Michigan State University Extension
Ag Experiment Station Special Reports - 03279582
07/28/98
January 1995 Special Report 82
Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station,Michigan State University
SPECIAL REPORT
Natural Resources and Communities Maureen H. McDonough, Department of Forestry, MSU Julia D. Parker, Department of Forestry, MSU
Introduction
"It is not easy for us moderns to realize our dependence
on the earth....What do you eat, morning, noon and night?
Natural resources....What do you wear, day in and day
out? Natural resources....What do you work with, no
matter what your work might be? Natural resources....What
do you live in and work in? Wood, iron, rock, clay, sand,
in a thousand different shapes but always natural
resources."
Gifford Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 1907.
Michigan communities are linked to natural resources in many ways. Discussions of these links generally focus on employment as natural resources flow into communities and create jobs. The question asked is to what degree a community is tied economically (e.g. employment) to a particular natural resource. Defining resource dependency in this way limits understanding of the range of relationships between natural resources and human communities. The focus on employment leaves out consideration of the social and cultural bonds in communities that depend directly on a resource-extractive industry (Kusel and Fortmann, 1991). The challenges for these communities when the resource base changes are not limited to finding new employment opportunities, but include the impacts on community structure, culture and organizational variables that exist in the community because of its resource dependency. Communities can also be dependent upon natural resources without direct employment ties. Concentrating solely on employment ignores the resource dependency of all people and all communities. The relationship between natural resources and communities is complex.
The purposes of this report are to examine what we know about the relationships between communities and natural resources in Michigan and to highlight what we still need to know to help communities make transitions as the natural resource base changes over time.
Michigan's Natural Resources
The state of Michigan has ample natural resources. Michigan has minerals, forests, lakes and lakeshores, and agricultural land that can support industries and communities. Michigan has a diversified mining resource base, providing metallic and non-metallic minerals, as well as construction materials, oil and gas. The forest resource base consists of both public and privately owned land. According to the most recent forest inventory, Michigan has 18.6 million acres of forestland. Michigan's water resources, one of the most distinguishing features of the state, include four Great Lakes, more than 3,200 miles of Great Lakes shoreline and more than 10,000 inland lakes. The state has 6.2 million acres of harvested cropland used to produce a wide variety of products, including soybeans, oats, alfalfa, wheat, fruits and vegetables. With four Great Lakes and 7.6 million acres of state and federal land for public use_including the Ottawa National Forest, the Hiawatha National Forest, the Huron-Manistee National Forest, Isle Royale National Park, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and 67 state parks_tourism is important to many communities. For further information on Michigan's mineral, water, land, and forest resources, and tourism in Michigan, see SAPMINR Special Reports 81, 79, 80, 71 and 76, respectively.
Michigan's Population
The population of Michigan is most concentrated in the southern Lower Peninsula, followed by the northern Lower Peninsula, with the Upper Peninsula the least populated (Figure 1). This transition in population density corresponds with the magnitude of natural resource bases regionally in the state. Large tracts of state and federal land, industrial timberland and mining operations are concentrated in the northern Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula. Agricultural, timber, mining and tourism communities occur more frequently in areas with lower population densities. Communities in the southern Lower Peninsula are more likely to depend indirectly on natural resources.
The population of Michigan is concentrated in urban and suburban communities in the southern Lower Peninsula (Figure 2). Seventy percent of the Michigan population is concentrated in urban areas. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, the state has 12 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), all located in the southern Lower Peninsula. Of the 30 percent of the Michigan population living in rural areas, only 1.3 percent are farm residents. The rest (28.7 percent) are non-farm residents.
What is a Community?
Communities are defined in many ways. A group of people may be linked by virtue of living in the same geographic area and sharing the same habitat. These communities of place are the way we often think of communities and why we most commonly think of rural communities when we think about communities and natural resources (Tonnies, 1957; Anderson and Carter, 1978; USDA, 1993). Rural communities are geographically located in the midst of the natural resource base. But human communities are not simply aggregates of individuals living in the same geographic location. Communities are social systems made up of a set of interlocking social institutions such as schools, government, and formal and informal organizations. Changes in access to natural resources reverberate through the system through the interconnected pieces. Not all communities will respond in the same way to change. The structure of the community and the relationships between people and institutions can help or hinder the community's ability to respond to changing conditions. This is especially true for communities dependent on natural resources-the flow of the resource to the community can either shift gradually over time or be disrupted quite abruptly.
