United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-549

July 2002

Assessing the Viability and

Adaptability of Oregon Communities

Ellen M. Donoghue and Richard W. Haynes
Ellen M. Donoghue and Richard W. Haynes are research foresters,

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208-3890.

Authors
Donoghue, Ellen M.; Haynes, Richard W. 2002. Assessing the viability and

adaptability of Oregon communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-549. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

13 p.

This work responds to the need to assess progress toward sustainable forest

management as established by the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators. The

focus is on a single indicator (commonly referred to as Indicator 46) that addresses

the “viability and adaptability to changing economic conditions, of forest-dependent

communities, including indigenous communities.” Communities in Oregon were

assessed in terms of their connectivity to service centers, socioeconomic well-being,

and proximity to public lands. Fifty-four communities rated relatively low in these

combined characteristics and were considered less adaptable to changing

socioeconomic conditions.

Keywords: Community resiliency, criteria and indicators, forest dependency,

Montréal Process, socioeconomic well-being, sustainable forest management.

Abstract
1

Introduction

Communities and

Forestry Within the

Montréal Process

This paper describes an effort to assess community viability and adaptability. The

work responds to the need to assess progress toward sustainable forest management

as established by the Montréal Process criteria and indicators (Montréal Process

Working Group 1998). The focus is on one criterion that deals with the maintenance

and enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to society.

The broader context for this work is set in the evolving discussions of sustainable

forest management where forests are increasingly being viewed as key to a healthy

environment and healthy communities. When managed sustainably, forests can supply society with goods and services, conserve biodiversity, and stabilize the environment for future generations. In a process begun at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit,

several national and international initiatives have been started to develop criteria and

indicators for assessing trends in forest conditions and management and progress

toward sustainable forest management. The United States is a signatory to the

Montréal Process, which is built around a comprehensive set of seven national-level

criteria1 and 67 indicators to guide policy development.

The sixth criterion of the Montréal Process focuses on the maintenance and enhancement of long-term, multiple socioeconomic benefits and contains 19 indicators. In this

paper, we focus on a single indicator of Criterion 6, commonly referred to as Indicator

46. Indicator 46 addresses the “viability and adaptability to changing economic conditions, of forest-dependent communities, including indigenous communities” (Montréal

Process Working Group 1998).

We acknowledge that there are severe data limitations for measuring certain elements

of community viability and adaptability. First, viability and adaptability are not defined

in the Montréal Process. Second, few measures and proxies have been developed for

measuring characteristics of adaptable and viable communities. Last, primary data

collection may be necessary to assess viability and adaptability but often requires

substantial resources and institutional commitment. Given the data limitations, we

synthesize prior and ongoing work at the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station on assessing community socioeconomic well-being and adaptability to

change. Using existing data sources, we identify a set of communities in Oregon that

may be considered as having less viability and adaptability to changing economic

conditions than some other communities in Oregon. We focus on this set, rather than

on communities that are moderately or highly viable and adaptable, to facilitate discussions and debates on resource management decisionmaking, mitigation efforts, and

rural development. This work was done as part of an effort to develop a report on

progress toward sustainable forest management for the state of Oregon.

The seven criteria and 67 indicators of the Montréal Process address critical functions

and attributes of forests, such as soil and water protection, biodiversity, productivity,

and carbon cycle; socioeconomic benefits, such as timber, recreation and cultural

values; and the laws and regulations that constitute the forest policy framework.

The criteria represent an explicit recognition by the 12 member countries that forests

1

 The Montréal Process criteria are conservation of biological

diversity; maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems; maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality;

conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources;

maintenance of forest contributions to global carbon cycles;

maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits; and legal, institutional, and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management.
2

Toward Viability

and Adaptability

provide a diverse, complex, and dynamic array of environmental and socioeconomic

benefits and services (Montréal Process Working Group 1998). A criterion is a category of conditions or processes by which sustainable forest management may be

assessed. Each criterion is characterized by a set of 9 to 20 indicators. An indicator

is a qualitative or quantitative measure of an aspect of the criterion that can be observed periodically (Montréal Process Working Group 1998). In discussions about the

Montréal Process, indicators are frequently numbered cumulatively. Thus, although

the indicator that is the focus of this paper is the 18th out of 19 indicators associated

with Criterion 6, it is more commonly referred to as Indicator 46.

