Content uploaded by Paul H. Gobster
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul H. Gobster on Jul 16, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
When Prohibition-era mob-
ster Al “Scarface” Capone
wanted to escape the tribu-
lations of life in Chicago, he headed for
“The Hideout,” his 400-acre lake and
forest retreat in the Northwoods of
Wisconsin. Since then, many other ur-
banites from the upper Midwest have
similarly sought their getaway in the
Northwoods, like Capone looking for
18 Journal of Forestry •September 2003
Mark G. Rickenbach and Paul H. Gobster
Parcelization,the process by which relatively large forest ownerships become subdivided into
smaller ones, is often related to changes in ownership and can bring changes to the use of the
land. Landowners, resource professionals, and others interested in Wisconsin’s Northwoods
were asked their views on parcelization in a series of stakeholder forums. We analyzed their
statements through the lens of forest sustainability with its ecological, economic, and social
dimensions. The analysis shows how sustainability might be used to structure future research
and discourse within local communities to foster fuller considerations of landscape and land
use change.
Keywords: land use; nonindustrial private forestland; public perceptions; sustainability
ABSTRACT
Stakeholders’ Perceptions
of Parcelization in Wisconsin’s Northwoods
Stakeholders’ Perceptions
of Parcelization in Wisconsin’s Northwoods
Above: Housing developments are a possible,
but not inevitable, result of parcelization.
Courtesy of USDA Forest Service
19
September 2003 •Journal of Forestry
solace amid the region’s ex-
pansive forests, scenic lakes,
and abundant fish and
wildlife. This recreational
haven also yields forest prod-
ucts that support thriving
lumber and paper industries.
Although recreation and for-
est products have sustained
many Northwoods’ commu-
nities (Marcouiller and Mace
1999), recent shifts in land
ownership and use are alter-
ing the relationship between
people and communities and
their forests.
The Northwoods is a loosely de-
fined region of northern Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan. In Wiscon-
sin, the focus of our work, it com-
monly refers to the northernmost 22
counties. Of the 14 million acres, 71.8
percent is forested, and nonindustrial
private forests (NIPF) dominate the
landscape (43.8 percent) (Schmidt
1998). Forest industry and corpora-
tions account for 14.6 percent, and
tribal entities own 3.5 percent.
Through federal, state, and county
ownerships, the public manages the re-
maining forests (38.1 percent).
Although the distribution among
these ownership classes has changed
very little since the 1980s, the number
of NIPF owners in Wisconsin’s North-
woods grew from 95,600 in 1985 to
107,600 in 1997 (Roberts et al. 1986;
Leatherberry 2001). From 1990 to
2000 the population of the North-
woods grew by 10.6 percent, just above
the statewide average of 9.6 percent,
and seven Northwoods counties grew
by more than 15 percent (US Bureau
of the Census 2002). Following this
population growth, housing density
has also increased (Radeloff et al.
2000).
With many newcomers wanting
their own piece of the Northwoods pie,
relatively large ownerships are being
subdivided into smaller ones. This
parcelization has been happening in
the state for many decades, but there is
a growing concern that its current pace
and characteristics are changing the
Northwoods. In recent years some in-
dustrial landholders have split rela-
tively large forest blocks into parcels as
small as 40 acres. More frequently seen
is the subdivision of 40- or 80-acre
NIPF parcels into recreational wood-
lots of 5 and 10 acres or smaller (Klase
and Guries 1999). With a frenzy of real
estate transactions in the past 10 years,
few attractive parcels have escaped
scrutiny. Even Capone’s Hideout, long
since converted to a local tourist attrac-
tion, hit the chopping block for sale as
four parcels (Anon. 2000). Local citi-
zens, public land managers, and indi-
viduals and groups who depend on the
sustainability of the region’s forest re-
sources are now asking how parceliza-
tion and forestland conversion will af-
fect them.
