1

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Note

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Note RMRS-RN-60

December 2013

Insights From a Harvest Trip Model for Non-Timber 

Forest Products in the Interior of Alaska1

Kimberley Maher, Joseph Little, and Patricia A. Champ

Introduction

The harvest of non-timber forest products (NTFP) for personal uses such as hobbies and handicrafts, cooking and canning, and recreation is an important pursuit 

for many residents in Alaska (Pilz and others 2006). Five categories of NTFP 

have been designated by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization: 

(1) foods; (2) medicinal plants; (3) floral greenery and horticulture products; 

(4) fiber and dye plants, lichens, and fungi; and (5) oils, resins, and chemicals 

extracted from plants, lichens, and fungi (McLain and Jones 2002). As noted by 

Alexander and others (2002), interest in the harvest and use of NTFP has grown 

in the United States. Such products are harvested from forests throughout the 

United States (McLain and Jones 2002). While attention has been directed toward 

commercial aspects of NTFP use and harvest, cultural, religious, and social considerations are also important (Jones and Lynch 2002).

The harvest of NTFP in Alaska is largely unregulated outside of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act, which protects subsistence and rural harvesting 

rights at the Federal level, and a few State laws. However, within Alaska there 

has been some movement toward increased regulatory oversight. For example, the 

Citation:

Maher, Kimberley; Little, Joseph; Champ, Patricia A. 2013. 

Insights from a harvest trip model for non-timber forest 

products in the interior of Alaska. Res. Note RMRS-RN-60. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 11 p.

Authors:

Kimberley Maher, Ph.D. Student, IGERT Program, University of 

Alaska—Fairbanks.

Joseph Little, Associate Professor of Economics, University of 

Alaska—Fairbanks.

Patricia A. Champ, Research Economist, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

1 Support for this research was provided under Joint Venture Agreement (06-JV-11221617-

210) between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station and the University of Alaska—Fairbanks. We thank Kawa Ng for research assistance. 

All errors are solely the responsibility of the authors.
2

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and Water, 

the agency responsible for the permitting of commercial NTFP harvest on Alaska 

State land, has proposed regulatory changes and developed a “Non-timber Forest 

Products Harvest Manual” (AKDMLW 2008) to guide commercial harvest practices. Decisions about regulating (or not regulating) the harvest of NTFP should 

be grounded in an understanding of the extent of the activity as well as factors that 

influence the number of harvest trips.

Although there has been some research conducted about NTFP harvest and use 

practices in the state, much of the work has focused on southeast Alaska. Mater 

(1999) reviewed market research for NTFP in the United States and extended 

the analysis to Alaskan NTFP resources to assess the demand for the State’s forest 

products. That study draws heavily on examples from the contiguous United States, 

which limits its applicability to the interior of Alaska. While some of the products 

examined are ubiquitous to the State (e.g., blueberries and rosehip), a number of 

the species detailed are specific to the southeast Alaska temperate rainforest. For 

studies related specifically to Alaska, Pilz and others (2006) examined the income 

generating potential and marketability of NTFP in southern Alaska. Drawing on 

survey data, Bates (2002) examined NTFP harvest and use in the interior region of 

Alaska.2 Along with presenting descriptive statistics for a variety of forest products, 

Bates (2002) also used replacement costs as a measure of the potential economic 

value for a few key products such as mushrooms and blueberries. No formal attempt was made to model harvest trip taking behavior. To extend the analysis, a 

second Forest User Survey was conducted by the Alaska Boreal Forest Council, 

University of Alaska—Fairbanks, and Alaska Department of Natural Resources in 

2003.3 Like the first, the second survey asked respondents about their harvesting 

trips and quantities of products harvested. Additionally, the second survey also 

collected information about the respondents’ personal characteristics and motivations for harvesting NTFP. The examination presented here draws on the data from 

the 2003 Forest User Survey to examine the harvest behavior of respondents who 

reported consumptive uses of NTFP in the interior region of Alaska. In this report, 

a model of NTFP trip taking behavior is estimated. Key factors related to number 

of harvest trips are identified and discussed.

