The Southern

Forest 

Futures

Project:

Using Public Input to 

Define the Issues

David N. Wear, 

John G. Greis, 

and Nancy Walters

U.S. Department 

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report SRS-115
Authors:

David N. Wear, Project Leader, Forest Economics and Policy Research, Southern 

Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709; John G. Greis, Analyst, State and Private Forestry, Southern Region, 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, FL 32399; Nancy Walters, 

Organization Development Specialist, Southern Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Asheville, NC 28804.

Cover photo:

First infrared data from GOES-12 geostationary satellite 

taken September 21, 2001. [photo courtesy of National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)]

Inset photos:

UPPER SET: Top row, left to right: kudzu kills trees by shading them (photo by 

Kerry Britton, U.S. Forest Service, Bugwood.org); damaged trees after Hurricane 

Katrina (photo by Patrick Hesp, Louisiana State University Hurricane Katrina and Rita 

Clearinghouse Cooperative); acorns (U.S. Forest Service photo); hurricane damage 

(photo by Peter L. Lorio, U.S. Forest Service, Bugwood.org). Bottom row, left to 

right: Buffalo River, Ozark National Forest, AR (photo by Bill Lea, U.S. Forest Service, 

retired); small diameter biomass (U.S. Forest Service photo); kayaker (photo by Bill 

Lea, U.S. Forest Service, retired); and prescribed fire (photo by Dale Wade, U.S. Forest 

Service, retired).

LOWER SET: Left to right: site preparation with a track-layer (U.S. Forest Service 

photo); ice storm damage in Arkansas (U.S. Forest Service photo); industrial electrical 

generating plant (photo by Larry Kohrnak, University of Florida); and 2007 Georgia 

wildfires (photo courtesy of the National Interagency Fire Center archive, 

Bugwood.org).

May 2009

Southern Research Station

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804
 The Southern

 Forest 

 Futures

 Project: Using Public Input to 

 Define the Issues

 David N. Wear, 

 John G. Greis, 

 and Nancy Walters

iii

CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Overview of the Southern Forest Futures Project ................................................................................................. 1

Forecast Analysis....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Meta-Issue Analysis.................................................................................................................................................. 2

Subregional Analysis................................................................................................................................................. 2

Defining the Scope of the Project ............................................................................................................................. 3

The Input-Elicitation Process .................................................................................................................................... 3

Results ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Forces of Change .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Land Use ................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Forest Management.................................................................................................................................................. 7

Biological Forces ....................................................................................................................................................... 8

Physical Forces.......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Implications of Change ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Ecosystem Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 10

Forest Conditions.................................................................................................................................................... 10

Social/Economic ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

Ecosystem Services ................................................................................................................................................. 12

Meta-Issues ................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Bioenergy................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Climate Change ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

Forest ownership Change ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Invasive Species...................................................................................................................................................... 15

Fire.......................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Taxes ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Water and Forests ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................. 15

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................................... 17

Literature Cited.......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Abstract

The Southern Forest Futures Project has been designed to evaluate 

the implications of potential futures for the many goods and services 

forests in the Southeastern United States provide. To ensure that 

the Futures Project is comprehensive and relevant, we have begun 

with a thorough scoping of issues using a process that elicits input 

from various interested publics. We have held public meetings in 14 

locations around the South and through 3 online “Webinars.” The 

meeting sites provided at least two public meetings in each of five 

ecological subregions and no fewer than one public meeting in each 

State. We gathered > 2,200 comments using a structured-workshop 

format and processed the compiled data to define a comprehensive 

view of how forces of change may reshape forests, and how these 

changes could affect the various goods, services, and values of forest 

ecosystems. We also identified a set of meta-issues that warrant indepth analysis to evaluate their potential influence on the future of 

forests. These topics of concern include bioenergy, climate change, 

forest ownership change, invasive species, fire, taxes, and water. The 

input on meta-issues, forces of change, and resource implications will 

be used to organize subsequent stages of the Southern Forest Futures 

Project.

Keywords: Assessment, forecasting, public involvement.

Introduction

The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Southern Research Station and Southern Region, in 

partnership with the Southern Group of State Foresters, 

is conducting a broad-scale assessment of potential 

futures called the Southern Forest Futures Project. 

This effort builds on the Southern Forest Resource 

Assessment (SFRA; Wear and Greis 2002a, 2002b), 

which identified several forces of change reshaping 

forests and the potential implications of these changes 

for economic conditions and ecological services. The 

Southern Forest Futures Project (herein referred to as 

the Futures Project) is planned to further examine how 

these and some emerging factors could reshape forests 

over the next half century and beyond. While the SFRA 

provided forecasts of some key variables, it focused 

primarily on understanding trends and conditions. 

The Futures Project will focus on forecasting change 

and its potential implications for forest ecosystems, 

their services, and human communities (both near to 

and far from those ecosystems). The Project’s overall 

goal is to inform forest management choices, policy 

discussions, and science programs with the best possible 

understanding of the long-term implications of changes 

in southern forests and critical uncertainties regarding 

forest sustainability.

To begin the Futures Project, we surveyed broad 

public interests and concerns regarding current and 

anticipated trends affecting forests in the South. This 

paper describes the public participation process used to 

elicit public input and understand the findings. These 

findings define how driving variables and implications 

of these drivers are interlinked in a network of social 

and natural systems in the Southeast, and helps define 

a suite of issues to be considered in conducting the 

Futures Project. 

In the next section we present an overview of plans 

for the Futures Project, and then describe the design 

of the process used to elicit public input on the issues 

to be addressed, followed by the process we used to 

summarize input for use in the subsequent stages of 

the project. We conclude with a description of what 

our publics said and how we will use their input in 

subsequent phases of the Futures Project.

Overview of the Southern Forest 

Futures Project

Regional scale resource assessment in the South is 

especially challenging because of the broad diversity 

of ecological systems, economic conditions, and social 

settings found in the region. Much of the knowledge 

base relevant to forests is ecosystem-specific; social 

dynamics and resource problems are spatially variable. 

Further, the various forces of change at work in 

southern forests are understood by varying degrees and 

with different levels of certainty. We have designed a 

three-tier analysis approach to address the simultaneous 

needs for a coherent regional outlook on forest futures 

and a detailed analysis of ecological, economic, and 

social effects.

Forecast Analysis 

This tier of analysis will start with the development of 

various scenarios for describing potential futures and for 

guiding detailed analyses. Each scenario will be defined 

by a storyline describing the (exogenous) economic and 

biophysical context of the region and will need to be 

internally consistent across multiple driving variables. 

First, a team of experts will draft scenarios using input 

from public meetings. An analysis team will then use 

quantitative models to forecast implications of these 

discrete scenarios. 

The analysis team will perform quantitative analyses of 

forest futures organized around a technical forecasting 

The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

Using Public Input to Define the Issues

David N. Wear, John G. Greis, and Nancy Walters
2

SFFP Subregions

Appalachian-Cumberland

Coastal Plain

Mid-South

Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Piedmont

Islands (Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands)

system, the U.S. Forest Assessment System or USFAS1 

(Wear 2005). This forecasting system simulates future 

forest conditions and structure in response to land 

management and resource markets, as well as climate 

and other disturbances for all States in the South (fig. 

1). Detailed future scenarios, defined by trajectories of 

population, wood product markets, climate, and other 

factors can be evaluated using the USFAS. The results 

will include detailed forecasts of forest inventories, land 

uses (including forests and their management), timber 

harvests, and economic and social conditions across the 

South. These generated data are provided at relatively 

fine scales and can be aggregated to address regional 

and subregional questions.

Meta-Issue Analysis 

This tier of analysis will be used to address some issues 

at the broad regional level using a knowledge-synthesis 

approach similar to that used in the SFRA. That is, for 

each of what we call meta-issues, scientists/analysts 

will be enlisted to pull together the best available 

information to address specific concerns that are not 

necessarily amenable to technical forecasting. They will 

use a deductive approach to describe possible effects 

of the scenarios we developed, including how such 

issues may evolve and how we might better gauge the 

uncertainty associated with effects.