Simply redrawing the boundary
lines on a map does not affect the vi-
sual or functional characteristics of the
forest. Attendant changes in owner-
ship, use, and cover, however, can have
myriad consequences—some positive,
some negative. Parcelization and its as-
sociated activities have been linked to
ecological impacts on wildlife
(Theobold et al. 1997), water quality
(Wear et al. 1998), and land cover
(Turner et al. 1996; Johnson 2001).
Local economies can change (Harper
et al. 1990), and regional wood supply
can decrease (Wear et al. 1999). The
social dynamic can also change. New
people bring new values and ideas, and
the increase in density increases the po-
tential for conflict (Egan and Luloff
2000; Smith and Krannich 2000).
This article describes the discourse
that emerged from an ex-
ploratory study of the effects
of parcelization on Wiscon-
sin’s Northwoods as per-
ceived by concerned stake-
holders. The three “pillars”
of forest sustainability—eco-
logical, economic, and social
(Salwasser et al. 1993)—
serve as the lens for focusing
the stakeholders’ perspec-
tives. After presenting our
findings, we discuss how re-
searchers, resource profes-
sionals, and policymakers
who seek to study or foster
discussion about parcelization might
more effectively structure their efforts.
Methods
Interest in parcelization and frag-
mentation issues among Northwoods
stakeholders compelled the nonprofit
group 1,000 Friends of Wisconsin
(“1000 Friends”) and its research and
education arm, the Land Use Institute,
to establish a Forest Fragmentation Ed-
ucation Initiative in late 2000. The
goal of the initiative was
… to connect land management agen-
cies, woodland organizations, and
local units of government with forest
landowners to encourage a discussion
about trends in woodland ownership
and use and their implications for the
long-term environmental and eco-
nomic well-being of forestlands in the
state. (Last and Gobster 2001)
Partners in the initiative included gov-
ernment, academic, forest industry,
landowner, and nonprofit interests.
Working with these partners, the
coauthors guided the stakeholder input
process. We felt it was critical to un-
derstand how various interests perceive
and experience parcelization. We iden-
tified a set of discussion questions for
tapping stakeholders’ perceptions of
parcelization and fragmentation based
on a process model for understanding
landscape change. This model concep-
tualizes the process of landscape
change as one in which observable pat-
terns of change result from one or
more driving forces of social, eco-
Stakeholders at the Wisconsin Rapids forum share their thoughts.
Don Last
nomic, or technological origin (Gob-
ster et al. 2000). These changes may
have effects on people and ecosystems,
sometimes for the better and some-
times for the worse. Applying the
model to the issues of parcelization re-
sulted in the following set of questions:
• Patterns: What patterns and sizes
of parcelization and fragmentation
have you seen? Where are they occur-
ring? To what extent is parcelization re-
sulting in fragmentation or land devel-
opment?
• Drivers: How or in relation to
what are parcelization and fragmenta-
tion occurring? What are the causes?
• Effects: Do you see any problems
resulting from parcelization and frag-
mentation? Impacts on community?
Any benefits? Impacts on ecosystem?
Impacts to you personally?
• Response strategies: What do you
see as the most effective solutions to
fragmentation issues? What more can
or should be done? By whom?
Four regional forums were held in
northern and central Wisconsin, and a
statewide forum took place in Wausau,
an urban gateway to the Northwoods
(fig. 1). Attendance was promoted
through the general media and open to
the public; 182 stakeholders partici-
pated. Because registration was re-
quired, we were able to ascertain the
interests that participants represented
(table 1).
Transcripts from the sessions were
studied using thematic analysis (Boy-
atzis 1998). First we coded the text
statements to identify common ideas
present in the data, and we then coded
the data for opinions, statements, and
descriptions as they related to the eco-
logical, economic, and social dimen-
sions of sustainability. Within these
three coded dimensions, we sought to
identify commonalities and differences
among the participants to more thor-
oughly understand their understanding
of the effects of parcelization.
Results
The ecological, economic, and so-
cial dimensions of sustainability ac-
counted for different volumes of com-
ments. Roughly half the coded com-
ments related to the social dimension.
The economic dimension accounted
for approximately a third, and the re-
maining sixth fell into the ecological.
