United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northeastern

Research Station

Research Paper NE-707

Characterizing Virginia’s

Private Forest Owners

and Their Forest Lands

Thomas W. Birch

Sandra S. Hodge

Michael T. Thompson
Published by: For additional copies:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service

5 RADNOR CORP CTR SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

RADNOR PA 19087-4585 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015

September 1998 Fax: (740)368-0152

The Authors

THOMAS W. BIRCH, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station,

Radnor, PA 19087.

SANDRA S. HODGE, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

MICHAEL T. THOMPSON, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station,

Asheville, NC 28801.

Abstract

A recently completed forest inventory and two woodland owner surveys have given

us insight about the owners of private forest lands in Virginia. There is increasing

parcelization of forested lands and an increase in the number of nonindustrial

private (NIPF) landowners in Virginia. More than half of the private owners have

harvested timber from their holdings at some time in the past, and they control

three-quarters of the private forest. Owners have a positive attitude toward timber

cutting at a time when there is greater demand for products from the forest. In terms

of decision making, private forest owners have control over marketed and nonmarketed commodities. This situation needs monitoring to maintain good

stewardship for future generations.

Manuscript received for publication 20 July 1998

Visit our homepage at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/
1

Introduction

Virginia has 15.4 million acres of forest land (61% of the

total land area). More than 13.4 million acres of private

forest are owned by an estimated 468,800 private

ownerships. Some 12 million acres are owned by

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners. In terms of

timber products, NIPF lands provide approximately 75

percent of the timber for forest industries in the state. In

turn, these forest industries are the top manufacturing

sector in the state and employ more than 120,000 people.

Timber removals from growing stock in Virginia increased

by 22.5 percent between 1977 and 1992 (Knight and

McClure 1977, Thompson and Johnson 1994).

Resource professionals and policy makers are determined

not to repeat past mistakes. The NIPF owners have been

blamed for management practices that result in the poor

condition of some stands following timber harvest. Resource

professionals want to make sure that renewed interests in

timber harvesting adhere to principles of good stewardship.

The forest based community needs to monitor forest

management activities in the state. Unfortunately, there has

been little or no documentation of what is happening in

Virginia’s woodlands. To our knowledge, no one has

examined the character and extent of contemporary

management activities. However, the most recent inventory

of the state’s forest resources was completed in 1992

(Thompson and Johnson 1994). Although results of that

resurvey do not allow a detailed analysis of on-the-ground

management practices, they do provide information about

management classes and forested tract sizes (Thompson

and Johnson 1996).

The USDA Forest Service updates statewide timber resource

information approximately every 10 years. The latest

reinventory of Virginia includes information from 4,235

permanent forested sample plots inventoried in 1992

(Thompson and Johnson 1994). A subset of these (3,221

plots classified as NIPF) was used in a study of forested tract

size (Thompson and Johnson 1996).

Two separate landowner surveys also have been completed.

One initiated in 1990 has information from 531 NIPF owners

chosen from six counties (Highland, Warren, Prince Edward,

Madison, Greenville, and Gloucester) and three geographic

regions (Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Mountain)(Hodge

1993). The questionnaire for the study consisted of 96

questions that were asked during an interview that took

about 1 hour. The second survey has information from 313

private ownerships and 357 sample locations across the

state of Virginia. Questionnaires were distributed to provide

comprehensive geographic coverage and were part of a

national study of forest-land ownership (Birch 1996; 1997).

The questionnaire consisted of 18 questions and was mailed

to the sample owners who took about 15 minutes to

complete it. A sample of nonrespondents was contacted by

phone and interviewed. The purpose of this paper is to

examine results from these three independent studies and

provide a more inclusive description of Virginia’s private

forests and their owners.
2

Landowner Characteristics

Nationwide, the ‘new’ (having first acquired forest land since

1978) individual private owner is younger, better educated,

and has a higher income than the owner of the past.

Comparing occupation data from 1994 and 1978 (Birch

1996, Birch et al. 1982) shows the changing occupational

profile of Virginia owners. The most recent study (Birch 1996)

shows an increase in the proportion of white collar, blue

collar, and retired owners (Fig. 1). The proportion of acreage

owned increased for retirees and white collar workers and

decreased greatly for farmers and blue collar workers.

