversion of 49.7 

million acres of forest to urban use by 2062. A net gain in forest land is expected 

from conversions of pasture to forest, which will offset some of the forest acreage 

lost to urban development. Between 2002 and 2062, 59.3 million acres of pasture 

Table 6—Projected land-use transitions for major uses on nonfederal 

land in the contiguous 48 states, 2002 to 2062, under initial conditions

Inital New land use

land use Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range

 Thousand acres

Crop — 100,913 7,599 21,043 12,529 10,165

Pasture 100,145 — 59,281 14,508 824 14,323

Forest 12,868 32,188 — 49,719 358 7,977

Urban 0 0 0 — 0 0

CRPa 11,999 9,524 464 33 — 2,421

Range 13,936 15,178 5,449 6,673 214 —

— = not applicable.

a CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

17

Figure 11—Cropland area projections at the county level, 2002 and 2062, under initial conditions.

is projected to be forested, while 32.2 million acres of forest will be converted to 

pasture, leading to a net gain of 27.1 million acres of forest from pasture. The maps 

in figures 13 and 14 show how these changes in forest area will be distributed across 

the United States at the county level. 

Figure 13 shows that forest land in the contiguous 48 States is concentrated in 

the Pacific Coast, North, and South regions. For the Rocky Mountains region, the 

area of forest land in each county will remain fairly constant, in the range of decreasing by 4 percent to increasing by 5 percent. Some areas will see more extreme 

changes (fig. 14), where significant losses are shown in red and orange and gains are 

shown in blue. Considerable losses of forest can be seen along the Pacific Coast in 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

18

Washington, Oregon, and northern California. Many counties where 41 to 100 percent of the land was forest in 2002 are expected to fall to the 11- to 40-percent range 

by 2062. Another area of significant forest loss can be seen in southern Missouri. 

However, there are also areas of increasing forest cover in the Pacific Coast, North, 

and South regions, indicating that in addition to an overall loss of forest there will 

also be a redistribution of forested land in these regions.

Urban area is projected to continue to increase substantially, to more than 

double the 2002 level by 2062. At 176.4 million acres, urban area will account for 

12.5 percent of the total nonfederal land area in the conterminous United States by 

2062. In addition to losses of cropland and forest, this urban development will lead 

to the essentially irreversible loss of 14.5 million acres of pasture and 6.6 million 

acres of rangeland (table 6, fig. 15). The land-use models underlying these projections assume that no significant amount of land will be converted from a developed 

use back into a resource use. As was evident in the historical data in table 3, those 

transitions occur very infrequently. 

Figures 16 and 17 show the geographic distribution of this projected urban 

growth across U.S. counties. Figure 16 indicates that densely developed urban areas 

will continue to expand outward from 2002 to 2062. This is particularly clear in 

the Chicago area in northeastern Illinois and in southern California. In 2002, most of 

the land base in the United States fell into the 0 to 5-percent urban category, 

but much of this land will move into the 6- to 10-percent or 11- to 20-percent 

ranges by 2062. These changes, shown in figure 17, point to broad expansion of 

Figure 12—Projected changes in cropland at the county level, 2002 to 2062, under initial conditions. 

In addition to losses 

of cropland and forest, urban development will lead to the 

essentially irreversible 

loss of 14.5 million 

acres of pasture and 

6.6 million acres of 

rangeland.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

19

Figure 13—Forest area projections at the county level, 2002 and 2062, under initial conditions.

low-density development in the Pacific Coast, North, and South regions. Both figures imply that the Rocky Mountains region can expect to see less urbanization than 

the rest of the country. Figure 17 shows the most significant changes in urban area 

in orange and red. These areas are concentrated mostly along the Pacific Coast, but 

are also scattered throughout the North and South regions, particularly in some of 

the Corn Belt states such as Indiana and Illinois.

Urbanization has already had a major impact on all four regions since 1982 

and will continue to significantly change the landscape in the future. The North and 

South regions were home to the vast majority of urban acreage in 2002, containing 

32.4 and 36.2 million acres, respectively. Together, they accounted for more than 80 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

20

Figure 15—Land converted to developed uses includes wetlands, important for a 

variety of wildlife species and other ecological functions.

Figure 14—Projected changes in forest area at the county level, 2002 to 2062, under initial conditions. Ralph Alig
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

21

Figure 16—Urban area projections at the county level, 2002 and 2062, under initial conditions.

percent of the urban land in the Nation and this trend will continue into 2062 (fig. 

18). However, the area of urban development in the Pacific Coast region is rapidly 

expanding, and urban land will account for nearly 25 percent of the region’s total 

land base by 2062 (fig. 19). The Rocky Mountains region is expected to see the 

slowest urban growth from 2002 to 2062.

The South and Pacific Coast regions are particularly important forestry regions, 

so high rates of urbanization and forest loss in these areas may be cause for concern 

(Alig et al. 2004b). Many Americans continue to move to the South and Pacific 

Coast, with cities such as Atlanta growing much faster than the national average. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

22

Figure 17–Projected changes in urban area at county level, 2002 to 2062, under initial conditions.

Figure 18—Area of nonfederal urban land by region, 1982 to 2062, under initial conditions.

Growth in some metropolitan areas has led to increasing population densities in 

counties surrounding central cores. The top 20 percent of fastest growing U.S. 

counties are primarily (56 percent) in the South. Such population trends are reflected in the regional population projections (table 7). The South is expected to grow 

by 61.0 million people, from 97.1 million people in 2006 to 158.1 million in 2060. 

The Pacific Coast, another area of rapid population growth, is projected to add an 

additional 26.2 million people from 2006 to 2060, a 56-percent increase.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

23

Figure 19—Percentage of nonfederal urban land by region, 1982 to 2062, under initial conditions.

Table 7—Regional population projections, 2006 to 

2060, under initial conditions

 Regions

Rocky Pacific

Year North South Mountains Coast Total

 Millions

2006 116.6 97.1 26.3 46.7 286.7

2010 118.0 100.8 27.7 48.2 294.7

2020 123.6 112.3 31.7 53.0 320.6

2030 129.8 124.0 35.8 57.9 347.5

2040 136.2 135.8 40.1 62.9 374.9

2050 142.6 147.1 44.4 67.9 402.0

2060 148.9 158.1 48.8 72.9 428.7

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Source is RPA 

common set of assumptions based on IPCC scenarios (Langner, n.d.).

With respect to sustainability issues, the South is seen by both the agricultural 

and forestry sectors as a region of expansion; however, population growth in that 

same region raises questions about whether all land uses can be sustained along 

those lines (Alig et al. 1999a, 1999b). The South is expected to lose forest land at 

an increasing rate in the future. The region is projected to lose less than 1 million 

acres between 2002 and 2012 but can expect a decline of 3.0 million acres between 

2052 and 2062 (fig. 20). The North region is also expected to face significant forest 

land losses, with the largest decline in forest area in the region projected from 2002 

to 2012.

At the national level, transitions of pasture are expected to be a source of new 

forest land. Average annual conversions of pasture to forest land are expected 

With respect to sustainability issues, the 

South is seen by both 

the agricultural and 

forestry sectors as a 

region of expansion; 

however, population 

growth in that same 

region raises questions about whether 

all land uses can be 

sustained along those 

lines.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

24

Figure 20—Historical and projected net changes per decade in forest area on nonfederal land by 

region, 1982 to 2062, under initial conditions.

to outpace conversions of forest to pasture by more than 400,000 acres (fig. 21). 

However, transitions with crop and range land will lead to net losses in forested area 

each year, and urban development is expected to occur on more than 800,000 acres 

of forest land annually from 2002 to 2062. 

Figure 22 summarizes the historical and projected net land use changes in the 

six major categories at the national level. The historical period from 1982 to 1997 

saw significant losses in cropland and pasture; however, some of this loss can be attributed to transitions into the CRP program established during that period. Between 

the time the CRP was created in 1985 and 1997, more than 30 million acres of 

environmentally sensitive agricultural land were enrolled in the program. The area 

of land in crops, pasture, and the CRP is projected to slowly decline in the future. 

In fact, the areas in all uses except for urban are expected to decline, indicating 

that urban expansion will have an impact across the entire U.S. land base (fig. 23). 

Except for urban and forest land, net changes in the major land uses are expected to 

be smaller in the future than they were in the historical period. 

Climate change can affect land-use patterns in the United States through a number of different channels. A direct effect is to change the productivity of the land 

for producing agricultural and forest commodities, thereby changing the incentives 

1982–

1992

1992–

2002

2002–

2012

2012–

2022

2022–

2032

2032–

2042

2042–

2052

2052–

2062

Climate change can 

affect land-use patterns in the United 

States through a 

number of different 

channels.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

25

Figure 21—Projected average annual transitions involving forest area on nonfederal land in the contiguous 48 states, 2002 to 2062, under initial conditions.

Figure 22—Historical and projected area changes for 15-year periods, by major 

land use on nonfederal land in the contiguous 48 states, 1982 to 2062, under 

initial conditions.

1982–1997 2002–2017 2017–2032 2032–2047 2047–2062
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

26

landowners face when allocating their land to different uses. On a global scale, these 

induced changes in agricultural and forest land use will affect prices for associated 

commodities, further changing the incentives for land-use change. Changes in population and income trends within the United States are expected to affect the returns 

to urban development, but generally have less effect on the returns to agricultural 

and forest land because the related commodities are traded in global markets. We 

leave for future research an econometric investigation of the effects transmitted 

through productivity changes and international commodity markets; some information on possible land-use changes from climate change as projected by economic 

optimization models is provided by Alig et al. (2002a).

Given a fixed land base, changes in the relative returns to urban use will affect 

the area of land devoted to all uses. Urban net returns used in the estimation of the 

original land-use model under initial conditions reflect predictions that economic 

agents make about future population and income. Although we cannot know the 

exact predictions made by these economic agents, it is reasonable to select a scenario with moderate population and income growth to represent the most likely 

projection. Therefore, we assume the agents in this model make projections in line 

with midrange population growth, as reflected in RPA scenario A1, and the average 

income growth under the three RPA scenarios. We use the A1 population projection 

because it corresponds to the medium projection formulated by the U.S. Census 

Bureau. 

Figure 23—Increases in population and personal income will contribute to additional 

projected conversion of forest land to developed uses.

Jeff Kline

Given a fixed land 

base, changes in the 

relative returns to 

urban use will affect 

the area of land 

devoted to all uses.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

27

In comparing findings to earlier work, Alig (1985) varied crop and forestry rents 

by 20 percent from baseline cases to examine the sensitivity of land use changes 

to alternative financial returns from agricultural and forestry uses. He found that 

change in relative land rents would cause forest area to decline only slightly. Then, 

as now, land-use changes tend to follow the economic hierarchy of land use, where 

rents for developed uses (e.g., urban) typically dominate rents for forestry and agricultural uses. 

A comparison of area change projections for the South from two more recent 

studies is also instructive regarding the sensitivity of projections to different assumptions. The 2000 RPA Assessment (Alig et al. 2003) and the Southern Forest 

Resource Assessment (Wear and Greis 2002) both relied on econometric models 

for projections of area changes for major land uses (Adams et al. 2005). Projections of the drivers of land-use change—population growth, economic growth, and 

agricultural rents—were derived from different sources in the two studies. In the 

base case, both studies projected a net loss of about 4 million acres of timberland 

area between 1995 and 2040. However, in an alternative projection, the model from 

the Southern Resource Assessment projected a net loss of 27 million acres for that 

same projection period under more elastic or responsive projections (Adams et al. 

2005); more elastic means that rent changes have a bigger impact. This suggests that 

assumptions about behavior of people can have a large relative impact on land-use 

changes (fig. 24). 

Figure 24—Responses to financial incentives and policies affect outcomes of land conservation 

efforts, such as efforts to conserve open space while maintaining sufficient working forest and 

agricultural lands and providing housing for new residents.

Ralph Alig
This page is intentionally left blank.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

29

North Region

The North region consists of 20 states, divided into three subregions (fig. 1). The 

Lake States subregion includes Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The Corn 

Belt subregion includes five states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio. The 

Northeast subregion consists of 12 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, Vermont, and West Virginia.

The North stretches from the Atlantic seaboard in the east to the farmland 

prairies in the Corn Belt; from the Ohio River, the Appalachian highlands, and 

the northern Piedmont in the South to the Canadian border and the Great Lakes in 

the North. The more northern states of the region have moderately long, relatively 

severe winters. Annual precipitation is moderate and ranges from 25 to 45 inches; 

often half of this precipitation comes as snow (USDA FS 1989a). Short growing 

seasons of 100 to140 frost-free days place limits on agricultural production. Much 

of this area has been glaciated, and glacial landforms are common. Soils are generally well suited for forests, although soils with high water tables are common in 

some areas. Because much of the North, except for the prairie fringes in the western 

portions of Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri, was originally forested, it tends to revert 

back to forest if disturbed and then allowed to stand idle. This has been the case 

in many instances with changes in the dairy industry, where declining profits from 

milk production and shifts in production to other parts of the country have led to 

afforestation of former pasture lands. 

Seventy million people live within an 8-hour drive of the “Northern Forest,” 

and changing demographics and population growth illustrate implications of increasing multiple demands on forest land in such regions. The possible sale of some 

of these lands in the Northeast and possible fragmentation and development (fig. 

25), along with perceived public values associated with the lands, prompted Congress to initiate the Northern Lands Study (Northern Forest Lands Council 1994). 

A report, Finding Common Ground, was released in 1994 and set forth issues that 

people across the four-state region agreed on such as the need for improved education, good forest management practices, better local economies, and control of inappropriate development, forest degradation, and fragmentation. 

Changes in forest ownership have continued (e.g., Arnold 2003, Hagan et al. 

2005, White and Mazza 2008). States such as Maine have funded purchases of some 

forest land. Throughout the Northern region, there is great interest in increasing the 

amount of forest land in public ownership (Lewis et al. 2002). This interest arises 

because of large urban population bases in the region and the relative lack, in many 

states, of existing public conservation lands. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

30

Land-Use Situation

Figure 26 depicts the land-use allocation of the North region’s total land base of 

374.7 million acres as of 2002. The majority of land in the region is devoted to 

forest, at 41 percent, with cropland at 38 percent of the region’s land base. 

The Northeast is one of the most heavily urbanized parts of the United States, 

with 9 percent of land classified as “urban” by the NRI inventory (USDA NRCS 

2001). However, states in the Northeast are quite heterogeneous with regard to 

land-use patterns. For example, Maine has 88 percent in forest cover and only 3 

percent in cropland (Maudlin et al. 1999a), whereas Delaware has 31 percent forest 

cover and 39 percent cropland. Just 2 percent of West Virginia is classified as urban, 

whereas 35 percent of New Jersey is so classified. 

The Corn Belt subregion has less of its land base classified as urban, 7.0 percent, compared to the Northeast. Cropland is the dominant land use in the Corn Belt. 

As in the Northeast, the states of the Corn Belt subregion are quite heterogeneous 

with regard to land-use patterns. For example, Iowa has 75.7 percent of its land 

base in cropland and 6.8 percent in forest. In contrast, Missouri has 34.0 percent in 

cropland and 31.1 percent in forest. 

Areas of urban and developed uses steadily increased in all three subregions 

of the North since 1982, when consistent NRI data were first assembled. Between 

Figure 25—Considerable urban expansion can result from economic growth, often fragmenting forest 

lands and affecting wildlife habitat and other ecosystem services.

Ralph Alig
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

31

1992 and 2002, the area of urban and developed area in the Northeast increased 

from 10.4 percent to 12.7 percent of the land base. Corresponding increases in the 

Corn Belt and Lake States subregions were from 5.8 percent to 7.0 percent and 

from 5.4 percent to 6.6 percent, respectively. 

The Lake States have significant second-home development involving forest 

areas. Forested areas in the Lake States attract the majority of the seasonal home 

development in the North Central region, affecting the regional landscape (e.g., 

Hammer et al. 2004, Stynes et al. 1997). This includes a number of homes around 

lakes and other water-related sites. Between 1982 and 2002, developed area in the 

subregion increased from 4.7 to 6.9 million acres, an increase of nearly 50 percent. 

Forest area in the Lake States increased from 46.0 to 47.5 million acres over the 

same period. At the same time, cropland area declined by 4.2 million acres and 

pasture decreased by 1.5 million acres.

Land-Use Area Changes

Table 8 shows the historical and projected areas for the major land-use categories 

in the North region. The region’s amount of crop and pasture land was significantly 

reduced between 1982 and 2002, mostly because of the establishment of the Conservation Reserve Program as well as urban development on these lands (Choi et 

al. 2001). From 1982 to 2002, 7.3 percent of the 1982 acreage of cropland was 

converted to other uses along with 20.2 percent of pasture (table 9). 

