Search this site:

Quality of Life

Primary Question (chapter 12): How do forests and their uses influence the quality of life in the South?

Related Question (chapter 10): What role do forests play in employment and local economies in the South?

Quality of life depends on a multitude of factors. These factors can be placed in three categories: (1) economic well-being, (2) social well-being, and (3) environmental quality. Land use and forest conditions can have a bearing on the quality of life in local areas (chapter 12).

Economic well-being is generally defined as the production of wealth, which allows for the purchase of goods and services. Forests produce wealth in several ways. Timber harvests generate income and a return to investments in land and forest management. Employment and returns to capital accrue as primary wood manufacturers convert raw timber products into intermediate products such as pulp, paper, and lumber. Secondary wood products industries such as furniture manufacturing, which utilize these intermediate products, also generate employment, income, and returns to capital investments. Additionally, forests provide settings for outdoor recreation that can produce wealth for local areas.

The production of wealth is important, but it provides an incomplete assessment of the contribution of forests to the quality of life in a region. Another element is social well-being, which is generally measured in terms of the social conditions and services found in a region. Examples include crime prevention, education, and access to health services. Forest cover and even uses do not cause these conditions. However, correlations between these conditions and social indicators can provide insights into the social context of places influenced by forest uses. A comparison of social and economic conditions with the share of wood products and recreation and tourism employment found:

• The forest products industry was located in areas where economic opportunities and diversity were limited.

• The forest products industry provided good paying jobs in areas where other economic opportunities were limited. On average, wages in this industry ranged from marginally higher (in the primary and secondary wood products sectors) to much higher than typical wages (that is, average wages in nonforest product industrial sectors).

• Through export of wood products to other regions, the forest products industry contributed to local economies by bringing in income which then circulated through economies via the purchase of locally provided goods and services. In areas where employment in the wood products industry comprised at least 10 percent of local employment, the industry contributed more than half of the jobs in the economic base.

• Concentrations of employment in the forest-related recreation and tourism sector were associated with better economic conditions in rural areas of the South—that is, were correlated with an increase in median household income and with a decline in unemployment and poverty rates.

Another element of quality of life is environmental quality, or the set of services derived from local settings. Several nonmarket benefits are associated with forests and forest uses, such as high-quality water and natural settings. Precise measurement of the value of nonmarket benefits is very difficult, but a valuation of these benefits is reflected in the willingness of some rural residents to live in a particular locale irrespective of wages. Environmental quality appears to play an especially important role in selection of a residence by retirees. We examined the conditions of forests in counties that depend on primary wood products and found (chapter 12):

• Forests in areas with high concentrations of wood products manufacturing show greater influence of management. They have higher concentrations of plantation acreage, younger pine forests (high pine growth relative to standing inventory), and greater timber harvest intensity in hardwood forest (greater removals relative to standing inventory).

• Nonmarket benefits associated with “naturalness of forests” may, therefore, be lower in areas dominated by the wood products industries, while marketed benefits and employment and income associated with wood products are higher as described above.

People choose where to live based on a bundle of attributes related to each location. These include elements of economic and social well-being and environmental amenities, as well as other variables not described here. Living in a forested rural county with little timber management activity may indeed reflect a preference for natural forest conditions. Living in urban areas or heavily managed rural areas reflects yet other preferences.

Harvesting in a new area can therefore have multiple effects on local populations. Some benefit from direct and indirect employment and income. Others may lose certain non-income benefits they derive from an unmanaged forest landscape. Thus, we would expect that the emergence of timber production in new areas would lead to debate over appropriate forest uses (see chapter 13 for detailed timber harvest forecasts). This factor, combined with timber harvest forecasts indicate that such debates may occur in parts of the Piedmont areas of North Carolina and in central Tennessee, Kentucky, and parts of Virginia. We see evidence of this in recent debates over chip mills in these States.

These same types of impacts on quality of life also arise because of urban development. Therefore, where development and increased timber production converge, their impacts and ensuing conflicts may be compounding. For example, places like the Piedmont would appear to be experiencing substantial change in quality of life through rapid urbanization and population growth.