Within geographic communities and within communities defined by social institutions can also be found communities of association, which share common goals, values and beliefs (Tonnies, 1957). These communities of association can be differentially affected by changes in the quality of or access to natural resources (Carroll and Lee, 1990). Communities and groups within a community vary in their ability to respond to changes in natural resources. Some groups in a community may be relatively unaffected by these changes, while others may be devastated (Peluso, Humphrey and Fortmann, 1994). The complexity of relationships between Michigan communities and natural resources is defined by the existence of both interrelated social institutions in communities and communities of affiliation.
Communities and Resource Dependency
Though discussions of community dependence on natural resources have traditionally focused on employment in an extractive industry, such as timber or mining, resource dependency actually occurs along a spectrum ranging from direct to indirect dependence. Peluso, Humphrey and Fortmann (1994) define a natural resource-dependent community as a place where a natural resource accounts for a substantial part of the local economy or attracts population. Communities directly dependent on the resource include those where the economy is based on extraction of a resource such as timber or fish, those where industry requires a natural resource such as clean water to produce something else, those where natural resources are used to attract tourism and those where people come to live because of the aesthetic resource provided by natural resources. The last category includes communities with significant numbers of seasonal or retirement homes. Communities can be economically dependent on natural resources without any resource-based production of material goods (Kusel and Fortmann, 1991; Peluso, Humphrey and Fortmann, 1994).
Michigan developed on a foundation of timber harvesting, mining and fishing throughout the state. Some Michigan communities continue to depend on extractive industries such as timber. Other Michigan communities depend on a combination of extraction and tourism or on tourism alone. Additional communities in northern Michigan are affected by increases in seasonal homes. Still others are in transition from dependence on one resource base to another. Michigan has many communities in gradual transition from timber and mining to tourism and beyond.
To have a complete understanding of natural resources and Michigan communities, we need to add another category to the types of communities described above. These are communities that depend indirectly on natural resources. The idea that all people and communities are dependent on natural resources is often dismissed by suggesting that, though we all accept that aesthetic and spiritual benefits accrue to individuals through contact with nature, this is actually incidental to resource dependency from an employment or even a community well-being standpoint. This dismissal ignores the ways that communities and natural resources interact that are not directly extractive but that do have important economic implications. Natural resources in urban communities provide important health and environmental benefits. These benefits have economic implications for property values and reduced health care costs. In addition, people living in urban areas use products from natural resource areas in other parts of the state. Natural resource amenities throughout the state have created a spectrum of resource dependency in both urban and rural areas. Four communities in Michigan-Ironwood, Traverse City, Roscommon and Jackson-are used in this report as examples along the resource dependency continuum.
Direct Dependence in Michigan Communities
Dependence on natural resources varies in type of association with the resource base, degree of dependence and manifestations of the dependency. Michigan communities are associated with natural resource bases in a variety of ways, including association with forest products or timber production, fisheries, mining, and recreation and tourism industries. Traditionally, assessment of resource dependency has been limited to dependence on extractive industries such as logging and mining. In Michigan, however, many communities that depend on extractive resource industries also depend on tourism. The availability of a large natural resource base creates an opportunity for the development of both types of industry. It is largely a matter of degree when we term communities dependent on or associated with extraction to be dependent on tourism.
Degree of dependence ranges from direct to indirect. All communities rely on natural resource bases to some extent. Direct dependence on natural resources primarily means the association of communities with large-scale natural resource bases that provide employment. Dependence on natural resources varies greatly throughout the state because of the location of large-scale natural resource units such as state, federal or industrial landholdings, the location and diversification of industry and employment, and the size and level of isolation of the community.
