Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

For the Love of the Land: Generational Land Transfer and the Future of Family Forests in Western Washington State, USA

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Small-scale Forestry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is increasing concern that a major factor influencing the loss of forestland in Washington State is the lack of successful generational transfer of forest land. The scenario is similar to that experienced by family-owned agricultural farms. Generational transference of family-farm property has been a topic of study in the social sciences for many years, and it is upon this theoretical framework that the discussion of forestland transfer is based. This paper reports research conducted in two counties in western Washington State, USA. There are nine counties along Interstate Highway 5 corridor with private forests that are experiencing major development pressures. Two counties that represent extreme stages of development were selected for intensive study. Based on semi-structured interviews conducted as a part of this study, the potential causes of unsuccessful generational transfer were found to be closely linked to development pressure with the following components: regulatory uncertainty, financial instability, and urban influences. These three elements tended to overlap, and perceptions were embedded within a strong value orientation and sense of place. Value orientations and attachments to place might not always require a linkage to occupations and livelihoods alone. They might also be allied with experiences and the symbolic meanings of a place that facilitate a shared value. Whether these experiences arrive through the growth of the family forest as an occupation or through place attachments nurtured within a family over time, the obstacles to the successful generational transfer of family forests must be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It should be noted that while the data for this study were collected prior to the 2013 change in the federal tax inheritance exemption, which increased the exemption to US$ 5.43 million in 2015. This remains an issue for at least some owners in both counties, albeit less of an issue than prior to the change in the law. Owners with large multi-parcel holdings in Lewis must still consider inheritance taxes in their estate planning, given the increasing value of forest land in the county. Owners in Snohomish with even modest holdings also have concerns given the extremely high development pressure from the ever expanding Seattle metropolitan area.

  2. Forest and Fish legislation (RCW-75.09.055) is a regulatory response to the federal listing of the Upper Columbia River spring run of endangered Chinook salmon. These regulations specifically target critical fish habitat along 60,000 miles of streams on 10 million acres of non-federal forestlands in Washington State, and stipulate wider riparian buffers and restricted timber harvest to established outer zones of the riparian area.

  3. The Washington Forest Tax Law (RCW 84.33 and RCW 84.28) requires each county assessor to identify lands 20 acres or greater within their specific counties that are devoted to growing and harvesting timber. These lands are classified by the assessor as forest land and assessed according to the value of the land for growing and harvesting timber. The assessed value is only for the bare land, and excludes any timber value.

References

  • Alig RJ, Plantinga AJ, Ahn S, Kline JD (2003) Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-587. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR

  • Aronson J (1994) A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. Qual Rep 2. Retrieved 25 July 2007. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/BackIssues/QR2-1/aronson.html

  • Beckley TM, Stedman RC, Wallace SM, Amband M (2007) Snapshots of what matters most: using resident photography to articulate attachment to place. Soc Nat Resour 20(10):913–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blatner KA, Baumgartner DM, Quackenbush LR (1991) NIPF use of landowner assistance and education programs in Washington State. West J Appl For 6(4):90–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss JC (2003) Sustaining family forests in rural landscapes: rationale, challenges, and an illustration from Oregon, USA. Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 2(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss JC, Martin AJ (1989) Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. For Sci 35(2):601–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis RE (1998) Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburg AM, Carroll MS (1995) Your place or mine?” The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Soc Nat Resour 8(5):381–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantrill JG (1998) The environmental self and a sense of place: communication foundations for ecosystem management. J Appl Commun Res 26(3):301–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz K (2000) Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, pp 509–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Creighton JH, Baumgartner DM, Blatner KA (2002) Ecosystem management and non-industrial private forest owners in Washington State. Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 1(1):55–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Creighton JH, Blatner KA, Baumgartner DM (2004) The future of Washington State family-owned forests in an increasingly fragmented landscape. In: Baumgartner DM (ed) Proceedings of human dimensions of family, farm, and community forestry international symposium. Washingtn State University, Pullman, WA. Washington State University Extension MISC0526, 29 March–1 April 2004

  • DeCoster LA (2000) Summary of proceedings: nibbled to death by DUC’s. In: DeCoster LA (ed) Forest fragmentation 2000: sustaining private forests in the 21st century. Sampson Group Inc., Alexandria, VA, pp 2–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards KK, Bliss JC (2003) It’s a neighborhood now: practicing forestry at the urban fringe. J For 101(3):6–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1999) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine De Gruyter Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson KM, Beale CL (1998) The rural rebound. Wilson Q 22(2):16–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilne JD, Azuma DL, Alig RJ (2004) Population growth, urban expansion, and private forestry in Western Oregon. For Sci 50(1):33–43

