Over the last twenty years, the forest products industry has sold much of its land base throughout the U.S. The majority of that land is being transferred from traditional vertically-integrated industry to new corporate owners in the form of timber investment management organizations (TIMOs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs). A smaller portion has transferred to the public, non-governmental organizations (NGO), non-industrial private forest (NIPF) owners, and to privately-held and vertically-integrated corporations in the forest products industry. By controlling the management of the forest, these new owners will directly impact ecology, economics, and society. Previous research has focused on national or regional trends, overlooking the major impact this development will have locally. This study mapped timberland ownership change in five counties in Southwest Alabama where timber production is concentrated. This area is primarily rural and timber dependent. To identify where land had changed hands and collect information on new owners, industrial timberland ownership from the early 1990s was mapped and compared to current timberland ownership. Following national trends, industry sold almost all of its land in this area and the majority of that land (63%) is now owned by REITs and TIMOs. Absentee ownership still accounted for 83% of the land. Little fragmentation or use change occurred, leaving the forest as a whole seemingly untouched. However, there were ecologically important changes in some areas, included 54,000 acres purchased for conservation. The implications of these changes for rural timber dependent communities will be discussed.

1. Pinning Down the Change:
A Community-Level Study of Timberland Ownership Change
Photo credit: W.T. Smith Lumber Company: A chronicle
Anne Cumbie Randle, Becky Barlow, Andrew Gunnoe, John Gilbert, Auburn University

2. Introduction
Millions of Acres, Billions of Trees: Social and
Economic Impacts of Timberland Sales by the
Forest Products Industry in Alabama
• To document and analyze the social and economic impacts of
ownership and land use change affecting the single most
important manufacturing sector in Alabama
• To understand what timberland ownership change might mean
on a local level

3. The Study Area:
Baldwin, Clarke, Conecuh,
Escambia and Monroe
counties
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

4. The Study Area:
Evidence of forest
products industry
restructuring, 2012
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

5. Literature Review
• Ownership change in U.S. timberland
(Clutter et al. 2005, Gunnoe and Gellert 2010)
Forest Products Industry
10
million
acres
Corporate owners
(TIMOs and REITs)
Public and NGO
Non-Industrial
Private Forest owners
(NIPF)
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

6. Literature Review
• Who owns the forest (Butler and Wear 2011)
– Provides a basis for understanding how the forest
will be managed
• Using GIS to study land ownership change
(Scott and Janikas 2010)
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

7. Mapping Timberland Ownership Change:
Objectives
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies
Objective 1: Map industrial
timberland ownership
circa 1990 in Escambia,
Baldwin, Clarke, Monroe,
and Conecuh counties
Objective 2: Identify
changes in industrial
timberland ownership as
of 2012

8. • Map industry ownership prior to land sales
– County plat books (1983 – 1991) were
georeferenced and digitized
– Industry owners were identified and timberland
was mapped
Mapping Timberland Ownership Change:
Methods
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

9. • Map industry ownership prior to land sales
• Overlay map of industry land with 2012
ownership maps
– 2012 ownership data was obtained
– New owners were identified and assembled into a
database
Mapping Timberland Ownership Change:
Methods
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

10. • Map industry ownership prior to land sales
• Overlay map of industry land with 2012
ownership maps
• New owners were categorized according to
ownership type and location, use change
identified
– Alabama Government Records Inquiry System,
2012 Current Use Tax Roll, USDA Orthoimagery
– Tax roll mailing address
Mapping Timberland Ownership Change:
Methods
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

11. Mapping
Timberland
Ownership
Change:
Results
Industry owned
land 1983 - 1991:
total of 925,211
acres
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

12. 1983-1991
18 owners
Mapping Timberland Ownership Change: Results
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

13. 1983-1991 2012
18 owners 1,822 owners
Mapping Timberland Ownership Change: Results
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

14. 84%
16%
1983 - 1991
Top 5 Owners Everybody Else
53%47%
2012
Ownership Concentration
Mapping Timberland Ownership Change: Results
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

15. New owners of former industry land, 2012
Counties Industry % Corporate % NIPF % Gov. %
Use
Change
%
Total: 172,074 18% 575,263 63% 91,218 10% 56,729 6% 15,483 1.7%
Mapping Timberland Ownership Change:
Results
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies
Industry
Corporate
NIPF
Government
Use Change

16. New owners of
former industry
land by class, 2012
Mapping
Timberland
Ownership Change:
Results
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