Subregional Analysis

Every subregion of the South has unique ecological and 

social attributes and specific issues of concern about 

forest ecosystem and economic changes. Further, most 

ecological and forest resource research is specific to 

particular ecosystem types. In this tier of analysis, an 

interdisciplinary team will be formed for each subregion 

to interpret the scenario-based forecasts and the 

findings of the regional issue analyses to develop specific 

implications for each subregion. 

For this project, we have divided the South into five 

subregions (fig. 1). (In addition, Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands are initiating a forest resource 

assessment as a first step toward forecasts of future 

Islands forests. An Islands Team will eventually be 

formed, and a parallel approach to evaluating the 

Islands forest future will be linked to the Futures 

Project.) The divisions are roughly based on 

aggregations of similar ecological sections, and each 

has separate social/cultural/economic identities as well. 

However, subregions are not homogenous, and teams 

will need to address the diversity of conditions and 

concerns within each subregion. A separate report will 

draw out the implications for each subregion of the 

South.

Figure 1—Subregional analysis areas defined for the Southern Forest Futures Project.

1

 Wear, D.N. 2005. U.S. Forest Assessment System: Project Plan. Unpublished manuscript on file with: Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
3

Defining the Scope of the Project 

A wide array of issues could be addressed by a project 

such as this, so deciding what to focus on (and what not 

to focus on) will be critical to conducting and ultimately 

discerning a project’s usefulness. Because the Futures 

Project is intended to address a broad complement 

of issues that affect the decisions of forest managers, 

policymakers, science leaders, and the interested public, 

we sought extensive input from the public on specific 

issues that need to be addressed. Input was integral to 

the formulation of specific plans for all tiers of analysis. 

For the forecasting work we sought input that would 

help shape the scenarios we would analyze using 

technical models. In addition, we needed input to define 

and describe the sets of regional assessment questions. 

For the subregional analysis, we sought input on the 

potential ecosystem and local economic impacts of 

future changes and the values at risk within each of the 

subregions. 

It is important to consider what “the public” represents 

in the context of this project. In contrast to public 

involvement processes for resource planning or 

administrative decisionmaking—where input focuses 

on deducing values held by the public and their 

preferences regarding outcomes—we simply sought 

information regarding the range of issues, questions, 

and uncertainties regarding the future of forests and 

their various goods, services, and values in the South. 

This information will be coupled with the expertise of 

the analysis teams to define the most important issues 

for analysis within the Futures Project. We sought 

broad participation from all “stakeholders,” including 

landowners, researchers, and forestry agencies, as well 

as the public at large, but did not have a means of 

determining whether this was a representative cross 

section of all demographic subgroups within the region. 

No weighting or voting was applied to the comments 

received, so that the focus was on the entire set of 

issues, not just an aggregate of preferences.

The Input-Elicitation Process

We sought public input on the focus of the Futures 

Project because a broad array of citizens and 

organizations has strong interests in the issues regarding 

southern forests and important stakes in how the 

Futures Project addresses those issues. In addition, 

the geographic scope and the objectives of the project 

are broad and must be vetted by a wide range of local 

stakeholders, who bring their own perspectives and 

expertise. Accordingly, we used a carefully designed 

public participation process to elicit input from the 

interested individuals and public organizations or 

groups. Our primary objective was to consider their 

insights into the forces of change in southern forests, 

as well as the potential implications of such changes 

in forests from an ecological and socioeconomic point 

of view. In effect, we want to get the questions right. 

Our second objective was simply to review and discuss 

the project with the interested public in order to 

build interest and trust in the process. By providing 

information on the project’s scope and objectives, we 

hope to clarify stakeholder expectations.

This input elicitation phase represents only one part of 

an ongoing discourse with the public in the conduct and 

evaluation of the Futures Project. Following principles 

described by Bleiker and Bleiker (1995), we intended 

to make the project fully transparent to the public and 

to provide stakeholders with ample opportunities to 

have meaningful input at several junctures throughout 

the process, including our elicitation of input on the 

scope and focus of the project, evaluation of study 

plans, review of final reports, and broad discussions of 

findings. Input is only meaningful to the extent that 

the project is responsive to it, and we posted records 

of the input we received. This document is intended to 

describe how public input is interpreted and used.

The largest part of our input elicitation process was 

focused on public meetings held in 14 locations around 

the South (table 1). This set of meeting sites provided at 

least two public meetings in each of the five subregions 

and at least one public meeting in each State. It was 

important to have a meeting in each State because State 

agencies had a strong interest in participation in these 

meetings, but would have had difficulty traveling to 

out-of-State meetings. We also reproduced the face-toface meetings through three “Webinars” using internet 

and phone access, which allowed people to participate 

without traveling to meetings. Two of these were held 

in the evening to provide opportunities for people to 

participate after work hours. The public was also invited 

to provide input through the project Web site, which 

provided the same information delivered at the face-toface meetings.

We applied what could be called a “viral” approach 

to seeking public participation. We sent meeting 

notices to a general mailing list for the Forest Service 

Southern Research Station, and Public Affairs offices 

on the national forests sent notices to citizens on their 

contact lists. We also contacted State forestry agencies 

and asked them to forward the announcement to their 

contact lists. The State Forester, land-grant forestry 

departments, and forestry associations in each State also 

were notified. In each case, recipients of meeting notices 

were invited to disseminate the notice through their 

own networks of associates. In addition, to alert the 

public-at-large, we issued press releases to media outlets 

in the cities where meetings were held.

We designed the meeting format to encourage input on 

a full set of issues relevant to forest futures but within 

a formal structure that helped organize discussion. To 

set appropriate context, we started each meeting with 

a 1-hour general session, where the project’s co-leaders 

introduced objectives, the general management plan, 
4

and a timeline for implementation. This addressed a 

need to inform the public of our intent, and offered the 

participants an opportunity to ask questions—and the 

leaders to respond to them—regarding the legitimacy, 

objectives, and structure of the project.

After broadly reviewing and discussing the project, we 

then provided a general taxonomy of changes likely to 

affect forests in the South, based largely on the findings 

of the SFRA (Wear and Greis 2002a, 2002b). This 

framework included three primary drivers of change: 

1. Economic factors—changes in the demands for goods 

and services derived from land and natural resources, 

and changes in the scale and distribution of economic 

activity

2. Social factors—changes in the social context of 

resources management, including general societal 

changes related to the size and demographic 

composition of the general population, as well as 

changes in the demographics of forest landowners

3. Institutional factors—changes in the institutional 

framework within which land is managed, including 

current and new systems of taxation, regulations, and 

public policies and programs

Changes in these three primary drivers help drive 

changes in forested landscapes through four broad 

forces of change:

1. Land use—Changes in economic, social, and 

institutional factors can all have direct and indirect 

effects on land use choices. Notably, population 

and income growth give rise to development and 

urbanization, which consume forest and other rural 

land. In addition, changes in agricultural and forest 

product markets can shift land use within the rural 

landscape.

2. Forest Management—Much of the forested landscape 

of the South is actively managed for timber and other 

forest products; nearly every acre of forest has been 

harvested at least once in the past 100 years. Changes in 

timber markets as well as in forest-growing technologies 

can alter the way forests are managed.

3. Physical—Changes to the environmental context 

of forests can have important implications for forest 

structures and uses. Climate change portends changes 

in forest extent and species composition in parts of the 

South. Wildfire and changing fire regimes, hurricanes, 

ice storms, and other large-scale events alter the health, 

productivity, and structure of forests in the region.

4. Biological—Biological agents can have important 

impacts on forests. Both floral and faunal invasive 

species have restructured forests, and newly introduced 

invasive species foster uncertain implications for future 

forest ecosystem structure and health.

