In two posts I did in 2023, I compared land development trends over 1982-2017 in Oregon with those in California and Washington and dug deeper into the sources of Oregon’s land development (i.e., the use of the land before it was developed). This post provides an updated perspective, using newly released land use data spanning 1982-2022. I’m also bringing in Idaho, a state often mentioned as a hotspot of Covid-era land-use change in the western US.
All figures shown and discussed below are based on plot-level data from the USDA’s National Resources Inventory (NRI). The NRI is one of the most comprehensive and reliable sources of aggregate land-use change information in the United States, tracking transitions between land uses at regular five-year intervals. When compared with other land-use data sources, I tend to prefer the NRI, as it is structured to (1) compare the same land plots over time (whereas the Census of Agriculture is not) and (2) shed light on land-use, as opposed to land-cover, change (giving it an advantage over satellite-based data which, for example, has issues distinguishing houses and other forms of development in forested areas).
How does Oregon compare with its neighbors?
The conclusions from the earlier posts generally hold in the updated data. Over the full 1982-2022 period, Oregon developed 463,000 acres of agricultural and forest land, representing 1.6% of its 28 million acres of land starting in these uses in 1982. This compares with 411,000 acres (2.2%) in Idaho, 930,000 acres in Washington (3.3%), and 2.4 million acres in California (4.8%). Put differently, Oregon’s development rate was roughly half that of Washington and about one-third that of California. Oregon did develop more total acreage than Idaho over this period, but at a lower rate relative to its land base.
For all states, the majority of development occurred prior to 2002: Oregon (74%), Washington (76%), California (69%), and Idaho (61%). While development in recent decades is low by historical standards, the four states are characterized by a rebound in the most recent five-year period, 2017-2022. Oregon developed about 33,000 acres, up 50% from its 2012–2017 level. The rebound was even sharper in Washington, where about 60,000 acres were developed, representing an 87% increase over the prior period. Idaho saw a 36% increase, and California a 27% increase. All of these increases substantially exceed the nationwide rebound of about 13% (see the above NRI link).
What types of land are being developed?
The sources of land development vary noticeably across states, reflecting differences in their land bases and where urbanizing areas are located. In Oregon, forest land has consistently been the dominant source of new development, accounting for about 182,000 acres (39%) of all land converted since 1982. Pasture is the second-largest source (118,000 acres, 26%), followed by cropland (97,000 acres, 21%), range (38,000 acres, 8%), and other rural land (27,000 acres, 6%). (“Other rural land” is defined in the NRI to include farmsteads and other farm structures, field windbreaks, barren land, and marshland.) Washington shows a similar but even more forest-heavy pattern, with 58% of all development coming from forest land over the full period. In contrast, cropland accounts for the largest source of development in Idaho, while rangeland dominates in California.
(Note: The figures below have different scales, so keep that in mind when making any comparisons across states.)
Wrapping up
A few broader takeaways emerge from this updated analysis. First, while still well below its peak, the downward trend in Oregon’s development rate has reversed. Despite this uptick, we continue to develop far less land than our neighbors, especially since the early 2000s. Why is this the case? It is tempting to point to Oregon’s comprehensive system of land-use regulations, particularly the urban growth boundary (UGB) policy, and these patterns are consistent with that kind of story. UGBs were formally established in 1980 in most cities and towns, and were intended to provide enough buffer land to supply about 20 years of new development, which suggests they should have started to expand in the early 2000s. Although I would not read into this as reflecting something like the causal impact of our policy, it aligns with UGBs having their intended effect of constraining development. However, land development is clearly still happening and Oregon remains stuck with a large housing shortage. With UGB expansion rules being temporarily relaxed for most cities, it is not unrealistic to think the pace of development will continue to grow in the coming years.
Second, despite the recent uptick across all four states, the overall pattern since the 1990s still points to relatively low agricultural and forest land conversion compared with earlier decades. Including this more recent period provides important context as to what occurred during the years immediately following the pandemic when working from home became increasingly common in many industries. With employees untethered to their workplace, there was concern that remote work would lead to a surge in rural land conversion, particularly in the west, with housing demand in places like Bend and Boise practically exploding overnight. The NRI data show that a rebound did occur, and that it was substantially larger in these four western states than the national average.
Land development remains a consequential and largely irreversible process. The losses of farmland and forest land documented here represent permanent changes to the productive capacity, environmental services, and overall rural character of the landscape. As housing demand and population growth continue to put pressure on rural landscapes across the western US, how long the recent rebound in development lasts is worth monitoring closely.