The Hodge study (Hodge and Southard 1992) shows a high

proportion of forested acres owned by retirees (45%) and

white collar (33%) workers, while blue collar workers (11%)

and farmers (11%) owned smaller proportions. The acreage

owned by individuals sampled in this study differs from

Birch’s results mostly because the study did not include

ownerships with fewer than 20 acres of forest land, and

also a slightly different grouping of occupations was used.

Owner age distribution is another characteristic common

to both studies; although slightly different groupings were

used, the results are similar. Birch found that 20 percent of

all owners of forest land were over 65 and that they own

38 percent of the private forest land in Virginia (Fig. 2).

Hodge found that by size class of ownership, more than 50

percent of the forest land ownerships with greater than 50

acres of forest land was owned by people over 61 years

old. Ownerships with 20 to 50 acres of forest land had 44

percent of the acreage owned by those over 60. This view

was supported by Birch who found that individual owners

with at least 1 acre of forest land and under age 45

averaged 12 acres per owner, owners 45 to 64 averaged

20 acres per owner, and owners over 65 averaged 43

acres per owner. The high proportion of older owners

has serious implications for land tenure in the future.

Much of the forest land owned by older owners will

transfer to others in the next decade.

The results of the two variables (occupation and age)

described above are similar between the Birch and

Hodge studies, and other owner characteristics

described by Hodge can broaden the description of

Virginia owners. Hodge found that some 7 percent of

the owners were from minority groups. In 1978, Birch

and others (1982) estimated that 10 percent of the

owners in Virginia were from minority groups. These

minority owners held only 4 percent of the private

forest for an average of 12 acres per owner, well below

the minimum acreage required to be included in the

Hodge study.

Hodge found that education levels of the respondents

were diverse: 15 percent had less than a high school

education, 25 percent had high school diplomas, 35

percent had some college or a college degree, and 25

percent had post graduate educations. In terms of

gross earnings, Hodge found: 19 percent of the

respondents earned less than $20,000, 25 percent

earned between $20,000 and $39,999, 27 percent

earned between $40,000 and $69,999, and the

remaining 29 percent earned more than $70,000 per

year.

The average private ownership in Virginia is about 29 acres

of forest land (Birch 1996). The distribution by size class of

ownership has changed since 1978 (Fig. 3). Parcel

fragmentation is occurring, resulting in an increase in the

proportion of ownerships with smaller parcels (fewer than

100 acres) and decrease in ownerships with larger parcels

(more than 100 acres). The proportion of acreage in

ownerships with fewer than 100 acres of forest land has

increased. The largest decrease in acreage was in

ownerships with more than 1,000 acres of forest land.

OTHERS

RETIRED

FARMER

BLUE COLLAR

WHITE COLLAR

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

OTHERS

RETIRED

FARMER

BLUE COLLAR

WHITE COLLAR

PERCENT OF ACRES

ACRES 1978 ACRES 1994

Figure 1. —Distribution of individual ownerships, by

owner occupation, Virginia, 1978 and 1994.

OTHERS

RETIRED

FARMER

BLUE COLLAR

WHITE COLLAR

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

OTHERS

RETIRED

FARMER

BLUE COLLAR

WHITE COLLAR

PERCENT OF OWNERS

OWNERS 1978 OWNERS 1994

NO ANSWER

65 OR OVER

 45-64

UNDER 45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

PERCENT (BIRCH) 

OWNERS 1994 ACRES 1994

71 AND OVER

61-70

46-60

UNDER 46

0 10 20 30 40

PERCENT OF TOTAL (HODGE)

Figure 2.—Distribution of individual ownerships,

by owner age, Virginia.
3

Birch found that 68 percent of the owners with 38

percent of the private forest land have only one tract of

forest land (Table 1). In addition, 8 percent of the owners

control more than one tract and live within 1 mile of their

farthest tract; these owners have 10 percent of the

private forest in Virginia. At the other end of the

spectrum, 13 percent of the owners live more than 100

miles from their farthest tract and they have 14 percent

of the private forest land.

Size of ownership and acreage of forested tract size

should be closely related. Thompson and Johnson

presented acreage by forested tract size by

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owner group (Table

2). Birch compiled a similar table of acreage by size of

ownership and NIPF owner group (Table 3) and average

tract size and NIPF owner group (Table 4). In Table 4,

corporate farms are switched from the farmer owned

column to the other private column to be more

comparable with the Thompson and Johnson data.