For each of the three primary drivers and four forces 

of change, we presented our public audiences with 

definitions and then several examples of relevant 

changes (based on the SFRA) during the opening 

general session. Doing so provided a starting point for 

the second part of the meeting, where we conducted 

2-1⁄2 to 3 hours of facilitated discussions organized 

around these seven topical areas. To ensure that 

discussion groups were effective, we set up several 

breakout discussion areas according to the factors/forces 

of change. At each location we grouped topical areas to 

define discussion groups of 10 to 12 people and assigned 

a facilitator to each of the breakout areas. We recruited 

potential facilitators before the meetings and briefed 

them on process and expectations immediately prior 

to each session. We coached facilitators to elicit and 

record the input without debate or judgment as to value 

or validity, and instructed them to focus discussion 

on clarification of content but not on approving or 

rejecting the comments. This highly organized approach 

Meeting location Subregion 

represented

Date

Baton Rouge, LA Coastal Plain/ Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley

Jan 29

Stoneville, MS Coastal Plain/ Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley

Jan 30

Gainesville, FL Coastal Plain Feb 7

Charleston, SC Coastal Plain Feb 8

Little Rock, AR Mid-South/Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley

Feb 13

College Station, TX Mid-South Feb 11

Stillwater, OK Mid-South Feb 12

Lexington, KY Appalachian Cumberland Feb 19

Nashville, TN Appalachian Cumberland Feb 21

Raleigh/Durham, NC Piedmont/Coastal Plain Feb 25

Blacksburg, VA Appalachian Cumberland Feb 26

Asheville, NC Appalachian Cumberland Feb 27

Athens, GA Piedmont/Coastal Plain Mar 6

Auburn, AL Piedmont/Coastal Plain Mar 7

Webinar #1 All subregions Apr 8 

evening

Webinar #2 All subregions Apr 16 

afternoon

Webinar #3 All subregions Apr 16 

evening

Table 1—Locations, subregions represented, and 

schedule of public meetings held for the Southern 

Forest Futures Project, 2008
5

can be found at the Southern Forest Futures Project 

Web site.) Public dialogue and review will play a role 

in all subsequent phases of the Project as well. In 

addition to review of this interpretation of input, public 

reviews will be encouraged when study plans describing 

research methods and data sources are being developed 

and when draft reports are generated by the Futures 

Project.

Results

The 14 public meetings described above were preceded 

by a meeting with invited leaders of public and private 

natural resource organizations in Asheville, NC, in 

January 2008. The initial meeting was used to refine 

and finalize our meeting structure and design. (Most 

notably, in response to feedback from this meeting, 

we (1) separated out the primary factors from the 

discussion of forces of change and (2) changed the 

structure of breakout sessions so that participants 

could attend sessions for all the topic areas—that is, 

participants were not forced to choose among topics of 

interest.) Public meetings then were conducted between 

January and March 2008. The average participation 

rate was 37 people (fig. 2). Attendance ranged from 

lows of 24 to 26 in Stoneville, MS; Nashville, TN; and 

Charleston, SC, to highs of 76 at the initial meeting 

in Asheville and 54 at the final meeting in Auburn, 

AL. Webinars were offered at three different times in 

April 2008, but attendance was quite limited, ranging 

from 1 to 12. Participants provided > 2,200 recorded 

comments. These were entered into tables, and a record 

of comments from each meeting was posted on the 

Futures Project Web site for inspection by participants 

and others.

provided a structure for the meetings that helped 

focus discussions for the limited meeting time, while 

it provided a context broad enough for participants to 

raise whatever issues or concerns they came to share.

Within each discussion group, facilitators asked 

participants to provide input on (1) details regarding 

how the drivers/forces of change could play out both 

at the regional and subregional scales and (2) potential 

implications of such changes in forest conditions, 

services, and other values in the region. Team facilitators 

gathered input on flip charts and in some cases keyed 

input into a computer onsite. At regular intervals, we 

signaled participants to move to another discussion area 

where the facilitators provided a briefing on previous 

discussions of the topic and asked for additional input. 

This encouraged discussions that were additive rather 

than repetitive. We allowed time for participants to 

provide input to all of the breakout groups.

Following each meeting, all input was transcribed 

from flip charts and entered into a spreadsheet. Each 

comment was labeled with the location of the meeting 

and the topical session in which it was provided. In 

addition, comments addressing local concerns were 

labeled with the specific subregion. Co-leaders then 

examined each comment and grouped comments 

under several labels. The groupings included, as 

appropriate, (1) the specific driver/force of change the 

comment addressed, (2) an implication category for 

those comments that provided input on implications 

of change, and (3) a secondary factor/force of change 

where more than one category was offered. The specific 

categories of implications were deduced from studying 

the comments, that is, they were not defined a priori. 

This spreadsheet then provided raw data for further 

synthesis of public input.

After reading all the comments, the 

co-leaders next identified several metaissues contained in the public comments 

and coded them to respective issues. We 

defined a meta-issue as a broad area of 

concern that contained a complement of 

interrelated drivers and/or implications. 

We then evaluated comments and 

generated a report for each force of 

change, implication category, and 

meta-issue. Sorting algorithms grouped 

comments according to the various 

categories with extensive crossreferencing; and we then summarized 

major points raised within each group. 

For example, we examined all of the 

comments addressing land use and 

summarized those comments using the 

primary factors (social, economic, and 

institutional changes) to organize these 

points. (The spreadsheet containing all 

public comments along with their labels 

Average = 37

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Asheville, NC

Baton Rouge, LA

Stoneville, MS

Gainesville, FL

Charleston, SC

College Station, TX

Stillwater, OK

Little Rock, AR

Lexington, KY

Nashville, TN

Raleigh-Durham, NC

Blacksburg, VA

Asheville, NC

Athens, GA

Auburn, AL

Webinars

Figure 2—Number of participants attending public meetings by location.
6

Meeting participants represented a broad range of 

organizations (fig. 3). The largest group of participants 

came from universities (95) and included students 

as well as faculty. We held nine meetings in close 

proximity to universities with large natural resource 

programs. The Forest Service was represented by 

88 participants, including several who served as 

facilitators (facilitators were allowed to provide 

their own input within the process used for these 

meetings). States were represented by 73 participants 

from forestry departments and 30 from other State 

agencies. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 

largely conservation and environmental groups, 

were represented by 52 participants. In total, 203 

participants represented State or Federal agencies 

and 222 participants were from the private sector 

(forest industry, NGOs, forestry associations, corporate 

landowners, and private citizens)

Substantial input was provided regarding all forces of 

change, both in terms of specific concerns about how 

such forces might be expressed and the potential shortand long-term implications of resulting changes. We 

then presented a synthesis of the public input organized 

in three different dimensions. First, we summarized the 

input on the four forces of change and how they might 

be expressed in the South. Second, we summarized 

the input with respect to the potential implications of 

change—that is, values at risk—that the public thought 

should be assessed within the Futures Project. Finally, 

we presented the set of meta-issues that emerged 

from an analysis of these inputs. These can be viewed 

as a set of overarching issues that represent a web of 

implications associated with a common force of change. 

Each meta-issue warrants its own focused analysis.

Forces of Change

The set of primary factors and forces of change 

evaluated here are listed in the tabulation below. Each 

of the forces of change is discussed in turn below.

Land Use

Participants identified issues that could affect land 

use changes in the future (box 1). Economic issues 

addressed both the drivers of urbanization and the 

allocation of rural land to forest and agricultural uses. 

With respect to urbanization, population growth and 

income were acknowledged as key issues. With respect 

to rural lands, discussions focused on the potential 

future of agricultural and timber markets, with special 

emphasis placed on the uncertain effects of the 

emergence of various markets for biofuels and their 

feedstocks. Some participants raised concerns about the 

potential shift from forest to cropland uses if demands 

for grains increase, but they also spoke of the potential 

for more intensive forest management if demands for 

wood material in bioenergy production increases.

Social factors focused largely on the changing profile 

of the South’s forest landowners and the potential to 

accelerate development. Participants at all locations 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Government agency = 203

Private = 222

University = 95

95

88

83

73

52

30

38

19 17

13 12

University

U.S. Forest Service

Forest industry

State forestry

NGO

Private citizen

Other State

Consultant

Forestry association

Corporate landowner

Other Federal

Figure 3—Number of participants attending public meetings by participant affiliation.
7

raised specific concerns regarding the divestiture of 

forest industry lands in the South over the past 10 

years (Clutter and others 2005) and the rise of the 

corporate investment ownership group, including 

Timber Investment Management Organizations and 

Real Estate Investment Trusts (TIMOs and REITs). 