Dominating trends in forest transitions in the North region have been conversions of pastureland to forest, and urban development on forest land (fig. 27). 

Nearly 5.6 million acres of pasture transitioned into forest cover between 1982 

Figure 26—Allocation of nonfederal land in the North region to six major 

use categories, 2002. CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.

The region’s amount 

of crop and pasture 

land was significantly 

reduced between 

1982 and 2002, mostly 

because of the establishment of the Conservation Reserve 

Program as well as 

urban development on 

these lands.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

32

and 1997, while 3.6 million acres of forest land was converted to urban development. For example, in the Lake States subregion, conversions from agriculture have 

resulted in a net gain in forest area in some past years, exceeding the losses of forest 

to developed uses (Mauldin et al. 1999b). 

Table 8 shows that forested area in the region is projected to steadily decline 

after 2002. Total forest area increased by 3.8 million acres over the 20-year period 

from 1982 to 2002 (table 9). However, this gain is followed by projected net losses. 

From 2002 to 2012, forest area is projected to decline by 4.2 million acres, and then 

Table 8–Historical areas, 1982 to 2002, and projections to 2062 for land uses 

on nonfederal land in the North region

 Land uses

Year Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range Total area

 Million acres

1982 154.2 46.1 152.0 22.1 0 0.1 374.5b

1987 151.3 42.5 153.2 24.2 3.2 0.1 374.4b

1992 145.7 40.1 153.8 26.4 8.1 0.1 374.1b

1997 144.8 36.7 155.2 30.1 7.5 0.1 374.4b

2002 142.9 36.8 155.8 32.4 6.6 0.1 374.7

2012 144.3 33.7 151.6 39.4 5.4 0.3 374.7

2022 144.5 31.1 148.2 45.9 4.6 0.4 374.7

2032 143.9 29.0 145.2 51.9 4.1 0.5 374.7

2042 142.7 27.4 142.4 57.7 3.8 0.6 374.7

2052 141.2 26.0 139.9 63.2 3.6 0.7 374.7

2062 139.5 24.9 137.5 68.5 3.4 0.8 374.7

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program. 

b

 Totals are not constant owing to omission of “other” category from historical data.

Figure 27—Historical net transitions of forest area on nonfederal land by period in the North region, 

1982 to 1997.

1982–1987 1987–1992 1992–1997
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

33

Table 9–Historical (1982 to 2002) and projected (2002 to 2062) land-use changes, 

by area and percentage, on nonfederal land in the North region

Land uses

Year Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range

Million acres

1982–1992 -8.5 -6.0 1.8 4.3 8.1 0

1992–2002 -2.8 -3.3 2.0 6.0 -1.5 0

2002–2012 1.4 -3.1 -4.2 7.0 -1.2 0.2

2012–2022 0.2 -2.6 -3.4 6.5 -0.8 0.1

2022–2032 -0.6 -2.1 -3.0 6.0 -0.5 0.1

2032–2042 -1.2 -1.6 -2.8 5.8 -0.3 0.1

2042–2052 -1.5 -1.4 -2.5 5.5 -0.2 0.1

2052–2062 -1.7 -1.1 -2.4 5.3 -0.2 0.1

 Total historical change

 (1982–2002) -11.3 -9.3 3.8 10.3 6.6 0

 Total projected change

 (2002–2062) -3.4 -11.9 -18.3 36.1 -3.2 0.7

 Percent

1982–1992 -5.5 -13.0 1.2 19.5 0

1992–2002 -1.9 -8.2 1.3 22.7 -18.5

2002–2012 1.0 -8.4 -2.7 21.6 -18.2

2012–2022 0.1 -7.7 -2.2 16.5 -14.8

2022–2032 -0.4 -6.8 -2.0 13.1 -10.9

2032–2042 -0.8 -5.5 -1.9 11.2 -7.3

2042–2052 -1.1 -5.1 -1.8 9.5 -5.3

2052–2062 -1.2 -4.2 -1.7 8.9 -5.6

 Total historical change

 (1982–2002) -7.3 -20.2 2.5 46.6 0

 Total projected change

 (2002–2062) -2.4 -32.3 -11.7 111.4 -48.5 a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program. 

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Rangeland percentages are omitted because 

areas in this region are too small to present meaningful percentage changes.

continue declining at a decreasing rate through 2062. Transitions between forest and 

pasture land will lead to a net gain in forested area (fig. 28). However, more than 

300,000 acres of forest land are projected to be lost to urbanization each year from 

2002 to 2062 (fig. 29). 

The most striking feature of future land-use transitions in the North region is the 

amount of land that moves between cropland and pasture. As seen in table 10, more 

than 40 million acres of land will move back and forth between these two uses from 

2002 to 2062. Considering that the region started with a total of 36.8 million acres 

of pasture in 2002, this indicates frequent turnover between pasture and cropland. 

Approximately 47 million acres of pasture are projected to be converted to cropland, while 41 million acres will move the other direction from cropland to pasture. 

This leads to a projected net gain in cropland of 6 million acres from converted 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

34

pasture. Overall, however, the region is facing a projected loss in cropland of 3.5 

million acres.

Urban area expanded rapidly in the North region from 1982 to 2002, increasing by 10.3 million acres or 46.6 percent over 20 years. Urbanization will continue 

to have a big impact on the region in the future, as the area of land in urban use is 

expected to more than double from 2002 to 2062. This urban expansion is projected 

to be on 19.8 million acres of former forest land and 12.1 million acres of former 

cropland (fig. 30). Urban land would account for 18.3 percent of the total land base 

in the region by 2062, up from less than 9 percent in 2002.

Figure 29—Changes in forest ownership have been relatively large in parts of the North compared 

to some other regions, involving a mixture of ownership and conservation groups and affecting the 

Northern Woods environment.

Figure 28—Projected average annual transitions involving forest area on nonfederal land in the North 

region, 2002 to 2062.

Ralph Alig

Urban area 

expanded rapidly 

in the North region 

from 1982 to 2002, 

increasing by 10.3 

million acres or 46.6 

percent over 20 

years. 
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

35

Figure 30—Historical and projected sources of new urban land in the North region, by period from 

1982 to 2062.

Table 10—Historical (1982 to 1997) and projected (2002 to 2062) land-use 

transitions on nonfederal land in the North region

New land use

Initial land use Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range

Thousand acres

1982–1997:

Crop — 9,695 1,235 2,902 8,343 0

Pasture 11,481 — 6,695 1,155 651 0

Forest 734 1,101 — 3,621 28 2

Urban 1 1 0 — 0 0

CRPa 1,240 304 14 4 — 0

Range 12 21 25 0 0 —

2002–2062:

Crop — 40,726 3,877 12,131 5,391 281

Pasture 46,670 — 22,663 4,078 357 168

Forest 7,534 17,267 — 19,973 190 182

Urban 0 0 0 — 0 0

CRPa 4,699 3,872 179 14 — 337

Range 50 158 15 16 0 —

— = Not applicable.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.

1982–1997 2002–2017 2017–2032 2032–2047 2047–2062
This page is intentionally left blank.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

37

South Region

The South stretches from Virginia southward and westward along the Atlantic and 

Gulf seaboards to Texas, and includes the interior states of Kentucky, Tennessee, 

Arkansas, and Oklahoma. In all, the South region includes 13 states, divided into 

three subregions (fig. 1). The Southeast subregion consists of five states including 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. The South 

Central subregion includes Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Tennessee, and small portions of eastern Oklahoma and eastern Texas. The South 

Plains subregion consists of western Oklahoma and western Texas. 

This region is characterized by a variety of climatic and edaphic conditions that 

relate to its diverse physiography (USDA FS 1989a). The South covers portions of 

five physiographic divisions: Atlantic Plain, Appalachian Highlands, Interior Highlands and Piedmont, Delta, and Interior Plains. Elevations range from the coastal 

flats to mountains of the Blue Ridge province that have peaks over 6,000 feet. The 

climate ranges from subtropical, with rainfall averaging 40 to 60 inches annually in 

parts of the coastal plains, to more arid conditions in parts of the Interior Plains. 

The South is heavily forested from Virginia to the forest’s limit in Texas and 

Oklahoma. Forest land covers 38 percent of the region’s land area. Five of the 

southern states are more than 60 percent forested. The Southeast is 60 percent forested, and most of the remaining states are at least 50 percent forested. The South 

Plains region contains large parts of Texas and Oklahoma that are not forested, so 

overall the South Plains subregion is only 2 percent forested. The fraction of forest 

land that is classified as timberland in the South has remained fairly constant at 

about 96 percent over the past half-century, reflecting the inherent productivity of 

the forest-land base and the general availability of forest land for timber operations 

(fig. 31). 

Forest ownership changes among private owner groups have been important 

in the South in recent decades. Land held by the firms integrated to processing will 

continue to decline through sales to institutional investors (timberland investment 

organization [TIMOs] and real estate investment trusts [REITs]) (Clutter et al. 

2005). 

Land-Use Situation

The land-use situation in 2002 for the South region is depicted in figure 32. The 

South region is the largest region in the study at 483.4 million acres. The largest 

share of land in the region, 38 percent, is devoted to forest. Range, cropland, and 

pasture compose an additional 53 percent.

Given that two-fifths of the South is forested and has some of the most commercially important timber species (e.g., loblolly pine [Pinus taeda L.]), forestry 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

38

and timber products support an important industry in the region. Land exchanges 

among sectors of the economy have been important in the South, which has had a 

relatively large amount of land-use change compared to other regions. Much of the 

land in the region is suitable for different land uses, including the generally gentle 

topography in the coastal plain and piedmont areas. Over the longer term, the most 

influential factor driving change in forest area was the expansion and contraction of 

the region’s agricultural land base (Alig et al. 1986, 1988a, 1988b; Healy 1985), but 

conversions to developed uses have grown markedly in recent decades. As the South 

was settled, agricultural land became an increasingly prominent part of the landscape. The associated reduction in forest area accelerated in the late 1800s with the 

harvesting of old-growth forests (USDA FS 1988). Around 1920, increases in forest 

area began as agricultural land was abandoned. The rate of agricultural land abandonment and succession to forest was especially high during the Depression years 

of the 1930s and after World War II. Much of the land reverting to forest on retired 

cropland and pasture was dominated by southern pine species (USDA FS 1989b). 

The agricultural policy environment contributed to a decline in cropland acreage during a downsizing from 1950 to 1972, the increase in cropland acreage during 

expansion from 1973 to 1981, and again the decline of cropland acreage during a 

downsizing period from 1982 to 1990 (Alig et al. 1988a). The agricultural policy 

of the downsizing periods recognized that resources had to be moved out of crop 

agriculture (Alig et al. 1994). The Conservation Reserve Programs of the 1956 Soil 

Bank legislation and the Food Security Act of 1985 were designed to shift cropland 

Figure 31—Rural land uses have shifted multiple times for some land parcels in the South 

because of the land’s suitability for multiple land uses and changing economic conditions.

Ralph Alig

Land exchanges 

among sectors of 

the economy have 

been important in 

the South, which has 

had a relatively large 

amount of land-use 

change compared to 

other regions.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

39

to grassland or forest cover. Such programs had the largest impacts on forestry in 

the South (Alig et al. 1980) (fig. 33).

The South has more hardwood area than softwood area, but in recent decades an 

increasing emphasis on softwood production has led to marked changes in respective forest type areas (Alig and Wyant 1985). The South’s proportion of the Nation’s 

timber harvest has also increased significantly in recent decades (Wear and Greis 

2002) fueled by increases in pine plantation area (Alig and Butler 2004); prospects 

of forest-based profits are important incentives for many private landowners in the 

region (Ahn et al. 2001). Simulations by Ahn et al. (2002) indicate that rising forest 

rents were the central factor preventing the loss of forest land to agricultural use in 

the South Central subregion from 1964 to 1997. 

Although two-way flows of land between the forestry and agriculture sectors are 

important in the South, the rate of clearing of forests for urban and developed uses 

in the South accelerated during the last several decades and was of greater significance in overall land-use change (e.g., Alig 1986, Alig and Wear 1992, USDA FS 

2001). Both people and industry have migrated to the South in large numbers. Since 

the 1970s, most of the Southern States have experienced a net inmigration of people 

and increasing conversions of forests for living space, transportation infrastructure, 

and industrial sites. 

The South has been experiencing relatively rapid population growth, especially 

around areas such as Atlanta and parts of Florida, and this has led to deforestation 

and conversions to developed uses, as well as concentrations in coastal areas. The 

Southern Forest Resource Assessment (Wear and Greis 2002) identified urbanization as one of the primary threats to forests in the region. 

Figure 32—Allocation of nonfederal land in the South region to six major 

use categories, 2002.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

40

With the rapid population growth in the South, the southern rural landscape has 

changed notably in recent decades. As population increased, more land was needed 

for home sites, roads, airports, schools, commercial and industrial sites, parks, open 

space, and other uses to satisfy the demands of urbanizing areas. When urban areas 

expand into rural areas, competition for land in rural areas increases and the value 

of rural land rises (Reynolds 2001). The amount of land in urban and special uses 

increased more than 50 percent since the 1960s in the South. National Resource 

Inventory data indicate that during 1992 to 1997, 6 of the top 10 states that lost 

the most cropland, forests, and other open spaces to urban development were in 

the South: Texas, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee 

(USDA NRCS 2001).

Figure 33—A high percentage of government-subsidized tree plantations on 

former agricultural land in the South were retained well after establishment, even 

with financial changes in the agricultural sector over time. 

USDA Forest Service

With the rapid population growth in the 

South, the southern 

rural landscape has 

changed notably in 

recent decades.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

41

Some key forested states are particularly affected by urbanization. Georgia has 

the most timberland in the country, but now ranks third in rate of average annual 

development. Developed area in Georgia grew from 7.0 percent to 11.6 percent of 

the state’s nonfederal land base from 1982 to 2002. The developed proportion in 

nearby Florida is 19.3 percent of nonfederal land in the state.

The South had more counties reclassified as metropolitan in recent decades than 

has historically been the case, similar to trends elsewhere in the United States. However, studies have found that the amount of urban land added per additional person 

is higher for nonmetropolitan than metro counties. For example, Reynolds (2001) 

found that the amount for nonmetropolitan counties was more than double that for 

metro counties in north Florida. 

In the Southeast, the concentration of development has been in the area of the 

“urban Piedmont crescent,” extending from Richmond to Atlanta. Within this area 

are the Interstate 85 and Interstate 40 corridors. This area has been the backbone of 

job growth in the Southeast, with an active manufacturing component. Many of the 

smaller cities are adjacent to larger urban areas, resulting in population concentrations in larger metropolitan areas. The urban areas of the Piedmont are likewise 

expected to witness the fastest growth, whereas the Mountains and the Coastal Plain 

will experience most of their growth in nonmetropolitan areas.

Land-Use Area Changes

Historical and projected areas for the major land-use categories for the South region 

are shown in table 11. The region experienced heavy cropland losses from 1982 to 

Table 11–Historical areas, 1982 to 2002, and projections to 2062 for land uses 

on nonfederal land in the South region

 Land uses

Year Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range Total area

 Million acres

1982 106.6 64.9 179.9 19.7 0 116.3 487.4b

1987 99.8 64.7 180.8 22.7 3.7 114.7 486.5b

1992 90.9 65.0 180.8 26.3 8.9 113.3 485.1b

1997 86.7 62.8 181.1 31.6 8.6 113.4 484.2b

2002 83.6 61.0 181.4 36.2 7.9 113.2 483.4

2012 83.3 53.8 180.8 42.7 7.4 115.5 483.4

2022 82.3 49.0 179.2 48.8 7.1 117.0 483.4

2032 80.9 45.7 177.0 54.7 6.9 118.1 483.4

2042 79.4 43.5 174.3 60.5 6.7 119.1 483.4

2052 77.7 41.9 171.4 66.0 6.6 119.8 483.4

2062 76.1 40.8 168.4 71.4 6.4 120.4 483.4

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program. 

b

 Totals are not constant owing to omission of “other” category from historical data.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

42

2002. Over the 20-year period, 23.0 million acres of cropland were converted to 

other uses, a 21.6-percent decrease in total area (table 12). As in the North region, 

this loss can be attributed largely to increases in urban area and enrollment in the 

CRP. Cropland losses will continue into the future, ranging from a 0.4-percent 

decrease from 2002 to 2012 to a 2.1-percent loss between 2052 and 2062.