1000+

500-999

100-499

50-99

 10-49

 1-9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1000+

500-999

100-499

50-99

 10-49

 1-9

PERCENT OF OWNERS

OWNERS 1978 OWNERS 1994

1000+

500-999

100-499

50-99

 10-49

 1-9

0 10 20 30 40

1000+

500-999

100-499

50-99

 10-49

 1-9

PERCENT OF ACRES

ACRES 1978 ACRES 1994

Figure 3.—Distribution of private ownerships, by size class of

ownership, Virginia, 1978 and 1994.

Table 1.—Estimated number of ownership units and acres of forest land,

by distance from tracts, Virginia, 1994

Distance 1 tract More than 1 tract

Nearest tract Farthest tract

------------------------------------------OWNERS --------------------------------------

Less than 1 mile 235,800 113,500 37,100

2-5 miles 10,000 3,500 10,800

6-15 miles 4,800 12,400 14,000

16-25 miles 4,700 2,900 5,200

26-50 miles 6,100 7,800 6,200

51-100 miles 3,700 2,000 45,000

More than 100 miles 29,800 5,800 29,600

No answer 25,500 500 500

Total 320,400 148,400 148,400

 ----------------------------------ACRES (Thousands)-------------------------------

Less than 1 mile 2,803 4,583 1,300

2-5 miles 447 1,280 1,137

6-15 miles 203 764 1,179

16-25 miles 325 356 609

26-50 miles 284 447 935

51-100 miles 366 243 1,501

More than 100 miles 528 366 1,378

No answer 203 243 243

Total 5,160 8,282 8,282
4

Table 4.—Acreage by average tract size and NIPF owner group, Virginia, 1994

 NIPF

Tract size class All classes Farmer owned Private individual Other private

1-9 acres 1,300,100 325,000 893,800 81,300

10-49 acres 3,900,200 1,625,100 2,234,500 40,600

50-99 acres 3,128,400 1,259,500 1,706,400 162,500

100-199 acres 1,706,400 487,500 853,200 365,700

200-499 acres 1,300,100 568,800 284,400 446,900

500+ acres 730,800 162,500 81,300 487,000

Total 12,066,000 4,428,400 6,053,600 1,584,000

Table 3.—Acreage by size of ownership and NIPF owner group, Virginia, 1994

 NIPF

Ownership size class All classes Farmer owned Private individual Other private

1-9 acres 772,000 81,300 650,100 40,600

10-49 acres 2,518,900 893,800 1,584,500 40,600

50-99 acres 2,356,400 853,200 1,462,600 40,600

100-199 acres 1,990,800 731,300 1,137,600 121,900

200-499 acres 2,072,000 1,178,200 609,400 284,400

500+ acres 2,355,900 893,800 609,400 852,700

Total 12,066,000 4,631,600 6,053,600 1,380,800

Table 2.—Acreage by forested tract size and NIPF owner group, Virginia, 1992

 NIPF

Tract size class All classes Farmer owned Private individual Other corporate

1-10 acres 1,275,629 208,178 984,990 82,461

11-50 acres 3,495,691 1,166,849 2,065,698 263,144

51-100 acres 2,616,960 1,067,743 1,349,579 199,638

101-200 acres 2,051,753 803,541 987,265 260,947

201-500 acres 1,500,142 449,875 692,697 357,570

501+ acres 969,326 174,180 409,371 385,775

Total 11,909,501 3,870,366 6,489,600 1,549,535
5

Owner Objectives

Forest lands produce many benefits for their

owners, so it is not surprising that land owners

express diverse reasons for holding forest

land. Many potential benefits from owning

forest land are not competitive with each other.

Some benefits can be produced with little or

no effect on others, and some benefits even

increase when another benefit is produced.

Birch found that nearly 46 percent of the

private forest-land owners believe the primary

reason for owning forest land is that it is

simply “part of the farm” or “residence” (Fig.

4). In general, these ownerships hold tracts

that are smaller than average. Another 7

percent stated that farm or domestic use is

the most important reason for owning forest

land. Many of these owners consider their

woodland as a source of fence

posts, fuelwood, and similar products.