Additional concerns focused on smaller landowners, 

in particular an anticipated generational turnover of 

owners. In addition, several comments spoke to how 

changes in demographics might increase the demand 

for recreational and retirement uses of lands in more 

remote locations. Among institutional factors affecting 

land use, participants focused on current and future 

effects of tax policy. Comments also addressed how 

potential new policies related to biofuels and ecosystem 

service payments (including carbon storage to reduce 

atmospheric carbon dioxide), as well as increased 

numbers of local regulations in high-growth areas, 

might affect land uses.

Forest Management

Most economic factors raised with respect to forest 

management in the South addressed either the future 

demand for current forest products or the emergence 

of biofuels markets in the region (box 2). Participants 

highlighted the need to understand regional demands 

for wood products in the context of global markets 

and how wood might substitute for other natural 

resource materials. With respect to biofuels, participants 

asked how new demands might directly affect forest 

Primary factors Forces of change

Land use

Economic

Forest management

Social

Biological

Institutional

Physical

Primary factors and forces of change used to 

organize public input

Box 1—Summary of comments regarding Land Use

changes in the South

1. Economic factors

a. How will change in agricultural markets— 

 i.e., food prices—affect land use?

b. How will change in timber markets affect 

 land use?

c. How will bioenergy markets—including 

 markets for both wood and other fuel 

 stocks—affect land use?

d. How will changes in populations and 

 income affect land use?

e. How will energy prices influence 

 peoples’ choice of where to live—will this 

 alter development of land?

f. What are the options for agroforestry, and 

 how might they influence land use patterns?

2. Social factors

a. How will changing ownership patterns (for 

 large and small owners) affect land use?

b. How will changing demographics influence 

 associated demands for esthetic settings, 

 recreation, and second homes?

3. Institutional factors

a. How will increasing urban populations affect 

 options for land use through various 

 regulations?

b. What effects do regulations have on land use 

 in the South?

c. How will policies regarding bioenergy affect 

 land uses?

d. How could ecosystem service payments, 

 especially for carbon sequestration, influence 

 land use and forest loss in the future?

e. How does tax policy influence ownership and 

 uses of land and forest land?

f. How do conservation easements and 

 “unbundling” of landowner rights affect land 

 uses?

Box 2—Summary of comments regarding Forest 

Management in the South

1. Economic drivers

a. Evaluate changes in the demands for all forest 

 products and the implications for forest 

 management in the South.

b. Consider the effects of global demands in 

 domestic wood products markets (important 

 case is the European demand for wood pellets).

c. Consider how the development of bioenergy 

 markets could affect the demand for other f

 orest products.

d. Consider how the development of bioenergy 

 markets could affect management regimes in 

 southern forests.

e. Evaluate how the markets for other nonwood 

 materials could influence demand for timber 

 products.

f. Evaluate the potential emergence of other 

 wood and nonwood forest products markets 

 and their influence on management.

 (continued)
8

management and compete with established markets for 

traditional forest products in the region.

Participants asked how social change might influence 

forest management in the South. In particular, they 

raised questions about the propensity of new large 

corporate (TIMO/REIT) landowners to continue levels 

of forest investment observed on industry land in the 

past. The trend toward smaller tract sizes caused by 

urbanization and recreation development—and the 

constraints this places on management—was seen as 

another big issue. Institutional issues focused especially 

on the potential for future biofuels policies to distort 

existing markets. Technology was seen to drive change 

in forest product demands and to possibly change the 

demand for plantation forests in the future.

Biological Forces

Public input focused on three categories of biological 

forces of change in the South: invasive species, 

genetics, and forest succession (box 3). Invasive species 

issues were raised at every meeting and addressed 

26 individual species (see tabulation, p. 9). Many 

comments focused on the potential influence of invasive 

plant species (most commonly, cogon grass) and of 

various insects (e.g., hemlock woolly adelgid) and 

diseases (e.g., sudden oak death) on forest composition 

and productivity. Comments also addressed the vectors 

of spread for these invasives and identified land use, 

forest management, and climate change as being 

especially important factors affecting the establishment 

and spread of invasive species.

Comments addressed the potential use of trees for 

timber production. Participants raised questions about 

the effect of high-productivity genetically modified 

organisms (GMOs) on the economics and distribution 

of timber production, but also on the ecological 

implications of potential “escapes” of genetically 

modified stock. In addition, they focused their 

comments on how changes to disturbance regimes (e.g., 

fire and storms) might affect the availability of early 

successional habitat and restructure the successional 

pathways of southern forests.

Physical Forces

Input focused on three categories of physical changes 

affecting forests in the South: fire regimes, climate 

change, and storms (box 4). Comments indicated the 

Box 3—Summary of comments regarding Biological 

Forces of change in the South

1. Invasive species

a. Evaluate the spread of existing and the 

 emergence of new invasive plant species in the 

 South.

b. Evaluate the spread of existing and the 

 emergence of new invasive insect and disease 

 species in the South.

c. Consider how land use patterns affect the 

 distribution and spread of invasive species.

d. Consider how forest management may affect 

 the success of invasive species.

e. Consider how climate change may affect the 

 success and spread of invasive species.

2. Genetics

a. Evaluate the potential deployment and effects 

 of genetically modified trees in the South

b. Consider the institutional structures that 

 govern the licensing of genetically modified 

 plants.

c. Consider the potential for the escape of 

 genetically modified plants and potential 

 interactions with native species in forested 

 ecosystems.

3. Forest succession

a. Evaluate the implications of changes in 

 disturbance regimes for natural succession 

 in forests (e.g., reductions in early successional 

 habitats).

b. Consider how fire suppression alters species 

 composition and successional pathways.

Box 2—Summary of comments regarding Forest 

Management in the South (continued)

2. Social drivers

a. Consider how ownership changes may the 

 affect forest management approaches 

 (harvesting and investment).

b. Evaluate the effects of fragmentation and 

 parcelization on viability for forest 

 management, for example, minimum viable 

 stand size.

c. Consider the effects of a shrinking work force 

 and human capital in the logging sector.

3. Institutional drivers

a. Consider the potential for new policies 

 regarding biofuels production to distort wood 

 products markets.

b. Consider the potential (negative and positive) 

 impacts of the farm bill on forest management 

 in the South.

c. Consider how conservation easement and land 

 withdrawal programs could affect timber 

 availability.

4. Technology

a. Consider how technological changes will 

 influence demands for various forest products.

b. Consider changes in plantation technology and 

 productivity and explore their implications for 

 forest management.
9

need to examine the effects of future fire regimes on 

forests and human populations. Participants anticipated 

that fire regimes would be complicated by land use 

patterns and regulations, especially in the wildlandurban interface. Participants asked how climate change, 

fuel treatments, and fire suppression activities might 

interact to influence broad-scale fire regimes.

Participants asked how future climates could alter forest 

extent and composition in the region. In particular, 

they asked how temperature, precipitation, and CO2

fertilization would influence forest productivity; how

rising sea levels might affect the area of forest by way 

of inundation and saltwater intrusions; and about the 

potential interaction of climate change with water 

availability and drought. In addition to climate change 

effects, participants suggested that climate change 

mitigation activities, through carbon cap-and-trade 

programs, might have an important influence on forest 

land use and management.

Storm frequency and intensity were seen as other 

important variables in determining forest conditions 

and values. Participants asked how storms might be 

affected by changes in climate and how storms would 

alter forests. While many of the comments about storms 

addressed hurricanes, several raised questions about ice 

storms in the northern half of the region.