Manifestation of direct dependence varies in communities in Michigan because of the economic and social influences of extractive and tourism industries. According to Machlis and Force (1988), resources create social meaning for a community and provide "an escape, sanctuary or spiritual rejuvenation" in addition to economic impacts. Employment is one manifestation of natural resource-based dependence that is both economic and social. In directly dependent communities, the natural resource-based employment level exceeds the state or national average in that industry (such as forestry, mining, fisheries or tourism).
Natural resource bases can provide primary or secondary employment. Primary employment means that the industry employs a large percentage (more than 10 percent) of the working population. Without this industry, the community would suffer significant increases in unemployment and severe economic problems. This can lead to further sociological problems within the community (Force and Machlis, 1994). Once a primary employer leaves a community, the income levels, tax revenues, business receipts and employment rate suffer.
Secondary employment contributes to the community but is not as influential on culture or the overall employment, income and tax revenue levels. If secondary employers leave an area, employees can often be assimilated into the existing employment structure. However, a large number of secondary employers leaving the community can have a great impact (Parker, 1990).
Employment in natural resource-based industries not only results in economic dependence, but also creates sociological impacts within the community. Community culture is affected in particular Michigan communities by the existence of logging and wood processing industries, agriculture, mining, recreation and tourism. Occupational bases in communities affect the entire community culture, whether or not all members of the community are involved with the particular occupation. Communities can have an occupation as a focus of their identity. This is documented in the Pacific Northwest by the existence of "timber towns" and in the Appalachian region by the existence of "mining towns" (Machlis and Force, 1988). Sociological effects of resource dependency also include changing demographics, political and infrastructure pressures, and conflict among community groups.
Income level is also related to direct dependence. Especially for isolated communities, natural resource-based industry has a great effect on local income levels. Extractive industries have higher wage levels than tourism but over a potentially shorter time period (Freudenberg, 1992).
Extraction communities often have an imbalance in the community power structure (Freudenberg, 1992). Freudenberg suggests that communities not only become dependent, but become addicted to extractive industries. Thus, those individuals controlling the extractive industry wield a great deal of power in the community. Furthermore, extraction communities in transition from extraction to tourism or other diversification feel the pull of old industries and new industries, of permanent residents and seasonal residents, and of extraction workers and service-sector workers (Frankena, 1989; Lee, 1991).
The effects of the resource base on tourism communities are different from the effects on extractive communities. Though usually separated from large metropolitan centers, tourism communities can be either rural or urban communities, depending on the level of development and the population density of the community. Tourism money can be an important source of revenue for these communities. But increases in tourism can create a serious dilemma for communities. For example, some Michigan tourism communities_including those along Lake Michigan, such as Traverse City, Mackinaw City and Grand Haven-have large changes in their seasonal population (Stynes and Olivio, 1990). During the tourism season these communities become congested with traffic and additional residents.
In a series of articles in the Lansing State Journal (1991), Traverse City residents discussed some of the pros and cons of tourism. One resident was quoted as saying, "We anxiously await their (seasonal tourists) arrival, and we anxiously await their departure." Problems in these communities include increased development, rapidly increasing property values and property taxes, and "thousands of low-paying service jobs that begin and end with the three-month summer season." Though these impacts have not been studied extensively in Michigan communities, they are well documented in other areas.
Changes in population levels are both permanent and seasonal. Permanent demographic effects resulting from the presence of natural resources can be seen in the number of seasonal and retirement homes owned. Much of the change in population in tourism communities of northern lower Michigan is due to the existence of seasonal homes. Michigan ranks second in the United States in the number of seasonal residences (Spotts, 1991). In many northern Michigan communities, seasonal homes account for between 30 percent and 60 percent of all housing (Stynes and Olivio, 1990).
Seasonal homes not only have demographic impacts but also affect the political structure and the social relationships in a community. These include population growth and change in rural areas, increased pressure on institutions and public services, and the potential clash of cultures as urban residents move to rural areas (DeJong and Humphreys, 1976; and Price and Clay, 1980, in Stewart, 1994). An influx of seasonal residents may stress a community structure by creating an increased demand for roads, highways, public services such as fire and police protection, and medical services. The number of seasonal residences in an area is often a precursor to a demographic change not only in numbers but also in age groups. The influx of elderly persons associated with seasonal and retirement homes creates changes in demand for government services and changes in the community tax base. Tax bases may change from income to property with a larger elderly population.