Recreation and esthetic enjoyment is the

primary reason why 24 percent of the

owners hold forest land. The area

controlled by owners with these objectives

represents 18 percent of the private forest

land. Land investment often is thought of as

a hedge against inflation. Private

landowners who list land investment as the

primary reason for owning account for 8

percent of all owners and hold 15 percent

of the private forest. Only 10 percent of the

private forest-land owners hold their land

primarily for timber production, but these

owners control 19 percent of the private

forest. Most of this acreage is owned by

forest industry owners. Some owners own

forest land for the minerals under the

surface; many of these are included in the

“other” category.

Benefits expected in the next 10 years

provide another perspective on ownership

objectives. Esthetic enjoyment

predominates with 45 percent of the

owners expecting it to be the most important

benefit. Owners with this primary objective

control 20 percent of the private forest.

NO ANSWER

OTHER

PART OF RESIDENCE

ESTHETIC ENJOYMENT

PART OF FARM

FARM & DOMESTIC USE

TIMBER PRODUCTION

RECREATION

LAND INVESTMENT

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

PERCENT

NO ANSWER

OTHER

PART OF RESIDENCE

ESTHETIC ENJOYMENT

PART OF FARM

FARM & DOMESTIC USE

TIMBER PRODUCTION

RECREATION

LAND INVESTMENT

OWNERS 1994 ACRES 1994

Figure 4.—Distribution of private ownerships, by primary reason

for owning forest land, Virginia, 1994.

Figure 5.—Distribution of private ownerships, by importance

of reasons for owning forest land, Virginia, 1992.

Hodge looked at reasons for ownership of forested land with

an importance scale for each of 12 reasons (Fig. 5).

Preserving nature, maintaining scenic beauty, and viewing

wildlife were the top reasons cited by Virginia NIPF owners

as being very important reasons for owning forest land. Top

reasons cited as “not important” were leasing land for

hunting, conservation easement, and buffer from adjacent

properties.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

 ACRES (HODGE)

BUFFER FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES

CONSERVATION EASEMENT

FIRST OR SECOND HOMESITE

PRESERVE NATURE

NON-WILDLIFE RECREATION

VIEWING WILDLIFE

FIREWOOD FOR PERSONAL USE

PRODUCING SALEABLE WOOD

LEASING LAND FOR HUNTING

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT

MAINTAINING SCENIC BEAUTY

WILDLIFE FOR HUNTING

VERY IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT

Increase in land value also was an important ownership

objective, with 26 percent of the owners holding 26 percent

of the private forest. Only 4 percent of the owners cite

income from the sale of timber as the most important benefit;

they own 25 percent of the private forest. Firewood is the

most important benefit for 2 percent of the owners, who

control 2 percent of the private forest.
6

Timber Harvesting Behavior

There is a positive attitude toward and experience

with timber harvesting. Birch found that 53 percent

of the private owners have harvesting experience;

they control 70 percent of the private forest (Fig.

6). Forest industry is included in the 70 percent

and has 1.4 million acres (11% of the private

forest land). Hodge (1993) found that 55 percent

of those surveyed (NIPF owners) had harvested

timber. For those who had not harvested, 41

percent said they intend to cut in the next 10

years.

Thirty-seven percent of private forest-land owners

state that they intend to harvest in the next 10

years (Birch 1996). These owners control 53

percent of the private forest. Conversely, 44

percent of the owners say they never intend to

harvest. They hold only 13 percent of the private

acreage (Fig. 7). Owners with indefinite harvest

plans control 33 percent of the private forest land.

Intention to harvest is related to size of forested

ownership. With the exception of the very small

ownerships (those with fewer than 10 acres of

forest), the majority of the acreage is controlled by

landowners who express a willingness to harvest

(Fig. 8). More than half of the acreage in

ownerships with more than 200 acres of forest is

controlled by owners who intend to harvest in the

next 10 years. Hodge found a significant

relationship between future harvest plans and size

class. Virginia NIPF owners with more than 50

acres were more likely to harvest than those with

less.

Thompson and Johnson examined growing-stock

volume, growth, and removals by forested tract

size (Thompson and Johnson 1996). Differences

in growing-stock volume varied by forested tract

size; however, these differences were not

determined to be significant (Fig. 9). Highest

volume per acre averaged 1,840 cubic feet per

acre in the 1- to 10-acre category, the lowest

average was 1,682 cubic feet in the 101- to 200-

acre class.