This report is structured in three sections. The first section provides a background 

discussion of the study area and a brief review of State-level NTFP resource management institutions. The second section consists of the data analysis and modeling. 

This section includes a brief outline of the structure and administration of the 2003 

NTFP user survey, the data analysis, and estimated harvest trip models. The report 

concludes with a summary discussion and suggests possible future research avenues.

2 A preliminary forest use survey was conducted in 2000 by the Alaska Boreal Forest Council, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Forestry. The study by Bates (2002) is based upon the initial survey data. This paper focuses 

on the second forest use survey conducted by the same collaboration in 2003.

3 A basic descriptive analysis of the data from the second survey is found in Bates and others 

(2004). The data from the second survey has been largely ignored because the Alaska Boreal 

Forest Council dissolved shortly after the survey was completed.
3

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

Background

Study Area

The Tanana Valley State Forest (TVSF) of Alaska (Figure 1) encompasses approximately 1.81 million acres and spans the Tanana River Basin located within the 

interior of Alaska (Pojar 1996). The population of the interior is concentrated in 

the Fairbanks-Northstar Borough, which had a reported population of 82,840 in 

the 2000 census. Located within the Fairbanks-Northstar Borough is Alaska’s third 

largest city Fairbanks (population = 30,224). Outside of the Fairbanks-Northstar 

Borough are small villages and hamlets such as Tok (population 1,393), Fort Yukon 

(population 595), and Delta Junction (population 894).

The low population density and relative abundance of natural resources colors individual perspectives toward NTFP in the region. In general, the harvest of NTFP by 

one individual is not seen as decreasing the ability of another individual to participate 

in harvesting activities. While not specific to the Alaska NTFP context, Alexander 

and Fight (2003) discussed how management and property rights allocation choices 

depend upon the mosaic of social and biological factors present. Consistent with this 

thinking, NTFP in the interior are characteristically similar to other non-exclusive, 

open access resources where harvest access and use are guided by informal rather than 

formal rules.4

Figure 1. The Tanana Valley Watershed. Source: 2003 Forest Use Survey.

4 Please see Schlager and Ostrom (1992) for a conceptual framework discussing access and 

use of common pool resources within the context of de facto and de jure property rights 

institutions.
4

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

Because harvest seasons in the interior are short, NTFP harvested commercially in 

the Tanana Valley usually provide only part-time work and serve as a supplemental 

income. Carroll and others (2003) examined huckleberry harvesters in the Pacific 

Northwest and presented four types of harvesters:

1. native harvesters—people that have centuries of history harvesting in the area;

2. household harvesters—non-Native American harvesters that harvest for use in 

their own households and to share with friends and relatives;

3. those who harvest to supplement income—people who usually pick for use in 

their household but harvest additional amounts for sale in order to supplement 

their income; and

4. full-time harvesters—people who harvest full-time, can be local or transitory.

Of course, individuals can also readily shift between these categories depending on 

the year and circumstances (Carroll and others 2003).

Management of NTFP on State Land in Alaska

Two State agencies within the Alaska State Department of Natural Resources have 

management responsibilities on the TVSF. The Division of Mining, Land and Water 

is responsible for the review and granting of permits for commercial NTFP harvest 

on State lands. Given that harvesting berries, wild plants, and plant material for 

subsistence and personal use are considered “generally permitted activities” by the 

DMLW, these pursuits do not require a permit. The other relevant State land management agency is the Division of Forestry (AKDOF). The AKDOF is responsible 

for the management of all State forest lands, including the TVSF. State law mandates 

that the AKDOF is to manage forest resources for multiple use, sustained yield, and 

sustainability; however, Alaska Statute Sec. 41.17.200 states that “the primary purpose in the establishment of State forests is timber management that provides for the 

production, utilization, and replenishment of timber resources while allowing other 

beneficial uses of public land resources (AKDOF 2003).” For fiscal years (FY) 1998-