Understanding the influence of many factors on Michigan communities_occupational communities, demographic fluxes, political structures, resource utilization, and industries based on tourism and extraction_is an important part of understanding our direct dependence on natural resources. Another important component to understanding natural resources and communities in Michigan is the indirect dependence of all Michigan communities on natural resources.
Indirect Dependence: Natural Resources and Urban Communities
Though we often do not think of natural resources in association with urban areas, natural resources are an important part of our cities and towns. These resources include rivers, lakes, parks and trees. Much of the focus on urban natural resources in recent times has been on the urban "forest." The urban forest includes street trees as well as trees in parks and cemeteries and on private land. The most recent national survey estimates that there are approximately 60 million street trees in the United States (Kielbaso, 1990). These street trees represent $30 billion dollars of standing tree stock. In addition, there are approximately 10 private trees for every street tree (Kielbaso, 1990). Studies have shown that real estate agents and home buyers assign between 10 and 23 percent of the value of a residence to the trees on the property (Dwyer, 1991; Dwyer, McPherson, Schroeder and Rowntree, 1992). The federal government has invested heavily in urban and community forestry in the past three years. The 1990 Farm Bill provided funding to each state through the U.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry Program. Michigan receives approximately $300,000 per year in urban and community forestry funds from the Farm Bill. Another $350,000 in tree planting funds is received by Michigan urban communities through the Small Business Administration. Each state has a state urban forestry coordinator. In addition, a growing number of non-governmental organizations are involved in replanting the urban forest. In Michigan, these include such groups as Global Releaf and the Greening of Detroit. There is a significant economic investment in urban trees.
Literature about the values associated with urban trees is plentiful. Generally, these are grouped into psychological, aesthetic, social and environmental values. Psychological and aesthetic values of urban trees should not be underestimated. There is a growing body of literature on the restorative value of trees. Surgery patients who could see a grove of trees out their window recuperated faster than patients who could see only brick walls (Ullrich, 1979). Prisoners with views of trees used prison health facilities less (Moore, 1982). Workers with views of trees out the office window reported lower job stress and fewer headaches (Kaplan, Talbot and Kaplan, 1988). Urban residents with views of trees out their window reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with their neighborhoods (Kaplan, 1985).
Social values associated with urban trees include community cooperation and identity, which develop when people come together to plant trees. In urban areas, trees can become social centers where people gather in the summer (McDonough and Vachta, 1994). Environmental values include climate control, reduction in air and noise pollution, and improvements in soil and water quality. The built environment of cities tend to be "urban heat islands." Trees help moderate the temperature in cities through the process of evapotranspiration. Individual trees also provide shade that reduces the amount of solar radiation absorbed by pavement and buildings. Properly planted trees can thus reduce the cost of cooling buildings (Akbari, Rosenfeld and Taha, 1990; Dwyer, McPherson, Schroeder and Rowntree, 1992). In the winter, trees prevent the loss of radiant energy and reduce heating costs. Recent studies in Chicago indicate that a combination of trees and buildings reduced windspeeds by an average of 46 to 85 percent, compared with an open field (McPherson, Nowak and Rowntree, 1994).
Trees are considered fairly effective at removing certain air pollutants. These materials often harm urban trees, however. Trees remove carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, and some estimates are that urban trees are about 10 times as effective as forest trees at lowering carbon dioxide because of their proximity to the sources of pollution. This is accomplished both through photosynthesis and the reduction in the use of fossil fuels due to reductions in heating and cooling demands (Dwyer, McPherson, Schroeder and Rowntree, 1992). Trees are also used to reduce noise pollution from highways.
Finally, urban trees improve soil and water quality by holding soil in place and preventing the accelerated silt accumulation in urban streams associated with runoff from the built environment. Cities such as Baltimore on the Chesapeake Bay are paying considerable attention to trees in the urban watershed (Grove, Vachta, McDonough and Burch, 1993).