Average softwood growth and removal volumes

were consistent across forested tract size classes

on a cubic foot per acre basis (Fig. 10). Average

softwood growth ranged from 18 cubic feet per

acre in the parcels greater than 500 acres to 21

cubic feet per acre in the 201- to 500-acre class.

The level of softwood removals was also

consistent across all size classes, ranging from

just under 11 cubic feet per acre in the 201 to 500-

acre class to nearly 17 cubic feet per acre in the

greater than 500-acre class.

Figure 6.—Harvest experience of private ownerships and for acres

of forest land owned, Virginia, 1994.

OWNERS 1994

NEVER

44%

INDEFINITE

19%

1-10 YEARS

37% NO ANSWER

0%

ACRES OWNED 1994

NEVER

13%

INDEFINITE

33%

1-10 YEARS

53%

NO ANSWER

1%

Figure 7.—Harvest intentions of private ownerships and for acres

of forest land owned, Virginia, 1994.

Figure 8.—Harvest intentions of private ownerships and for acres

of forest land owned, by size class of ownership , Virginia, 1994.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1-10

ACRES

11-50

ACRES

51-100

ACRES

101-200

ACRES

201-500

ACRES

501+

ACRES

CUBIC FEET/ ACRE

SOFTWOOD HARDWOOD

Figure 9.—Average cubic-foot volume per acre, by forested tract

size class , Virginia, 1992.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

PERCENT OF ACRES (BIRCH)

500+ 

200-499 

100-199 

50-99 

 10-49

 1-9

1-10 years INDEFINITE NEVER AND NO ANSWER

OWNERS 1994

 NONHARVESTERS

47%

 HARVESTERS

53%

ACRES OWNED 1994

BY 

HARVESTERS

70%

BY NONHARVESTERS

30%
7

Average annual growth of hardwood growing

stock was relatively constant across all forested

tract size classes, ranging from 35 cubic feet

per acre in the 201- to 500-acre class to 39

cubic feet per acre in the 1- to 10-acre category

(Fig. 11). Hardwood removals indicated some

differences by forested tract size. Hardwood

removals in the 1- to 10-acre category averaged

15 cubic feet per acre and increased to 29 cubic

feet per acre in the 201- to 500-acre class. This

corresponds closely with owner intentions to

harvest in the next 10 years.

Management Planning

With the advent of the Forest Stewardship

Program, interest has increased in getting

owners to have written management plans. An

estimated 17 percent of the private forest-land

owners have a written management plan for

their acreage (Fig. 12). These owners control 33

percent of the private forest. Forest industry

owns 25 percent of the forest land owned by

those with a written plan. The other 75 percent

of the forest area is controlled by nearly 77,900

NIPF owners with some form of written plan.

Nearly 22 percent of the owners with a written

plan stated that they prepared the plan (Fig. 13).

These owners control 16 percent of the area

covered by written plans. Fewer than 1 percent

of the plans were prepared by consultants,

representing 6 percent of the forest acreage

covered by written plans. Industrial foresters

prepared 2 percent of the plans for 35 percent

of the acreage covered by written plans. Most of

this area was for industry ownerships.

State service foresters and wildlife biologists

have been in the management-plan preparation

business for a long time. They wrote 66 percent

of the plans for owners, for 29 percent of the

area covered by written plans. Others such as

the USDA Extension Service and USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service prepared the

remaining 10 percent of the plans for 17 percent

of the forest area covered by management

plans. The totals exceed 100 percent because

some owners listed more than one agency or

person preparing the plans.

The number of owners and acreage covered by

written plans is related to size class of

ownership (Fig. 14). In general, as size

increases, the proportion of owners and

acreage owned with written plans increases.

Only in the larger than 500-acre class is more

than 50 percent of the forested acreage covered

by a written plan. It also seems that intention to

harvest is closely related to whether there is a

written plan. Hodge (1993) found a significant

SOFTWOOD

0

5

10

15

20

25

1-10

ACRES

11-50

ACRES

51-100

ACRES

101-200

ACRES

201-500

ACRES

501+

ACRES

CUBIC FEET/ ACRE

GROWTH REMOVALS

Figure 10.—Average softwood cubic-foot growth and removals per

acre, by forested tract size class, Virginia, 1992.

HARDWOOD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1-10 ACRES 11-50 ACRES 51-100 ACRES 101-200 ACRES 201-500 ACRES 501+ ACRES

CUBIC FEET/ ACRE

GROWTH REMOVALS

Figure 11.—Average hardwood cubic-foot growth and removals

per acre, by forested tract size class, Virginia, 1992.