This measure does not necessarily cor-
respond to participants’ ranking of the
issues, but what they talked about sug-
gests the tenor and focus of conversa-
tion. Nearly all discussions concerned
northern Wisconsin. Generally, the
participants’ views and background
were sympathetic to land conservation
and management. For example, indi-
viduals in favor of additional housing
and industrial development in North-
ern Wisconsin were either not present
or chose not to make their opinions
known.
In the discussion below, the quota-
tions are actual comments that were
representative of participants’ state-
ments about that theme.
Social themes. Our analysis yielded
three themes within the social dimen-
sion. The strongest of these themes was
the influx of new people and new uses
of the land brought on by parceliza-
tion. Participants offered a range of
perspectives on how people and land
uses are changing and distinguished
long-term residents from relative (or
potential) newcomers: “Personally, I
think we should build a fence around
[the Northwoods] here along Highway
29 and tell everybody else to go to
Texas.”
New people have brought new ideas
about the whole spectrum of forest use:
“…increased user conflicts, more re-
lated to quiet sports versus motorized
sports.” “Just in our wooded subdivi-
sion, where everybody wants mani-
cured bluegrass and we’re the lone
prairie enthusiasts.”
To be sure, participants evidenced
an element of protectionism, about
both the place they live and more fun-
damental ideas: “… the private prop-
erty right is one of our most cherished
constitutionally protected rights and,
therefore, most difficult to overcome.
And I don’t know…that you even
want to overcome it.”
One new facet of the changing so-
cial fabric—the second theme of social
sustainability—was the way in which
these property rights are exercised. Par-
ticipants agreed that access to both
public and private land was changing.
In their opinion, parcelization has led
to the posting of more private land. In
some cases, hunters have been excluded
from land they hunted for years:
“That’s what really sets me off. I can’t
hunt now where I used to hunt.”
In other cases, trail easements were
nullified: “… when land gets subdi-
vided, the traditional snowmobile trail
access across private land… evapo-
rate[s].”
According to participants, the clos-
ing of private lands to some traditional
uses and the influx of people seeking
new and different recreational oppor-
tunities have increased the pressure on
public land: “It seems to have become
20 Journal of Forestry •September 2003
Figure 1. Northern Wisconsin
counties that constitute the
Northwoods appear in blue.
The four local meetings were
held in the towns of Ashland,
Eagle River, Spooner, and
Wisconsin Rapids, and the
statewide meeting was held
in Wausau.
Zoe Rickenbach and Ted Sickley
September 2003 •Journal of Forestry 21
an issue for the public lands, and our
citizens … are demanding different
uses than they have had traditionally in
the past.”
Participants viewed this reduced
quantity and quality of access as a very
negative outcome of parcelization.
The third theme of the social di-
mension was a focus on the policies
and institutional changes needed to
sustain communities grappling with
the effects of parcelization. Local gov-
ernment was described as central to
achieving operable solutions, but land
use planning and zoning are highly
contentious: “Some towns are just
starting to do [land use planning] now.
But even having the plan, it’s just a
plan. And it is very difficult to try to
implement that.”
Although it does not mandate plan-
ning by counties and townships, the
state requires that future decisions af-
fecting land use (e.g., zoning changes)
be guided by a land-use plan. However,
local officials who act either to main-
tain the status quo or advance new
ideas risk retribution: [after passing a
land use plan,] “… the whole town
board was voted out and a new town
board was voted in… This basically
split the whole township apart.”
Despite tacit support for land use
planning and even zoning by some of
the participants, there was no consen-
sus that local government could or
would act on a widespread basis. There
was a sense, however, that local govern-
ment faced huge challenges in address-
ing land use questions and that addi-
tional capacity was needed.
Economic Themes
Participants discussed three eco-
nomic sustainability themes related to
parcelization. Taxation was a topic of
considerable discussion: “…forest frag-
mentation is a problem here… And it’s
really the tax issue that’s hurting, forc-
ing [landowners] into [subdividing], to
dealing with that; be it the property
tax, the estate tax …”
Several participants had witnessed or
experienced rising land values at places
throughout the Northwoods: “And yet
the normal person cannot afford to go
buy an 80 or a 40, so what they’re doing
is, they’re buying a 5 or a 10.”