Total forested area increased slightly from 1982 to 2002, by 1.5 million acres 

or 0.8 percent. Historical transitions of forest land (fig. 34) indicate that new forest 

land was created primarily from cropland and pasture from 1982 to 1997. Forest 

land was lost to urban development at an increasing rate between 1982 and 1997. 

From 1982 to 1987, 1.3 million acres of forest land were developed, and 2.5 million 

acres were lost to urban development between 1992 and 1997.

Area of forested land was projected to decrease beginning in 2002 and continue 

to decline at an increasing rate through 2062 (table 12). Nearly 20 million acres of 

Table 12—Historical (1982 to 2002) and projected (2002 to 2062) land-use changes, 

by area and percentage, on nonfederal land in the South region

 Land uses

Year Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range

Million acres

1982–1992 -15.7 0.1 0.9 6.6 8.9 -3.0

1992–2002 -7.3 -4.0 0.6 9.9 -1.0 -0.1

2002–2012 -0.3 -7.2 -0.6 6.5 -0.5 2.3

2012–2022 -1.0 -4.8 -1.6 6.1 -0.3 1.5

2022–2032 -1.4 -3.3 -2.2 5.9 -0.2 1.1

2032–2042 -1.5 -2.2 -2.7 5.8 -0.2 1.0

2042–2052 -1.7 -1.6 -2.9 5.5 -0.1 0.7

2052–2062 -1.6 -1.1 -3.0 5.4 -0.2 0.6

Total historical change

 (1982–2002) -23.0 -3.9 1.5 16.5 7.9 -3.1

Total projected change

 (2002–2062) -7.5 -20.2 -13.0 35.2 -1.5 7.2

Percent

1982–1992 -14.7 0.2 0.5 33.5 0 -2.6

1992–2002 -8.0 -6.2 0.3 37.6 -11.2 -0.1

2002–2012 -0.4 -11.8 -0.3 18.0 -6.3 2.0

2012–2022 -1.2 -8.9 -0.9 14.3 -4.1 1.3

2022–2032 -1.7 -6.7 -1.2 12.1 -2.8 0.9

2032–2042 -1.9 -4.8 -1.5 10.6 -2.9 0.8

2042–2052 -2.1 -3.7 -1.7 9.1 -1.5 0.6

2052–2062 -2.1 -2.6 -1.8 8.2 -3.0 0.5

Total historical change

 (1982–2002) -21.6 -6.0 0.8 83.8 0 -2.7

Total projected change

 (2002–2062) -9.0 -33.1 -7.2 97.2 -19.0 6.4

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.

Forest land was lost 

to urban development 

at an increasing rate 

between 1982 and 

1997. From 1982 to 

1987, 1.3 million acres 

of forest land were 

developed, and 2.5 

million acres were lost 

to urban development 

between 1992 and 

1997.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

43

forest is projected to be converted to urban development by 2062 (table 13). This is 

an average loss of more than 330,000 acres each year (fig. 35). An additional 11.4 

million acres of forest land will be converted to cropland and rangeland. However, 

some of this loss will be offset by pasture land that is allowed to return to forest 

cover; 28.4 million acres of pasture are projected to be converted into forest over the 

60-year period. With 14.1 million acres of forest being cleared to create new pasture 

at the same time, a net increase of 14.4 million acres of forest is projected owing to 

Figure 34—Historical net transitions of forest area on nonfederal land in the South, 1982 to 1997.

Table 13—Historical (1982 to 1997) and projected (2002 to 2062) land-use 

transitions on nonfederal land in the South region

 New land use

Initial land use Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa	 Range

 Thousand acres

1982–1997:

Crop — 12,781 3,764 2,293 8,685 1,613

Pasture 6,922 — 7,849 2,451 474 2,005

Forest 1,417 3,201 — 5,447 89 224

Urban 1 1 2 — 0 1

CRPa 307 240 170 3 — 102

Range 1,854 1,875 831 1,305 173 —

2002–2062:

Crop — 37,927 2,764 4,939 4,657 8,186

Pasture 36,264 — 28,478 6,498 328 11,883

Forest 5,021 14,093 — 19,962 160 6,342

Urban 0 0 0 — 0 0

CRPa 3,036 2,451 173 9 — 1,132

Range 6,607 8,728 1,120 3,759 175 —

— = Not applicable.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.

1982–1987

1982–1987 1987–1992 19892–1997
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

44

pasture conversion (fig. 36). Average annual conversions of pasture to forest will 

outpace conversions of forest to pasture by 240,000 acres. The region on the whole 

can expect to see a significant loss of forest land in the future, 13.0 million acres or 

7.2 percent of the 2002 level.

Urban growth was considerable in the region over the historical period. Urban 

area increased by 16.5 million acres or 83.8 percent between 1982 and 2002 (table 

12). Projections for the South region show urban areas continuing to expand into 

Figure 36—Pasture land has historically been the largest source of new forest land, often 

driven by shift in landowner objectives and natural successional forces. 

Figure 35—Projected average annual transitions involving forest area on nonfederal land in the South 

region, 2002 to 2062.

Ralph Alig
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

45

Figure 37—Historical and projected sources of new urban nonfederal land in the South, 1982 to 2062.

the future. From 2002 to 2062, urban area will almost double, reaching 71.4 million 

acres in 2062. Urbanization is projected to have the biggest impact on the region’s 

forest land (fig. 37). Nearly 20 million acres of forest will be permanently lost to 

development, while another 15 million acres of cropland, pasture, and rangeland 

will also be converted to urban use. 

1982–1997 2002–2017 2017–2032 2032–2047 2047–2062

Nearly 20 million 

acres of forest, and 

15 million acres of 

cropland, pasture, and 

rangeland will be lost 

to development.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

47

Figure 38—Allocation of nonfederal land in the Rocky Mountains region 

to six major use categories, 2002.

Rocky Mountains Region

The Rocky Mountains region includes 12 states, divided into two subregions 

(fig. 1). The Mountain subregion is composed of eight states: Arizona, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The Northern Plains 

subregion consists of four states: Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South 

Dakota.

Theses 12 states cover a vast area, about one-third of the entire Nation. The region encompasses a variety of landforms and has diverse climatic conditions. Scenic 

landscapes of the Rocky Mountains stretch from the Canadian border to the Mexican border, with plains rolling westward into the mountainous states. The Great 

Plains contain vast treeless areas and rangelands.

The Great Plains can have hot, dry summers and cold winters, especially in the 

northern tier of states (USDA FS 1989a). Periodic droughts are not uncommon and 

precipitation can be sparse. The intermountain states also contain many dry areas, 

with extensive areas of arid desert in Arizona and New Mexico. Winters by and 

large are cold and dry and the summers warm to hot, where moisture is often the 

limiting factor for plant growth.

Land-Use Situation

The Rocky Mountains region contains 449.2 million acres of nonfederal land, and 

rangeland accounts for 58 percent of the region’s land base (fig. 38). Cropland is 27 

percent of the total land. Forests compose only 6 percent of the land base and are 

mainly located in the Mountain subregion.

The dominant land use in the Mountain subregion is rangeland, at 69 percent. 

Cropland is a distant second at 13 percent, followed by forest, which covers 9 

The Rocky Mountains region contains 

449.2 million acres of 

nonfederal land, and 

rangeland accounts 

for 58 percent of the 

region’s land base.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

48

percent of the land base in the subregion (fig. 39). The subregion has a total of 25.5 

million acres of forest, compared to just 3.3 million acres in the Northern Plains. 

Tree planting has increased, in part through programs such as the CRP and more 

attention to trees for use in windbreaks and some agroforestry projects. Cropland 

and rangeland are both important land uses in the Northern Plains. Cropland (48 

percent) and rangeland (40 percent) combine to cover 88 percent of land in the 

subregion.

The heterogeneity of the Rocky Mountains region makes it difficult to model 

land-use decisions in this area. We estimated a regional model (see appendix). Land 

quality for agricultural production, climate, elevation, and other factors can vary 

Figure 39—Forested land in the Rocky Mountains region often has important functions related to 

water quality, including runoff of snow in mountains. 

Ralph Alig
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

49

Table 14—Historical areas, 1982 to 2002, and projections to 2062 on 

nonfederal land in the Rocky Mountains region

 Land uses

Year Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range Total area

 Million acres

1982 136.7 15.5 29.0 4.6 0 264.7 450.6b

1987 133.5 15.4 28.9 5.3 5.9 261.2 450.1b

1992 124.5 15.8 28.7 6.0 15.4 259.5 449.8b

1997 124.8 15.8 29.0 7.0 14.9 257.9 449.4b

2002 123.0 15.5 28.8 7.9 15.4 258.5 449.2

2012 125.4 15.5 29.3 8.4 13.5 257.2 449.2

2022 127.1 15.3 29.8 8.8 12.3 255.9 449.2

2032 128.4 15.3 30.3 9.2 11.4 254.5 449.2

2042 129.6 15.2 30.8 9.6 10.8 253.2 449.2

2052 130.5 15.2 31.3 10.0 10.3 251.9 449.2

2062 131.3 15.2 31.8 10.3 10.0 250.7 449.2

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program. 

b

 Totals are not constant owing to omission of “other” category from historical data.

greatly within small geographical areas. Because these factors significantly impact 

the net returns generated by alternative land uses, there can be considerable heterogeneity in net returns over small spatial scales. In many cases, our ability to account 

for fine-scale variations in net returns is limited, and this affects our success in modeling observed land-use changes (Broniak 2007). To provide a basis for comparison, 

we present both the econometric projections and an alternative set of projections 

based simply on a conditional extrapolation of land-use changes observed in the 

historical data.

Land-Use Area Changes

Table 14 shows historical and projected areas for the major land uses in the Rocky 

Mountains region. Total cropland and rangeland in the region declined substantially 

from 1982 to 2002, in part due to inception of the CRP program during that time. 

Cropland losses over this period were 13.7 million acres, a 10-percent loss (table 

15). However, cropland area is projected to rebound in the future, increasing by 8.3 

million acres from 2002 to 2062. Total cropland is projected to be 131.3 million 

acres in 2062, an increase of 7 percent from 2002. Rangeland will continue to 

steadily decline over the 60-year period. The projected land-use transitions indicate 

that much of the rangeland lost over this period will be converted to cropland 

(table 16).

The Rocky Mountains region is projected to see relatively small land-use 

changes in the future, including for forests. The Rocky Mountains region has a 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

50

small portion of its land base in forest use. As of 2002, 28.8 million acres of nonfederal land in the region were forested. Accordingly, forest land transitions indicate 

that movements between forest use and other uses are fairly small (fig. 40). Forest area was in decline from 1982 to 1992; however, a significant conversion of 

rangeland to forest between 1992 and 1997 reversed this trend. After another slight 

decline from 1997 to 2002, forest land is projected to continue increasing in area 

through 2062 (table 15).

Projected transitions involving forested land primarily involve rangeland in 

the region (fig. 41). Because the projection model is based on observed land-use 

changes between 1992 and 1997, the spike in conversions of range to forest observed during this period (fig. 40) has a significant impact on the projection results. 

This pattern of large areas of range being converted to forest is projected to continue 

Table 15—Historical (1982 to 2002) and projected (2002 to 2062) land-use changes, 

by area and percentage on nonfederal land in the Rocky Mountains region

 Land uses

Year Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa	 Range

 Million acres

1982–1992 -12.2 0.3 -0.3 1.4 15.4 -5.2

1992–2002 -1.5 -0.3 0.1 1.9 0 -1.0

2002–2012 2.4 0 0.5 0.5 -1.9 -1.3

2012–2022 1.7 -0.2 0.5 0.4 -1.2 -1.3

2022–2032 1.3 0 0.5 0.4 -0.9 -1.4

2032–2042 1.2 -0.1 0.5 0.4 -0.6 -1.3

2042–2052 0.9 0 0.5 0.4 -0.5 -1.3

2052–2062 0.8 0 0.5 0.3 -0.3 -1.2

Total historical change

 (1982–2002) -13.7 0 -0.2 3.3 15.4 -6.2

Total projected change

 (2002–2062) 8.3 -0.3 3.0 2.4 -5.4 -7.8

 Percent

1982–1992 -8.9 1.9 -1.0 30.4 0 -2.0

1992–2002 -1.2 -1.9 0.3 31.7 0 -0.4

2002–2012 2.0 0 1.7 6.3 -12.3 -0.5

2012–2022 1.4 -1.3 1.7 4.8 -8.9 -0.5

2022–2032 1.0 0 1.7 4.5 -7.3 -0.5

2032–2042 0.9 -0.7 1.7 4.3 -5.3 -0.5

2042–2052 0.7 0 1.6 4.2 -4.6 -0.5

2052–2062 0.6 0 1.6 3.0 -2.9 -0.5

Total historical change

 (1982–2002) -10.0 0 -0.7 71.7 0 -2.3

Total projected change

 (2002–2062) 6.7 -1.9 10.4 30.4 -35.1 -3.0

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

51

Table 16—Historical (1982 to 1997) and projected (2002 to 2062) land-use 

transitions on nonfederal land in the Rocky Mountains region

 New land use

Initial land use Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa	 Range

 Thousand acres

1982–1997:

Crop — 4,370 10 733 15,350 1,261

Pasture 4,152 — 72 248 262 624

Forest 50 33 — 227 8 1,046

Urban 1 0 0 — 0 0

CRPa 628 173 1 0 — 180

Range 5,490 914 1,443 1,002 280 —

2002–2062:

Crop — 5,513 43 1,319 1,771 978

Pasture 7,099 — 246 273 49 1,049

Forest 21 46 — 191 0 84

Urban 0 0 0 — 0 0

CRPa 3,526 1,902 44 5 — 853

Range 6,515 849 2,723 566 30 —

-- = Not applicable.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.

Figure 40—Historical net transitions of forest area on nonfederal land in the Rocky 

Mountains region, 1982 to 1997.

in the future (fig. 41). An average net increase of 45,000 acres of forest is projected 

each year in the region.

Among regions, the Rocky Mountains region has the smallest starting amount 

of urban area. In percentage terms, the region had some of the larger increases in 

urban area from 1982 to 2002 (table 15). Over 20 years, the region’s urban acreage 

increased by 72 percent, from 4.6 million acres to 7.9 million acres. However, this 

is the only region that is projected to see significantly slower urban growth in the 

future than it has in the past. By 2062, the total urban area in the region will be 

1982–1987 1987–1992 1992–1997

Among regions, the 

Rocky Mountains 

region has the smallest starting amount of 

urban area.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

52

Figure 41—Projected average annual transitions involving forest area on nonfederal land in the Rocky 

Mountains region, 2002 to 2062.

10.3 million acres, an increase of just 2.4 million acres or 30.4 percent over the 

60-year period from 2002 to 2062. This urban growth will still have a significant 

impact on the landscape, leading to the loss of 1.3 million acres of cropland and 

566,000 acres of rangeland converted to urban uses from 2002 to 2062 (table 16).

The land-use projection model employed here suggests a notable change in 

the trajectory of land-use changes in the Rocky Mountains region compared to the 

changes observed in the recent past. Figure 42 indicates that projected urban expansion will slow significantly from the rates observed from 1982 to 1997. Crop and 

forest lands are projected to consistently expand in the future, despite some of the 

recent declines in land area devoted to these uses (fig. 43). These results may indicate that a major shift in land-use decisions is occurring in the region, or they may 

be a sign of the difficulties associated with modeling land-use changes in this region 

because of the heterogeneity of the landscape (fig. 44). 

Figure 43 depicts the projected land-use changes in the region if the trends 

observed from 1992 to 1997 were to continue into the future. If land-use changes 

remained on this trajectory, the amount of land in urban use would reach 18.2 million acres by 2062, compared to 10.3 million acres as predicted by the econometric 

model. Rangeland would be converted to other uses more rapidly than suggested 

by the econometric model, falling to 242.0 million acres by 2062 instead of 250.7 

million acres. However, these variations are fairly minor in a region of nearly 450 

million acres. Even with this higher rate of development, urban land is expected 

to account for just 4.1 percent of the land base in 2062, compared to 2.3 percent as 

predicted by the econometric model.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

53

Figure 43—Conditional projection of land-use trends, 2002 to 2062, on nonfederal land in the 

Rocky Mountains based on extrapolation of changes observed from 1992 to 1997.

Figure 42—Historical and projected sources of new urban nonfederal land in the Rocky 

Mountains region, 1982 to 2062.

1982–1997 2002–2017 2017–2032 2032–2047 2047–2062
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

54

Figure 44—Topographical differences in the Rocky Mountains region affect land productivity and the 

mixture of ecosystem services, as well as costs of managing land for different products and land-based 

services. 

Ralph Alig
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

55

Pacific Coast Region

The Pacific Coast region includes three states divided into three subregions (fig. 

