Author:
Heinonen Tero,Pukkala Timo,Asikainen Antti
Abstract
Abstract
Key message
Forest owners who maximize profitability with a low discount rate or whose management goals are related to conservation and recreation, rarely sell timber. These owners make it difficult to achieve the high harvesting targets of the growing bioeconomy sector of Finland. To increase timber supply, these landowners should be informed about alternative silvicultural methods.
Context
The round wood harvests from Finnish forests are increasing and approaching to the level of maximum sustainable cut. Cutting budget calculations assume that forests are harvested in an optimal way for national timber supply. The calculations ignore the variability of landowners’ forest management preferences.
Aims
This study analyzed the effect of variation in the management objectives and silvicultural preferences of forest landowners on the forecasted timber supply from Finnish forests.
Methods
Forest owners were divided into savers (net present value maximized with a 1% discount rate), average owners (3% discount rate), and investors (5% discount rate). The owners of each group were further divided into three groups: those who allow only continuous cover management (12%), owners who use only rotation forest management (10%), and indifferent landowners who may use both silvicultural systems (78%). Scenarios were composed of management prescriptions that were optimized separately for the different groups of forest landowners.
Results
Compared to the even-flow timber drain scenario for rotation forest management (calculated without acknowledging the varying preferences of landowners), the scenario where the owners’ preferences varied decreased harvested volume by 15–19% during a 100-year calculation period. The main reason for the difference was the saver type of landowners who rarely sell timber.
Conclusion
It was concluded that variation of the preferences of forest landowners may make it challenging to meet the increasing harvesting targets of the growing bioeconomy of Finland.
Funder
Strategic Research Council of the Academy of Finland
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference45 articles.
1. Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, Väisänen P (Editors) (2014) Recommendations for good forest management. (In Finnish: Hyvän metsänhoidon suositukset – metsänhoito). Publications of Forestry Development Centre Tapio, Metsäkustannus Oy, Helsinki, Finland. [In Finnish]
2. Berlin M, Persson T, Jansson G, Haapanen M, Ruotsalainen S, Bärring L, Andersson Gull B (2016) Scots pine transfer effect models for growth and survival in Sweden and Finland. Silva Fennica 50(3):1562
3. Beuker E (1994) Long-term effects of temperature on the wood production of Pinus sylvestris L. and Picea abies (L.) Karst. in old provenance experiments. Scan J Forest Res 9(1–4):34–45
4. Brunette M, Foncel J, Kere EN (2017) Attitude towards risk and production decision: an empirical analysis of French private forest owners. Environ Model Assess 33:563–576
5. Ficko A, Lidestav G, Dhubháin ÁN, Karppinen H, Zivojinovic I, Westin K (2019) European private forest owner typologies: a review of methods and use. Forest Policy Econ 99:21–31
Cited by
15 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献