Trends in Tennessee Forest Lands andTrends in Tennessee Forest Lands and

Real Estate Values

Don Hodges & Dave OstermeierDon Hodges & Dave OstermeierDon Hodges & Dave OstermeierDon Hodges & Dave OstermeierThe University of TennesseeThe University of Tennessee

Natural Resource Policy CenterNatural Resource Policy CenterDepartment of Forestry, Wildlife & FisheriesDepartment of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries

Tennessee Farmland Legacy ConferenceTennessee Farmland Legacy ConferenceMontgomery Bell State Park Montgomery Bell State Park 

October 9October 9‐‐10, 200810, 2008

MORE PEOPLE, MORE CROWDS MORE PEOPLE, MORE CROWDS 

CHANGES IN LAND VALUES & PARCEL NUMBERS  CHANGES IN LAND VALUES & PARCEL NUMBERS  IN METRO COUNTIESIN METRO COUNTIES

NORTHERN PLATEAU CASE STUDYNORTHERN PLATEAU CASE STUDY

IMPLICATIONS IMPLICATIONS 

8.00

POPULATION GROWTH AND DENSITY PROJECTIONSPOPULATION GROWTH AND DENSITY PROJECTIONS

7.00

7.50

6

6.50

7.00

5.50

6.00

ACRES/RESIDENT

POPULATION (in millions)

4.50

5.00

3.50

4.00

3.002000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

SOURCE: UT CENTER FOR BUSINESS AD ECONOMIC RESEARCH 2006

Change in Forest ParcelizationChange in Forest Parcelization

PeriodNumber of

PatchesAvg. patch

size (ac)Patch Density

(#/100ac)Period Patches size (ac) (#/100ac)

1992 2617 143.35 0.70

2001 4488 64.62 1.55

Change (%) 71.49 -54.92 122.09

KNOXVILLEKNOXVILLE CHATTANOOGACHATTANOOGA NASHVILLENASHVILLE MEMPHISMEMPHISBLOUNT BRADLEY BEDFORD FAYETTEJEFFERSON  MARION CHEATHAM HAYWOODLOUDON  SEQUATCHIE SUMNER TIPTONQSEVIER WILLIAMSON

WILSON

CHANGE IN APPRAISED CHANGE IN APPRAISED LAND VALUE LAND VALUE BY BY METROPOLITAN METROPOLITAN REGIONREGION

$14,000,000,000

$10,000,000,000

$12,000,000,000

$8,000,000,000

2001 VALUE

2007 VALUE

$4,000,000,000

$6,000,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$0KNOXVILLE CHATTANOOGA NASHVILLE MEMPHIS

SOURCE: TENNESSEE PROPERTY TAX DIVSION, 2008 SOURCE: TENNESSEE PROPERTY TAX DIVSION, 2008

CHANGE IN PARCEL NUMBERS BY CHANGE IN PARCEL NUMBERS BY METROPOLITAN REGIONMETROPOLITAN REGION

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

2001 PARCELS

2007 PARCELS

100,000 

50,000 

‐KNOXVILLE CHATTANOOGA NASHVILLE MEMPHIS

SOURCE: TENNESSEE PROPERTY TAX DIVSION, 2008 SOURCE: TENNESSEE PROPERTY TAX DIVSION, 2008

CHANGE IN AGRICULTURAL VALUE PER PARCELCHANGE IN AGRICULTURAL VALUE PER PARCEL

$350,000

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$250,000

2001 VALUE

2007 VALUE

$150,000

$50,000

$100,000

$0KNOXVILLE CHATTANOOGA NASHVILLE MEMPHIS

SOURCE: TENNESSEE PROPERTY TAX DIVSION, 2008 SOURCE: TENNESSEE PROPERTY TAX DIVSION, 2008

CHANGE IN FOREST VALUE BY CHANGE IN FOREST VALUE BY PARCELPARCEL

$140,000

$160,000

$120,000

$80,000

$100,000

2001 VALUE

2007 VALUE

$40 000

$60,000

$20,000

$40,000

$0KNOXVILLE CHATTANOOGA NASHVILLE

SOURCE: TENNESSEE PROPERTY TAX DIVSION, 2008 SOURCE: TENNESSEE PROPERTY TAX DIVSION, 2008

NORTHERN CUMBERLAND PLATEAUNORTHERN CUMBERLAND PLATEAUNORTHERN CUMBERLAND PLATEAUNORTHERN CUMBERLAND PLATEAU

CASE STUDYCASE STUDYCASE STUDYCASE STUDY

ACRES SOLD IN CUMBERLAND PLATEAU COUNTIES(developed)

12000

ES

8000

10000

AC

R

4000

6000 1985-19901991-19951996-2000

0

2000 2001-2005

COUNTY

ACRES SOLD IN CUMBERLAND PLATEAU COUNTIES(undeveloped)(undeveloped)

1800020000

ES 12000140001600018000

AC

R

60008000

10000 1985-19901991-19951996-2000

020004000 2001-2005

COUNTY

Subdivision Parcels vs. Non-Subdivision Parcels Sold1985 - 2005

25000

1985 2005

20000

Pa

rcel

s So

ld

15000

Nu

mb

er o

f P

Parcels sold not within a subdivision

5000

10000 Parcels sold within a subdivision

0

5000

1985-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005

Years

Place of Residence of PurchasersPlace of Residence of PurchasersN th C b l d Pl t P lN th C b l d Pl t P l

2000

Northern Cumberland Plateau ParcelsNorthern Cumberland Plateau Parcels

1400

1600

1800

yers

South

800

1000

1200

mb

er o

f B

uy South

Northeast

Mid-central

California

200

400

600

Nu

m California

Florida

0

1985 - 19901991 - 1995

1996 -2000 2001 -2000 2001 -

2005

Comparing the Forest Coverage

Land Use Change & Loss of Forest Habitat

Implications of Parcelization

•Land Use Change & Loss of Forest Habitat•Decrease in Timber Harvesting from these lands•Change in Rural Character •Change in Ecosystem Services

• Decline in Water Quality & Quantity• Impacts on Aquatic Systemsp q y

Implications of Parcelization

•Importance of Planning at Local Levels

Implications of Parcelization

•What to develop and what to sustain?•New Links: Landowners and Service Agencies•New Partners & Networks

• New Linkages Among State/Fed Agencies• EC&D, Local Planning Assistance• Institute for Public Service, MTAS, CTAS, ,• Development Districts• TDA, Division of Forestry• TN Wildlife Resources Agency• Natural Resource Conservation Service• Univ of TN: Research & Extension

• New Linkages Between City/County Officials and State & Fed Agencies, Universities