Clearly, the urban forest is crucial in many ways for urban residents. Do we have enough urban trees in Michigan? Michigan did not participate in the 1989 National Street Tree Survey. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) uses the results from the national study to estimate the state of Michigan's urban forests, however, by assuming that the urban forest of Michigan is in similar condition to that of other states (for example, Minnesota) (Boucher, personal communica-tion, 1994). The summary statistics for the national study and for Minnesota indicate similar potential for planting more urban trees. In both cases, approximately 50 percent of the space available for street trees is empty, meaning that, given adequate resources, cities could double the number of urban trees currently planted (AFA, 1989; Kielbaso, 1990).
In Michigan's cities, the potential for planting more urban trees increases if vacant lots are taken into consideration. Detroit serves as a primary example of the problem and the potential. Between 1965 and 1990, Detroit experienced a drop in population of 600,000 people. In the decade between 1980 and 1990, 45,000 families moved out of Detroit. This trend of urban depopulation left a large number of homes vacant in the city. The problem became so severe that a widespread demolition project was instituted to remove dangerous and abandoned buildings. Detroit consequently lost 60,385 housing units and gained at least 65,000 vacant lots. Depopulation has continued and the city has just begun a new round of demolitions. Budgetary constraints have prevented adequate maintenance of the vacant lots, which, despite their use as illegal waste dumps, often become playgrounds for local children. The state urban and community forestry coordinator for the MDNR reports that Pontiac, Flint, Saginaw and Grand Rapids all have similar vacant land issues (Boucher, personal communication, 1994). The potential for increased numbers of urban trees in Michigan, with all their attendant benefits, is significant.
A special note should be made about the potential for small-scale local economic development of vacant urban land through tree planting. These areas offer communities the potential to develop Christmas tree plantations, community woodlots, community nurseries and agroforestry projects, in addition to the more traditional parks and/or other aesthetic resources. The Urban Resources Initiative (URI) in the Department of Forestry at Michigan State University is exploring these possibilities in a pilot project in low-income neighborhoods in Detroit. Additional benefits credited to these efforts by residents participating in the URI project are continued community participation, increased block club memberships, improved intergenerational cooperation and increased appreciation for natural resources. Many of the block clubs participating in the URI have also reported that they are becoming leaders in their neighborhoods_other block clubs are asking for assistance and information in developing vacant lot reclamation projects.
The above discussion has focused on the need to expand the urban forest in Michigan. In addition, we need to focus on the decline in the quality of the existing urban forest. A survey of 20 cities in the United States, including Detroit, found that the urban forest is declining at an alarming rate. Cities are removing more trees than they are planting, and tree maintenance is declining because of increased costs and city budget reductions (Moll, 1987; Kielbaso, 1990). Because of the significance of trees to the quality of urban environments, this is an area that needs attention.
Emerging Issues
Several issues emerge from this examination of the relationship between natural resources and Michigan communities. First, better information is needed on the distribution of resource dependence across the state. The focus should be on communities in transition. How many Michigan communities continue to be directly dependent on timber and mining? How many are making a transition to tourism? How many are moving from direct to indirect dependence on natural resources by developing non-resource-based economies?
The second issue flows directly from the first. What is the impact on communities of changes in resource availability and transition from one form of resource dependency to another? The report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT, 1993) on federal management of old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest offers a model for looking at these questions in Michigan. FEMAT suggests that impacts are a combination of the consequences to the community of the change and the ability of communities to adapt to change. Communities vary widely across these variables. If we are to assist Michigan communities in adapting to inevitable changes in the flow of natural resources, we must take a careful look at the relationship between resources and community well-being, including non-extractive resource dependencies such as seasonal homes and tourism. What are the impacts on northern Michigan communities of decreases in timber harvests and increases in seasonal or retirement homes? This information is not available for Michigan communities.
In the future, analysis of resource availability, industry and impacts needs to be conducted on the community level. Statewide information is available, but the impacts of the management and utilization of natural resources are felt largely at the community level in Michigan.
A third issue is the maintenance and expansion of urban natural resources. It is costly for the state to allow the health of urban ecosystems to decline. The fact that most of Michigan's citizens live in urban areas also makes this an equity issue. Significant natural resource research and management efforts need to be directed at improving the quality of the urban ecosystem.