    Google Scholar 

  • King G, Koehane RO, Verba S (1994) Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline J, Alig R (1999) Does land use planning slow the conversion of forest and farm land? Growth Change 30(1):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband DN, Lentz BF (1983) Occupational inheritance in agriculture. Am J Agric Econ 65(May):311–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis County (2002) Comprehensive plan. Retrieved August 2007. http://www.co.lewis.wa.us/PublicWorks/CommDev/CompPlan.html

  • Luloff AE, Finley JC, Melbye J (2000) Social issues and impacts associated with land parcelization. In: DeCoster LA (ed) Forest fragmentation 2000: sustaining private forests in the 21st century. Sampson Group Inc., Alexandria, VA, pp 183–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Mater C (2005) Family forests: what will the next generation do?. Presentation to National Association of State Foresters, Madison, WI

    Google Scholar 

  • Relph E (1976) Place and placenessness. Pion, London 156 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickenbach MG, Kittredge DB, Dennis D, Stevens T (1998) Ecosystem management: capturing the concept for woodland owners. J For 96(4):18–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon S (1980) Ethnic differences in farm family and land transfers. Rural Sociol 45(2):290–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon S (2003) From hometown to nontown: rural community effects of suburbanization. Rural Sociol 68(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon S, Markan KK (1984) Incorporation and the farm family. J Marriage Fam 46(1):167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon S, O’Reilly SM (1979) Family and land use development cycles among Illinois farmers. Rural Sociol 44(3):525–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder EH, Fliegel FC, van Es JC (1983) The effects of nonfarm background on orientation to farming among small-scale farmers. Rural Sociol 48(3):349–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder EH, Fliegel FC, van Es JC (1985) Measurement of the lifestyle dimensions of farming for small-scale farmers. Rural Sociol 50(3):305–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelby B, Tokarczyk JA, Johnson RL (2004) Timber harvests and forest neighbors: the urban fringe research project at Oregon State University. J For 102(1):8–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims R (2000) Forests at risk. In: Agee J (ed) Summit 2000, Washington Private Forests Forum. Olympia, WA, University of Washington. www.cfr.washington.edu/outreach/summit/proceedings.html

  • Smith MD, Krannich RS (2000) “Culture Clash” revisited: newcomer and longer-term resident’ attitudes towards land use, development, and environmental issues in rural communities in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural Sociol 65(3):396–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snohomish County (2005) Comprehensive plan. Retrieved August 2007. http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Projects_Programs/Comprehensive_Plan/

  • Stedman RC (2003) Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc Nat Resour 16(2):671–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner-Davis MLE, Fly JM (2004) Seeing the landowner through the trees: how non-participant private landowners experience their land—a phenomenological investigation. 313 p. In: Baumgartner DM (ed) Proceedings of human dimensions of family, farm, and community forestry international symposium. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Washington State University Extension MISC0526, 29 March–1 April 2004

  • Taylor JE, Norris JE (2000) Sibling relationships, fairness, and conflict over transfer of the farm. Fam Relat 49(3):277–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JE, Norris JE, Howard WH (1998) Succession patterns of farmer and successor in Canadian farm families. Rural Sociol 63(4):553–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorud DB (2000) Introductory remarks at Summit 2000. In: Summit 2000, Washington Private Forests Forum, Olympia, Washington, University of Washington Press. www.cfr.washington.edu/outreach/summit/proceedings.html

  • Trentleman CK (2009) Place attachment and community attachment: a primer grounded in the lived experience of a community sociologist. Soci Nat Resour 22(3):191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuan YF (1974) Topohilia. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau (2010) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53061.html. June 2015

  • Washington State Dept. of Revenue (2004) Forest land values. http://dor.wa.gov/content/taxes/Timber/forst_lvs.aspx Retrieved 7 Nov 2004

  • Weigel RR, Weigel DJ, Blundall J (1987) Stress, coping, and satisfaction: generational differences in farm families. Fam Relat 36(1):45–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zablocki BD, Kanter RM (1976) The differentiation of lifestyles. Ann Rev Sociol 2(1976):269–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA

    Janean Creighton

  2. School of the Environment, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164-2812, USA

    Keith A. Blatner & Matthew S. Carroll

Authors
  1. Janean Creighton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith A. Blatner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew S. Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith A. Blatner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Creighton, J., Blatner, K.A. & Carroll, M.S. For the Love of the Land: Generational Land Transfer and the Future of Family Forests in Western Washington State, USA. Small-scale Forestry 15, 1–15 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9301-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9301-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation