• Population Distribution
• Economic Drivers
• Land Ownership and Use
• Social Attitudes
• Non-consumptive Recreation

Population Distribution
On average, Michigan has approximately 175 people per square mile, but this population is disproportionately distributed: residents of the 14 Upper Peninsula counties represent 3% of the total State population, whereas the three southeastern Detroit-metro counties (Oakland, Macomb and Wayne) account for 40% of the total State population (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). Other significant population centers in southern Michigan include: Kent County (6%), Genesee County (4.4%) and Washtenaw County (3.4%). This distribution imposes a much greater demand on the resources in the southern portion of the State, increasing threats to wildlife species and the landscapes they use.

Results from the 2000 U.S. census estimate Michigan's population to be just under 10 million people. This number reflects an increase of 6.9% since 1990, which is less than the national average of 13.1% (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). Impacts on the landscape have been disproportionate to this growth. 'Built' (developed) land area increased 25% from 1980 to 1995, a rate that is eight times the estimated population growth rate (3%) during the same period (Public Sector Consultants 2001). This change is evident in the decline of average population density in developed areas, from 3.8 persons per acre in the early 1980s to 2.8 persons per acre in the late 1990s (Norris and Soulé 2003). This shift has accelerated the rate of land conversion, because low-density housing developments in the suburbs require more area for each individual household. Development is a leading source of fragmentation in Michigan's landscapes.

Another issue associated this change is 'urban sprawl,' a circumstance in which city populations experience a population decline, while outlying areas see unprecedented development. Between 1990 and 2000, several Michigan cities experienced significant emigration (with percent population decrease): Flint - 12%, Saginaw - 11.6%, and Detroit - 7.5% (Michigan Land Use Leadership Council 2003).

Economic Drivers
Michigan's economy in the 19th century was dominated by fur trapping, farming, lumbering and mining, but became highly industrialized after 1900 as it grew to be the major center of the U.S. automobile industry. Manufacturing continues to be an important industry in the State, comprising 20.7% of the Gross State Product in 2002 (U.S. Department of Commerce 2005). Other major industries include agriculture and tourism (Michigan Economic Development Corporation 2005).

Industry employment forecasts produced by the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth (2005) predict a small decrease (2.3%) in the overall number of individuals employed in manufacturing from 2000 to 2010, but an increase (7.6%) of those employed in manufacturing of lumber and wood products. The forecasts also predict a decrease in mining (3.7%) and increases in construction (13.6%), agricultural services (19.2%), amusement and recreation services (26.6%), real estate (10.0%), and transportation, communications and utilities (6.8%), including an increase in water transportation (6.1%). These are indicators of change in the industries that are primary sources for many of the threats to wildlife and the landscapes they use in Michigan.

Land Ownership and Use
Michigan has a greater total acreage of public land than any State east of the Mississippi River. Approximately 20% of Michigan's 36.4 million acres are managed by Federal, State or local governments. More than seven million acres are in State and Federal ownership.

The DNR manages 4.5 million acres as State Forests, State Wildlife Areas, and State Parks and Recreation Areas. These lands provide wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational opportunities such as hunting, wildlife viewing and boating, and resources for timber and mineral extraction. An additional 375,000 acres are managed by MDOT and the Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. The State government also holds title to approximately 25 million acres of Great Lakes bottomlands.

The Federal government manages 3.1 million acres for a variety of purposes, including provision of wildlife habitat, protection of rare natural features, provision of recreational opportunities, and resource extraction. These lands include 2.85 million acres of National Forest managed by USFS, 730,000 acres within two National Lakeshores and one National Park managed by the National Park Service, and 115,000 acres within three Federal Refuges managed by USFWS.

Local governments manage approximately 114,000 acres in Michigan, primarily for recreational purposes and to support utility services.

Approximately 80% (29 million acres) of land in Michigan is privately owned, and when southern Michigan is considered alone, 97% of land is in private ownership. Because most of the observed and predicted changes in land-use have occurred or are expected to occur on private lands, these lands will play a pivotal role in achieving the goals of the WAP. Planning and use regulations affecting these lands occur at local levels; State law grants authority to local governments to determine the extent, rate and types of development that will occur in individual municipalities and counties. Compared to other states, local land-use planning in Michigan is especially fragmented. Whereas most States have between 300 and 500 local government units possessing authority to engage in planning, Michigan has more than 1,800 of these units (Public Sector Consultants 2002). Local governments typically do not coordinate at regional levels; as of 2002, only 25 of 83 counties had adopted countywide zoning ordinances (Public Sector Consultants 2002). Consequently, local planning for private lands in Michigan tends to produce a patchwork of disparate development and land-use schemes across the landscape, increasing fragmentation and inhibiting wildlife movements.