Conclusion
Resource dependency of Michigan communities is a complex issue. In this paper, we have outlined the direct and indirect dependence of Michigan communities. The existence of a vast resource base in the state-including Great Lakes, forestland, mineral deposits and natural amenities within and around communities-creates a significant level of resource dependency. Communities can be primarily dependent through occupational, cultural, demographic and economic ties to resources. Indirect dependence can result from psychological, social and environmental ties to natural resources in and around communities. All Michigan communities are dependent on natural resources. The needs and priorities of communities must be accounted for if Michigan's natural resources are to meet their potential. Resources are only resources because people and communities make them so.
Figure 1. Population densities in Michigan, by region.
So. Lower No. Lower Upper Pen.
Figure 2. Population of Michigan, by type of community.
Non-farm residents (28.7%)
Farm residents (1.3%)
Urban and suburban residents (70.0%)
IRONWOOD - COMMUNITY PROFILE Ironwood, Michigan, is a community historically dependent on extractive industries, including mining and timber harvesting. Now this community combines tourism, mining, timber harvesting and wood products production for its livelihood and remains primarily dependent on its resource base.
- Location - western end of the Upper Peninsula.
- Population - 6,843.
- Median household income - $16,857.
- EXTRACTIVE AND TOURISM INDUSTRIES, PRIMARY
DEPENDENCE.
NATURAL RESOURCE BASE:
- This region includes 2,799,700 acres of
forestland.
- 6.7% state, 25.9% federal, 2.2% municipal,
30.4% industrial and 34.2% private forests.
- Ottawa National Forest and Sylvania National
Wilderness Area.
- Presque Isle River.
- Industry and employment in the region rests
largely on forest products, mines and tourism.
- 13% work in extractive industries. (U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics does not include public
employment on an industry basis.)
- Mining industry - the Copper Range/Metal
Mining in White Pine employs 1,075 people in
the region.
- Three logging companies.
- Nine wood products production companies
including veneer, lumber, hardwood flooring
and plywood production.
- 19% work in hotel and amusement services.
MAJOR RESOURCE-BASED TOURIST ATTRACTIONS OF THE AREA: - Ski hills, snowmobile trails and park land; Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park; 130 miles of snowmobile trails; Lake Gogebic State Park; four ski resorts; harbor facilities on the Black River and access to Lake Superior.
Sources: Gogebic County Economic Development
Commission; Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1992.
TRAVERSE CITY - COMMUNITY PROFILE
This area combines resource-based tourism with outdoor
recreation and resort development to create one of the
most heavily visited tourism spots in the state.
- Location - the Leelanau Peninsula and Grand
Traverse Bay in the northern Lower Peninsula.
- Median household income - $27,373.
- TOURISM, PRIMARY DEPENDENCE.
NATURAL RESOURCE BASE:
- The Grand Traverse Bay.
- Lake Michigan.
- Many inland lakes.
- Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore.
- Pere Marquette State Forest.
- Changes in population are significant.
- Summer population increases by 200%.
- Over 30 hotels, motels or resorts with almost
1,500 units, including Grand Traverse Resort.
- Six ski and recreation resorts, which include
an additional 1,900 units.
- Second home or vacation home ownership.
- Retirement community.
EMPLOYMENT:
- 31.6% service sector.
- 3.6% hotel and motel.
- 15% manufacturing.
- Grand Traverse Resort is the largest employer
in the area - 650 employees off season, 900
in season.
Sources: U.S. Census, 1990; Traverse City Chamber of
Commerce.
ROSCOMMON COUNTY - COMMUNITY PROFILE
This rural area is not densely populated and is being affected greatly by the influx of seasonal residents and retired individuals locating in the area.
- Location - northern central Lower Peninsula.
- Population - 19,776.
- Median household income - $17,047.
- Total housing - 19,881.
- Seasonal housing - 10,580 (53% of total).
- SHIFT FROM AGRICULTURAL BASE TO TOURISM
BASE, PRIMARY DEPENDENCE.
NATURAL RESOURCE BASE: - Higgins Lake. - Houghton Lake. - Public and private forests.