1). The Pacific Southwest subregion consists of one state, California. The western 

portions of Oregon and Washington (west of the crest of the Cascade Range) make 

up the Pacific Northwest West subregion, and the eastern portions of the two states 

compose the Pacific Northwest East subregion. 

For the Pacific Coast region, latitude and environmental conditions differ 

widely across the region. Extremes of environmental conditions owing to the latitudinal differences are moderated in some areas and exaggerated in others, by influences of ocean currents, prevailing winds, and land form (USDA FS 1989b). The 

Hoh Rain Forest on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula receives on average more than 

135 inches of rain annually. Death Valley in California, on the other hand, receives 

less than 2 inches of rain per year and frequently reaches temperatures above 120 

degrees F. 

In the maritime zone are some of the tallest trees in the world and the most 

productive coniferous forests in the northern hemisphere. The redwood belt of California, the spruce and hemlock forests of coastal Alaska, and the Pacific Northwest 

subregion west of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington are within 

the maritime zone (USDA FS 1989a). Growing conditions for forests differ widely 

within the region, as forests of eastern Oregon, Washington, and California are less 

productive on average than those in the maritime zone. The better sites, however, 

are quite productive (USDA FS 1989a). 

Land-Use Situation

Of the Pacific Coast region’s 105.8 million acres of nonfederal land, 37 percent was 

covered in forest and 31 percent was rangeland as of 2002 (fig. 45). An additional 

Figure 45—Allocation of nonfederal land in the Pacific Coast region to 

six major use categories, 2002.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

56

19 percent was devoted to cropland, and 7 percent of the region’s land was in urban 

use in 2002.

Within the Pacific Coast region, the forest use percentage differs notably by 

subregion, from 79 percent in the western portion of the Pacific Northwest to 26 

percent in the eastern Pacific Northwest (fig. 46). Urban and developed uses make 

up 11 percent of California, 10 percent of western Oregon and Washington combined, and 2 percent of eastern Oregon and Washington. This region has experienced above-average growth in population, with many residents living along the 

coastal areas of the states or near the I-5 interstate corridor. The region also has examples of state-level land use laws (e.g., Kline and Alig 1999) and states relatively 

active in seeking policy changes associated with urban sprawl and climate change 

considerations, as in California. 

Forest ownership changes are also important in this region (Best and Wayburn 

2001). Exchanges have involved a variety of ownerships, including TIMOs, REITs, 

forest conservation groups, and others. The federal Northwest Forest Plan addressed 

the issue of logging old-growth forests on public land, but it also indirectly altered 

incentives for forest management on private lands in the region. Unintended consequences have led to bifurcated forest management strategies on federal forests and 

Figure 46—Rainfall patterns differ markedly between the west and east side of the crest of the 

Cascades mountain range, affecting vegetation types and growth as well as forested setting around 

lakes and other water areas.

Ralph Alig

This region has 

experienced aboveaverage growth in 

population, with many 

residents living along 

the coastal areas of 

the states or near the 

I-5 interstate corridor.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

57

Table 17—Historical areas, 1982 to 2002, and projections to 2062 for land uses 

on nonfederal land in the Pacific Coast region

 Land uses

Year Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range Total area

 Million acres

1982 22.7 4.7 40.3 5.1 0 34.4 107.2b

1987 21.5 4.8 40.2 5.6 1.0 34.0 107.0b

1992 20.6 4.5 39.8 6.3 1.7 33.4 106.4b

1997 20.1 4.2 39.4 7.2 1.7 33.4 106.0b

2002 19.7 4.1 39.4 7.9 1.8 33.1 105.8

2012 15.9 7.6 39.0 11.3 1.0 31.0 105.8

2022 14.0 7.6 39.0 14.7 0.7 29.8 105.8

2032 12.6 7.1 38.9 17.9 0.6 28.8 105.8

2042 11.6 6.5 38.6 20.8 0.5 27.9 105.8

2052 10.7 5.9 38.1 23.6 0.4 27.1 105.8

2062 9.9 5.4 37.6 26.3 0.4 26.3 105.8

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program. 

b

 Totals are not constant owing to omission of “other” category from historical data.

private forests, with generally much shorter timber rotations now on many private 

forests in the region. At the same time, the change in rotation length is being compounded by increased loss of private forests to developed uses and rapidly changing 

forest ownership, such that about half of the land previously held by integrated 

forest product companies is now owned by institutions or companies associated 

with financial funds. 

Land-Use Area Changes

Among major uses, the urban use showed the only net increase in area between 

1982 and 2002 in the Pacific Coast region (table 17). Urban area increased more 

than 20 percent each decade between 1982 and 2002 (table 18). Additions to urban 

area were drawn from the other major uses, with forest, range, and crop uses being 

the largest sources (table 19). 

Cropland losses from 1982 to 2002 totaled 3.0 million acres, a decrease of 13.2 

percent (table 18). However, the greatest loss of cropland is projected from 2002 

to 2012, during which time 3.8 million acres of cropland, 19.3 percent of the 2002 

area, will be converted. A total of 9.8 million acres of cropland will be lost over the 

60-year projection period, a decline of nearly 50 percent.

Total forest area in the region declined from 1982 to 2002, from 40.3 million 

acres to 39.4 million acres (table 17). Between 1982 and 1997, a significant amount 

of land moved into forest use from other uses, particularly pasture and range (fig. 

47). However, from 1992 to 1997, forest land transitions were dominated by losses 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

58

to urban and range uses and this trend is expected to continue in the future. As 

shown in table 19, conversions of pasture into forested land are also projected to 

have an impact on total forested area. Total forest area is projected to increase by 

7.1 million acres on net from conversions of pasture to forest land, but urbanization 

will lead to the permanent loss of 9.8 million acres of forest land. On average, more 

than 160,000 acres of forest land are expected to be lost to urban development each 

year from 2002 to 2062 (fig. 48). The total net loss of forest land from 2002 to 2062 

is projected to be 1.8 million acres, or 4.6 percent of the area of land in forest use as 

of 2002 (fig. 49).

Urban area in the Pacific Coast region expanded from 5.1 million acres to 7.9 

million acres, an increase of 54.9 percent, from 1982 to 2002. Of the four RPA 

regions, the Pacific Coast region is projected to be the area most affected percentage-wise by urbanization in the future (Alig and White 2007). Urban area will 

Table 18—Historical (1982 to 2002) and projected (2002 to 2062) land-use 

changes, by area and percentage, on nonfederal land in the Pacific Coast region

 Land uses

Year Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range

Million acres

1982–1992 -2.1 -0.2 -0.5 1.2 1.7 -1.0

1992–2002 -0.9 -0.4 -0.4 1.6 0.1 -0.3

2002–2012 -3.8 3.5 -0.4 3.4 -0.8 -2.1

2012–2022 -1.9 0 0 3.4 -0.3 -1.2

2022–2032 -1.4 -0.5 -0.1 3.2 -0.1 -1.0

2032–2042 -1.0 -0.6 -0.3 2.9 -0.1 -0.9

2042–2052 -0.9 -0.6 -0.5 2.8 -0.1 -0.8

2052–2062 -0.8 -0.5 -0.5 2.7 0 -0.8

Total historical change

 (1982–2002) -3.0 -0.6 -0.9 2.8 1.8 -1.3

Total projected change

 (2002–2062) -9.8 1.3 -1.8 18.4 -1.4 -6.8

 Percent

1982–1992 -9.3 -4.3 -1.2 23.5 0 -2.9

1992–2002 -4.4 -8.9 -1.0 25.4 5.9 -0.9

2002–2012 -19.3 85.4 -1.0 43.0 -44.4 -6.3

2012–2022 -11.9 0 0 30.1 -30.0 -3.9

2022–2032 -10.0 -6.6 -0.3 21.8 -14.3 -3.4

2032–2042 -7.9 -8.5 -0.8 16.2 -16.7 -3.1

2042–2052 -7.8 -9.2 -1.3 13.5 -20.0 -2.9

2052–2062 -7.5 -8.5 -1.3 11.4 0 -3.0

Total historical change

 (1982–2002) -13.2 -12.8 -2.2 54.9 0 -3.8

Total projected change

 (2002–2062) -49.7 31.7 -4.6 232.9 -77.8 -20.5

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.

Net loss of forest land 

from 2002 to 2008 is 

projected to be 1.8 

million acres or 4.6 

percent of forest use 

in 2002.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

59

Table 19—Historical (1982 to 1997) and projected (2002 to 2062) land-use 

transitions on nonfederal land in the Pacific Coast region

 New land use

Initial land use Crop Pasture Forest Urban CRPa	 Range

Thousand acres

1982–1997:

Crop — 803 29 506 1,822 683

Pasture 836 — 180 220 14 231

Forest 22 82 — 593 1 994

Urban 0 0 1 — 0 0

CRPa 89 81 0 0 — 15

Range 516 152 877 677 18 —

2002–2062:

Crop — 16,748 915 2,654 711 720

Pasture 10,112 — 7,896 3,658 90 1,222

Forest 293 782 — 9,774 8 1,368

Urban 0 0 0 — 0 0

CRPa 738 1,298 68 6 — 99

Range 764 5,443 1,591 2,332 9 —

— = Not applicable.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.

Figure 47—Historical net transitions of forest area on nonfederal land in the Pacific Coast region, 

1982 to 1997.

increase from 7.9 million acres in 2002 to 26.3 million acres in 2062, an increase 

of nearly 233 percent. Urban land will account for almost 25 percent of the region’s 

total land base by 2062. This projected urban development will affect forest land 

most significantly (fig. 50). Urbanization is expected to lead to the loss of 9.8 million acres of forest land, 3.7 million acres of pasture, 2.7 million acres of cropland, 

and 2.3 million acres of rangeland (table 19).

1982–1987 1987–1992 1992–1997
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

60

Figure 48—Projected average annual transitions involving forest area on nonfederal land in the Pacific 

Coast region, 2002 to 2062.

Figure 49—The Pacific Coast region contains some forest stands with relatively large amounts of 

biomass per acre, and conversion to other land uses can significantly reduce the potential for forests 

to sequester carbon in the region.

Ralph Alig
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

61

Figure 50—Historical and projected sources of new urban nonfederal land in the Pacific Coast region, 

1982 to 2062.

1982–1997 2002–2017 2017–2032 2032–2047 2047–2067
This page is intentionally left blank.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

63

Summary and Discussion

The number and complexity of land-use issues have grown appreciably since the 

first RPA land base assessment in the 1970s. Concerns about reduction in the area 

of productive timberland are long standing, with some of the earliest efforts in 

forest conservation inspired by rapid loss of forest stands to agriculture and logging, 

desires to protect water resources, and desires to preserve lands of extraordinary 

beauty and natural magnificence. 

Forest area in the United States fluctuated notably in the 20th century, with a net 

loss of 34 million acres, a land area larger than the state of Arkansas, representing 

a 4.4 percent loss (USDA FS 2009). Area of forest-land cover in the United States 

is projected to decline over the next half-century, with a 7-percent reduction by 

2062. Increases in population and income are expected to further fuel conversion 

of forests to urban and developed uses. Projected increases in urban and developed 

uses will likely intensify competition for remaining land between the agricultural 

and forestry sectors. In recent decades, cropland increases have come at the expense 

of grassland (pasture and range) and the acres devoted to farmsteads as a result of 

declining farm numbers. Increases in forest land have also generally been at the 

expense of grassland. All three major land-use classes—cropland, forest land, and 

grassland—have lost area to urbanization, and that trend is projected to continue. 

In view of such land-use dynamics, land moving into forest will not be the same as 

older forest being converted to other uses. That is, just considering the total “net” 

number of forest acres on the landscape does not include the loss of many attributes 

people care about: ecosystem services, including wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, water cycling, and many other attributes.

Trends in Population and Personal Income

Demand for land for developed use is driven by increases in both personal income 

and population as part of economic activities and socioeconomic changes. Although 

the Nation’s economy has been in a recession starting in 2008, population growth 

has been stronger than was expected a few years ago. The preliminary estimate 

of births in 2007 rose 1 percent to 4,317,119, the highest number of births ever 

registered for the United States (Hamilton et al. 2009). The general fertility rate 

increased by 1 percent in 2007, to 69.5 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 years, 

the highest level since 1990. At the same time, illegal immigration continues at 

significant rates, also affecting long-term demand for land in different uses, but 

associated impacts are difficult to assess because of the uncertainty about exact 

numbers and timing. The U.S. Federal Government in February 2009 said that after 

years of increases, the illegal-immigrant population in the United States dropped 

for the first time, between 2007 and 2008—about the time that both a recession and 

All three major landuse classes—cropland, forest land, and 

grassland—have lost 

area to urbanization, 

and that trend is projected to continue.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

64

tougher immigration enforcement began. In a report, the Department of Homeland 

Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics said the illegal-immigrant population in 

January 2008 was 11.6 million, or 200,000 smaller than a year earlier (Hoefer et al. 

2009). 

Historically, the NRI shows that about 1 million acres of forest land were 

converted to urban and other developed uses in their last periodic survey, as the 

national rate of urbanization increased 50 percent compared to the earlier survey 

period (USDA NRCS 2001). Urban and other developed areas are projected to continue to grow substantially, more than doubling in area by 2062. Area of urban and 

developed uses is projected to increase to 176 million acres by 2062, in line with a 

projected U.S. population increase of more than 130 million people over the next 50 

years. Consistent with recent trends, the population growth is fastest in the West and 

South. Projected increases in population and income will, in turn, increase demands 

for use of land for residential, urban, transportation, and related uses. Incomes of 

Americans have grown substantially since World War II, and projected increases in 

discretionary income will increase demands for renewable resources and also may 

lead to further conversion of forests for developed uses.

Although this analysis takes a long-term view of land use, it is also necessary 

to monitor changes in economic and social conditions that may persist for a considerable period. In 2009, this includes monitoring of changes in financial and credit 

markets (e.g., economic downturn) that can affect funding for new development, as 

well as physical changes to forests from climate change. Models of land use typically rely on past behavior and land-use patterns to inform expectations about future 

land use, and this land-use projection model is no exception. A number of factors 

may lead to changes in human behavior that result in future land-use changes that 

differ from current projections. Factors such as decreases in real incomes and tightening of credit markets, increasing energy costs and higher commuting costs, and 

changes in preferences may tend to reduce the demand for residential development 

in the coming decades. 

Responses by people to the aforementioned changes in the economy and population growth and migration likely will result in residential development on forested 

lands that will differ by region (e.g., White et al. 2009b) (fig. 51). Although currently there is some uncertainty about the path of the U.S. economy and future housing 

markets, land development in the United States has been ongoing for decades. With 

the U.S. population expected to increase by at least another 130 million people by 

2062, resource managers should expect and plan for continued development pressure on many of the Nation’s private forests. 

With the U.S. population expected to 

increase by at least 

another 130 million 

people by 2062, 

resource managers 

should expect and 

plan for continued 

development pressure 

on many of the 

Nation’s private 

forests.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

65

More detailed analyses of the spatial allocation of places of residence within 

forest settings and watersheds are provided by the “Forests on the Edge” project. 

Stein et al. (2005) projected housing density changes on private forest land; Stein 

et al. (2007) projected changes on such private lands close to National Forests; and 

White et al. (2009a) investigated the sensitivity of such projections to different factors such as definitions of forest land, watershed classification criteria, and housing 

density classes or number of houses per square mile. 

Forest Ownership Changes

Changes in forest ownership have also been substantial since the 2000 RPA 

Assessment. Although a national set of associated data are not yet available, some 

broad outlines of the changes are becoming evident. The South, in particular, 

has seen tens of millions of acres change hands in recent decades (Clutter et al. 

2005). Traditional industrial ownership of forest land has shrunk considerably, as 

land divestitures by industry in the South are now owned by timber management 

investment organizations (TIMOs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and 

are classified as nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands. Such owners do not have 

processing facilities (e.g., mills) that would require a steady supply of timber, and so 

Figure 51—Disturbances related to human activities are more frequent in total than natural disturbances in the context of affecting land use, although natural disturbances (such as this fire) can be 

significant in affecting land use or land cover in smaller locales.

Ralph Alig
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

66

they have more flexibility to move into or out of a specific forest type or region to 

meet financial goals. Most owners also do not have the same level of investment in 

forestry research or firefighting materials as traditional industrial owners. 

At the same time, on average, owners of NIPF forest land are getting older, and 

non-heirs may take ownership of some land during transitions in families. This can 

also lead to smaller average forest parcel sizes (Butler 2008, Butler and Leatherberry 2004), as part of the parcelization process. 