Implications of Change 

Participants identified a very broad range of potential 

implications associated with current and anticipated 

forces of change in southern forests. We aggregated 

these implications into four categories (see tabulation, 

p. 10): ecosystem structure, forest conditions, social/

economic implications, and ecosystem services. Of 

course these are interrelated, with forest conditions 

being a subset of ecosystem structure, and ecosystem 

services being closely linked with social/economic 

implications of forest changes. Under forest conditions 

we mainly considered tree species and changes in tree 

composition and forest condition. Ecosystem structure 

focused on implications of changes to the broader 

complement of plant species, as well as the effects 

Common Name Scientific Name

Anosus root rot Fomes annosus

Asian jumping carp Hypophthalmic molitrix

Beavers Castor canandensis

Callery pear Pyrus calleryana

Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense

Chinese tallow tree Triadica sebifera

Cogon grass Imperata cylindria

Dutch elm disease Ophiostoma ulmi and 

Ophiostoma novo-ulmi

Emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis

Feral hogs Sus scrofa

Gypsy moth Lymantria dispar

Hypoxylon canker Hypoxylon spp.

Japanese climbing fern Lygodium japonicum

Kudzu Pueraria lobata

Laurel wilt Ophiostoma sp.

Mimosa Albizia julibrissin

Nutria Myocastor coypus

Red oak borer Enaphalodes rufulus

Salt bush Atriplex sp.

Sawtooth oak Quercus acutissima

Sirex woodwasp Sirex notilio

Southern pine beetle Dendroctonus frontalis

Sudden oak death Phytophthora ramorum

Whitetail deer Odocoileus virginianus

Invasive species considered issues (by the public) in 

meetings for the Southern Forest Futures Project Box 4—Summary of comments regarding Physical 

Forces of change in the South

1. Fire regimes

a. Evaluate current and anticipated fire regimes 

 and how these disturbances affect forests.

b. Consider how fire regimes might be altered by 

 changes in climate.

c. Consider how fire regimes might be altered 

 by changes in land use patterns, especially in 

 the wildland-urban interface.

d. Consider how regulations affect fire regimes 

 (e.g., clean air regulations).

e. Consider the effects of both fuel treatments and 

 fire suppression on long-run fire dynamics.

2. Climate change

a. Examine how climate influences forest area and 

 conditions via temperature, precipitation, and 

 CO2

 fertilization.

b. Examine how sea level rise would influence 

 forests.

c. Consider the effects various climate-change 

 mitigation activities would have on forests.

d. Examine how climate could influence drought, 

 water availability, and saltwater intrusions

3. Storms

a. Examine disturbance regimes from hurricanes 

 and other storms and how they may change in 

 the future.

b. Consider the effects of climate change on storm 

 frequency, strength, and variability.

c. Examine disturbance regimes from ice storms 

 and how they might change in the future.
10

such changes have on wildlife habitats and species 

composition. Social/economic implications looked at the 

direct economic and social effects of changes in forest 

uses, while ecosystem service implications focused on 

the “public good” kinds of forest benefits, such as fresh 

water and biodiversity. 

Ecosystem Structure

Public input on ecosystem structure implications 

focused on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, riparian 

forests, and ecotones (box 5). Appalachian riparian 

forests are seen as especially vulnerable to changes 

caused by the expected widespread mortality of eastern 

hemlock.

Participants raised a number of concerns regarding 

the effects of management activities on long-term soil 

productivity, chemistry, and biota. Concerns also spoke 

to possible impacts on soil productivity brought by land 

use change and the potential intensification of cropping 

for future biofuel production.

Concerns also linked multiple forces of change—

including invasive species and disturbance regimes 

related to fire and storms—with the vegetative structure 

of terrestrial ecosystems. Participants asked about the 

impact of fire exclusion on the persistence of fireadapted forest communities. Resulting habitat changes 

were linked to concerns regarding species persistence in 

the South.

Forest Conditions

Participants raised issues regarding how changes will 

affect the standard measures of a forest inventory, 

including forest area, biomass, and tree species 

composition (box 6, p. 11). Specific concerns addressed 

the effects of intensified management for biofuel 

production and invasives on forest conditions.

Comments also focused on how various forces of 

change might affect the production of a variety of 

timber products—comments that included the use of 

clonal materials and genetically modified organisms, 

intensified management, ownership changes, and 

climate. Constraints on management actions also were 

linked to forest productivity in the wildland-urban 

interface.

Implication category Subcategories

Ecosystem structure Aquatic ecosystems

Soils

Terrestrial ecosystems

Forest conditions Forest area

Forest conditions

Productivity

Social/Economic Employment

Policy

Recreation

Wood production

Ecosystem services Biodiversity

Carbon storage

Water and forests

Categories of implications used to organize 

public input

Box 5—Summary of comments regarding the effects 

of change on Ecosystem Structure

1. Aquatic ecosystems

a. Evaluate the effects of land use change, 

 management activities, and the spread of 

 invasive species on the quantity and function 

 of riparian forests.

b. Evaluate the potential cascade of effects of 

 hemlock woolly adelgid on Southern 

 Appalachian riparian forests, stream quality, 

 aquatic species, and trout fishing.

2. Soils

a. Evaluate the effects of land use change on soil 

 chemistry and biota, as well as sedimentation.

b. Evaluate the effects of forest management 

 extent and intensity on soil chemistry and 

 biota, and sedimentation.

c. Evaluate the potential effects of increased 

 utilization rates on soil nutrients and the need 

 for fertilization.

3. Terrestrial ecosystems

a. Examine how changing disturbance regimes, 

 including fire and storms, will affect forest 

 species and conditions.

b. Assess the potential loss and modification of 

 fire-adapted forest communities.

c. Assess the impact of invasives on forest 

 structures.

d. Consider the effects of fragmentation on 

 habitat structure and wildlife and on the spread 

 of invasive species.

e. Evaluate the cumulative impacts of forces of 

 change on rare forest types.

f. Evaluate the effects of habitat changes, driven 

 by multiple forces of change, on wildlife of all 

 types in the South.
11

Social/Economic

Public comments addressed several concerns regarding 

the economic and social implications of changes in the 

forests of the South (box 7). How might changes in 

forest uses affect direct employment in rural areas of the 

South? Employment issues and concerns also extended 

to how immigration policy might affect the availability 

of labor for woods work. Other policy issues spoke to 

how economic activity—primarily wood production—

might be affected by policies designed either to 

encourage carbon storage in forests or encourage the 

production of biofuels from forests.

Comments also addressed forest-based recreation—both 

its supply and demand—and the potential for increased 

congestion and conflicts among types of recreation 

uses. Another set of comments spoke to the future of 

wood products production across product classes and 

subregions in response to various forces of change. 

Participants also suggested that analysts track the total 

value of forest benefits to the quality of life in the 

region.

Box 6—Summary of comments regarding the effects 

of change on Forest Conditions

1. Forest area

a. Evaluate the effects of all forces of change on 

 the future area of forest land in the South.

b. Examine the impact of demand for population-

 driven new infrastructure developments (e.g., 

 highways and reservoirs) on the area of forest 

 land in the South.

2. Forest composition

a. Evaluate the effects of all forces of change on 

 the condition of forest inventories in the 

 region, including biomass, species composition, 

 and products.

b. Evaluate the potential implications of cloning/

 genetically modified tree species for diversity of 

 pines and associated risks

c. Examine the impact of invasive species on 

 forest composition and health.

3. Productivity

a. Evaluate the implications of intensified 

 harvest activities with increased demand for 

 biofuel production or other products on the 

 long-run productivity and sustainability of 

 timber production.

b. Evaluate the implications of increased 

 productivity from cloning/GMOs on the 

 location of forest management and the 

 condition of forests.

c. Examine how management shifts related to 

 ownership changes affect the overall 

 productivity of forest land in the South.

d. Consider the effects of climate on forest 

 productivity including the effects of changed 

 growing seasons, precipitation, and CO2

 fertilization.

e. Consider how constraints to management, 

 e.g., loss of fire and herbicide use in the 

 wildland-urban interface and increasing 

 costs for fertilizer and transportation, may 

 affect productivity in the future.

Box 7—Summary of comments regarding the effects of 

change on Social/Economic implications

1. Employment

a. Evaluate changes in labor supply including the 

 role of immigrant labor and the potential 

 implications of immigration policy for labor 

 supply.

b. Evaluate the demographics of logging and 

 other woods workers and the potential for 

 increased scarcity of labor for these services.

c. Consider how changing wood production will 

 affect employment and income in rural areas of 

 the South.