Age distribution, state of Michigan vs. Roscommon County:
JACKSON - COMMUNITY PROFILE This city exemplifies an urban area with indirect dependence on natural resources. In Jackson, natural resources are necessary for psychological, recreational, economic and environmental benefits.
- Location - southern Lower Peninsula. - Population - 39,739. - Median household income - $20,830. - INDIRECT DEPENDENCE.
NATURAL RESOURCE BASE:
- Urban forest.
- Surrounding agricultural land.
- 19 county parks, from 3 to 457 acres; these parks
include both developed and undeveloped park land.
- Dahlem Environmental Education Center.
PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS: - Michigan Department of Corrections. - Consumers Power. - W. A. Foote Memorial Hospital. - Aeroquip Corporation.
References
Akbari, H., Rosenfeld, A., and Taha, H. 1990. "Summer Heat Islands, Urban Trees and White Surfaces." ASHRAE Transactions 96(1):1381-1388.
American Forestry Association (AFA). 1990. 1989 Street Tree Survey of U.S. Cities and Towns. The American Forestry Association Publication.
Anderson, R., and Carter, I. 1978. Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Social Systems Approach. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Co.
Boucher, C. 1994. personal communication. Urban and Community Forester. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Carroll, M., and Lee, R. 1990. "Occupational Community and Identity Among Pacific Loggers: Implications for Adapting to Economic Changes." In Lee, R.G., Field, D.R., and Burch, W.R. (Eds) Community and Forestry: Continuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. pp. 142-155.
DeJong, G.F. and Humphreys, C.R. 1976. "Selected Characteristics of Metropolitan to Nonmetropolitan Area Migrants." Rural Sociology 41:526-538.
Dwyer, J.F. 1991. Economic Benefits and Costs of Urban Forests. Proceeding of the Fifth National Urban Forestry Conference. Los Angeles, Calif.
Dwyer, J., McPherson, E., Schroeder, and Rowntree, R. 1992. "Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest." Journal of Arboriculture 18(5):227-234.
Force, J., and Machlis, G. 1994. Understanding Social Change in Resource-Dependent Communities. Presentation at the Fifth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Frankena, F. 1989. "Public Controversies Reveal Major Social Changes." Journal of Forestry 87(4):18-23.
Freudenberg, W. 1992. "Addictive Economies: Extractive Industries and Vulnerable Localities in a Changing World Economy." Rural Sociology 57(3):305-332.
Gogebic County Economic Development Commission. undated publication of Gogebic County statistics.
Grove, M., Vachta, K., McDonough, M., and Burch, W.R. 1993. "The Urban Resources Initiative: Community Benefits from Forestry." Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-163. Chicago, Illinois.
Kaplan, R. 1985. "Nature at the Doorstep: Residential Satisfaction and the Nearby Environment." Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 2:115-127.
Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S., Talbot, J.F., and Kaplan, R. 1988. Coping with Daily Hassles: The Impact of Nearby Nature on the Work Environment. Project Report, Cooperative agreement 23-85-08. Chicago, Illinois: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
Kielbaso, J. 1990. "Trends and Issues in City Forests." Journal of Arboriculture 16(3):69-75.
Kusel, J., and Fortmann, L. 1991. Well-Being in Forest-Dependent Communities: Volume 1. Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Lee, R. 1991. "Four Myths of Interface Communities." Journal of Forestry 89(6):35-38.
Machlis, G., and Force, J. 1988. "Community Stability and Timber-Dependent Communities." Rural Sociology 53(2):220-234.
McDonough, M., and Vachta, K. 1994. Urban Resources Initiative: Eighteen Month Evaluation Report. Report to the U.S. Forest Service, NA-92-0392. Radnor, Pennsylvania.
McPherson, E., Nowak, D., and Rowntree, R. 1994. Chicago's Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-186. Radnor, Pennsylvania.
Moll, G. 1987. "The State of Our City Forests." American Forests 93:61-65.
Moore, E. 1982. "A Prison Environment's Effect on Health Care Service Demands." Journal of Environmental Systems 11:17-34.
Nixon, M. 1991. "Mining the Gold Coast." Lansing State Journal. May 26.
Nixon, M. 1991. "Sleepy to Sleek." Lansing State Journal. May 26.
