Changes in Wisconsin’s Large Private Forests, 1999–2015: Land Ownership, Conservation, and Recreational Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forestland divestment by vertically integrated forest products companies (VIFPCs) has spurred significant forest ownership change. To illuminate these dynamics, we examined land sales after VIFPC divestment, subsequent acquisitions of conserved land, and trends in recreational access in Wisconsin. We documented changes from 1999 to 2015 with analysis of tax program records and profiles of the state’s largest investor owners, Plum Creek and The Forestland Group. Nearly all VIFPC land was sold to investors, public agencies, or smaller corporate and private owners. State tax and land acquisition programs buffered these changes: 70% of large private ownership land was retained in the forest tax program and another 16% was acquired by public and nonprofit owners. More than one-quarter of divested forestland was placed in conservation easements. Nonetheless, large private forestland open to public recreation declined by almost one-third. Investor strategies and conservation programs shaped the provision of forest benefits during ownership transitions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".