Criterion 6 and its 19 associated indicators reflect one of the enduring goals of land

management: that forest management sustains a flow of timber and other benefits to

promote the well-being2 of forest industries and communities. This criterion takes a

broad view of how sustainable forest management influences social well-being that

includes the expected concerns about determinants of economic well-being (often

measured by jobs) as well as concerns about community well-being. The criterion

reflects a notable evolution in thinking on the part of decisonmakers, researchers,

resource managers, and the public about the relation between communities and

forests, as well as what constitutes sustainable forest management.

The past two decades have seen an evolution in terms used to depict communities

that have distinct connections to forest resources: community stability, forest dependence, forest based, community capacity, community resiliency, and now with the

Montréal Process, community viability and adaptability. Some terms, such as stability,

were borne out of a culture of forest policy and management that prevailed for much

of the 20th century. Other terms, such as forest dependency, forest based, community

capacity, and community resiliency are, for the most part, academic in origin and continue to be debated and defined. Viability and adaptability, the terms associated with

Indicator 46, although not explicitly defined in the Montréal Process, have the connotation of more recent terms, such as resiliency.

A review of the evolution of terms reveals that over time, researchers and practitioners

have placed increasing emphasis on the complex, dynamic, and interrelated aspects

of rural communities and the natural resources that surround them. Nonetheless,

some traditional terms continue to appear in contemporary debates. For instance, for

much of the past 60 years, the issue of sustainable forest management frequently has

been gauged in terms of its impact on employment as a determinant of community

stability. Recent environmental debates are often couched in terms of the environment

vs. the economy where much is still made of the tradeoffs between jobs (as a proxy

for economic well-being in local communities) and gains in ecological conditions (see,

for example, Lomborg 2001).

By the late 1980s, the notion of community stability as reflective of sustained-yield

timber management was being questioned (Lee 1990, Schallau 1989). Although the

use of the term stability continued to endure in policy debates, researchers began

recognizing that the term lacked clear definition and measures (Fortmann and others

1989, Lee 1989, Machlis and Force 1988; see Richardson 1996). Seeking alternative

2 We use the term well-being as it is used in recent social science

research, whereby well-being addresses quality of life, welfare,

and social and economic health of a community. We recognize

that in contemporary discussions, however, the term well-being

continues to be used to reflect jobs and community stability.
3

terms, some began looking beyond employment indicators to other aspects of community life in order to assess community well-being (Doak and Kusel 1996, Kusel and

Fortmann 1991). In addition to economic measures, indicators for poverty, education,

crime, and other demographic measures have been used to assess conditions within

communities.

Concurrent with discussions about stability and well-being were discussions about

the term forest dependence, including several appeals to redefine it (Richardson and

Christensen 1997). Forest and timber dependence initially were defined in terms of

commodity production. Various research studies suggest that communities are more

complex than traditional measurements of timber dependency imply (see Haynes and

others 1996). Most communities have mixed economies, and their well-being is often

linked to factors other than commodity production, such as civic infrastructure and

civic leadership (McCool and others 1997). Many communities thought of as timber

dependent have been confronted with economically significant challenges, such as

mill closures, and have displayed resilient behavior as they have dealt with change.

Arguments for redefining the term forest dependence emphasized that the economic

ties that some communities have to forests are not solely wood product based, but

reside in recreation and other amenities (Kusel 1996). Another concern is that the term

forest dependence does not adequately reflect the choices people make to remain in

a community and thus perpetuate a lifestyle tradition or sense of place (Kusel 1996).

This broader interpretation of the term forest dependence is often what is implied by

the term forest-based communities.

The terms community capacity and community resiliency denote the ability of a community to take advantage of opportunities and deal with change (Doak and Kusel

1996, Harris and others 2000). Resiliency and, arguably to a lesser extent, capacity

differ from terms such as forest dependence because they represent a projected condition or ability of a community over some period. Levels of resiliency are dynamic, just

like external factors that might induce change within a community. The Forest Service

is shifting its focus from dependency to concepts like resiliency (see Horne and

Haynes 1999, McCool and others 1997). Based on the work by Harris and others

(2000), factors useful in assessing community resiliency are:

• Population size—Resiliency ratings vary directly with population size.

• Small (and often lower resiliency) less than 1,500 people.

• Large (often associated with higher resiliency) greater than 5,000 people.

• Economic diversity—Resiliency ratings vary directly with population size.

• Civic infrastructure—Higher resiliency associated with strong civic leadership,

positive attitudes toward changes, strong social cohesion.

• Amenities—Combines both civic amenities as well as natural amenities.