Among forest ownerships, the NIPF ownership is generally the most affected by

land-use conversions and changes in land-use policy affecting private land (Alig et 

al. 1990b) and can have higher rates of forest fragmentation (Alig et al. 2005, Butler 

et al. 2004). Change in total forest area is the net result of the conversion of forest 

land to nonforest and the shifting of nonforest to forest land by natural reversion 

or afforestation (Alig and Wear 1992, Alig et al. 2010). Ownership changes in the 

forest-land base may result in different land management objectives or new private 

owners with different available resources to invest in forest management. Changes 

in the areas of forest types often reflect differences in land management objectives 

among owners and indicate the differential influence of natural and management 

forces (Alig and Wyant 1985).

Nonindustrial private forest land ownerships are also affected by agricultural 

and land conservation policies. For example, the national farm bills have increasingly included environmental provisions. The 2008 Farm Bill continued the CRP 

and affected all contracts due to expire by 2010. Contracts were divided into quintiles based on the environmental benefit index. The highest quintile was offered new 

10- or 15-year contracts, and the rest were offered 2- to 5-year extensions. Investment in land use and management to promote global climate change mitigation 

could be substantial in the decades ahead, but the future path is hazy. Legislation 

passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009 includes incentives for tree 

planting on agricultural lands, including an option for 18 million acres by 2020, 

which would be the Nation’s largest tree-planting program ever (Watson 2009). 

Integration with other policies could culminate in expanded multifunctional landscapes, which will need to be monitored with respect to ecological benefits and the 

dynamics of the link between land-use patterns and market prices.

Land-Use Policies

If the past is used as a guide to the direction and magnitude of future land-use shifts,

then evidence suggests that a range of outcomes is possible in the dynamic setting.

Accuracy of past projections has been affected by major changes in agricultural 

policy and goals, and to a lesser extent, forest policy (e.g., reduction in public 
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

67

timber harvest). Past policy-related interactions between the forest and agricultural 

sectors have included unintended consequences, such as effects of the agricultural 

Soil Bank Program resulting in more tree planting and subsequently more timber 

supplies (Alig et al. 1980). More targeted effects of later programs such as the 

Conservation Reserve Program resulted in the Nation’s largest tree-planting 

program over a 5-year period. Further interactions are likely in the face of climate 

change and associated mitigation measures that may include afforestation on 

marginal agricultural land (Alig et al. 1998). 

Policies directed at slowing or tempering loss of forest land to developed uses 

include a wide variety (fig. 52), although the overall net effect is unclear in that the 

amount of urban and developed area has steadily increased over the last several 

decades, and the incremental amount of developed area per additional person increased over the last NRI remeasurement period (Alig et al. 2004b). Developed uses 

can typically command land prices that far exceed those of traditional rural uses 

such as forestry (Alig and Plantinga 2004), resulting in relatively large opportunity 

costs of keeping land in forest or other rural uses. A rapid increase in the number of 

land trusts across the Nation reflects the development pressures facing rural lands. 

Such land trusts often are part of conservation partnerships to address the rapid loss 

Figure 52—The diversity and number of efforts to slow or temper loss of open space, including forest 

land, have increased in recent years along with growth in population, average personal incomes, and 

development pressures.

Ralph Alig

Developed uses can 

typically command 

land prices that far 

exceed those of traditional rural uses such 

as forestry.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

68

of open space (e.g., USDA FS 2007), including cooperating across ownership and 

other institutional boundaries to promote open space conservation. Conservation 

easements have been increasing in popularity as a tool for encouraging the protection of forests and other lands. Landowners receive tax benefits or are paid a lump 

sum in exchange for restricting the type and amount of development and other uses 

that may take place on their property. Restrictions on the easement are identified 

in a legal agreement signed by the landowner and a conservation recipient (usually a public agency or land trust). To qualify for tax benefits, an easement must be 

perpetual, with future owners bound by the same restrictions, and some landowners 

are reluctant to enroll land in such long-term agreements. With many choices to be 

made in the decade ahead, policy changes will continue to influence land reallocation, although outcomes across the various sectors of the economy are at times 

difficult to predict. 

Growing attention to interactions between the economy and the environment 

has included policies that regulate or constrain the economy so that production and 

consumption will fall within environmentally acceptable limits (Alig and Ahearn 

2006). Private land-use decisions often give rise to significant external costs such as 

nonpoint source pollution, and external benefits such as habitat for wildlife or open 

space (e.g., Kline et al. 2004). One role of land-use policies is to narrow the divergences between privately and socially optimal land allocations by modifying the 

economic incentives faced by private landowners (Plantinga and Ahn 2002). Policies in the national farm bill are designed to increase the relative net returns to land 

in socially desired uses, including by encouraging landowners to convert their land 

to the desired use as in promoting CRP afforestation or policies encouraging landowners to retain land in a desired use such as wetlands. In our reference projections, 

we froze in place current policies that affect land use. 

Contemporary land-use policies as a whole are multiobjective in nature. Implementation of multiobjective policies is laden with tensions. One challenge involves 

a major contemporary focus of land-use policies, the management of the direction 

of development. Urban sprawl has been cited as one of the leading concerns of 

Americans (Pew Center 2000). According to the Pew report, approximately 1,000 

measures aimed at changing planning laws and at making U.S. development more 

orderly and conserving were introduced in state legislatures in the late 1990s. Concerns about sprawl originate from both the disamenities associated with increased 

congestion as well as the loss of productive land for agriculture and forestry uses. 

The situation in agriculture is sometimes one of surpluses and depressed markets, with agriculture historically cyclical in the long run (Alig et al. 1994). With 

a rapidly growing world population, projected to increase by more than 3 billion 

With many choices to 

be made in the decade 

ahead, policy changes 

will continue to influence land reallocation, 

although outcomes 

across the various 

sectors of the economy are at times difficult to predict.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

69

people by 2062 to 9 billion people, food and fiber demand is likely to increase in 

the future. Long-term loss of prime agricultural and forest land to urban uses arises 

in part because lands that are highly suitable for agriculture or forestry are often 

also desirable for urban expansion—gently sloped, fertile valleys, and flood plains. 

Urban conversion is generally “one-way”; the land is usually irretrievably lost for 

less intensive use within typical planning horizons.

In general, human-caused changes in land uses and land covers are a primary 

force driving changes in ecosystem attributes, with such changes affecting criteria 

for sustainable forest, agricultural, and residential and other urban land management 

(Alig and Haynes 2002, Alig et al. 1998). With a projected increase of more than 

120 million people in the United States over the next 50 years, projections in this 

study, earlier RPA Assessments, related special studies (e.g., USDA FS 1988), and 

other studies of additional developed land area and housing growth all point to substantial future forest conversion (e.g., Alig et al., in press; Nowak and Walton 2005; 

Radeloff et al. 2005; Stein et al. 2005). 

Land-use policies will need to be monitored over time given the dynamics 

of land use and changes in other policies that affect land use. One example is the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, whose provisions were formulated 

and implemented after projections for this study were completed. In addition, given 

dynamics of the changing population and social values, some forest conversion can 

adversely affect provision of public goods by forests, such as the environmental service of storing terrestrial carbon to mitigate climate change, which falls outside private decisionmaking. Measuring and evaluating multiple forest benefits associated 

with public goods can be difficult owing to a general lack of information describing 

some forest-based services and outputs and their values (Smail and Lewis 2009). 

We have relatively little information about the value of benefits accruing from ecosystem services provided by private forests. 

Climate Change: Impacts on Forests, Adaptation, and Mitigation

Implications of climate change include possible impacts on forest productivity (e.g., 

Alig et al. 2003), adaptation by ecosystems and people (e.g., Alig et al. 2004a), 

and use of forests and products (e.g., White 2010) as part of the mitigation strategy 

(e.g., Alig et al. 2010). Public policies that could affect both agriculture and forestry 

in the future include any land-based mitigation activities to address global climate 

change. Forestry activities, such as afforestation and short-rotation woody crops, 

have been proposed as having roles in international agreements to reduce net 

emissions or enhance sinks of greenhouse gases (Alig et al. 1997, 2001; Birdsey 

et al. 2001; Sohngen and Alig 2000). 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

70

Actions to mitigate climate change that directly bear on forests include forest 

management strategies to expand carbon storage in forests as an ecosystem service. 

At the same time, forestry’s mitigation potential could be affected by institutional 

activities such as subsidized ethanol production from agricultural sources, such 

as corn, which can lead to increased deforestation for agricultural use (Alig et al. 

2010). Such deforestation could occur especially in a relatively productive agricultural region such as the Midwest. Other environmental impacts may arise if additional corn is planted on land that was previously used as pasture or enrolled in the 

CRP (Westcott 2007). The land-use effects of this new biofuels market are just beginning to emerge, and should be monitored carefully in future assessments, along 

with prospects for changes in the overall energy arena that could affect production 

and transportation of forestry and agricultural products, as well as choices of location for residents, given impacts on commuting costs. This includes the expansion in 

“energy land” that includes windmill facilities, ethanol-producing areas such as the 

aforementioned corn production, oil and gas production, and solar energy production. Expanded use of land for energy production could increasingly affect wildlife 

habitat and biodiversity, including development not for making electricity but for 

biofuels production mandated under the Renewable Fuels Standards provisions of 

the national Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. One tradeoff when 

it comes to land use is that production of renewable energy can have a significant 

footprint and in some cases can exceed that for fossil-fuel energy production. The 

footprint of new energy development, including wind, solar, and biofuels, could 

occupy nearly 80,000 square miles of land by 2030, an area larger than the state of 

Minnesota (Bodin 2009). 

In addition to land-use and environmental footprints, production of renewable 

energy can also affect costs and supplies of traditional forestry products. Over time, 

demand for traditional or nontraditional production from forests (e.g., cellulosic 

ethanol) may also increase, affecting the relative cost of roundwood from forest 

land for timber production or paper-related products as compared to use in the 

energy sector (Alig et al. 2010). In the future, this will depend in part on technological progress and breakthroughs, which are difficult to project. Impacts of climate 

change on forest growth and other processes may also alter costs of timber production in different regions, including shifts in species. 

How landowners adapt to climate change, and how that will affect land use, 

is also quite uncertain and will interact with mitigation activities in ways that are 

largely unknown at present (Alig 2003). Climate change could alter forests from a 

number of different perspectives, affecting traditional timber growing (e.g., McCarl et al. 2000), quality-of-life dimensions for residential areas, biomass sources 

Actions to mitigate 

climate change that 

directly bear on forests include forest 

management strategies to expand carbon 

storage in forests as 

an ecosystem service.

How landowners 

adapt to climate 

change, and how that 

will affect land use, is 

also quite uncertain 

and will interact with 

mitigation activities in 

ways that are largely 

unknown at present.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

71

for renewable energy (e.g., White 2010), recreation, water quality and quantity, 

wildlife habitat, and many other aspects (fig. 53). The 2010 RPA Assessment will 

examine some of these aspects under different climate change scenarios, and other 

studies are also investigating related topics (e.g., USDA FS 2009). Many strategies 

have been proposed to use forests to reduce the net amount of carbon dioxide going 

into our air, including expanded afforestation, reduced deforestation, altered forest 

management, storage of more carbon in wood products, and expanded use of woody 

biomass for renewable energy production (Alig et al. 2010). 

Scenario analysis involving possible future markets for carbon under hypothetical cap-and-trade policies has shown that future forest area could vary markedly under different price assumptions for carbon dioxide (Alig et al. 2010). In comparison 

to a baseline projection of a reduction in timberland under business as usual, Alig et 

al. (2010) indicated that more than a $25 per tonne ($22.70 per ton) carbon dioxide 

price could be needed to eliminate the projected loss in timberland area. Higher 

carbon dioxide prices could induce enough afforestation to offset timberland area 

losses to other uses such as developed uses and agriculture. The temporal nature of 

climate change and variability add to the complications, which are sometimes not 

fully reflected in ecological assessments. In contrast to current effects from land-use 

Figure 53–Land-use changes and reforestation after harvest can affect the amount of carbon stored in 

forests as society looks to address climate change. Such land-use changes can be influenced by policy.

Ralph Alig

Scenario analysis 

involving possible 

future markets for 

carbon under hypothetical cap-and-trade 

policies has shown 

that future forest area 

could vary markedly 

under different price 

assumptions for 

carbon dioxide.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

72

change, impacts from climate change are viewed as farther in the future and significantly more uncertain concerning form and location. Future work can explore more 

fully the role of land-use change in climate change at different scales, such as for 

albedo effects. 

Adaptation under climate change scenarios is another topic warranting increased research (Alig et al. 2004a). This includes the relationship between human 

settlement patterns and vulnerabilities to natural disasters. Natural disasters have 

many varied consequences, including damage to ecosystems and human communities. Recent trends in land use and housing growth not only create stresses on natural ecosystems, they also increase society’s vulnerability to natural hazards. Human 

communities are both a source of, and a victim of, natural hazards.

Housing and infrastructure growth is perhaps the single most important factor 

behind increasing economic losses from natural disasters. The threat posed by most 

natural disasters has not changed significantly over time, although wildland fire is 

an exception as people encroach more on undeveloped areas. Global climate change 

has also been suggested as contributing to recent catastrophic weather events, and 

although scientific opinion is mixed regarding its role in current patterns, scientists 

agree that there is potential for significant change in the future. However, in the 

short run, i.e., over the past 50 years, the likelihood of natural hazards has been 

relatively stable but losses in the United States have increased because of increases 

in asset values and our increased vulnerability to these hazards. More houses and 

more wealth concentrated in regions of the country facing significant hazard levels, 

especially in coastal areas, has been the trend in the United States over the past 50 

years. 

Regional patterns of growth and decline in the United States have shifted population and property value to more vulnerable areas. By 1970, population and housing growth had shifted away from the cities of the Northeastern United States and 

into two regions facing considerable natural hazards: the Southeast, with its exposure to hurricanes from both the Atlantic and the Gulf; and the West where a wide 

range of hazards are present (Alig et al., in press). Colorado and California stand 

out as states where population and housing growth have been substantial (California 

earlier in the period, Colorado later) and both face the threat of catastrophic wildland fires. In California, earthquakes and landslides are also major threats to heavily populated cities. Coastal Oregon and Washington are exposed to tsunami risks; 

southwestern states (Arizona, and later in the period, New Mexico and Nevada) 

have grown tremendously and have active fire regimes.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

73

Selective urban deconcentration, which has been the overarching pattern of 

settlement change in the late 20th century, has brought growth to many rural communities and to suburbs more distant from the urban core. In the 21st century, fluctuations in energy prices, climate change, and the economic downturn have given 

some pause to reconsider location and building decisions. If deconcentration does 

continue, the change from the centuries-long urban concentration pattern contributes 

to vulnerability in two ways. First, isolated communities and especially unincorporated areas have less infrastructure (e.g., roads and water supply systems) and fewer 

resources for providing protection services (e.g., police and fire protection). Rapid 

growth exacerbates the difficulties of providing adequate infrastructure. Second, 

wildland fire is a meaningful threat to homes in the wildland urban interface, which 

is typically found around the outer edges of metropolitan areas and throughout the 

countryside, the same areas where housing growth has been most dramatic (Stewart 

et al. 2003).

In the United States, society’s response to natural disasters has been more 

oriented to reaction than to planning. When losses to human communities are 

substantial, the outcome is often new policy, reallocation of public spending, and 

regulation. To take an example familiar to the resource management community, 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act can be seen as a policy response to the bad fire 

seasons of 2000 and 2002. With human community vulnerability and loss comes 

the prospect of more changes such as these. To date, few incentives or policies have 

addressed the root cause—the development of new housing units without regard to 

landscape patterns, ecological processes, or hazard exposure. 

Land use will continue to change as private decisionmakers and society examine options to adjust to changing demands for and supplies of renewable resources 

and ecosystem services (e.g., Matthews et al. 2002) from the Nation’s forest and 

aquatic ecosystems. Sustainability analyses will be enhanced if more recent and 

consistent nationwide data on land-use changes are made available and coordinated 

with information on associated changes in the suite of ecosystem services. Analyses should be explicit as to timing of tradeoffs and provide more information about 

spatial details. Further, sustainability analyses will be enhanced if both land use and 

land investment options are examined. 

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the assistance of Eric White, Marjorie Victor, and USDA NRCS 

analysts, and reviews provided by Linda Langner and eight anonymous forestry and 

land-use experts. 

In the United States, 

society’s response to 

natural disasters has 

been more oriented 

to reaction than to 

planning.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

74

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To get:

Acres 0.4047 Hectares

Cubic feet 0.0283 Cubic meters

Feet 0.3048 Meters

Miles 1.6098 Kilometers

Tons 0.907 Tonnes

Degrees Fahrenheit .55(F - 32) Degrees Celsius

References

Adams, D.; Haynes, R., eds. 2007. Resource and market projections for forest 

policy development: twenty-five years of experience with the U.S. Resources 

Planning Act (RPA) Timber Assessment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 

589 p.