Figure 12.—Distribution of private ownerships and acres of forest land

owned, by whether a written management plan had been prepared,

Virginia, 1994.

OTHER

STATE EMPLOYEE

INDUSTRIAL FORESTER

CONSULTANT

OWNER

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PERCENT

OTHER

STATE EMPLOYEE

INDUSTRIAL FORESTER

CONSULTANT

OWNER

OWNERS 1994 ACRES 1994

Figure 13.—Distribution of private ownerships and acres of forest

land owned, by who prepared the written plan, Virginia, 1994.

OWNERS 1994

WRITTEN 

PLAN

17%

NO 

WRITTEN 

PLAN

83%

ACRES OWNED 1994

WRITTEN 

PLAN NIPF

25%

NO 

WRITTEN 

PLAN

 66%

NO 

ANSWER 

1% WRITTEN 

PLAN 

INDUSTRY

8%
8

relationship between size class and those

seeking professional forestry assistance. Virginia

NIPF owners with more than 100 acres were

more likely to seek forestry assistance than those

with smaller parcels.

Birch’s most recent study found that in Virginia 19

percent of the owners with 49 percent of the

private forest land have received some form of

forestry assistance. The number of owners and

acreage covered by written plans is also related

to size class of ownership (Fig. 15). In general, as

size increases, the proportion of owners and

acreage owned with written plans increases.

More than half of the area in ownerships with

greater than 100 acres of forest land is owned by

those who have received some form of forestry

assistance. Most of the forest industry lands in

Virginia are in the greater than 500-acre class,

but half of the NIPF acreage in the class was

owned by those who have received assistance.

The main reasons Virginia NIPF landowners gave

for seeking forestry advice were timber sales,

timber stand management, reforestation, and

general forest management. Birch found that 90

percent of the owners who have received forestry

assistance have harvested trees at some time

during their ownership. Hodge found that 69

percent of those seeking professional assistance

have harvested trees from their tracts. Farmers,

individuals, and the other ownerships seek

assistance at different rates and by different

acreage groupings. Birch and Pywell (1986)

identified target groups for marketing forestry

assistance in Pennsylvania.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

PERCENT

 1-9 10-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500+ 

ACRES

OWNERS ACRES

Figure 14.—Distribution of private ownerships and acres of forest

land owned with written plans, by size class of ownership,

Virginia, 1994.

 1-9 10-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500+ 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PERCENT

 1-9 10-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500+ 

ACRES

OWNERS ACRES

Figure 15.—Distribution of private ownerships and acres of forest

land owned by those who have received some form of forestry

assistance, by size class of ownership, Virginia, 1994.

Needs of Virginia’s NIPF Owners

Information from the studies discussed in this paper can be

used by natural resource professionals to plan for the future

need of the state’s NIPF owners. Indications are that forested

land in the state is becoming parcelized, and the trend will

continue as aging NIPF owners or their heirs divide and sell

forested parcels. This has serious implications for the longterm viability of Virginia’s forests. NIPF owners with smaller

parcels are less likely to harvest or seek professional

forestry assistance. Hodge reports that more educated NIPF

owners are more likely to seek forestry assistance, which is

good news for those involved in providing assistance.

To instill a stewardship ethic in owners of Virginia’s NIPF

lands, we need to reach the multitude of owners and to

educate them on the benefits of forest management. The

question must be posed: Management for what? Because 83

percent of Virginia’s NIPF owners have no written

management plan, we need to focus on how to reach these

owners. Targeted messages need to be developed so that

owners can relate the message to their ownership objectives.

All the ownership objectives specified in the surveys could

benefit from planned management. Much of the state’s forest

lands are used for recreation. Recreation includes hunting,

camping, and fishing, as well as hiking and more passive

forms of recreation. Management for wildlife and recreation

requires a variety of silvicultural and management practices,

which could include selection cuts, regeneration cuts, and

thinnings. Timber production on the other hand may benefit

from even-age management or clearcutting. Acres of forest

owned for investment should increase in value under a

management plan, as well as providing added income from

timber harvesting if the owners so desire.