2005, the volume of TVSF timber offered averaged 14,509 million board feet (MBF) 

per year while the volume sold averaged 5334 MBF. An average price of $31.01/MBF 

for the region yields an average yearly sale value of $165,407.5

The AKDOF requires permits for some NTFP harvested on State lands. Individua ls 

must obtain permits for the harvest of firewood, house logs, and saw logs. Firewood 

permits cost $5 per cord and 157 permits for harvest on the TVSF were issued in 

2003, generating $2355 in revenues for the State. Permit sales generated $2871 and 

$551 for house and saw logs, respectively.

5 This information was provided to the authors in a spreadsheet from the AKDOF. The 

spreadsheet is no longer publically available. Timber volumes and prices are taken from the 

AKDOF Quarterly Cut and Sold Report. Average sale price is computed for Fairbanks, Delta, 

and Tok forest regions using AKDOF-computed prices for FY98-FY05.
5

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

Data Analysis and Modeling

2003 Tanana Valley Forest User Survey

The Tanana Valley State Forest Use Survey was administered in 2003 by the Alaska 

Boreal Forest Council, the University of Alaska, and the AKDOF. The purpose of 

the survey was to assess the annual household NTFP harvest levels from the Tanana 

Valley in interior Alaska. A broad spectrum of NTFP and recreational pursuits were 

included in the survey, but this report focuses on harvest and trip data for botanical 

and wood product categories. The array of botanicals included blueberries, raspberries, wild strawberries, high- and low-bush cranberries, fungi, rosehips, landscaping 

and medicinal plants. Wood products included firewood, Christmas trees, birch sap, 

saw logs, poles, house logs, diamond willow, and birch bark. Respondents provided 

information on the number of harvesting trips taken and quantities of NTFP harvested. In addition, respondents were provided a regional map and asked to identify 

approximately where they harvested (Figure 1). Finally, respondents answered a set 

of standard socio-demographic questions and provided their opinions on the NTFP 

management policies of various State and Federal agencies.

Bates and others (2004) provided additional detail of the survey design and sampling method used. To summarize, 960 individuals were randomly selected using 

contact information provided by the Alaska Permanent Fund. Addresses were crossreferenced with zip codes located within the TVSF region and mail surveys were 

sent. Two follow up contacts were used to enhance the overall response rate. A total 

of 292 (30.4% response rate) individuals returned completed surveys. Of these, 124 

individuals indicated that they did not harvest a botanical or wood product NTFP 

from the study area, and 168 individuals reported harvesting at least one botanical or 

wood-related forest product, of which 16 failed to report a number of harvest trips. 

Respondents who failed to report trip and harvest quantities were identified in the 

data set. Descriptive statistics inclusive of all respondents reporting harvesting trips 

are presented in Table 1.

The gender of survey respondents (GENDER) was almost evenly split with 48% 

female and 52% male. The average respondent household size (HHSIZE) of 2.6 

suggested that at least one child lives in the home. In general, the average respondent 

was somewhat older (AGE = 47.81), has received at least some college education 

(EDU = 15.67), and has lived in Alaska for over two decades (AKRES = 25.20 years). 

Respondent household income (HHINC) was collected using 12 income categories. 