Despite concerns over rising prop-
erty taxes and unaffordable land, many
participants saw the link between taxes
and local services: “One of the benefits
of parcelization has been an increased
tax base, the ability of the county and
some town governments to provide ser-
vices that were not possible a decade
ago.”
Yet not everyone was convinced that
the additional revenue actually covered
the costs: “… the long-term services
would actually cost [the county] more
than the taxes would bring in.”
Overall, there was a desire for lower
property taxes but no consensus on vi-
able alternatives for either shifting the
tax burden or reducing services.
Another economic theme was the
potential impacts of parcelization on
the sustainability of forest industries
and fiber supply. Many participants
were aware of big changes in ownership
of the state’s industrial forestlands; by
some estimates nearly 90 percent had
changed ownership in the past decade
(Dresang 2002). This shift to new cor-
porate owners was unsettling: “So we’re
having this tremendous turnover of
landownership among corporations,
and corporate profits have come into
play. Can we make more money selling
the land [than managing it for tim-
ber]?”
Even with the continuation of large
industrial ownerships, participants
questioned continued supply from
public lands and NIPFs: “Everyone
knows that it’s getting harder and
harder to get timber supplied from the
Forest Service.”
In particular, parcelization of NIPFs
led some to speculate both on the will-
ingness of new owners to harvest and
on how small a parcel can get before it
becomes inoperable.
The final economic theme explored
the role of economic development and
growth. Participants linked parceliza-
tion with more people and greater
growth; however, there was no consen-
sus on its desirability: “… the more
people that show up, the more money
I make. But obviously, I would like to
see the Northwoods remain the same.”
Some felt that in the long run,
parcelization might eventually limit
tourism—a major economic sector in
the Northwoods: “…[parcelization]
can eventually affect some of the
tourism dollars.”
Others believed that parcelization
and growth could be beneficial to the
community: “I’m of the belief that the
year-round resident or even the six-
month snowbird resident that has a
good retirement income contributes
more economically to the community
than you get from the weekenders.”
Again, the participants were unsure
what might constitute a sustainable
economic solution to the concerns sur-
rounding parcelization and develop-
ment.
Ecological Themes
Within the ecological dimension,
two principal themes emerged. Partici-
Table 1. Affiliation of individuals attending the workshops.
Organization or interest Participants*
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry 27
NIPF owners 22
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, other divisions 16
Conservation and environmental organizations 16
USDA Forest Service 14
University or extension 14
Forest industry 13
Local government 12
County conservation districts 8
County forests 8
Tribal government 4
Interested citizens 4
Forestry consultants 3
State legislature 3
*Organizations or interests with fewer than three attendees are not listed.
Journal of Forestry •September 200322
pants expressed concerns over the ef-
fects of parcelization on wildlife habi-
tat and biodiversity. Some comments
were specific: “…it becomes harder
and harder, I think, to manage deer
and some other species as these large
tracts of land are subdivided into
smaller pieces.”
Others were more general: “You
start to fragment along roads and all
the attendant issues come up …impact
on wildlife, biodiversity, and so forth.”
Remarks encompassed game species
as well as endangered and reintroduced
species in the face of a changing land-
scape with more people, roads, and
land uses: “… roads do things to
wolves.”
Participants saw parcelization as
having a primarily negative effect on
wildlife and biodiversity.
The other ecological theme that
participants identified was sustaining
the quality and quantity of the region’s
surface water resources. Some felt that
recent changes in state regulation
would allow development of home
sites in wetlands previously not accessi-
ble: “There’s a fear about forested wet-
lands being developed.”
In addition, many participants were
concerned about the water quality on
lakes: “And as you tend to fragment the
forests, you don’t have as many forests.
You have a bigger hit on the lakes and
the water quality.”
Participants believed that increased
parcelization would have mainly nega-
tive consequences for water resources.