Adams, D.; Mills, J.; Alig, R.; Haynes, R. 2005. SOFRA and RPA: two views 

of the future of Southern timber supply. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

29(3): 123–134.

Ahn, S.; Plantinga, A.; Alig, R. 2001. Historical trends and projections of land use 

for the south central United States. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-530. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

20 p. 

Ahn, S.; Plantinga, A.; Alig, R. 2002. Determinants and projections of land use for 

the south central United States. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

26(2): 78–84.

Alig, R. 1985. Modeling forest acreage changes in forest ownerships and cover 

types in the Southeast. Res. Pap. RM-260. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 14 p.

Alig, R. 1986. Econometric analysis of forest acreage trends in the Southeast. Forest 

Science. 32(1): 119–134.

Alig, R. 2003. U.S. landowner behavior, land use, and land cover changes, and 

climate change mitigation. Silva Fennica. 37(4): 511–527.

Alig, R.; Adams, D.; Chmelik, J.; Bettinger, P. 1999a. Private forest investment 

and long run sustainable harvest volumes. New Forests. 17: 307–327. 
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

75

Alig, R.; Adams, D.; Haynes, R. 1994. Regional changes in land uses and cover 

types: modeling links between forestry and agriculture. In: Newman, D.H.; 

Aronow, M.E., eds. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Southern Forest Economics 

Workshop: Forest Economics on the Edge. Athens, GA: Warnell School of Forest 

Resources, University of Georgia: 90–101.

Alig, R.; Adams, D.; Ince, P.; McCarl, B. 2001. Economic potential of short 

rotation woody crops for pulp production in the United States. Forest Products 

Journal. 63(3): 215–226.

Alig, R.; Adams, D.; Joyce, L.; Sohngen, B. 2004a. Climate change impacts and 

adaptation in forestry: responses by trees and markets. Choices. Fall: 7–11.

Alig, R.; Adams, D.; McCarl, B. 1998. Impacts of incorporating land exchanges 

between forestry and agriculture in sector models. Journal of Agricultural and 

Applied Economics. 30(2): 389–401. 

Alig, R.; Adams, D.; McCarl, B. 2002a. Projecting impacts of global climate 

change on the U.S. forest and agriculture sectors and carbon budgets. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 169: 3–14. 

Alig, R.; Adams, D.; McCarl, B.; Callaway, J.; Winnett, S. 1997. Assessing 

effects of mitigation strategies for global climate change with an intertemporal 

model of the U.S. forest and agricultural sectors. Environmental and Resource 

Economics. 9: 259–274.

Alig, R.; Ahearn, M. 2006. Effects of policy and technological change on land use. 

In: Bell, K.P.; Boyle, K.J.; Rubin, J., eds. Economics of rural land-use change. 

Burlington, VT: Ashgate Press: 27–40. Chapter 3.

Alig, R.; Benford, F.; Moulton, R.; Lee, L. 1999b. Long-term projection of 

urban and developed land area in the United States. In: Keep America growing, 

balancing working lands and development: conference proceedings [CD-ROM]. 

Washington, DC: American Farmland Trust. Additional information at: www.

farmland.org/. (August 2008).

Alig, R.; Butler, B. 2002. Forest cover changes in the United States. In: 

Proceedings of the 2001 national convention of the Society of American 

Foresters. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 93–115.

Alig, R.; Butler, B. 2004. Projecting large-scale area changes in land use and land 

cover for terrestrial carbon analyses. Environmental Management. 33(4): 

443–456.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

76

Alig, R.; Haynes, R. 2002. Sustainable forest management and land use changes. 

In: Proceedings of the 2001 national convention of the Society of American 

Foresters. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 116–126.

Alig, R.; Healy, R. 1987. Urban and built-up land area changes in the United States: 

an empirical investigation of determinants. Land Economics. 63(3): 215–226.

Alig, R.; Hohenstein, W.; Murray, B.; Haight, R. 1990a. Changes in area 

of timberland in the United States, 1952-2040, by ownership, forest type, 

region, and state. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-64. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 34 p.

Alig, R.; Knight, H.; Birdsey, R. 1986. Recent area changes in southern forest 

ownerships and cover types. Res. Pap. SE-260. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 10 p.

Alig, R.; Latta, G.; Adams, D.; McCarl, B. 2010. Mitigating greenhouse 

gases: the importance of land base interactions among forests, agriculture, and 

residential development in the face of changes in bioenergy and carbon prices. 

Forest Policy and Economics. 12(1): 67–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.012. 

Alig, R.; Lee, K.; Moulton, R. 1990b. Evidence from research studies pertaining 

to timber management by NIPF owners. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-60. Asheville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 17 p.

Alig, R.; Lewis, D.; Swenson, J. 2005. Is forest fragmentation driven by the spatial 

configuration of land quality? The case of western Oregon. Forest Management 

and Ecology. 217(2-3): 266–274.

Alig, R.; Lichtenstein, M.; Kline, J. 2004b. Urbanization on the U.S. landscape: 

looking ahead in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69: 219–234. 

Alig, R.; Mills, J.; Butler, B. 2002b. Private timberlands: growing demands, 

shrinking land base. Journal of Forestry. 100(2): 32–37.

Alig, R.; Mills, T.; Shackelford, R. 1980. Most Soil Bank plantings in the South 

have been retained; some need follow-up treatments. Southern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 4: 60–64.

Alig, R.; Moulton, R.; Dicks, M. 1988a. Land use changes involving forestry in 

the South. In: Proceedings of the 1998 Southern Forest Economics Workshop. 

Raleigh, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 9–15. 
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

77

Alig, R.; Plantinga, A. 2004. Future forestland area: impacts from population 

growth and other factors that affect land values. Journal of Forestry. 102 (8): 

19–24.

Alig, R.; Plantinga, A.; Ahn, S.; Kline, J. 2003. Land use changes involving 

forestry for the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-587. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 92 p.

Alig, R.; Stewart, S.; Wear, D.; Stein, S.; Nowak, D. [In press]. Conversions of 

forest land: trends, determinants, projections, and policy considerations. In: Pye, 

J.M.; Rauscher, H.M.; Sands, Y.; Lee, D.C.; Beatly, J.S., tech.eds. Advances in 

threat assessment and their application to forest and rangeland management. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-802. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1–25. Vol. 1. 

Alig, R.; Wear, D. 1992. Changes in private timberland: statistics and projections 

for 1952 to 2040. Journal of Forestry. 90(5): 31–36. 

Alig, R.; White, E. 2007. Projections of forestland and developed land areas in 

western Washington. Western Journal of Forestry. 22(1): 29–35.

Alig, R.; White, F.; Murray, B. 1988b. Economic factors influencing land use 

changes in the south-central United States. Res. Pap. SE-272. Asheville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 23 p.

Alig, R.; Wyant, J. 1985. Projecting regional area changes in forestland cover in 

the U.S.A. Ecological Modelling. 29: 127–134.

Arnold, D. 2003. Hancock to sell Northern forest land. Boston Globe, March 17. 

Best, C.; Wayburn, L. 2001. America’s private forests: status and stewardship. The 

Pacific Forest Trust. Washington, DC: Island Press. 268 p.

Birdsey, R.; Alig, R.; Adams, D. 2001. Mitigation options in the forest sector to 

reduce emissions or enhance sinks of greenhouse gases. In: Joyce, L.; Birdsey, 

R., eds. The impacts of climate change on America’s forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-59. Fort Collins, CO: U.S .Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 112–131. Chapter 8.

Blayney, D. 2002. The changing landscape of U.S. milk production. Statistical Bull. 

No. SB978. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 30 p. 

Bodin, M. 2009. The green footprint. Nature Conservancy. 59(3): 44–53. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

78

Brady, S.; Flather, C. 1998. Agricultural land use patterns and grassland nesting 

birds. Gibier Faune Sauvage (Game and Wildlife). 15: 775–784. 

Broniak, C. 2007. Land use and land-use change in the Rocky Mountain West. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 89 p. M.S. thesis.

Butler, B.; Leatherberry, E. 2004. America’s family forest owners. Journal of 

Forestry. 102(7): 4–9.

Butler, B.; Swenson, J.; Alig, R. 2004. Forest fragmentation in the Pacific 

Northwest: quantification and correlations. Forest Management and Ecology. 

189: 363–373.

Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 72 p.

Choi, S.; Sohngen, B.; Alig, R. 2001. Land-use change and carbon sequestration 

in the forests of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois: sensitivity to population and model 

choice. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Agricultural 

Economics Association. Chicago, IL: American Agricultural Economics 

Association: 115–123.

Clutter, M.; Mendell, B.; Newman, D.; Wear, D.; Greis, J. 2005. Strategic 

factors driving timberland ownership changes in the U.S. South. DRAFT version 

presented to the Southern Group of State Foresters. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/

econ/pubs/southernmarkets/strategic-factors-andownership-v1.pdf. (September 

2008).

Cowan, T. 2008. Conservation reserve program: status and current issues. CRS 

Report RS21613. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 44 p. 

Daugherty, A. 1995. Major uses of land in the United States, 1992. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 47 p.

Hagan, J.M.; Irland, L.C.; Whitman, A.A. 2005. Changing timberland 

ownership in the Northern forest and implications for biodiversity. Rep. MCCSFCP-2005-1. Brunswick, ME: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 25 p.

Hamilton, B.; Martin, J.; Ventura, S. 2009. Births: preliminary data for 2007. 

National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 57, No. 12. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Health Statistics. 23 p.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

79

Hammer, R.B.: Stewart, S.I.; Winkler, R. 2004. Characterizing spatial and 

temporal residential density patterns from 1940–1990 across the North Central 

United States. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69: 183–189.

Healy, R. 1985. Competition for land in the American South. Washington, DC: The 

Conservation Foundation. 209 p.

Heimlich, R.; Anderson, W. 2001. Development at the urban fringe and beyond: 

impacts on agriculture and rural land. Agric. Econ. Rep. 803. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 88 p. 

Hoefer, M.; Rytina, N.; Baker, B. 2009. Estimates of unauthorized immigrant 

population residing in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Population Estimates. 7 p. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2007. Climate change 

2007, the fourth IPCC Assessment Report. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.

htm. (December 2008).

Kline, J.; Alig, R. 1999. Does land use planning slow the conversion of forest and 

farm land? Growth and Change. 30(1): 3–22.

Kline, J.; Alig, R.; Garber-Yonts, B. 2004. Forestland social values and open 

space preservation. Journal of Forestry. 102(8): 39–45.

Langner, L. [N.d]. Basic assumptions for the 2010 Resources Planning Act (RPA) 

Assessment. Supporting document by the RPA Management Group, Washington, 

DC. 33 p. Draft report. On file with: Linda Langner, USDA Forest Service, 

Research and Development, 4th floor RPC, 1601 North Kent Street, Arlington, 

VA 22209. 

Lewis, D.; Hunt, G.; Plantinga, A. 2002. Public conservation land and 

employment growth in the northern forest region. Land Economics. 78(2): 

245–259.

Lubowski, R. 2002. Determinants of land-use transitions in the United States: 

econometric analysis of changes among the major land use categories. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 172 p. (plus appendices). Ph.D. 

dissertation. 

Matthews, S.; O’Connor, R.; Plantinga, A. 2002. Quantifying the impacts 

on biodiversity of policies for carbon sequestration in forests. Ecological 

Economics. 40: 71–87.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

80

Mauldin, T.; Plantinga, A.; Alig, R. 1999a. Determinants of land use in Maine 

with projections to 2050. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 16(2): 82–88. 

Mauldin, T.; Plantinga, A.; Alig, R. 1999b. Land use in the Lake States region: an 

analysis of past trends and projections of future changes. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-519. 

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

Research Station. 24 p. 

McCarl, B.; Adams, D.; Alig, R.; Chen, J. 2000. Effects of global climate change 

on the US forest sector: response functions derived from a dynamic resource and 

market simulator. Climate Research. 15(3): 195–205. 

Mitchell, J. 2000. Rangeland resource trends in the United States. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-68. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 84 p.

Northern Forest Lands Council. 1994. Finding common ground: the 

recommendations of the Northern Forest Lands Council. Concord, NH: Northern 

Forest Lands Council. 134 p.

Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T. 2005. Projected urban growth and its estimated impact 

on the U.S. forest resource (2000–2050). Journal of Forestry. 103(8): 383–389.

Osborn, C.; Llacuna, F.; Linsenbigler, M. 1995. The Conservation Reserve 

Program enrollment statistics for the sign-up periods 1–12 and fiscal years 

1986–93. Statist. Bull. 925. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service. 17 p.

Pew Center. 2000. Sprawl now joins crime as top concern. http://www.pewcenter.

org/about/pr_ST2000.html. (October 2008).

Plantinga, A.; Ahn, S. 2002. Efficient policies for environmental protection: an 

econometric analysis of incentives for land conversion and retention. Journal of 

Agricultural and Resource Economics. 27(1): 128–145.

Plantinga, A.; Alig, R.; Cheng, H. 2001. The supply of land for conservation uses: 

evidence from the Conservation Reserve Program. Resources Conservation and 

Recycling. 31: 199–215. 

Plantinga, A.; Alig, R.; Eichman, H.; Lewis, D. 2007. Linking land-use 

projections and forest fragmentation analysis. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-570. Portland, 

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

41 p.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

81

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I; Fried, J.S.; Holcomb, S.S.; 

McKeefry, J.F. 2005. The wildland urban interface in the United States. 

Ecological Applications. 15: 799–805.

Reynolds, J. 2001. Land use change and competition in the South. Journal of 

Agricultural and Applied Economics. 33(2): 271–281.

Smail, R.; Lewis, D. 2009. Forest land conversion, ecosystem services, and 

economic issues for policy: a review. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-797. Portland, 

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

Station. 40 p. 

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Perry, H.; Pugh, S.A., coords. 2009. Forest Resources 

of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 326 p.

Smith, W.B.; Vissage, J.; Sheffield, R.; Darr, D. 2001. Forest resources of the 

United States, 1997. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 190 p.

Sohngen, B.; Alig, R. 2000. Mitigation, adaptation, and climate change: results 

from recent research on U.S. timber markets. Environmental Science and Policy. 

3: 235–248. 

Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Alig, R.; Nelson, M.D.; Theobald, D.M.; Eley, 

M.; Dechter, M.; Carr, M. 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. 

Stein, S.M.; Alig, R.J.; White, E.M.; Comas, S.J.; Carr, M.; Eley, M.; Elverum, 

K.; O’Donnell, M.; Theobald, D.M.; Cordell, K.; Haber, J.; Beauvais, T.W. 

2007. National forests on the edge: development pressures on America’s national 

forests and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-728. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

26 p.

Stewart, S.; Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R. 2003. The wildland-urban interface in 

U.S. metropolitan areas. In: Kollin, C., ed. Proceedings of the 2003 National 

Urban Forest Conference. Washington, DC: American Forests: 254–255.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

82

Stynes, D.J.; Zheng, J.J.; Stewart, S.I. 1997. Seasonal homes and natural 

resources: patterns of use and impact in Michigan. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-194. St. 

Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research 

Station. 39 p.

Texas Forest Service [Texas FS]. 2009. Trees are the answer. http://

texasforestservice.tamu.edu/uploadedFiles/Sustainable/fia/Publications/Articles/

FIAWestTexas_2009.pdf. (March 23, 2009).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service [ERS]. 2009.

Major land uses database. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/land/89003/.

(March 2009).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1988. The South’s 

fourth forest: alternatives for the future. For. Resour. Rep. 24. Washington, DC. 

512 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1989a. An analysis 

of the land base situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM181. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 76 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1989b. RPA 

assessment of the forest and rangeland situation in the United States, 1989. For. 

Resour. Rep. 26. Washington, DC. 72 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2001. 2000 RPA 

assessment of forest and range lands. FS-687. Washington, DC. 78 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007. Forest Service 

open space strategy: cooperating across boundaries to sustain working and 

natural landscapes. FS-889. Washington, DC. 16 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2009. Forest 

inventory and analysis: the Nation’s forest census. http//:fia.fs.fed.use. (March 

2009).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service [USDA 

NASS]. 2008a. Acreage. (September 8, 2008). http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/

usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-30-2008.pdf. (March 2009).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 

[USDA NASS]. 2008b. National agricultural crop areas. Washington, DC. 76 p.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

83

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 

[USDA NASS]. 2009. Agricultural crop areas. http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/

TODAYRPT/acrg0608.pdf. (September 2009). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

[USDA NRCS]. 2001. National resource inventory. Washington, D.C. 178 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service [USDA SCS]. 1987.