Household income (HHINC) is treated as a continuous variable and the midpoints 

of each category are used for statistical calculations. Using this approach, the average 

household income of respondents was $65,055. URBAN is a dichotomous variable 

that indicates if the respondent lives in the cities of North Pole or Fairbanks—approximately 80% of respondents live in these areas. Very few respondents (8%) said 

they were harvesting NTFP for subsistence use; most respondents (90%) indicated 

harvest for personal use. Approximately 3% of the sample did not report an NTFP 

use category. Finally, two dichotomous variables indicated the proportion of respondents that made at least one harvesting trip in the general NTFP categories 

of botanicals (BOTBIN) and wood products (WOODBIN). Approximately 78% 

of respondents reported making at least one harvesting trip for botanicals; 59% of 
6

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

respondents reported making at least one trip for wood products. Differences in the 

relative proportions of forest product categories are attributable to the presence of 

a few popular items. As just one example, blueberries are a common and readily 

available NTFP that many individuals harvest annually. Consequently, the mean 

proportion of the variable BOTBIN is heavily influenced by the presence of blueberries in this harvest category.6

Regarding the overall representativeness of the sample, it is difficult to draw comparisons among the sample, sample frame, and general population. Aggregate level 

descriptive statistics from the 2000 U.S. Census for the Fairbanks-Northstar Borough 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) provide one possible comparison; however, the 

MSA does not include all of the zip codes included in the survey sample frame. The 

relative proportions of men and women in the survey sample as well as the average 

household size of respondents are commensurate to the 2000 Census figure for the 

same variables. The survey sample with respect to gender reflects a relatively even split 

(52/48) between male and female. The 2000 Census figure is approximately 51/49 

male to female. Average household size for survey sample is 2.6 persons compared to 

2.56 for the Census. There are substantial differences between the average age and 

median income of survey respondents in comparison to the Census numbers. Survey 

respondents reported an average age of 47.8 years and average household income of 

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for 2003 Forest User Survey.

 Mean 

Variable	 Definition	 (s.d.)

AGE Respondent age (years) 47.81

 (12.49)

AKRES Years of AK residency 25.20

 (15.22)

EDU Years of education 15.67

 (4.14)

HHSIZE Number of individuals living in the household 2.60

 (1.32)

HHINC Annual household income $65,055

 (33,786.19)

GENDER If reported as male = 1, 0 else 0.52

 (0.50)

URBAN If reported living in urban area = 1, 0 else 0.80

 (0.40)

SUBSIST If reported as subsistence = 1, 0 else 0.083

 (0.28)

PERUSE If reported as personal use = 1, 0 else 0.90

 (0.30)

TOTTRIPS Number of trips reported for all NTFP categories 13.83

 (20.04)

BOTBIN If reported taking at least one trip for any botanical = 1, 0 else 0.78

 (0.42)

WOODBIN If reported taking at least one trip for any wood product = 1, 0 else 0.59

 (0.49)

Observations 168

6 Bates (2002, 2004) generalized statistical information to the Tanana Valley Watershed. 

However, in comparison to 2000 U.S. Census data for the Fairbanks-Northstar Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, respondents deviate from regional averages in the areas of educational 

attainment, age, and household income.
7

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

$65,055. Both figures exceed the reported Census figures of 29.5 years and $40,577. 

Given the limited amount of data available for comparison, it is difficult to make any 

final determination as to how well the survey sample represents the general population. In noting the relatively small sample size and the focus on adult NTFP users 

(as opposed to non-users), the findings presented here should only be generalized to 

the survey sample.

Harvest Statistics

The harvest quantities for each of the botanical and wood forest products are presented in Table 2. These statistics identify the mean quantities harvested for individuals 

who reported harvesting that specific product.

Table 2 indicates that survey respondents reported harvesting a diverse array of botanical and wood related forest products. While information about specific uses is 

limited, the raw counts of individuals reporting harvest are higher for those products 

that are most useful in either cooking or home heating. Specifically, blueberries, high 

bush cranberries, and raspberries have the highest number of reported harvesters for 

botanicals. The popularity of these berries is likely attributable to personal familiarity and to their usefulness as a recipe ingredient. In the wood products category, 

firewood was the most commonly harvested NTFP, with 74 respondents reporting 

and a mean harvest of 4.73 cords and 5.5 harvest trips on average. Very few survey 

respondents reported harvesting house logs (n = 5) and saw logs (n = 3), two NTFP 

activities that require a permit.7

Harvest Trip Model

A trip harvest model was estimated to provide insight into the factors that may influence the number of NTFP harvest trips made. The use of non-standard units of 

measurement between and within NTFP categories complicates any formal statistical 

modeling of the quantity of NTFP harvested. The reported number of harvest trips, 

however, is consistent across all NTFP categories. The general trip demand model is 

presented in equation [1]:

(, ,, ) T f i i ii i = FH IS [1]

where Ti is the total number of NTFP harvest trips taken by respondent i, Fi, is 

a vector of indicator variables representing the type of forest product harvested by 

respondent i, Hi represents whether the trip was for subsistence or personal use, Ii is 

the household income of respondent i, and Si is a vector of other socio-demographic 

variables for respondent i.

7 One respondent reported harvesting 1200 saw logs. This data did not appear to be a misentry and would subsequently upwardly bias mean harvest quantities in that category.
8

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

To avoid problems with small sample size in some variables, forest products (Fi) 

were grouped into broader categories of either botanical (BOTBIN) or wood 

(WOODBIN). The indicator variables PERSUSE and SUBSIST represent reported 

respondent use type (Hi). Respondents who did not specify a use preference serve as 

the baseline. The continuous variable HHINC represents the natural log of household income. Finally, standard slate socio-demographic variables, including AGE, 

AKRES, GENDER, EDU, HHSIZE, and URBAN, are used.

Count data estimators such as Poisson or negative binomial are required given the 

presence of non-negative integers in the left-hand side variable. An additional layer 

of complication is added by the presence of a large number of zero counts (trips). 

To address the presence of zero counts, a zero-inflated negative binomial model was 

Table 2. Mean NTFP harvest quantities and trips for 2003 Forest User Survey. Respondents (n = 168).

Mean quantity Mean harvest Number of

Unit of harvested trips harvesters

Category	 NTFP	 measurement	 (s.d.)	 (s.d.)	 reported

Botanicals Blueberries Quarts 7.72 2.53 113

(11.18) (3.63)

Low bush cranberries Quarts 3.32 1.84 39

 (2.41) (1.76)

High bush cranberries Quarts 5.81 1.95 65

 (4.52) (2.33)

Raspberries Quarts 3.95 2.47 50

 (4.67) (3.71)

Fungi Quarts 9.90 3.67 21

(13.86) (4.92)

Medicinal By type 10.20 2.2 5

(12.48) (2.28)

Landscaping plants Number of plants 8.18 1.79 22

 (5.83) (2.18)

Rosehips Quarts 3.27 1.73 26

 (4.70) (2.01)

Wild strawberries Quarts 0.9 2.9 10

 (0.46) (6.03)

Wood product Birch sap Gallons 5.50 8.33 3

 (5.89) (6.11)

Bark Pieces 31.19 2.13 16

(63.61) (1.86)

Christmas trees Single trees 1.23 1.00 39

 (0.63) (0.40)

Cones Number of cones 42.8 11.00 5

(43.61) (21.80)

Willow Sticks 14.78 1.22 9

(15.56) (0.97)

Firewood Cords 4.73 5.49 74

 (4.23) (7.51)

House logs Number of logs 87.00 15.00 5

(71.20) (17.96)

Poles Number of poles 23.54 4.82 11

(17.68) (8.77)

Saw logs Number of logs 175 15.33 3

(198.43) (8.96)

Burls Number or burls 7.5 2.17 6

 (9.11) (1.47)

Roots Feet 73.33 2.33 3

(68.07) (2.31)
9

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

8 The estimated alpha statistics significance indicates that the trip count data are over 

dispersed; thus, the negative binomial specification provides a better fit to the data. LNINC 

is the natural logarithm of the HHINC variable.

estimated.8 A second model excludes trip observations of zero and obtains coefficient 

estimates through zero-truncated negative binomial regression. Estimation results 

are presented in Table 3. Model 1 was estimated via zero-inflated negative binomial regression while Model 2 was estimated via zero-truncated negative binomial 

regression.