17. Mapping Timberland Ownership Change: Results
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

18. •Absentee owned industry land in 1983
– 1991: 771,593 acres
•Absentee owned former industry land
2012: 744,966 (increase of 10,569)
•Two-sample t-test shows significant
increase in local ownership (P = .016, T
= -40.16, N=1)
•Still, absentee ownership accounted
for 83% of this land
Mapping
Timberland
Ownership Change:
Results
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

19. Using GIS Analysis to Explain Ownership Change:
Objectives
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies
Objective 1: Map industrial
timberland ownership circa
1990 in Escambia, Baldwin,
Clarke, Monroe, and
Conecuh counties
Objective 2: Identify
changes in industrial
timberland ownership as of
2012
Objective 3: Explain what
influenced new timberland
owners and where that
change is concentrated

20. Explanatory Variables Relationship
Adjusted R2
(OLS)
GWR Sigma GWR R2 GWR R2
Adjusted
Government
Percent Poverty + 0.63
1.3 0.78 0.71
Percent Population with Bachelor’s
Degree
- 0.39
Distance to Roads + 0.05
Distance to Place + 0.04
Distance to Water - 0.04
Corporate
Distance to Place + 0.05
3.18 0.44 0.37
Percent Unemployment + 0.02
Median House Value - 0.01
Median Household Income - 0.01
Percent Population with Bachelor’s
Degree
- 0.00
NIPF
Distance to Place - 0.04
8.27 0.41 0.39
Percent Population with Bachelor’s
Degree
- 0.04
Median Household Income - 0.03
Percent Unemployment + 0.00
Median House Value - 0.00
Change in Use
Percent Population with Bachelor’s
Degree
+ 0.94
2.82 0.61 0.51
Percent Poverty - 0.71
Distance to Roads - 0.20
Distance to Place - 0.13
Distance to Water - 0.04
Using GIS Analysis to Explain Ownership Change:
Geographically Weighted Regression Analysis
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

21. Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change:
Hot Spot Analysis
Clusters of NIPF landowners may
lead to increased disturbance rates
in these areas
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

22. • Industry has sold almost all the land owned in the study area
• New owners are primarily corporate, followed by NIPF and
government
• 1.7% of land changed in use
• Local ownership has significantly increased, but absentee ownership
still accounts for 83% of the land
• New government land was negatively influenced by higher quality of
life variables and positively influenced by distance to roads and place.
Use change was almost exactly the opposite.
• NIPF and Corporate timberland owners were negatively influenced by
quality of life variables.
Discussion and Conclusion
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies

23. •Interview NIPF and Corporate owners to find what variables
influenced them to purchase land in this area
•Replicate this study in different areas of the state
•Continue mapping these parcels in the future, or from an
earlier point in time, to show how they change over time
•Determine if the potential outcomes do occur in the future
in this area
Research objectives The Study Area Literature Review
Mapping Timberland
Ownership Change
Using GIS Analysis to
Explain Ownership
Change
Discussion and
Conclusion
Future Studies
Future Studies

24. Acknowledgements
Dr. Larry Teeter, Dr. Conner Bailey, Dr. John Kush
Pinning Down the Change:
A Community-Level Study of Timberland Ownership Change

26. Variables Used in Exploratory
Regression
Significant Variables Not Significant or Redundant
Variables
Percent Poverty Percent Poverty Percentage of Population with
a High School Degree
Percent Unemployment Percent Unemployment Distance to Shoreline
Median Housing Value Median Housing Value Distance to Conservation
Easements
Percentage of Population with
a High School Degree
Percentage of Population with
a Bachelor’s Degree
Population
Percentage of Population with
a Bachelor’s Degree
Median Income
Median Income Distance to Bodies of Water
Population Distance to Roads
Distance to Bodies of Water Distance to Place
Distance to Roads
Distance to Shoreline
Distance to Conservation
Easements
Distance to Place

27. Corporate Timberland Owners
Real Estate Investment
Trusts (REITs)
• Invest the capital of
many investors to
garner returns for
investors
• May or may not be
publicly traded
• Institutional as well as
individual investors,
most shares are owned
by mutual funds
Timber Investment
Management
Organizations (TIMOs)
• Management
companies that work on
behalf of investors to
buy, sell, and manage
timberland
• Most are not publicly
traded
• Pension funds,
endowments,
foundations, insurance
firms