• Location—Locations on major trade routes; near service centers; shopping, service

or resort destinations are associated with higher resiliency. Spatial isolation is often a

characteristic of lower resiliency.

The history behind the evolution of terms combined with the results of recent and

current work suggest that connectivity to broad regional economies, community

cohesiveness, place attachment, and civic leadership are greater factors in determining community viability and adaptability than employment-based factors.
4

In spite of the shift away from timber commodity and employment-focused terms,

such as stability and forest dependence, to more dynamic and inclusive terms, such

as capacity and resiliency, there are agencies and stakeholders (such as community

groups) who find lists of dependent communities useful in considering the consequences of forest policies and other developments. Two such lists are in contemporary use. One is a list of forest-dependent communities that the Forest Service is

required by law to compile. Another is a list of distressed cities and other areas

compiled by the state of Oregon.

The Forest Service list of dependent communities was last compiled in 1987 and is

based on 10 percent of a community’s employment in the forest products industry

(fig. 1). It is a straightforward approach. The Oregon Economic and Community

Development Department (OECDD) uses a broader approach that combines eight

socioeconomic indices to gauge the economic distress of Oregon’s counties and

incorporated cities (OECDD 2002) (fig. 2). Both approaches focus primarily on

economic measures and not the broader concept of social well-being.

These more traditional approaches for judging community dependency and distress,

while producing useful lists given the assumptions determining their selection, fail to

meet the full intent of Indicator 46. Indicator 46 focuses on the viability and adaptability

of communities to changing economic conditions. It challenges us to consider how

sustainable forest management influences social well-being where well-being includes

concerns about determinants of economic well-being as well as concerns about community well-being.

Communities in Oregon, as elsewhere, face constant social and economic transformations. Many of these transformations are in stark contrast to the traditional images

of forest-dependent communities or communities in the American West. Our objective

is to identify communities that should be considered as having less viability and adaptability to changes in land management that impact their social and economic conditions. The intent is to identify for resource managers and other decisionmakers those

communities that might require some sort of mitigation, development assistance, or

further understanding of the impacts of decisions. We call them communities of concern. We begin this section with a brief discussion about delimiting communities and

then describe how we developed the list of communities of concern.

The first step in identifying communities is to recognize the dual definition of community. First there is the community of interest, which is a group (or groups) of likeminded people who gain strength from their relationships and associations. Often

in the forestry debate, we hear how some of these groups are victims of capricious

policy changes. In this paper, we use community in terms of geographic locality or a

spatially defined place, such as a town. In recent broad-scale assessments, the public

has repeatedly expressed concern that the conditions and functions of communities

be identified along with how they relate to natural resource management.

Given the focus on communities of place, the next challenge is to delimit communities

for which there exist available socioeconomic data. Most social assessments use

designations of communities provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. The most commonly used designations are census places. These include incorporated places

and census-designated places, which are unincorporated communities that meet

certain criteria. In Oregon, there are 284 census places, 237 of which we consider

nonmetropolitan (fig. 3).

Keeping with

Tradition

Viability and

Adaptability

of Oregon

Communities

Identifying

Communities
5

Figure 1—Oregon distressed communities, 2000 (Oregon Economic and Community

Development Department 2002).

Figure 2—USDA Forest Service-dependent communities, 1987.
6

Because census places do not represent the entire population of rural residents, we

developed another definition of community for the Pacific Northwest region (western

Washington, western Oregon, and northern California). We combined census block

groups into block group aggregations (BGAs) based on criteria that include proximity

to census places, population size, school districts, roads, and presence of public

lands.3 The resulting BGAs represent almost twice the population of rural residents

as compared to a depiction of communities that relies solely on census places. In

western Oregon, we identified 484 nonmetropolitan BGAs based on 1990 census

data (fig. 4). Block group aggregations were not developed for eastern Oregon; in

that area, census places were used to depict communities.

We used two existing data sets to develop a list of communities of concern. Although

some overlap does occur, one data set focuses on conditions in western Oregon and

the other on eastern Oregon. Each data set is set in the context of a region, eastern

and western. Although this is largely an artifact of the existing data sets, there is logic

for assessing a community relative to communities within an area sharing common

attributes. For instance, communities in eastern Oregon probably have more in common with communities in eastern Washington than with those in western Oregon.

Similarly, communities in western Oregon probably have more in common with communities in western Washington than with those in eastern Oregon. For the communities in western Oregon, the region is made up of the 72 counties in western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California, the counties commonly referred to as

the Northwest Forest Plan region. The 25 Oregon counties in this region include counties that are just east of the crest of the Cascade Range and all counties to the west.