2. Policy

a. Consider how bioenergy policies might affect 

 timber supply and activities in other wood 

 products sectors.

b. Consider how carbon budgeting policies might 

 affect timber supply and activities in other wood 

 products sectors.

3. Recreation

a. Evaluate how population growth and changing 

 demographics will affect changes in demands 

 for different types of recreation activities, and 

 explore implications for forest land uses.

b. Evaluate how changing ownership and land uses 

 will affect the supply of recreation opportunities.

c. Examine the potential for increased congestion 

 and conflict among recreational users of forests 

 as a result of changing supply and demand factors. 

d. Examine the changing economics of hunting 

 leases and implications for forest land uses.

4. Wood production

a. Evaluate changes in ownership and land uses 

 in terms of how such changes will affect timber 

 supply and potential changes in the structure of 

 wood products sectors.

b. Evaluate the implications of changing industry 

 structure on the distribution of economic activity 

 and employment throughout the South.

c. Consider how energy markets may differentially 

 affect wood products sectors due, for example, to 

 high transportation costs.

(continued) 
12

Box 8—Summary of comments regarding the effects 

of change on Ecosystem Services

1. Biodiversity

a. Assess how loss and alteration of habitats will 

 affect the biodiversity of the South.

b. Evaluate the influence of climate change on the 

 persistence of plant and animal species.

c. Examine the implications of multiple forces of 

 change on imperiled (or threatened and 

 endangered) species in the South.

d. Assess the potential effects of management 

 strategies (including restoration activities) on 

 genetic diversity of forests.

2. Carbon storage

a. Evaluate implications of the development of 

 carbon-credit markets for forest area and 

 conditions in the South.

b. Examine the potential interactions of a new 

 carbon-credit market with current timber 

 markets and potential markets for cellulose-

 based biofuels.

3. Water

a. Evaluate the effects of forces of change on the 

 ability of forested wetland to assimilate 

 wastewater and dampen the effects of nutrient

flows into water courses (including effects on 

 hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico).

b. Evaluate the role of forests in protecting 

 municipal watersheds and how land use and 

 other changes might affect this role.

c. Examine how a program of watershed 

 protection credits could affect forest area and 

 conditions in the South.

4. Other

a. Examine the potential for and the effects 

 of ecosystem service credit markets for forest 

 landowners in the South.

b. Examine the potential use of tax credits and 

 other tax incentives to encourage the provision 

 of ecosystem services.

Ecosystem Services

Participant concerns about ecosystem services focused 

largely on biodiversity, carbon storage, and water 

(box 8). Participants expressed concerns regarding the 

effects of multiple forces of change on the persistence 

of various imperiled plant and animal species and on 

the genetic diversity of forests. Specific concerns were 

for the effects on wildlife habitats wrought by land 

use change, fragmentation, and climate change. Issues 

related to carbon storage provided by forests centered 

on how a new cap-and-trade program might affect the 

quantity and quality of forests in the region (especially 

given other policy initiatives). Water issues focused 

on the role of forests in providing water filtration 

and the effects of management on those benefits. 

Finally, participants raised general questions about the 

implications of proposed markets for ecosystem services 

on forest persistence and uses in the South.

Meta-Issues

As summarized in the public’s comments on forces 

and implications of change, we identified issues that 

had several interrelated concerns. A distillation of the 

themes synthesized from those concerns led to seven 

meta-issues, listed in the tabulation to the right. Each 

meta-issue is defined by a set of interrelated drivers and 

outcomes associated with a common topic. A metaissue defines a set of questions that have broad regional 

implications and might therefore warrant careful 

analysis at the broad regional scale. We describe each of 

the seven meta-issues below.

Meta-Issue

Bioenergy 

Climate change

Forest ownership change

Invasive species

Fire

Taxes 

Water and forests

Meta-Issues regarding Southern Forest Futures 

Project derived from public input

Box 7—Summary of comments regarding the effects of 

change on Social/Economic implications (continued)

d. Evaluate the shift in markets away from some 

 wood products toward ecosystem services of 

 different types.

e. Consider the effects of habitat fragmentation 

 on the economics of timber harvesting/logging 

 and the associated costs of timber. Consider the 

 futures of various wood products sectors in 

 detail, e.g., hardwood lumber, treated southern 

 pine, oriented strand board.

f. Examine how biofuel markets may interact 

 with other wood products markets in the South 

 and cause an affect of overall economic activity, 

 returns, and employment.

5. Other

a. Evaluate the total economic value of forest 

 benefits including in situ as well as extractive 

 benefits.

b. Examine the effect of forest conditions on 

 overall quality of life in the South.
13

Bioenergy

Participants had numerous concerns and questions 

regarding the potential development of bioenergy 

markets in the South. They raised such comments at 

every meeting we held to explore the emergence of 

new markets for grain-based and/or cellulose-based 

bioenergy products, the potential impact on forests and 

forestry, and the secondary impacts on forest ecosystems 

and productivity (box 9). Economic issues were focused 

either on the potential for new returns to landowners 

or the effects of potential competition for raw material 

between new bioenergy firms and other wood products 

sectors—in particular, the potential for the displacement 

of existing sectors if biofuel production consumes 

large amounts of timber. As an extension of this latter 

point, participants asked how subsidies and other 

policies might distort markets and provide competitive 

advantage of biofuels over other sectors that currently 

consume wood fiber.

Comments also focused on how the emergence of new 

biofuel markets could influence management of forests 

in the South. In particular, participants asked whether 

afforestation or deforestation would result, and to 

what degree materials used to produce biofuels would 

be derived from existing forest inventories or from 

more intensively managed plantations. Comments also 

addressed the impacts of management changes on site 

productivity and ecosystem integrity.

Climate Change

This topic defined another meta-issue regarding 

southern forests (box 10, p. 14). Participants were 

concerned about the impact of climate on various 

economic and ecological values. Economic concerns 

spoke to the potential for changes in the location of 

industry, as well as potential losses due to declines in 

productivity and increases in damaging storm events.

With regard to forest productivity, participants asked 

how future climate change could affect timber 

production rates as growing season, temperature, 

precipitation, and CO2

 changes occur. Input also 

indicated a need to analyze the potential for 

adaptation strategies that would move tree species 

to more favorable locations. Participants asked about 

the potential for climate change to exacerbate the 

spread of invasive species. They asked for additional 

insights into the effects of climate on drought cycles 

and the frequency of severe weather events. A broad 

complement of questions spoke to how climate might 

restructure forest ecosystems and change the provision 

of the full array of ecosystem services.

Box 9—Summary of comments regarding the 

Bioenergy meta-issue

1. Social/Economic

a. Evaluate likely effects of emerging biofuel 

 feedstock markets on markets for all other 

 forest products.

b. Will potential new markets lead to substantial 

 increases in timber scarcity?

c. How will economic returns to forest landowners 

 be affected by potential markets for biofuel 

 feedstocks?

d. Evaluate expected rural labor supply and demand

needed for a bioenergy market.

2. Forest conditions

a. How will afforestation (gain of forest land) and 

 deforestation (loss of forest land) be driven by a 

 bioenergy market?

b. What will be the likely effects of intensive 

 management for biofuels on soil fertility and 

 productivity?

c. Consider how the development of bioenergy 

 markets could affect management regimes in 

 southern forests. 

3. Ecosystem structure 

a. Evaluate how wildlife habitat and other 

 ecosystem functions could be affected by the 

 growth in biofuel markets.

b. What will be the likely ecological characteristics 

 of energy plantations and their management?

c. How will emergence of forest bioenergy affect 

 forest ecosystem integrity? 

d. What will be the ecological effects of utilizing 

 increasingly small material?

4. Other

a. Consider various ways the markets for different 

 biofuels could develop in the future. 

b. Consider the potential for distortive and negative 

 effects on wood products markets from policies 

 that would encourage bioenergy production.

c. Describe the pros and cons of potential 

 financial incentives and other policies for 

 encouraging production of bioenergy from 

 wood (including new Farm Bill policies).

d. Describe the current and potential technology 

 needed to realize large-scale production of 

 biofuels from cellulosic feedstocks.