Second RCA appraisal. Washington, DC. 134 p. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Census 2000. http://www.

census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. (July 2008).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2009. Personal 

income and outlays. http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#personal. (July 

2008).

Vesterby, M. 2001. Land use. In: Agricultural, resource, and environmental 

indicators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service: 23–34. Chapter 1. http:/www.ers.usda.gov/Emphases/Harmony/issues/

arei2000/. (October 6, 2001).

Vesterby, M.; Krupa, L. 2001. Major uses of land in the United States, 1997. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

38 p.

Wall, B. 1981. Trends in commercial timberland area in the United States by 

state and ownership, 1952–77, with projections to 2030. Gen. Tech. Rep. WOGTR-31. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 26 p. 

Watson, T. 2009. Climate plan calls for forest expansion. USA Today, August 19, 

page 1.

Wear, D.; Greis, J. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment: summary of 

findings. Journal of Forestry. 100(7): 6–14. 

Westcott, P. 2007. U.S. ethanol expansion driving changes throughout the 

agricultural sector. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

Amber Waves: 5(4). http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September07/

Features/Ethanol.htm. (September 2008).

White, E.M. 2010. Woody biomass for bioenergy and biofuels in the United 

States—a briefing paper. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-825. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

45 p.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

84

White, E.; Alig, R.; Stein, S.; Mahal, L.; Theobald, D. 2009a. A sensitivity 

analysis of “Forests on the Edge: Housing Development on America’s Private 

Forests.” Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-792. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 35 p.

White, E.; Mazza, R. 2008. A closer look at on the edge: future development on 

private forests in three states. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-758. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 20 p.

White, E.; Morzillo, A.; Alig, R. 2009b. Past and projected rural land conversion 

in the US at state, regional and national levels. Landscape and Urban Planning. 

89: 37–48.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

85

Appendix

In an earlier publication (Plantinga et al. 2007), we presented preliminary landuse projections, which motivated a discussion of ways to improve the land-use 

projection algorithm. In this appendix, we document recent changes made to the 

algorithm.

Regional Econometric Models

The major change was to estimate regional econometric land-use models and 

incorporate the new parameter estimates into the algorithm. We did this for four 

subregions (Corn Belt, Mountain, North Plains, and South Plains) in which the 

national econometric model appeared to overestimate increases in forest area 

(Plantinga et al. 2007). Using the same basic approach as Lubowski (2002), we 

estimated multinomial logit models for each of these regions. Within a region, 

separate models are estimated for plots that begin in a particular use (e.g., crops). 

Each model quantifies how net returns and soil quality affect the probability that 

land remains in its starting use or switches to an alternative use. Formally, denote 

j as the starting use, k as the ending use, Xik as a vector of independent variables 

measured for plot i and ending use k, and ˆβ jk as the parameters for ending use k

(starting use j). Then, the estimated probability that plot i remains in the initial 

use j is: ˆ '

ˆ '

1

ˆ jj ij

jk ik

ijj K

k

e P

e

=

=

∑

X

X

β

β

 (1)

and the probability that it switches to use k is: ˆ '

ˆ '

1

ˆ jk ik

jk ik

ijk K

k

e P

e

=

=

∑

X

X

β

β

 (2)

where K is the total number of land uses.

The ˆ

β jk vectors for the Corn Belt region are reported in table 20. Models are 

estimated for land starting in crop, pasture, and forest. The ending uses are crop, 

pasture, forest, urban, CRP, and range. Models are not estimated for urban, CRP, 

and range starting uses. We do not observe land moving out of urban and there are 

too few range plots in the region to estimate a model. CRP lands are modeled using 

a different procedure, as discussed in Lubowski (2002). For the starting use, the 

independent variables are net returns, plot-level dummy variables for Land Capability Class (LCC),1

 and the interaction between net returns and LCC dummies. In an 

1

 See the discussion of LCC ratings and indicator variables in Plantinga et al. (2007). LCC1 takes the 

value 1 if the plot has LCC rating I or II, LCC2 is 1 for III or IV ratings, LCC3 is 1 for V or VI ratings, 

and LCC4 is 1 for VII or VIII ratings. In all models, LCC1 is the omitted category.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

86

Table 20—Econometric land-use model for the Corn Belt subregion

Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient

Starting use = crops Starting use = pasture

Intercept 59.98

Crop net return 0.040 Pasture net return 0

Crop net return×LCC2 -0.011 Pasture net return×LCC2 0.007

Crop net return×LCC3 -0.019 Pasture net return×LCC3 0

Crop net return×LCC4 -0.036 Pasture net return×LCC4 -0.002

LCC2 0.565 LCC2 0.180

LCC3 0.504 LCC3 0.213

LCC4 1.992 LCC4 -0.264

X – coordinate 0.916 X – coordinate 0.451

Y – coordinate -3.834 Y – coordinate -1.842

X – coordinate squared 0.011 X – coordinate squared -0.005

Y – coordinate squared 0.072 Y – coordinate squared -0.014

(X – coord.)×(Y – coord.) 0.024 (X – coord.)×(Y – coord.) -0.033

Ending use = pasture Ending use = crops

Intercept -120.0

Pasture net return 0.019 Crop net return 0.006

Pasture net return×LCC2 0.003 Crop net return×LCC2 0.001

Pasture net return×LCC3 0.002 Crop net return×LCC3 -0.006

Pasture net return×LCC4 0.024 Crop net return×LCC4 -0.018

Ending use = forest Ending use = forest

Intercept -122.9 Intercept -1.070

Forest net return 0.077 Forest net return 0.007

Forest net return×LCC2 0.006 Forest net return×LCC2 0.034

Forest net return×LCC3 0.023 Forest net return×LCC3 0.044

Forest net return×LCC4 0.064 Forest net return×LCC4 0.040

Ending use = urban Ending use = urban

Intercept -121.1 Intercept -3.191

Urban net return 0.001 Urban net return 0

Urban net return×LCC2 0 Urban net return×LCC2 0

Urban net return×LCC3 -0.001 Urban net return×LCC3 0

Urban net return×LCC4 -0.001 Urban net return×LCC4 0

Ending use = CRPa Ending use = CRPa

Intercept -120.0 Intercept -4.596

Ending use = range Ending use = range

Intercept -138.1 Intercept -19.95

Range net return 0.076 Range net return -0.006

Range net return×LCC2 -0.117 Range net return×LCC2 -0.018

Range net return×LCC3 -0.279 Range net return×LCC3 -0.019

Range net return×LCC4 -0.303 Range net return×LCC4 -0.039

Starting use = forest

Intercept -75.89

Forest net return -0.037

Forest net return×LCC2 0.033

Forest net return×LCC3 0.021

Forest net return×LCC4 0.035

LCC2 0.297

LCC3 0.214
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

87

Table 20—Econometric land-use model for the Corn Belt subregion (continued)

Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient

LCC4 1.203

X – coordinate -1.661

Y – coordinate 0.326

X – coordinate squared -0.010

Y – coordinate squared -0.003

(X – coord.)×(Y – coord.) -0.001

Ending use = crops

Crop net return 0.012

Crop net return×LCC2 0.002

Crop net return×LCC3 -0.002

Crop net return×LCC4 -0.016

Ending use = pasture

Intercept -0.242

Pasture net return 0.036

Pasture net return×LCC2 0.004

Pasture net return×LCC3 -0.031

Pasture net return×LCC4 -0.030

Ending use = urban

Intercept 1.069

Urban net return 0

Urban net return×LCC2 0

Urban net return×LCC3 0

Urban net return×LCC4 0

Ending use = CRPa

Intercept -2.969

Ending use = range

Intercept 16.92

Range net return -0.068

Range net return×LCC2 0.080

Range net return×LCC3 0.040

Range net return×LCC4 0.070 a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.

effort to improve the model’s fit, we allow the intercept term for the starting use 

to vary spatially. This is done by including latitude (X coordinate) and longitude 

(Y coordinate) for the centroid of the county in which the plot is found. The squares 

of X coordinate and Y coordinate in addition to the product of X coordinate and 

Y coordinate are also included. For the ending uses, we include an alternativespecific constant,2

 the net return to that use, and net returns interacted with the LCC 

dummies.

Results for the Mountain region are reported in table 21. Starting uses include 

crops, pasture, forest, and range. Ending uses are crops, pasture, forest, urban, CRP, 

2

 An alternative-specific constant is 1 for the chosen alternative and zero for all others. Note that 

the alternative-specific constant for crops is omitted from all models to avoid perfect collinearity.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

88

Table 21—Econometric land-use model for the Mountain subregion

Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient

Starting use = crops Starting use = pasture

Intercept -197.9

Crop net return 0.003 Pasture net return -0.006

Crop net return×LCC2 0 Pasture net return×LCC2 -0.027

Crop net return×LCC3 -0.005 Pasture net return×LCC3 -0.044

Crop net return×LCC4 -0.009 Pasture net return×LCC4 -0.049

LCC2 -1.045 LCC2 0.960

LCC3 -1.304 LCC3 1.224

LCC4 -1.006 LCC4 -1.397

X – coordinate 0.215 X – coordinate -3.640

Y – coordinate -0.361 Y – coordinate -0.156

X – coordinate squared 0.002 X – coordinate squared -0.017

Y – coordinate squared 0.011 Y – coordinate squared -0.007

(X – coord.)×(Y – coord.) 0.004 (X – coord.)×(Y – coord.) -0.006

Ending use = pasture Ending use = crops

Intercept -25.39

Pasture net return 0.004 Crop net return 0.001

Pasture net return×LCC2 -0.019 Crop net return×LCC2 -0.001

Pasture net return×LCC3 -0.006 Crop net return×LCC3 -0.011

Pasture net return×LCC4 -0.048 Crop net return×LCC4 -0.025

Ending use = forest Ending use = forest

Intercept -33.20 Intercept -3.912

Forest net return 0.177 Forest net return -0.658

Forest net return×LCC2 -0.070 Forest net return×LCC2 0.663

Forest net return×LCC3 -1.008 Forest net return×LCC3 0.659

Forest net return×LCC4 -0.544 Forest net return×LCC4 0.107

Ending use = urban Ending use = urban

Intercept -28.83 Intercept -4.053

Urban net return 0.001 Urban net return 0

Urban net return×LCC2 0 Urban net return×LCC2 0

Urban net return×LCC3 0 Urban net return×LCC3 0

Urban net return×LCC4 0 Urban net return×LCC4 0

Ending use = CRPa Ending use = CRPa

Intercept -26.37 Intercept -4.538

Ending use = range Ending use = range

Intercept -25.60 Intercept -1.802

Range net return -0.037 Range net return 0.048

Range net return×LCC2 -0.125 Range net return×LCC2 0.022

Range net return×LCC3 -0.003 Range net return×LCC3 0.031

Range net return×LCC4 -0.028 Range net return×LCC4 -0.090

Starting use = forest Starting use = range

Intercept 131.5 Intercept 196.1

Forest net return -0.032 Range net return 0.039

Forest net return×LCC34 0.012 Range net return×LCC34 0.103

LCC34 -0.136

X – coordinate 0.820 X – coordinate 4.165

Y – coordinate -3.689 Y – coordinate 1.872

X – coordinate squared -0.006 X – coordinate squared 0.022
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

89

and range. For crop and pasture starting uses, we use the same set of independent 

variables as in the Corn Belt region. For forest and range starting uses, there are not 

enough high-quality plots to estimate separate effects for all four LCC variables. 

Instead, we use just two LCC variables: LCC12, an indicator variable for plots rated 

LCC I, II, III, or IV; and LCC34, an indicator variable for plots rated LCC V, VI, 

VII, and VIII.3 In the range model, we encountered convergence problems that were 

remedied by omitting the LCC34 variable for the starting use. 

We expect the coefficients on the net returns variables to be positive. This indicates that the probability that land remains in the same use or switches to an ending 

use is increasing in the respective own net return. This result is found in almost all 

cases (12 out of 15) in the Corn Belt model, but only in about one-half of the cases 

(11 out of 20) in the Mountain model. With forest use, the coefficients on forest net 

returns are generally negative, as Broniak (2007) found in her analysis of land use 

in this region. The interaction variables can be positive or negative depending on 

how the marginal effect of net returns changes with land quality. In the Corn Belt 

region, for example, the effect of forest net returns on the crop-to-forest transition 

Table 21—Econometric land-use model for the Mountain subregion (continued)

Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient

Crops Pasture 

Y – coordinate squared -0.020 Y – coordinate squared -0.004

(X – coord.)×(Y – coord.) -0.049 (X – coord.)×(Y – coord.) 0.015

Ending use = crops Ending use = crops

Crop net return -0.003 Crop net return 0.002

Crop net return×LCC34 -0.007 Crop net return×LCC34 -0.010

Ending use = pasture Ending use = pasture

Intercept -13.456 Intercept -1.652

Pasture net return -0.009 Pasture net return 0.036

Pasture net return×LCC34 0.006 Pasture net return×LCC34 0.008

Ending use = urban Ending use = forest

Intercept -0.239 Intercept 0.279

Urban net return 0.001 Forest net return -0.365

Urban net return×LCC34 0 Forest net return×LCC34 0.306

Ending use = CRPa Ending use = urban

Intercept -0.411 Intercept -2.989

Urban net return 0

Ending use = range Urban net return×LCC34 0

Intercept 3.622

Range net return -0.005 Ending use = CRPa

Range net return×LCC34 0.067 Intercept -6.299 a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.

3

 LCC12 is the omitted category.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

90

increases as land quality falls.4 The coefficients on the LCC variables indicate how 

the respective transition probability changes relative to the probability for class I 

and II land. For example, in the Rocky Mountain region, the probability that cropland remains in the same use is lower on class III to VIII land compared to class I 

and II land. 

Econometric models also were estimated for the North and South Plains regions. However, we found that forest area increases still appeared to be overestimated in these regions. Given that the North and South Plains are not a primary 

focus of the RPA assessments, we replaced the transition probability functions in 

the algorithm with sample transition probabilities. In particular, for each county we 

computed transition probabilities using the National Resources Inventory (NRI) 

plot data for the period 1992 to 1997. Define Nj as the number of plots in a given 

county in use j in 1992 and Njk as the number of these plots that switched to use 

k by 1997, then the use j-to-k transition probability is given by Pjk = Njk / Nj. This 

approach has the advantage that it replicates historically observed land-use change, 

but the disadvantage that the transition probabilities cannot adjust to endogenous 

changes in commodity prices.

Incorporating 2003 NRI Data

Beyond the 1997 NRI data, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

has not made available plot-level data for subsequent inventories. Thus, we must 

use the projection algorithm to generate base-year 2002 acres by use. The NRCS did 

publish state-level land-use statistics for the year 2003. We adjusted 2002 projected 

acres to make them consistent with the 2003 state-level figures from the NRI. The 

first step is to use linear interpolation to derive 2002 estimates of state-level land use 

using the 1997 and 2003 NRI data.5 Next, we derived adjustment factors equal to 

the 2002 NRI state acres divided by the 2002 projected state acres (table 22). These 

factors are used within the projection algorithm to adjust the plot-level acres of land 

in each use at the end of 2002.

The adjustment factors in table 22 also allow us to judge the out-of-sample 

forecasting accuracy of the projection algorithm.6 If the adjustment factors are all 

4

 The sum of the forest net return coefficient (0.077) and the interaction coefficient (e.g., 0.023 for LCC3) 

gives the marginal effect of forest net returns on class V and VI cropland.

5

 In the 2003 state-level data, only the total developed land area, equal to the sum of urban land and rural 

transportation land, is reported. However, the NRCS published estimates of rural transportation acres for 

2001, which we subtracted from the 2003 developed land figure to estimate 2003 urban acres.