Discussion and Implications
The views expressed during the se-
ries of forums are not representative of
all who live, work, or recreate in the
Northwoods. However, the study does
provide information about the views of
stakeholders—from forest industry
and environmentalists to private own-
ers and public resource professionals—
who are concerned about forest
parcelization in the Northwoods. Our
findings shed light on two things. First,
we identified how workshop partici-
pants understand parcelization. Sec-
ond, our analysis suggests future ap-
proaches to research and outreach ef-
forts regarding parcelization.
The three dimensions of sustain-
ability proved useful in framing the
analysis. Participants addressed all
three dimensions but tended to stress
the social impacts. Ecological impacts
seemed much less important, but as
one peer reviewer suggested, they may
be confounded or confused by the
other dimensions. This is in one way
surprising, because the participants (see
table 1) might be assumed to be “eco-
logically literate.” However, the ecolog-
ical effects of parcelization can raise po-
litically sensitive issues, such as the
amount of early versus late successional
forests, and the diverse group of stake-
holders may have judiciously avoided
the topic.
Future efforts to engage stakehold-
ers will require more balance across the
three dimensions of sustainability as
well as linkages between them. The
ecological implications (positive and
negative) were rarely fleshed out to an
extent that they were clear to all indi-
viduals involved in the discussion. In
the case of the social and economic di-
mensions, society has identified, if not
desired outcomes, at least general di-
rections. For example, growth and jobs
are seen as desirable, as are opportuni-
ties to recreate and own land. Specific
questions of how much growth or who
should own the land may be more con-
tentious. On the ecological dimension,
there is likely less agreement: Biodiver-
sity may be a desirable outcome, but by
what measure and over what scale and
time horizon still elude consensus.
Participants displayed little knowl-
edge of how perceived economic im-
pacts translated into actual dollars.
Moreover, many of their assertions de-
serve a closer look to see the extent to
which their generalizations are war-
ranted. As members of a market econ-
omy, we are all intuitive economists:
We often make judgments of costs and
benefits without fully considering all
the data. Are such intuitive models suf-
ficient for complex issues like forest
parcelization?
Future research and outreach will
require a more concerted attempt to
understand the full range of conditions
and viewpoints relating to parceliza-
tion. Some people benefit from
parcelization, but their voices were
largely absent from this series of fo-
rums. Until these and other voices are
incorporated into a more coherent pro-
gram of study and discourse about the
Northwoods, it will be difficult to fully
understand and make decisions regard-
ing parcelization as an ecological, eco-
nomic, and social reality. Hence, the
focus on parcelization must expand to
a broader range of conditions and in-
terests. Society must engage the funda-
mental tension of parcelization that
pits individual freedoms (property
rights, harvest decisions) that have
measurable impacts against societal val-
ues (species preservation, economic de-
velopment) that have, in many cases,
more ambiguous benefits and costs.
Although the landscape of the
Northwoods has changed significantly
since the days of Al Capone, this region
and other forest regions across the
country are increasingly havens for
many people. But as more and more
people look to the forests for their
“hideouts,” it will be increasingly im-
portant to seek ways to protect the full
range of values that forests provide to
residents and visitors. In grappling with
the future role of forests and their use, a
sincere and continued discourse on for-
est sustainability can help to alleviate
social, economic, and ecological conse-
quences associated with parcelization.
Literature Cited
ANONYMOUS. 2000. Gangster Al Capone’s North Woods
hideout for sale. Reuters, September 29.
BOYATZIS, R.E. 1998. Transforming qualitative informa-
tion: Thematic analysis and code development. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DRESANG, J. 2002. Forest ownership uprooted: New cor-
porate strategy has much of state’s timber property
changing hands. Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, August
11. Available online at www.jsonline.com/bym/
News/aug02/65561.asp; last accessed by staff June
2003.
EGAN, A.F., and A.E. LULOFF. 2000. The exurbanization
of America’s forests: Research in rural social science.
Journal of Forestry 98(3):26–30.
GOBSTER, P.H., R.G. HAIGHT, and D. SHRINER. 2000.
Landscape change in the Midwest: An integrated re-
search and development program. Journal of Forestry
98(3):9–14.