The nearly 4 million acres of forest land that are part of

farms in Virginia can provide added income and such

products as fuelwood, lumber, and fenceposts under forest

management. There is no owner objective specified in the
9

surveys covered by this paper that would not be more

achievable under some level of planned management. The

challenge is to inform and educate the nearly half million

NIPF owners so they understand and accept the benefits of

management.

Targeting NIPF Owners

Using the information presented here, specific ownership

groups can be defined and target populations identified for

disseminating information on forestry and forest

management. Group profiles generated by analysis of survey

data provide part of the picture on how to reach owner

groups. These groups can be divided by size class and

occupational status. Retired people, farmers, executives, and

professionals control nearly 60 percent of Virginia’s forest

land (7,597,000 acres). Retired people alone control nearly 4

million acres, with full-time farmers placing second (1.5

million acres), managers third (1.3 million acres), and

professionals fourth (0.9 million acres).

The most accessible information on Virginia’s forest owners

is how much forested land they own. Other characteristics

may be difficult to obtain until the resource professional has

developed a relationship with the landowner. The size of

ownership is public information and is available in the county

clerks office in each Virginia county. It may be tedious in

some counties for not every county has this information

computerized. A grouping by size class would lend itself to a

direct mail approach. Materials of a general nature could

start the education process by describing good stewardship

and forest management practices. The direct mail approach

might also be used with owners who have adjacent parcels

to suggest their “joint management” of several smaller

parcels. Some communities have had success with such a

multiple owner approach (Campbell and Kittredge 1996).

Target: Small ownerships

The 295,000 owners with fewer than 10 acres of forest land,

control 772,000 acres of forest in Virginia. It is difficult to

reach this group except through the mass media. If forest

landowner associations become more visible to the public,

this group may become more influential. Organized groups of

small landowners could provide a forum for information

exchange and joint management opportunities. Associations

also could improve the marketing of forest products by

aggregating sufficient timber to achieve economies of scale

or hire consultants to assist members in management

planning.

Target: New NIPF owners

The ‘new owners’ could be approached by working with local

real-estate agents in counties where there is significant

forested lands and where rapid turnover is taking place.

Special seminars or programs could be offered to realtors

about forestry assistance and printed materials left with them

to give to the new forest owners. The Virginia Department of

Forestry (DOF) has a “new forest landowner” packet with

information on the Forest Stewardship Program and other

DOF publications. Examples include articles on estate

planning, best management practices (BMPs), seedling

procurement, state forestry laws, the location of DOF offices

throughout the state, a list of other natural resource agencies,

and how to request a visit by a resource professional.

Target: Retirees

Retired people who control nearly 4 million acres of forest

may be reached through local chapters of the American

Association of Retired Persons (AARP) as well as through

articles in Modern Maturity a (publication of the association).

Articles featuring seniors who are actively managing their

forest land and dealing with transferring the land to the next

generation could be of interest. AARP conducts frequent

tours and may be interested in a well-organized forest

management tour. AARP has offices in each state. Elderhostel,

Inc., an international nonprofit organization that provides

educational programs for older adults, is another avenue for

reaching this group with programs at colleges and universities

across the country. Programs and information on taxation

and estate planning would be of special value to this group.

Target: Professionals and Managers

Professionals and managers may be reached on the job

through such publications as the Wall Street Journal and

Business Week. Both have published articles dealing with

forestry issues in the past. Because reasons for ownership in

Virginia are not primarily economic, presentations to

business and professional clubs and fraternal organizations

should balance information related to the economic benefits

of management, forest taxation, and marketing of forest

products with information on esthetic objectives such as

wildlife management and scenic beauty. As women are

increasingly involved in the business and professional world,

magazines such as Working Woman should be considered

for articles on forestry investment. Workshops for bankers,

real-estate brokers, CPAs, and tax assessors also could be

of value in getting information on forestry into the hands of

professionals and managers.

Target: Farmers

Farmers could be informed through traditional means about

best management practices, multiple use management,

marketing of forest products, and forest taxation. Information

on tree farming may be of particular interest to this group.

Good avenues for reaching this group are through County

Extension programs and newsletters, which provide outlets

for educational efforts. Conservation district newsletters

should not be overlooked. County fairs are appropriate

places for displays and dissemination of information.