For the communities in eastern Oregon, socioeconomic and spatial measures are

relative to other communities that were studied as part of the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Manage- ment Project (ICBEMP). The ICBEMP researchers examined

those areas that lie east of the crest of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington, and in parts of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah. In Oregon, 18 counties fall into this eastern region. Several counties along the Cascade Range fall into

both the eastern and western data sets.

In 25 western counties in Oregon, communities or localities were depicted as aggregations of BGAs. Three measures were combined to identify BGAs that were considered

less adaptable to changing socioeconomic conditions: connectivity to service centers,

socioeconomic well-being, and proximity to public lands.

Connectivity refers to the relative ability of residents within a community (a BGA) to

connect with, or move to, other people, goods, and services. Actual travel distances

along roads, rather than the more commonly used “as a crow flies” measure, were

calculated from the BGA point to nearest the first-order service center. A first-order

service center has a population greater than 10,000 and offers both hospital and

college services. Many first-order service centers also have municipal airports.

A scale for socioeconomic well-being at the BGA level was calculated based on 1990

census data by using equally weighted measures for poverty, educational attainment,

and occupational diversity. The poverty and education measures are similar to those

used by Doak and Kusel (1996) in their assessment of Sierra Nevada communities.

Assessing

Communities

for Viability

and Adaptability

3 For information on block group aggregation method, see Donoghue,

E. [n.d]. Delineating communities in the Pacific Northwest. Manuscript

in preparation. For alternative method for aggregating census block

groups, see Doak and Kusel (1996).
7

Figure 3—Census places, 1990.

Figure 4—Block group aggregations, 1990.
8

They also included measures for housing tenure, employment, and children in households with public assistance income. One assumption of scale used in this paper is

that lower poverty, higher educational attainment, and a more diverse occupational

workforce will contribute to higher levels of socioeconomic well-being.

The third measure that was combined with connectivity and socioeconomic well-being

dealt with proximity to public lands. It was measured as the percentage of public lands

within a 25-mile radius from the BGA point (a single point that was assigned within

each BGA polygon).

Based on the three measures discussed above, 24 communities in western Oregon

were identified as those that might be less adaptable to changing socioeconomic conditions. One group of nine BGAs had low or very low socioeconomic well-being and

was greater than 50 miles to the nearest first-order service center. Another group of 15

BGAs was relatively close to service centers but had low or very low socioeconomic

well-being and had greater than 50 percent public lands within a 25-mile radius of the

BGA point. Seven BGAs with this group had greater than 75 percent public lands

within a 25-mile radius. This does not suggest causality between socioeconomic wellbeing and public lands, but it does identify for decisionmakers those communities that

have low socioeconomic well-being and are surrounded by high percentages of public

lands —communities that might merit further attention or understanding. Further refinement of this list is recommended as census 2000 data become available at the

block-group level.4

For the east-side communities, the selection attributes emphasized isolation and lack

of economic diversity (Reyna 1998). Thirty communities are depicted as isolated. Not

all isolated communities, however, have low resiliency (Harris and others 2000, Reyna

1998). Some of these might be considered “isolated trading centers” (Reyna 1998) or

“autonomous communities” (Russell and Harris 2001), thereby suggesting that the list

can be further refined.

Table 1 and figure 5 depict a group of communities that should be considered as

having less viability and adaptability, relative to other communities in both eastern

and western regions, to changes in land management that impact their social and

economic conditions. The list provides a place for pursuing further discussions about

the implications of resource management decisions in the context of maintaining and

enhancing long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits, as per Criterion 6. It provides a

place to continue the debate about what constitutes a viable and adaptable community

and what can or should be done with and for communities that might be less viable

and adaptable. The indicators used to develop this list of communities do not represent a definitive measurement of viability or adaptability. Rather, they reflect a relative

condition of rural places within a state and within eastern and western regions in an

attempt to address Indicator 46 for the state of Oregon.