The parameter estimates and levels of significance are stable across all models. The 

only notable difference between the zero-inflated and zero- truncated negative binomial models is on the estimate on the PERSUSE variable. This could be due to the 

greater number of zero trip reports for respondents who did not specify a use type 

category. The relative influence a variable has on the trip demand function can be 

converted to an incident rate by taking exp(βi), where βi is the estimated parameter. 

The incident rates are interpreted as the relative change in the number of trips that are 

predicted to occur for a one unit change in the explanatory variable. For each model, 

the likelihood ratio statistics indicate overall statistical significance at 1% levels. The 

difference in the number of observations is due to the exclusion of zero trip observations between the zero-inflated and zero-truncated negative binomial models.

Table 3. Estimated coefficients of NTFP harvest trip models.

Zero-inflated 	 Zero-truncated

Model 1 Model 2

LNINC -0.018 -0.033

(0.13) (0.20)

GENDER -0.116 -0.054

(0.72) (0.29)

AGE -0.015 -0.017

(1.92)* (1.71)*

AKRES -0.005 -0.008

(0.74) (1.06)

EDU 0.004 0.003

(0.19) (0.15)

HHSIZE 0.053 0.087

(0.92) (1.28)

PERSUSE 0.561 0.131

(1.98)** (0.34)

SUBUSE 0.356 0.415

(1.25) (1.24)

URBAN -0.721 -0.702

(3.22)*** (2.62)***

BOTAN 0.885 0.822

(4.01)*** (3.11)***

WOOD 1.211 1.303

(6.58)*** (6.04)***

Observations 168 151

Log- Likelihood -496.74 -459.39

Likelihood Ratio (χ2) 86.71*** 67.59***

Alpha 0.951*** 0.941***

Statistics

***, **, *, Significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
10

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

The estimated models illustrate a few interesting insights. A respondent’s age is estimated to be inversely related to the number of harvest trips taken. Residents of 

urban areas (Fairbanks and North Pole, Alaska) take significantly fewer trips (approximately 50% less) than rural residents. Harvest trips are independent of income, 

a finding that supports previous research noting the few harvesters that try to use 

NTFP as a source of primary income. Estimates for the botanical (BOTBIN) and 

wood (WOODBIN) variables provide a general indication of how forest product 

type influences the number of trips taken by respondents.

If we compare individuals who solely harvest botanicals to those who harvest wood, 

the incidence rates tell us that those who pursue botanicals take an average of one 

less trip than those who exclusively harvest wood products. In all likelihood, more 

trips are needed to harvest and haul a winter’s worth of firewood than are needed to 

haul a winter’s worth of small and easily transportable blueberries. Unfortunately, it 

isn’t possible to identify joint harvest with the available data. What can be said is that 

individuals who harvest both botanical and wood forest products are predicted to 

take more trips. Further research into the nature of specific harvesting behaviors with 

respect to joint harvesting is warranted.

Conclusion

Drawing on data collected through a mail survey, this study provides some insight 

about NTFP harvesting and trip behavior in the TVSF. Survey respondents reported 

harvesting a diverse array of forest products from the region. Most harvesters reported 

that the products they pursued were for personal use, which is consistent with the 

“household” harvester group described by Carroll and others (2003). A small proportion of respondents indicated they harvested NTFP for subsistence purposes. While 

the survey data cannot be used to assess the overall scale of harvest in the region, 

information collected from respondents indicates that the pursuit of forest products 

is important to many individuals.

A case can certainly be made for the development of future forest user surveys. Future 

surveys should be designed to further refine our understanding of harvester preferences and behavior. While the results from the estimated models in this study provide 

some insight into factors that influence the number of harvest trips taken by individuals, additional information about the spatial distribution of harvest patterns or 

the willingness to pay for specific products would enhance our understanding of 

motivations of local harvesters.