Forest Ownership Change

Many participants voiced their experience and concerns 

regarding forest ownership changes observed since we 

published the SFRA (box 11, p. 14). Most comments 

focused on forest industry’s divestiture of timberland 

and concomitant increases in ownership by TIMOs 

and REITs. But other comments focused on changes in 

the nonindustrial forest landowner class. In the latter, 

questions focused on the implications of a generational 

turnover in owners. In both cases, however, the 

implications concerned changing the physical and 
14

management structure of forests. What happens to 

management as lands become more fragmented? 

What are the long-run implications for timber supply 

and economic activity? Participants looked beyond 

the recent history of ownership changes to ask how 

this new ownership structure might lead to increased 

turnover of ownership in the future.

Box 11—Summary of comments regarding the 

Ownership Change meta-issue

1. Social/Economic

a. Examine how the divestiture of forest industry 

 land could affect long-term timber supplies and 

 the structure of the wood products industry.

b. How might ownership changes alter recreation 

 opportunities on private lands?

2. Forest conditions

a. Will increasingly fragmented and parcelized 

 ownerships limit management options and 

 timber productivity from these lands—what is 

 the minimum manageable tract size?

b. Consider opportunities to “rescale” forestry to 

 include new owners with smaller tracts—

 defining new silvicultural practices.

c. What will be the likely extent of conversion 

 and loss resulting from ongoing transactions by 

 TIMOs, REITs and other large ownerships?

d. How might economic conditions work to 

 stabilize (or destabilize) forest ownership and 

 keep (or reduce) forest cover?

e. Describe how the expected new owners will 

 change management activities that could affect 

 forest health.

3. Ecosystem structure

a. What will be the major conservation challenges 

 posed by expected ownership changes?

b. Evaluate the full suite of expected ownership 

 trends relative to management activities, forest 

 conditions and health, and the implications of 

 these factors for wildlife habitat and species. 

c. Consider the effects of fragmentation on 

 wildlife persistence.

4. Other

a. Define how much land has changed hands in 

 the South and where changes might be focused 

 in the future.

b. Estimate the likely rate and direction of 

 ownership turnover in the future.

c. Estimate the likely impacts of ownership 

 changes on fragmentation and parcelization.

d. Consider all economic determinants of 

 ownership change (e.g., resource markets, land 

 markets, and alternative investment returns) 

 and how these might change in the future.

e. Evaluate changes in the demographics across all

categories of owners.

f. How will change in industry/TIMO/REIT 

 management influence opportunities for other 

 landowners?

Box 10—Summary of comments regarding the 

Climate Change meta-issue

1. Social/Economic

a. Evaluate the implications of climate change 

 relative to the location of forest industry.

b. Evaluate the total costs of increased extreme 

 weather events.

2. Forest Conditions

a. Consider the implications of changes in growing 

 season length, temperature, precipitation, and 

 CO2

 fertilization for forest productivity.

b. Evaluate strategic options for adapting forest 

 management to climate change—e.g., species to 

 plant and treatments to favor, as well as the 

 assisted migration of tree species.

c. Consider how climate will change the range of 

 invasive species and otherwise interact with 

 invasives and native pests.

d. How will climate change affect the drought 

 cycle and therefore the persistence of forest 

 types?

e. How might changes in extreme weather events 

 (hurricanes, tornadoes, and ice storms) affect 

 forest structure?

3. Ecosystem Structure

a. How might climate change alter the range of 

 forest types in the South?

b. How might climate change affect the 

 distribution of rare forest types—e.g., spruce fir 

 types in the Southern Appalachians?

c. How might climate change alter the structure 

 of and change the effectiveness of conservation 

 areas, including wildlife refuges?

d. How would climate change alter fire regimes in 

 southern forests?

e. How resilient are various forest communities to 

 climate change?

f. Consider the effects of sea level rise and 

 increased salinization on coastal forests.

4. Ecosystem Services

a. Examine how potential increases in drought 

 might affect the comparative value of forests in 

 protecting watersheds.

b. How will climate change affect species 

 composition of forests?

c. How will threatened/endangered/imperiled 

 species be affected?
15

Invasive Species

Participants were concerned about invasive plants and 

animals as well as new insects and diseases and their 

effects on forests (box 12). Because these species have 

the potential to restructure forest vegetation, comments 

regarding invasives largely focused on how ecosystem 

structure might be altered. Economic concerns focused 

on the costs of management and control (where 

controls are available). Participants asked about the 

effect of invasives on forest productivity. In addition to 

questions regarding the effects on terrestrial ecosystems, 

participants asked about the effects on riparian forests 

and aquatic ecosystems (especially with regard to 

hemlock woolly adelgid).

Fire

This remains a central issue of concern for forests in 

the South (box 13, p. 16). Participants asked about 

the potential for damages associated with changing 

fire regimes. They were concerned about the potential 

for increased fire frequency and intensity related to 

climate changes. In addition to damages, participants 

raised questions regarding the effects of changed fire 

regimes on ecosystem structure, as well as a number of 

ecosystem services including clean air, clean water, and 

biodiversity.

Taxes

Among the institutional issues raised in the public 

meetings, the most common was taxes (box 14, p. 

16). The full suite of tax types—income, property, 

inheritance, and severance—was discussed. The 

accumulation and interaction of these various types 

of taxes on forest uses defined a meta-issue. Concerns 

focused on (1) the implications of tax treatment for 

the use of easements and other potential conservation 

instruments, (2) the effects of inheritance taxes on 

fragmentation and parcelization, and (3) the links 

between property tax treatments on land uses and the 

retention of forest cover. Comments were also raised 

about the potential to structure tax incentives that 

would encourage retention and management of forest 

lands.

Water and Forests

Participants raised concerns regarding water production 

and quality as a key issue relevant to forests and forest 

management in the South (box 15, p. 17). Concerns 

focused on the ability of forested landscapes to protect 

water quality in the future and on the ability of forested 

wetlands to assimilate waste. Comments also addressed 

the various effects of forest management on water 

quality and the potential for adverse impacts with the 

intensification of management resulting from increased 

production of wood-based biofuels. Land use change 

and the loss of forests were also seen as critical factors in 

determining water quality.

Conclusions

Taken together, the > 2,200 comments processed from 

public meetings define a comprehensive view of natural 

resource dynamics in the South. They address the social 

dynamics that reshape forested ecosystems and the 

myriad benefits that flow from forests. They also focus 

attention on a number of key uncertainties related 

to anticipated structural changes in this interrelated 

human-ecological system. We have summarized these 

as seven meta-issues: bioenergy, climate change, forest 

ownership change, invasive species, fire, taxes, and 

water.

Box 12—Summary of comments regarding the 

Invasive Species meta-issue

1. Social/Economic

a. How will invasive species affect management 

 costs and the returns to forest management?

2. Forest conditions

a. What effects will nonnative animals, e.g., nutria, 

 have on the regeneration and reestablishment of 

 forests?

b. How will expected changes in forest species 

 composition due to invasives affect the overall 

 productivity of forests?

c. What are the likely effects of the interaction of 

 forest insect or disease pests and changes in forest 

 species composition due to climate change, 

 population expansion, and fragmentation?

d. How do (will) policies, laws, and regulations 

 affect the introduction, spread, and control of 

 forest pests? 

e. What is the likely future capability to control 

 invasives, given future land uses, fragmentation, 

 ownership patterns, and other forces of change?

f. What will southern forests look like if 

 catastrophic loss of dominant species, e.g., 

 oaks, occurs? 

3. Ecosystem structure

a. Evaluate the impacts that invasive plant species, 

 e.g., salt cedar, Russian olive, privet, Chinese 

 tallow, will have on the composition and 

 function of riparian forests.

b. Evaluate likely impacts of the hemlock woolly 

 adelgid on aquatic ecosystems.