HARPER, S.C., L.L. FALK, and E.W. RANKIN. 1990. The
northern forest lands study of New England and New
York: A report to the Congress of the United States on the
recent changes in landownership and land use in the
northern forests of Maine, New Hampshire, New York,
and Vermont. Rutland, VT: USDA Forest Service.
JOHNSON, M.P. 2001. Environmental impacts of urban
sprawl: A survey of the literature and proposed
research agenda. Environment and Planning A 33:
717–35.
KLASE, W., and R.P. GURIES. 1999. Forestland ownership
in Vilas and Oneida Counties, Wisconsin, 1975–1994.
Working Paper 26. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Land Tenure Center.
LAST, D., and P.H. GOBSTER. 2001. The causes, conse-
quences, and controls of forest fragmentation in Wis-
consin: A summary of comments from public listen-
ing sessions. Unpublished manuscript.
LEATHERBERRY, E.C. 2001. Wisconsin private timberland
owners: 1997. Research Paper NC-339. St. Paul:
USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Sta-
tion.
MARCOUILLER, D., and T. MACE. 1999. Forests and re-
gional development: Economic impacts of woodland use
for recreation and timber in Wisconsin. G3694. Madi-
son: University of Wisconsin Extension.
RADELOFF, V.C., R.B. HAMMER, P.R. VOSS, A.E. HAGEN,
D.R. FIELD, and D.J. MLADENOFF. 2000. Human de-
mographic trends and landscape level forest manage-
ment in the northwest Wisconsin Pine Barrens. Forest
Science 47(2):229–41.
ROBERTS, J.C., W.G. TLUSTY, and H.C. JORDAHL. 1986.
The Wisconsin private non-industrial woodland owner:
A profile. Occasional Paper Series Paper 19. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Extension, Departments of
Urban and Regional Planning and Landscape Archi-
tecture.
SALWASSER, H., D.W. MACCLEERY, and T.A. SNELL-
GROVE. 1993. An ecosystem perspective on sustain-
able forestry and new directions for the US National
Forest system. In Defining sustainable forestry, eds.
G.H. Aplet, N. Johnson, J.T. Olson, and V.A. Sam-
ple. Washington, DC: Island Press.
SCHMIDT, T.L. 1998. Wisconsin forest statistics, 1996. Re-
source Bulletin NC-183. St. Paul: USDA Forest Ser-
vice, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
SMITH, M.D., and R.S. KRANNICH. 2000. “Culture
clash” revisited: Newcomer and longer-term residents’
attitudes toward land use, development, and environ-
mental issues in rural communities in the Rocky
Mountain West. Rural Sociology 65(3):396–421.
THEOBOLD, D.M., J.R. MILLER, and N.T. HOBBS. 1997.
Estimating the cumulative effects of development on
wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 39:
25–36.
TURNER, M.G., D.N. WEAR, and R.O. FLAMM. 1996.
Land ownership and land-cover change in the south-
ern Appalachian highlands and the Olympic Penin-
sula. Ecological Applications 6(4):1150–72.
US BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. 2002. US Census factfinder.
Available online at http://factfinder.census.gov; ac-
cessed by authors February 2002.
WEAR, D.N., M.G. TURNER, and R.J. NAIMAN. 1998.
Land cover along an urban-rural gradient: Implica-
tions for water quality. Ecological Applications 8(3):
619–30.
WEAR, D.N., R. LIU, J.M. FOREMAN, and R.M.
SHEFFIELD. 1999. The effects of population growth
on timber management and inventories in Virginia.
Forest Ecology and Management 118:107–15.
Mark G. Rickenbach (mgrickenbach@
wisc.edu) is assistant professor, Depart-
ment of Forest Ecology and Management,
University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1630
Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706-
1598; Paul H. Gobster is research social
scientist, USDA Forest Service, North
Central Research Station, Evanston, Illi-
nois. Funding: Wisconsin Environmental
Education Board; Renewable Resources
Extension Act; and USDA Forest Service,
North Central Research Station.
23
September 2003 •Journal of Forestry