Harvesting NTFP in the TVSF remains an enjoyable pastime. Should the State decide to normalize management plans, there will be a need to educate harvesters on 

the reasons behind management policies and regulations. Given that the harvest of 

NTFP by local residents has both economic and cultural dimensions, future surveys 

can be used to examine what might follow from permitting NTFP for personal use. 

Such surveys can also be used to more fully develop the composite of the nature and 

purpose of NTFP personal use harvesting in the region. At the very least, understanding the critical role that NTFP harvest plays in the lives of local residents will further 

clarify the relative trade-offs of future land management decisions.
11

Research Note RMRS-RN-60. 2013

References

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry [AKDOF]. 2003. 

Forest Resource and Practices Act. Available from: http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/

forestry/pdfs/FRPA2003final.pdf.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land, and Water 

[AKDMLW]. 2008. Non-timber Forest Products Harvest Manual. Available 

from: http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/hottopics/reg_changes/ntfp/ntfp_proposed_

manual2005.pdf.

Alexander, S. and Fight, R. 2002. Managing Access to Nontimber Forest Products. In: 

Compatibile Forest Management. R.A. Monserud, R.W. Haynes, A.C. Johnson, 

eds. Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V. Dordrecht.

Alexander, S., Weigand, J., and Blatner, K. 2002. Nontimber Forest Product 

Commerce. In: Nontimber Forest Products in the United States. E.T. Jones, R.J. 

McLain, and J. Weigand, eds. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Bates, S. 2002. The Tanana Valley Forest Use Survey: How Households Use the 

Forest in the Tanana River Watershed from September 1999 to August 2000. 

Masters project, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Bates, S., Boyar, A., and Dawe, J. 2004. Preliminary Ecological-Economic Assessment 

of Forest Use by Households of the Tanana Valley Watershed, Interior Alaska. 

Alaska Boreal Forest Council.

Carroll, M., Blatner, K., and Cohn, P. 2003. Somewhere Between: Social 

Embeddedness and the Spectrum of Wild Edible Huckleberry Harvest and Use. 

Rural Sociology. 68(3): 319-342.

Jones, E., and Lynch, K. 2002. The Relevance of Sociocultural Variables to Nontimber 

Forest Product Research, Policy, and Management. In: Nontimber Forest Products 

in the United States. E.T. Jones, R.J. McLain, and J. Weigand, eds. Lawrence, 

Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Mater, C. 1999. Alaskan Special Forest Products Market Report. Corvallis, Oregon: 

Mater Engineering.

McLain, R.J., and Jones, E.T. 2002. Introduction. In: Nontimber Forest Products 

in the United States. E.T. Jones, R.J. McLain, and J. Weigand, eds. Lawrence, 

Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Pilz, D., Alexander, S., Smith, J., Schroeder, R., and Freed, R. 2006. Nontimber 

Forest Product Opportunities in Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-671. 

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

Research Station. 79 p.

Pojar, J. 1996. Environment and Biogeography of the Western Boreal Forest. The 

Forestry Chronicle. Jan/Feb; 71 (1): 51-58.

Schlager, E., and Ostrom, E. 1992. Property Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: 

A Conceptual Analysis. Land Economics. 68(3): 249-262.
The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information 

and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the 

forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of 

the National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and 

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, 

forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, 

community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use 

economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide. For more information, please visit the RMRS web site at: 

www.fs.fed.us/rmrs.

Station Headquarters

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 W Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1100

Research Locations

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its 

customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, 

color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and 

where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, 

sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment 

or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all 

prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) For 

more information, please visit the USDA web site at: www.usda.gov and click on 

the Non-Discrimination Statement link at the bottom of that page.

Reno, Nevada

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Rapid City, South Dakota

Logan, Utah

Ogden, Utah

Provo, Utah

Flagstaff, Arizona

Fort Collins, Colorado

Boise, Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

Bozeman, Montana

Missoula, Montana

To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper