Carbon markets, conservation easements, timber incentives, and tax reform can align land value with conservation. We've run the numbers to see where strategic investment in land retention can deliver great impact for both forests and communities.
Get the data"Deforestation isn't a problem in America," the US timber industry told European regulators last year. They're right that the US doesn't have Amazon-style clear-cutting. But they're overlooking a lurking crisis: American forest landowners are losing money, subdividing family land, and watching rural economies decay as forest fragmentation jeopardizes both timber markets and ecosystem services.
When forests fragment and become developed, the viability of timber harvests decline as economies of scale disappear, and forest landowners lose the only income stream from their land. The result? A landowner’s only option is to sell their land. Often, this cycle ends with permanent conversion to development - and the steady decline of family forest ownership. When coupled with the housing crisis, this trend often results in local backlash through "not-in-my-backyard" activism.
Our new analysis of Eastern US forests (2010-2022) reveals where rural economic erosion happens under the radar. County-level estimates of temporary forest loss, permanent forest loss, and the rate of forest loss relative to land value shed light on where development drives land use change and where conservation and economic incentives can have the most impact.
The results challenge the "no deforestation problem" narrative:
The ratio of permanent deforestation to land value reveals priority areas where conservation efforts could have maximum impact - places where relatively modest investments could prevent irreversible forest loss.
To understand where forests are truly at risk, we analyzed every county in the Eastern United States using a combination of the National Land Cover Database (NLCD), LANDFIRE vegetation data, and the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS).
The approach is straightforward but powerful:
There are two types of forest loss - and the distinction matters.
Permanent forest loss is when forest land is converted into another use and will probably never revert back. Our analysis tracked forests that became impervious surfaces (buildings, pavement, infrastructure) or barren land (often a precursor to development). Once a forest becomes a data center, subdivision, or strip mall, it's gone for good. In New England, Harvard Forest estimated that every day 65 acres of forest are permanently lost to development.
Temporary forest loss is when forest converts to farmland, shrubland, or other vegetation that might transition back to forest. This happened across in the Northeast in the late 19th through the mid 20th century, as farms were abandoned and reverted to woodland. But here's the catch: temporary loss often becomes permanent. In the northeast, it is rare to see a farmland transition back to a forest. Most often, the farmland is later developed for housing, commercial, or industrial uses. Sometimes those residential development means tree planting - slightly mitigating total forest loss - but the forest will never recover to its original potential once the land is settled and developed.
Yes, some regions show net forest gain - abandoned farmland transitioning to early successional forest faster than mature forests are cleared. But this misses critical points:
This isn't just about individual landowners. When working forests disappear:
Our analysis identifies counties where this economic crisis is most acute - where permanent forest loss is accelerating despite available land for forest growth elsewhere. Net forest gain statistics hide this economic hollowing-out of rural communities.
As part of our work with the US Forest Service to unlock new market opportunities for forest landowners, we're identifying where strategic assistance can break the feedback loop:
New Revenue Streams: Carbon markets, conservation easements, and ecosystem service payments can provide income while keeping land productive and in family hands
Cooperative Management: Pooling small parcels for joint timber sales restores market viability
Value-Added Processing: Mobile mills and local processing create markets for small-acreage timber
Tax Reform Options: Current-use taxation and estate tax relief can reduce pressure to subdivide
The data shows clear priority areas where these interventions would have maximum impact - counties where:
Retaining the forests we have today supports rural economies and is more cost-effective than planting new ones. In counties where our analysis shows high permanent deforestation rates relative to land values, every dollar spent on forest retention delivers outsized conservation impact.
The question isn't whether we have deforestation in the US. It's whether we'll act to support the rural economies that depend on working forests - before temporary losses become permanent.
This analysis was made possible by a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the Landscape Scale Restoration authority. Access the full dataset and use considerations here.