Given the different ways in which communities are delimited, only a few communities

appear in each of figures 1, 2, and 5. This suggests that the emphasis on proximity to

service centers or isolation, in combination with some socioeconomic measures, results in a different set of communities than indicators that focus largely on economic

Results

4 For the schedule of release dates of census 2000 data and

information on geographic changes at the block-group level,

see the U.S. Census Bureau Web site at http:/www.census.gov.
9

Table 1—Communities of concern

Namea County 1990 population

West side:

Roberts–Post–Paulina Crook 260

Agness–Illahae–Marial Curry 122

Ophir Curry 217

Glendale City–Fernvale Douglas 1,421

Milo–Tiller–Drew Douglas 739

Peel–Steamboat Douglas 1,083

Bridgeview–Holland Josephine 918

Cave Junction Josephine 2,915

Cave Junction [part]–Dryden Josephine 1,058

O’Brien Josephine 610

Selma Josephine 1,430

Takilma Josephine 716

Wilderville–Wonder Josephine 2,052

Wolf Creek–Leland Josephine 423

Chiloquin Klamath 2,351

Crescent Lake Junction–Mowich Klamath 339

Gilchrist–Little River Klamath 1,179

Malin Klamath 1,155

Glenada–Westlake Lane 969

Cascadia–Santiam Junction–Marion Forks [part] Linn 333

Idanha Marion 248

Antelope–Shaniko Wasco 217

Chenoweth–Rowena Wasco 4,252

Warm Springs–Warm Springs Indian Reservation Wasco 3,143

East side:

Greenhorn Baker NA

Halfway Baker 311

Huntington Baker NA

Richland Baker 161

Unity Baker 87

Arlington Gilliam 425

Condon Gilliam 635

Lonerock Gilliam 11

Canyon City Grant 648

Dayville Grant 144

Granite Grant 8

Long Creek Grant 249

Monument Grant 162

Mount Vernon Grant 538

Seneca Grant 191

Northfork Klamath NA

Paisley Lake 350

Jordan Valley Malheur 364

Heppner Morrow 1,412

Ione Morrow 255
10

Figure 5—Communities of concern.

Table 1—Communities of concern (continued)

Namea County 1990 population

Lexington Morrow 286

Ukiah Umatilla 250

Joseph Wallowa 1,073

Lostine Wallowa 231

Wallowa Wallowa 748

Maupin Wasco 456

Fossil Wheeler 399

Kinzua Wheeler NA

Mitchell Wheeler 163

Spray Wheeler 149

NA = not available.

a West-side communities are aggregations of Census block groups. To name each block group

aggregation (BGA), we combined the names of the more populated localities within each BGA.
11

measures, such as employment in forest products industry. This broader view of

what constitutes an adaptable or viable community is necessary to meet the intent

!of Indicator 46.

Both the west- and east-side community characterizations resonate well with the

recent work by Russell and Harris (2001) who point out that some isolated communities may be highly resilient or adaptable and can provide residents with goods and

services given the presence of diverse industries, strong civic leadership, strong

sense of community cohesiveness and place attachment, and high community ratings

for measures of quality of life and sense of community. Presently, there are few adequate measures and proxies for many of these attributes. This is compounded by

methodological issues relating to conducting community assessments, such as identifying and interviewing community stakeholders. Further discussions about how to

assess Criterion 6, specifically indicators such as 46, should include talk about the

development of proxies, and the adequacy of secondary vs. primary data.

The lists of communities that result from assessments of Indicator 46 should not

be viewed as definitive; instead, we suggest that such lists provide a useful starting

point for further inquiry, discussion, and where appropriate, action into the factors that

contribute to socioeconomic well-being in rural places. These lists should be thought

of as dynamic and should be used to indicate the status of communities. They also

reflect societal concerns about how human communities relate to management of

forest-land conditions in order to achieve a variety of objectives.

For Oregon, we were able to identify communities that may be less adaptable to

changing socioeconomic conditions by using proxies such as connectivity to service

centers, population, socioeconomic well-being, and proximity to public lands. The list

reflects a range of communities from the very small to those extremely isolated from

service centers. Many have a strong sense of place. But the issue from the perspective of sustainable forest management is the extent that these communities can adapt

to the changing socioeconomic conditions associated with changes in both the outcomes of and approaches to forest management.

In this sense, this indicator, as well as others in Criterion 6, addresses the need for

forest management to meet societal needs and maintain and enhance long-term

multiple socioeconomic benefits. This is a broader context than the enduring goal that

forest management sustain a flow of timber and other benefits to promote the stability

of forest industries and communities. In addition, there are the positive contributions

to communities made by the forest management community itself contributing human

capital necessary to building community capacity.