6

 The algorithm projects a business-as-usual scenario, reflecting land market conditions during the historical 

period 1992 to 1997. The model does not attempt to model the actual drivers of land-use change between 

1997 and 2002 (e.g., the observed increase in the U.S. population over this period). As such, forecast errors 

may arise from modeling error and from changes in these drivers after 1997.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

91

Table 22—Adjustment factors for 2002 projected areas

State Crops Pasture Forest Urban CRPa Range

Alabama 0.830 1.064 1.021 1.059 0.972 0.060

Arizona 0.790 1.962 0.980 1.303 0 0.999

Arkansas 0.981 1.088 1.002 0.922 0.638 0.033

California 1.091 0.322 1.011 0.919 1.782 1.111

Colorado 0.948 0.791 0.956 1.132 1.316 1.007

Connecticut 0.818 1.319 0.988 1.035 0 0

Delaware 1.075 0.350 0.967 1.114 0.578 0

Florida 0.960 0.915 1.017 1.061 0.742 0.934

Georgia 0.902 1.028 1.016 1.065 0.798 0

Idaho 0.957 1.008 1.009 1.089 1.491 0.981

Illinois 1.018 0.711 1.287 0.851 1.104 0

Indiana 0.998 0.940 1.135 0.902 0.748 0

Iowa 0.985 1.030 1.148 0.826 1.148 0

Kansas 1.000 1.022 1.001 0.974 0.928 1.010

Kentucky 0.976 1.118 0.956 1.024 0.968 0

Louisiana 0.974 1.017 1.019 0.954 1.315 0.696

Maine 0.734 0.739 1.012 0.937 6.354 0

Maryland 0.962 1.029 1.004 1.024 0.544 0

Massachusetts 0.912 1.267 0.987 1.026 0 0

Michigan 0.995 0.955 1.023 1.025 0.857 0

Minnesota 1.025 0.922 1.002 0.843 0.998 0

Mississippi 0.920 0.966 1.035 0.970 1.069 0

Missouri 0.849 1.239 1.063 0.799 1.013 0.858

Montana 0.955 1.025 0.981 1.051 1.260 1.001

Nebraska 0.995 1.061 0.964 0.947 0.948 1.004

Nevada 0.806 2.146 1.005 1.233 0.093 0.986

New Hampshire 0.813 0.999 1.005 1.012 0 0

New Jersey 0.946 0.963 0.974 1.037 0.027 0

New Mexico 0.820 0.676 0.994 1.250 2.092 1.000

New York 0.972 1.054 1.004 0.982 0.684 0

North Carolina 1.059 0.832 0.980 1.126 0.929 0

North Dakota 0.965 0.894 1.022 0.916 1.152 1.048

Ohio 0.999 1.090 1.011 0.916 1.152 1.048

Oklahoma 0.938 1.102 0.978 0.964 0.914 1.008

Oregon 1.179 0.577 1.000 0.722 1.685 1.105

Pennsylvania 1.019 0.998 1.006 1.000 0.764 0

Rhode Island 0.798 1.322 0.982 1.053 0 0

South Carolina 0.971 0.893 1.007 1.075 1.040 0

South Dakota 1.002 0.977 0.989 0.905 0.834 1.015

Tennessee 0.983 1.080 0.987 1.001 0.709 0

Texas 0.984 1.046 0.956 1.019 1.029 0.998

Utah 0.976 1.064 0.992 1.121 1.135 0.995

Vermont 0.945 1.018 1.004 0.944 0 0

Virginia 0.936 1.109 0.997 1.019 0.640 0

Washington 1.215 0.299 1.002 0.858 2.692 1.192

West Virginia 0.925 1.040 0.999 1.057 0.106 0

Wisconsin 0.986 1.046 1.002 0.959 1.036 0

Wyoming 0.969 0.977 0.919 1.015 1.219 1.009

Note: adjustments factors are set to zero in states that have no acreage in the given use.

a

 CRP = Conservation Reserve Program.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

92

equal to 1, then the algorithm exactly forecasts the 2002 NRI state acres. The algorithm is quite accurate in predicting forest area. State-level adjustment factors range 

from 0.92 to 1.29, with a median value of 1.002. In 32 of the 48 states, the forest 

adjustment factor is between 0.98 and 1.02. Cropland and urban land areas are also 

predicted with a high degree of accuracy. Adjustment factors lie between 0.73 and 

1.22 for cropland and 0.72 and 1.30 for urban land, with median values of 0.97 and 

1.01, respectively. The pasture land forecasts are less accurate, with adjustment 

factors between 0.30 and 2.15. The median value, however, is 1.02. The accuracy 

of the CRP and range forecasts is harder to judge because some states have little or 

no land in these uses. In a state with a small amount of CRP land, for example, the 

adjustment factor can be large even when there is a small absolute difference in the 

NRI and projected acres.

Range Land in the Lake States and Northeast Regions

The logistic transition probabilities (equations 1 and 2) are strictly positive,7

implying that a positive amount of land is projected to move between each of the 

land-use categories. In the Lake States and Northeast regions, the probability that 

cropland, pasture, forest, and CRP are converted to range is very small, but still 

positive. Thus, we project a positive amount of range in these regions even though, 

initially, the area of range land is zero. Because these results are an artifact of the 

econometric specification, we set the corresponding transition probabilities to 

zero and reallocate the probability mass to the other transition probabilities. For 

example, if j denotes the starting land use, r denotes range, and k denotes ending 

uses other than range, then the adjusted transition probabilities (denoted by A) equal 

/(1 ) A U P P P jk jk jr = − where U denotes the unadjusted transition probability.

Other assumptions used in making the projections pertain to the CRP area. 

Participation in the CRP depends on a different set of decisions than other land-use 

choices, because enrollment depends on both the landowner’s bid, which includes 

a proposed rental rate, and the government’s choice of whether to accept the bid, 

which depends on the environmental characteristics of a parcel as well as the cost. 

Because the program targets cropland, CRP rental rates are highly correlated with 

the profitability of cropping in a given locality (USDA NASS 2009). We account for 

the effect of crop net returns on the incentive to remain in cropland. Incentives to 

enroll in CRP are specified as a function of LCC, as lower land quality as measured 

by LCC has always been strongly associated with program eligibility. We would 

thus expect greater enrollment on lower quality lands. 

7

 This exception is that land beginning in urban use remains urban with probability 1 (see Plantinga et al. 2007).
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

93

As far as the projected future of the CRP program, we are not explicitly modeling future changes in the CRP program but are assuming that it remains in place 

and operates in a fashion similar to the way it did during the historical period. In the 

projection period, land will move in and out of the CRP to the extent that economic 

conditions differ from those during the historical period.

Other Land-Use Data Issues

No one land-use database provides universal coverage over space and time for 

use in addressing all relevant land-use policy questions (Alig et al. 2003). Many 

databases pertain to land cover versus land use, where land use is the purpose to 

which land is put by humans, e.g., protected areas, forestry for timber products, 

plantations, row-crop agriculture, pastures, or human settlements. Land cover is the 

observed (bio)physical cover on the Earth’s surface, e.g., oak-hickory forest. This 

report pertains to land use, and companion reports focused on forest cover changes 

(e.g., Alig and Butler 2002, 2004) in the United States. 

Both land use and land cover are dynamic in view of the changes in response to 

human actions, climate change, natural succession, and other forces. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) surveys conducted by the USDA Forest Service are designed 

to provide objective and scientifically credible information about forest-related 

changes, along with remeasurements of key forest attributes, such as forest stocks, 

growth, harvest, and mortality. Related data are collected by region, forest ownership category (e.g., forest industry vs. nonindustrial private forests), and cover type 

(e.g., oak-hickory), by using a sample of more than 70,000 permanent plots nationwide. The FIA inventories provide consistent forest inventory data for the Nation 

back to 1952 (Smith et al. 2001).

For estimating land use change among the major uses, the National Resources 

Inventory (NRI) conducted by the USDA NRCS is designed to assess land-use 

conditions on nonfederal lands and collects data on soil characteristics, land use, 

land cover, wind erosion, water erosion, and conservation practices (USDA NRCS 

2001). In addition to collecting data on about 300,000 area segments and about 

800,000 points within those segments, a geographic information system is used to 

control for total surface area, water area, and federal land. The NRI is conducted by 

the USDA’s NRCS in cooperation with Iowa State University’s Statistical Laboratory (USDA NRCS 2001). As a result of its statistical design, the NRI allows landuse transition matrices to be developed for data since 1982. With the exception of a 

few of the smaller land-use categories, such as for urban uses, land-use shifts occur 

in both directions across the categories. For example, some land moves out of the 

grassland category and into the cropland category during the same period that other 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

94

cropland moves into grassland uses. This dynamic is captured in the land-use transition matrices (USDA NRCS 2001). One can prepare land-use transition matrices 

for 5-year periods between 1982 and 1997 for major land-use categories. Also, 

the “Major Land Use Series” by the USDA’s Economic Research Service (2009) 

summarizes some of the NRI land-use data and augments it with data from FIA 

and other sources. 

The FIA inventories in conjunction with the Resources Planning Act (RPA) 

assessment are used to produce national summary databases (e.g., Smith et al. 2009) 

that draw upon the others and also incorporate other data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau (total land area, population, etc.). Although sampling techniques for the 

NRI and FIA are similar, different sampling grids make the estimates from the two 

inventory systems statistically independent. The FIA inventory data are gathered 

by using photointerpretation and ground truthing on a systematic sample of plots 

defined as pinpoints on the ground. The combination of ground truthing and remote 

sensing helps minimize classification problems, as land use in some regions is difficult to discern remotely, such as houses under a forest canopy. Other areas have land 

cover types comprising a mixture of vegetation that can have different uses, such as 

large areas with fairly sparse tree cover and grass and forbs. An example is western 

Texas, where FIA recently identified more than 40 million acres of such land cover 

(Texas FS 2009). 

We used population and income data drawn from analyses for the 2010 RPA 

Assessment that are linked to the global and regional socioeconomic data from the 

4th IPCC Assessment storylines (Langner, n.d.). The IPCC 4th Assessment projections for U.S. population and gross domestic product (GDP) were updated to be 

consistent with recent projections from the U.S. Bureau of the Census and more 

recent historical data on GDP. National population and income projections were 

then downscaled to the county level over the 2010-2060 period to support analyses 

to evaluate U.S. resource conditions across three RPA scenarios. 
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

95

Glossary 

afforestation—The forestation, either by human or natural forces, of nonforest 

land.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land—A land cover/use category that 

includes land under a CRP contract. The CRP is a federal program established 

under the Food Security Act of 1985 to assist private landowners to convert highly 

erodible cropland to vegetative cover for 10 years (e.g., Plantinga et al. 2001).

cropland—A land cover/use category that includes areas used for the production of 

adapted crops for harvest. Two subcategories of cropland are recognized: cultivated 

and noncultivated. Cultivated cropland comprises land in row crops or close-grown 

crops and also other cultivated cropland, for example, hay land or pastureland that 

is in a rotation with row or close-grown crops. Noncultivated cropland includes 

permanent hay land and horticultural cropland. 

developed land—In the National Resources Inventory (NRI), developed land 

consists of urban and built-up areas, as well as land devoted to rural transportation. 

This is a broader category than the “urban” land use considered in this study. This 

study has not attempted to model net returns to rural transportation use, so this 

report focuses only on the urban component of developed land.

forest industry—An ownership class of private lands owned by companies or 

individuals operating wood-using plants.

forest land—Land at least 10-percent stocked by forest trees of any size, including 

land that formerly had such tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially 

regenerated. Forest land includes transition zones, such as areas between heavily 

forested and nonforested lands that are at least 10-percent stocked with forest 

trees and forest areas adjacent to urban and built-up areas. The minimum area for 

classification of forest land is 1 acre. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips 

of timber must have a crown width of at least 120 feet to qualify as forest land. 

Unimproved roads and trails, streams, and clearings in forest areas are classified 

as forest if less than 120 feet wide.

forest-use land—A “major land use class” of the USDA Economic Research 

Service (ERS). This class differs from forest land in that it excludes forested land 

that is classified as “special-uses” land, e.g., federal and state parks, wilderness 

areas, and wildlife refuges.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

96

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—The IPCC was 

established to provide decisionmakers and others interested in climate change 

with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not 

conduct any research nor does it monitor climate-related data or parameters. Its role 

is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open, and transparent basis the latest 

scientific, technical, and socioeconomic literature produced worldwide relevant to 

the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and 

projected impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. For more information, 

see http://www.ipcc.ch/.

land area—The area of dry land and land temporarily or partly covered by water, 

such as marshes, swamps, and river flood plains; streams, sloughs, estuaries, and 

canals less than 200 feet wide; and lakes, reservoirs, and ponds less than 4.5 acres.

land cover/use—A term that includes categories of land cover and categories of 

land use. Land cover is the vegetation or other kind of material that covers the land 

surface. Land use is the purpose of human activity on the land; it is usually, but 

not always, related to land cover. The NRI uses the term land cover/use to identify 

categories that account for all the surface area of the United States. The six major 

land use categories considered in this study are (1) cropland, (2) pasture, (3) range, 

(4) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), (5) forest, and (6) urban. These uses are 

described in this glossary.

large urban and built-up areas—These areas include developed tracts of 10 acres 

and more.

metropolitan area—The U.S. Office of Management and Budget uses a countybased definition where metropolitan areas are those counties with one or more 

major cities of at least 50,000 people or with a Census Bureau-defined urbanized 

area with a population of at least 100,000. In addition, those outlying counties that 

are economically and socially connected to the county-based metropolitan areas are 

considered a part of the metropolitan area.

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF)—An ownership class of private lands where 

the owner does not operate commercial wood-using plants.

National Resources Inventory (NRI)—A statistical survey of land use and natural 

resource conditions and trends on U.S. nonfederal lands. The NRI is led by Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). For more information, see http://www.

nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/.
Area Changes In U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982 to 2002, With Projections to 2062

97

other rural land—A land cover/use category that includes farmsteads and other 

farm structures, field windbreaks, barren land, and marshland. Some reports refer 

to this as NRI minor land cover/uses.

pastureland—A land cover/use category of land managed primarily for the 

production of introduced forage plants for livestock grazing. Pastureland cover 

may consist of a single species in a pure stand, a grass mixture, or a grass-legume 

mixture. Management usually consists of cultural treatments: fertilization, weed 

control, reseeding or renovation, and control of grazing. For the NRI, includes land 

that has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes, and/or forbs, regardless of whether 

or not it is being grazed by livestock. 

public—An ownership class composed of land owned by federal, state, county, or 

municipal governments.

rangeland—A land cover/use category on which the climax or potential plant 

cover is composed principally of native grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs 

suitable for grazing and browsing, and introduced forage species that are managed 

like rangeland. This would include areas where introduced hardy and persistent 

grasses, such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.), are planted 

and such practices as deferred grazing, burning, chaining, and rotational grazing are 

used, with little or no chemicals or fertilizer being applied. Grasslands, savannas, 

many wetlands, some deserts, and tundra are considered to be rangeland. Certain 

communities of low forbs and shrubs, such as mesquite, chaparral, mountain shrub, 

and pinyon-juniper, are also included as rangeland. 

reserved forest land—Forest land withdrawn from timber utilization through 

statute, administrative regulation, or designation.

residential area—Residential area is the sum of acres in lots used for housing units. 

Estimates of residential area, urban and rural, are based on data from the American 

Housing Surveys.

rural transportation land—This includes highways, roads, railroads, and rightsof-way outside of urban and built-up areas.

small built-up areas—These areas include developed tracts of 0.25 to 10 acres, that 

do not meet the definition of urban area but are completely surrounded by urban and 

built-up land.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-815

98

special-uses land—A major land use class of the ERS that includes area in 

highways, road and railroad rights-of-way, and airports; federal and state parks, 

wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges; national defense and industrial uses; and 

urban areas.

timberland—Forest land (from FIA surveys) that is producing or is capable of 

producing crops of industrial wood and not withdrawn from timber utilization 

by statute or administrative regulation. (Note: Areas qualifying as timberland are 

capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood 

in natural stands. Currently inaccessible and inoperable areas are included).

urban area—Nationally, there are two main sources of data on urban area. First, 

the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census compiles urban area every 

10 years, coincident with the census of population. Second, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, publishes estimated areas 

of developed land, including urban components, at 5-year intervals as part of 

the NRI. Although the U.S. Geological Survey, National Aeronautics and Space 

Agency, Housing and Urban Development Department, and several local, state, 

and federal agencies also collect data or conduct special-purpose studies on urban 

area, the census and the NRI provide the major nationally consistent historical 

series. Because of differences in data-collection techniques and definitions, the 

NRI estimates of “large urban and built-up areas” is usually higher than the census 

“urban area” estimates for nearly all states. The census urban area series runs from 

1950, whereas the NRI started providing a consistent series in 1982. Historically, 

the ERS major land use time series (MLUS) has used census urban area numbers. 

Prior to 1982, census urban area was the only reliable national source of urban area 

data available. Since 1945, census urban area has been used in the MLUS time 

series to maintain a consistent series. For comparison purposes, census urban area 

is checked against the NRI to help project and interpolate census trends between 

decennial census years.

urban and built-up areas—These areas from NRI surveys consist of residential, 

industrial, commercial, and institutional land; construction and public administrative 

sites; and railroad yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage 

plants, water control structures, small parks, and transportation facilities within 

urban areas.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, OR 97208-3890