Target: All other NIPF owners

Essential needs bring people to certain locations regardless

of age, occupation, or interests. Shopping centers, libraries,

schools, and county buildings serve thousands of people

daily. Displays on forestry topics and information on where to

go for forestry assistance would be available to NIPF owners.
10

Local newspapers also should be considered as a way to

reach this group of forest owners as are local service

organizations such as the Lions Club or Rotarians, which

often host guest speakers. Youth education also should be

considered as a way to reach landowners. Organized groups

such as Scouts, 4-H, and the Future Farmers of America

provide an excellent opportunity to educate tomorrow’s forest

owners. Also support of educational programs such as

Project Learning Tree and Project Wild in local schools is

essential.

Virginia Is Not Alone

In the 13 southern states alone, in 1994, there were nearly 5

million private forest-land owners with 187.6 million acres of

forest land (Moulton and Birch 1995). In the South this

amounts to 89 percent of the forest and 94 percent of the

timber harvested. By combining information from FIA

inventories and forest ownership studies, we can better

understand the timber supply potential from these lands.

Effects of timber prices, woodland accessibility, and other

factors that influence the economic availability of timber were

not considered in this analysis. But the result of this analysis

reveals a storehouse of economic opportunity.

Recent government initiatives such as the Forest Service

Stewardship Program encourages more management

planning. Nearly one-third of the state’s private forest land is

covered by written management plans, most of it in the

hands of larger owners. Of course, it is one thing to write

management plans and quite another to carry them out. How

landowners respond to further initiatives in forest

management is based on a complex set of socioeconomic

factors. Only time will tell how they all work out, but there is

no denying that present landowner intentions reveal a

potential opportunity for forest management in Virginia.

Literature Cited

Birch, T. W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United

States, 1994. Resour. Bull. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Birch, Thomas W. 1997. Private forest-land owners of the

Southern United States, 1994. Resour. Bull. NE-138.

Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 195 p.

Birch, T. W.; Lewis, D. G.; Kaiser, H. F. 1982. The private

forest-land owners of the United States. Resour. Bull.

WO-1. U.S. Washington, DC: Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 64 p.

Birch, T. W.; Pywell, N. A. 1986. Communicating with

nonindustrial private forest-land owners: getting

programs on target. Res. Pap. NE-593. Broomall, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 11 p.

Campbell, S. M.; Kittredge, D. 1996. Ecosystem-based

management on multiple NIPF ownerships. Journal of

Forestry. 94(2): 24-29.

Hodge, S. S.; Southard, L. 1992. A profile of Virginia NIPF

landowners: results of a 1991 survey. Richmond, VA:

Virginia’s Forests. 4 p.

Hodge, S. S. 1993. Beliefs, attitudes, demographics and

knowledge: The social dimensions of harvesting

decisions made by private forest-land owners in

Virginia. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Ph.D. dissertation.

Knight, H. A.; McClure, J. P. 1977. Virginia’s timber, 1977.

Resour. Bull. SE-44. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station. 53p.

Moulton R. J.; Birch, T. W. 1995. Southern private forest

landowners, a profile. Forest Farmer. 54(5): 44-46.

Thompson, M. T.; Johnson, T. G. 1994. Virginia’s forests,

1992. Resour. Bull. SE-151. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station. 103 p.

Thompson, M. T.; Johnson, T. G. 1996. A forested tract-size

profile of Virginia’s NIPF landowners. Res. Pap. SRS-1.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 8 p.
Printed on Recycled Paper

Birch, Thomas W.; Hodge, Sandra S.; Thompson, Michael T. 1998. Characterizing

Virginia's private forest owners and their forest lands. Res. Pap. NE-707.

Radnor. PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Research Station. 10 p.

A recently completed forest inventory and two woodland owner surveys have given

us insight about the owners of private forest lands in Virginia. There is increasing

parcelization of forested lands and an increase in the number of nonindustrial

private (NIPF) landowners in Virginia. More than half of the private owners have

harvested timber from their holdings at some time in the past, and they control

three-quarters of the private forest. Owners have a positive attitude toward timber

cutting at a time when there is greater demand for products from the forest. In

terms of decision making, private forest owners have control over marketed and

non-marketed commodities. This situation needs monitoring to maintain good

stewardship for future generations.
Headquarters of the Northeastern Research Station is in Radnor,

Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at:

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont

Delaware, Ohio

Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University

Parsons, West Virginia

Princeton, West Virginia

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York,

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University

Warren, Pennsylvania

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, and marital or familial 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 the 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, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call

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

“Caring for the Land and Serving People Through Research”