From the early 1800s through the middle of the 20th century, Michigan acreage in agricultural production steadily and rapidly increased. Following this boom, farmlands began to decline due to conversion to urban and suburban areas and abandonment of farmlands, which were often allowed to succeed to forested lands. In 1978, 29% of Michigan acreage was in agricultural production (Smyth 1995). Between 1982 and 1997, farmland acreage decreased by almost 1.5 million acres, or 13.3% (Norris and Soulé 2003). Between 1997 and 2002, Michigan lost an additional 3% of its farmland (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002). If current trends continue, Michigan will lose 25% of its fruit-producing land and 1.9 million acres of other farmland in the next 40 years (Public Sector Consultants 2002).

In 1978, 6% of Michigan's land area was defined as urban (Smyth 1995). Since that time, the acreage of developed land has increased by more than 30% (Public Sector Consultants 2002). This expansion of urban and suburban areas has been fueled by urban sprawl, as described in 'Population Demographics' above. If present development trends continue, between 1.5 and 2 million additional acres of unbuilt land could be urbanized by 2020 and the acreage of developed land could increase by 178% by the year 2040 (Public Sector Consultants 2001). If this growth is poorly planned, or occurs without any planning, the detrimental effects on Michigan's wildlife will be severe.

Social Attitudes
Interest in wildlife conservation has changed dramatically over the last several decades. Whereas a small number of groups primarily influenced early wildlife conservation efforts, more than 70 new organizations addressing wildlife and animal interests were created in the U.S. during the 1950s and 1960s (Witter 1990). One consequence of this broader citizen interest and participation has been an increase in the number and breadth of issues. Interest in the protection of nongame species has increased as the constituency base has grown. However, growth in public participation also increased the potential for expression of disparate views, and, as a result, conflicting information and differences in public values have frequently polarized individuals and groups. This situation makes identification of a common vision and goals for all conservation partners more challenging.

The populace has also become more urbanized (or suburbanized) and less individually engaged in the practices of crop production, animal husbandry and land stewardship. A significant gap now separates many people from a functional understanding of their relationship to the natural environment. A healthy sustainable environment depends, in large part, on whether present and future generations become aware of and value the interconnected and interdependent aspects of all life. A recent series of Michigan surveys, measuring the attitudes of the public toward resource management and the agencies involved in implementing management actions, found that Michigan's citizens still highly value their State's natural resources: 84% of respondents identified active promotion of ecological health as either the highest or second highest priority when asked to rank natural resource management goals in Michigan; 68% of respondents identified supporting resource development for greater economic growth as a low priority (Koval & Mertig 2002). These results are similar to an earlier national survey that found 71% of respondents considered environmental protection vastly more important than economic development (National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide 1998).

The Michigan surveys also found that most respondents mildly or strongly disagreed with the statement, 'the balance of nature is strong enough to cope with impacts of modern industrial nations,' recognizing the need for management of natural resources. However, when the environmental concerns are put in head-to-head competition for time investment, funding, and other commitments, they fall below social issues including crime, education and healthcare (Belden and Russonello 1996).

Population demographics, especially age, educational and gender characteristics, have been found to be associated with attitudes about natural resources and the management of natural resources. The Michigan surveys mentioned above found attitudes toward the DNR were significantly more positive in women, older people, urban dwellers, residents of southern lower Michigan, and individuals who participate less frequently in camping, boating, fishing and hunting. Responses to several questions in these surveys revealed significant differences among different demographic groups. Recognition and knowledge of these differences may help to focus education efforts.

The field of 'human dimensions,' including issues such as those mentioned above, is becoming an increasingly larger part of the overall picture which must be considered by conservation partners when making decisions about the management of wildlife species and the landscapes they use.

Non-consumptive Recreation
Non-consumptive recreation is defined as recreational activity where the take (removal, harassment, harm) of a resource is incidental to the purpose of the activity. These activities include, but are not limited to, off-road vehicle (ORV) use, snowmobiling, non-fishing related boating (including use of personal watercraft), canoeing, tubing, horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking, cross-country skiing, rock climbing, camping, mine and cave exploration, wildlife viewing, and photography.

Recent reports indicate activity in outdoor recreation continues to increase. Over the last ten years, snowmobile registrations have increased from 213,347 to over 290,000 (DNR 2004b). During the last five years, ORV license sales have increased from 146,000 to nearly 174,000 (DNR data) and personal watercraft registrations have increased by 40,000 in five years (DNR data). As early as the 1970s, non-consumptive recreation was found to exceed consumptive recreation on southern Michigan public lands (Belyea and Lerg 1976).