4. Ecosystem services 

What will be the effects of the introduction and 

spread of invasives by urbanization, recreational 

use, and other human activities?

5. Other

Examine historical spread rates for invasive species 

and forecast future spread of important invasives.
16

Our synthesis of the comments defines a set of 178 

key concerns regarding the 7 meta-issues, 4 categories 

of forces of change, and 4 categories of implications 

of change. They are helping define a broad research 

program for a community of researchers for years to 

come. Our objective was to distill comments in a way 

that helps shape the plan for the Southern Forest 

Futures Project, and the content analysis described here 

provides the first step, by summarizing key elements 

of what the public sees as important with respect to 

changing forested ecosystems in the South. Our next 

steps will be to define how we might best address these 

issues through the three tiers of analysis of the Futures 

Project.

For the Forecast Analysis tier we will use quantitative 

models to forecast the effects of the different forces 

of change on land area, forest inventories, and other 

measures of interest. The public comments on forces of 

change will be used to help shape a representative set 

of scenarios for analysis using quantitative models. Our 

approach will be to use this input as the starting point 

for a structured workshop led by a team of experts to 

form a manageable number of scenarios that address 

issues raised by the public. We will analyze these 

scenarios to forecast key changes and the potential 

effects on the “implications” identified in this document.

The Meta-Issue Analysis tier will apply a knowledgesynthesis approach to studying the spectrum of concerns 

involved in each of the seven meta-issues. For each 

meta-issue we will define the research question and 

important elements for evaluation using the public 

comments summarized here. Each meta-issue will be 

assigned to an expert scientist to manage the analysis.

Box 14—Summary of comments regarding the 

Taxes meta-issue

1. Social/Economic

a. Consider the effects of tax code on 

 easements and other mechanisms for private 

 sector conservation.

b. Would taxes on recreation values affect 

 landowners’ willingness to lease land for this 

 purpose? 

2. Forest conditions

a. Evaluate the effects of inheritance taxes on 

 losses of forest land.

b. Consider how property taxes (including 

 differential tax rates) influence land use and 

 ownership of forest land.

c. Consider the effects of differential income tax 

 rates for “C” corporations and other entities for 

 land use and ownership of forest land.

d. Consider the cumulative effects of all taxes—

 including property, income, estate, and 

 severance taxes—on land use and ownership 

 of forest land.

e. How do taxes affect management practices and 

 productivity of forests?

3. Ecosystem services

a. Consider the potential use of tax incentives 

 to encourage forest retention and management 

 for ecosystem services.

b. Consider potential “proactive” tax policy that 

 would encourage forest stewardship—

 including ad valorem taxes or other alternative 

 tax instruments.

Box 13—Summary of comments regarding the Fire 

meta-issue

1. Social/Economic

a. Evaluate the likely economic consequences 

 of reduced prescribed burning, including 

 property and structural damage and loss, air 

 pollution effects, timber quality, and others.

b. Define and forecast the potential for economic 

 losses of all types from wildfire in the South 

 (values at risk).

c. How will concerns regarding liability affect fire 

 use in the future, and what will be the 

 consequences for forest conditions?

2. Forest conditions

a. Describe the relationship and likelihood that 

 catastrophic events play in forest conversion.

b. How will changed fire regimes affect the overall 

 health of southern forests?

3. Ecosystem structure

a. How will changing fire regimes affect the 

 structure of forest vegetation in the future?

b. What will be the likely effects of fire restriction 

 or exclusion on fire-adapted or dependent 

 communities, including critical or rare forest 

 types or rare, imperiled or endangered species? 

c. How will the likely future changes in fire 

 regimes affect biodiversity of affected forests? 

4. Ecosystem services

Describe the options for using (or not using) 

prescribed fire and their implications for stand 

composition, air and water pollution, and 

biodiversity.

5. Other

Forecast future fire regimes and their implications 

for forest structure, as well as costs and benefits.
17

Box 15—Summary of comments regarding the 

Water and Forests meta-issue

1. Ecosystem services

a. Participants asked responsible managers and 

 landowners to consider the growing demand 

 for high-quality water in urbanizing areas 

 of the South and to recognize the role of forests 

 in providing clean water.

b. They also asked for quantification and 

 evaluation of a potential change in the ability 

 of the region’s wetlands to assimilate 

 wastewater.

2. Forest management

a. Evaluate how forest management practices 

 affect water quality in subregions of the South.

b. Examine how the use of herbicides and 

 fertilizers in forest management may affect 

 water quality, especially with potential 

 increases in management intensity related to 

 the production of biofuels.

c. Evaluate the role of forest management 

 regulations in protecting water quality in the 

 South.

3. Land use

a. Consider the impact of water impoundments 

 and related infrastructure on forest area and 

 conditions, especially in the mid-South.

b. Consider how land use change and loss of 

 forests to other uses could affect the water 

 quality throughout the South.

c. Evaluate anticipated changes in the amount 

 and structure of forested wetlands.

The Subregional Analysis tier will further interpret 

the implications of forces of change for the five 

subregions of the South based on the results of the 

Forecast Analysis and Meta-Issue Analysis tiers. In 

each subregion a team of analysts will examine specific 

concerns and issues regarding forest futures. 

After meetings in 13 States and interactions with about 

600 people from a variety of backgrounds, it appears 

clear that the public anticipates important changes in 

forested landscapes of the South. Such changes will be 

driven by multiple forces of change, and their effects 

will span ecological, economic, and social dimensions. 

In this way the public sessions provided validation for 

undertaking the Futures Project now. As we have to a 

large extent described, public comments have provided 

the foundation upon which we will design the next 

phases of the effort. 

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the >40 facilitators who worked at 

the public meetings for this project. Special thanks are 

due to Mary Carol Koester for her diligence in keying 

in all of the public comments that were the basis for the 

analysis presented in this paper, to Rod Kindlund for his 

creative and patient work in designing the publication 

and cover, to John Pye for his technical support of the 

public meetings and all other aspects of the Southern 

Forest Futures Project, and to Trish Francis and Sandy 

Baker for their help with logistical details of the public 

meetings.

Literature Cited 

Bleiker, A.; Bleiker, H. 1995. Public participation 

handbook for officials and other professionals serving 

the public. 9th ed. Monterey, CA: Institute for 

Participatory Management and Planning. 110 pp.

Clutter, M.; Mendell, B.; Newman, D. [and others]. 

2005. Strategic factors driving timberland ownership 

changes in the U.S. South. http://www.srs.fs.usda.

gov/econ/pubs/southernmarkets/strategic-factorsand-ownership-v1.pdf [Date accessed: October 2, 

2008].

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. 2002a. Southern Forest 

Resource Assessment: Technical Report. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS-53. Asheville,NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service. 635 pp.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002b. Southern Forest 

Resource Assessment: Summary Report. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS-54. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, 103 pp.



Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G.; and Walters, N. 2009. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: using public input to define the issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-115. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 17 p.

The Southern Forest Futures Project has been designed to evaluate the implications of 

potential futures for the many goods and services forests in the Southeastern United 

States provide. To ensure that the Futures Project is comprehensive and relevant, we 

have begun with a thorough scoping of issues using a process that elicits input from 

various interested publics. We have held public meetings in 14 locations around the 

South and through 3 online “Webinars.” The meeting sites provided at least two public 

meetings in each of five ecological subregions and no fewer than one public meeting 

in each State. We gathered > 2,200 comments using a structured-workshop format 

and processed the compiled data to define a comprehensive view of how forces of 

change may reshape forests, and how these changes could affect the various goods, 

services, and values of forest ecosystems. We also identified a set of meta-issues that 

warrant in-depth analysis to evaluate their potential influence on the future of forests. 

These topics of concern include bioenergy, climate change, forest ownership change, 

invasive species, fire, taxes, and water. The input on meta-issues, forces of change, and 

resource implications will be used to organize subsequent stages of the Southern Forest Futures Project.

Keywords: Assessment, forecasting, public involvement.
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 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 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 of part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance. (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, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call toll free 866-632-9992 (voice). 

TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at 800-877-8339 (TDD) 

or 866-377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.