The exercise of developing an indicator for community condition is an interesting and

necessary challenge. First, there is the intellectual challenge of developing a measure

for viability and adaptability. We acknowledge the confusion of multiple terms (adaptability, viability, and resiliency); but what is essential is the need to capture the essence

of the dynamics of communities and changes in their functioning. Second, the development of indicators is a pressing managerial problem. The development and implementation of sound environmental policies require quick assessments provided by

indicators of both the need for and the effectiveness of various policy actions.

Indicator 46 adds concerns about being able to identify which communities may need

assistance in adjusting to changes in land management approaches, outputs, or other

changes. This increased emphasis on developing measures will lead to opportunities

Conclusion
12

for additional work to improve our understanding. First, there is the opportunity to

improve our ability to estimate nontimber outputs (both goods and services) and to

value them. We need to better describe the benefits of forest management. Second,

the relation between forest management and communities is not well understood,

and we lack adequate proxies for broad-scale measurement of certain attributes of

community adaptability. Third, we need to develop a fuller understanding of community

functioning and its dynamics.

We thank Anne Schneider, USDA Forest Service, and Gosia Bryja, Pacific Meridian

Resource, Inc. for data compilation and consultation. Judy Mikowski helped assemble

some of the data sets and prepare the table. Richard Phillips, George Stankey, and

Kevin Birch provided reviews that improved our treatment of various points.

Doak, S.; Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Part 2: A

social assessment. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project; final report to Congress:

assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA: University

of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources: 375–402. Vol. 2.

Fortmann, L.; Kusel, J.; Fairfax, S. 1989. Community stability: the foresters’ fig

leaf. In: LeMaster, D.C.; Beuter, J.H., eds. Community stability in forest-based

economies: Proceedings of a conference. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 44–50.

Harris, C.C.; McLaughlin, W.; Brown, G.; Decker, D. 2000. Rural communities in

the inland Northwest: an assessment of small communities in the interior and

upper Columbia River basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

120 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: scientific assessment).

Haynes, R.W.; McCool, S.; Horne, A.; Birchfield, J. 1996. Natural resource

management and community well-being. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24(2): 222–226.

Horne, A.L.; Haynes, R.W. 1999. Developing measures of socioeconomic resiliency

in the interior Columbia basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-453. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 41 p.

(Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

scientific assessment).

Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Part 1: A new approach.

In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress: assessments and

scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA: University of California,

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources: 361–374. Vol. 2.

Kusel, J.; Fortmann, L. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities.

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Forest

and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program; report; contract 8CA85064. 2 vol.

Lee, R.G. 1989. Community stability: symbol or social reality? In: LeMaster, D.C.;

Beuter, J.H., eds. Community stability in forest-based economies: Proceedings of

a conference. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 36–43.

Lee, R.G. 1990. Sustained yield and social order. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch,

W.J., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 83–94.

Acknowledgments

Literature Cited
13

Lomborg, B. 2001. The truth about the environment. The Economist. 8(4-10): 63–65.

Machlis, G.E.; Force, J.E. 1988. Community stability and timber-dependent

communities. Rural Sociology. 53: 220–234.

McCool, S.F.; Burchfield, J.A.; Allen, S.D. 1997. Social assessment. In: Quigley,

T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the

interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1873–2009. Vol. 4 (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Montréal Process Working Group. 1998. The Montréal Process. http://www.mpci.org.

(January 9, 2002).

Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD). 2002.

http://www. econ.state.or.us/DistList.htm. (January 12, 2002).

Reyna, N.E. 1998. Economic and social characteristics of communities in the

interior Columbia basin. In: Economic and social conditions: economic and social

characteri-stics of interior Columbia basin communities and an estimation of effects

on communities from the alternatives of the east-side and upper Columbia River

basin draft environmental impact statements. A report prepared by the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. [Place of publication unknown]:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management: 4–81 (Part 1).

Richardson, C.W. 1996. Stability and change in forest-based communities: a selected

bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-366. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p.

Richardson, C.W.; Christensen, H. 1997. From rhetoric to reality: research on

the well-being of forest-based communities. In: Integrating social science and

ecosystem management: a national challenge, proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SRS-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station: 195–200.

Russell, K.C.; Harris, C. 2001. Dimensions of community autonomy in timber towns

in the Inland Northwest. Society and Natural Resources. 14: 21–38.

Schallau, C.H. 1989. Sustained yield versus community stability: an unfortunate

wedding? Journal of Forestry. 87(9): 16-23.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2002. Release schedule.

http://www.census.gov. (March 15, 2002).
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

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, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-

9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and

employer.
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300