Nixon, M. 1991. "Tourist Takeover: Visitors Mixed Blessing to Charlevoix." Lansing State Journal. May 27.
Parker, J. 1990. The Toledo Area Labor Market. Toledo, Ohio: Toledo Area Private Industry Council.
Peluso, N., Humphrey, C., and Fortmann, L. 1994. "The Rock, the Beach and the Tidal Pool: People and Poverty in Natural Resource-Dependent Areas." Society and Natural Resources 7:23-38.
Pinchot, G. 1907. Breaking New Ground. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Price, M.L., and Clay, D.C. 1980. "Structural Disturbances in Rural Communities: Some Repercussions of the Migration Turnaround in Michigan." Rural Sociology 45:591-607.
Spotts, D. 1991. Travel and Tourism in Michigan: a Statistical Profile. East Lansing, Mich.: Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State University.
Stewart, S. 1994. The Seasonal Home Location Process: Toward a Dynamic Model. Doctoral dissertation. East Lansing, Mich.: Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University.
Stynes, D., and Olivio, E. 1990. Identifying Amenity Retirement Areas in Michigan. Paper presented at the National Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium. Indianapolis, Ind., March 29-31, 1990.
Tonnies, F. 1957. Community and Society. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press.
Traverse City Chamber of Commerce. 1994. publication of information regarding Traverse City.
Ullrich, R. 1979. "View Through a Window may Influence Recovery from Surgery." Science 224:420-421.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: an Ecological, Economic and Social Assessment. U.S. Goverment Printing Office 1993-793-071.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992. County Business Patterns: Michigan. CBP-90-24. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990. Census of Population and Housing in Michigan.
U.S. Department of Labor. 1992. Employment, Hours and Earnings, States and Areas, Data of 1987-1992. Bulletin 2411. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources List of Reports
Acknowledgements
Overview Reports SR 67 --SAPMINR Highlights SR 68 --Michigan Natural Resources Policy SR 69 --Demographic, Social and Economic Trends SR 70 --Integrated Natural Resource Systems
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their thorough reviews and helpful comments. Frank Fear, Resource Development Craig Harris, Sociology Karen Potter-Witter, Forestry Folu Ogundimu, Journalism Cathy Bristow, Entomology Gail Richmond, Teacher Education
Focus Reports SR 71 --Timber and Timberland Resources SR 72 --Lumber, Furniture, Composition Panels and Other Solidwood Products SR 73 --Pulp, Paper, Allied Products and Wood Energy SR 74 --Fisheries SR 75 --Wildlife SR 76 --Tourism SR 77 --Boating and Underwater Recreation SR 78 --Camping, Trails and Dispersed Recreation SR 79 --Water Resources SR 80 --Land Resources SR 81 --Nonrenewable Resources SR 82 --Natural Resources and Communities
Reports on the Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources
This special report is one of a series (listed below) prepared for a project of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES) called the "Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources" (SAPMINR).
The project was designed to take an inventory of the current status of Michigan natural resources, identify emerging trends, and appraise future opportunities. The purpose was to assist MAES in establishing priorities and planning programs.
Both overview and focused topic assessments have been made. The overview reports provide background information on the political, economic, and social environments influencing Michigan natural resources. The focus reports examine specific resources, including timberland resources, fisheries and wildlife resources, parks and recreational resources, and land and water resources.
The SAPMINR project began in early 1993. At that time, interdisciplinary teams of MSU faculty members, graduate students, federal and state government officials, and others collaborated to develop preliminary reports. In March 1994, a SAPMINR conference took place during MSU's Agriculture and Natural Resources Week. The objective of the conference was to provide a public forum for discussion of the preliminary reports. Based on interaction with conference participants, the authors prepared the final drafts of the special reports (SR).
This report should not be considered final. Efforts to analyze the past and forecast the future are ongoing. Even so, this report is a base for dialogue on both the status and potential of Michigan natural resources.
To receive any of the reports listed below, contact: MSU Bulletin Office, Room 103 Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1039.
The Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station is an equal opportunity employer and complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
printed on recycled paper using soy based ink
New_1:95_.75M_TCM_CW