An economic and landscape evaluation of the green-up rules for California, Oregon, and Washington (USA)

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 251-266

  Boston, Kevin ^a   Bettinger, Pete ^b  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adjacency restrictions; Forest planning; Green up constraints; Spatial harvest scheduling

Indexed keywords

ADJACENCY RESTRICTIONS; FOREST PLANNING; GREEN-UP CONSTRAINTS; SPATIAL HARVEST SCHEDULING;

ECONOMICS; TIMBER;

FORESTRY;

ECONOMICS; FORESTRY;

EID: 33645961275     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.06.006     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. SM http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Environment_and_Recycling/SFI/Publications1/Current_Publications/2002-2004_SFI_Standard_and_Verification_Procedures/2002-2004_SFI_Standard_and_Verification_Procedures.pdf. (Accessed Nov. 4, 2003).
2. In: Baillie J., and Groombridge B. (Eds). 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals (1996), IUCN, Cambridge, UK (compilers and editors)
3. Barrett T., Gilless J., and Davis L. Economic and fragmentation effects of clearcut restrictions. Forest Science 44 (1998) 569-577
4. Bettinger P., and Sessions J. Spatial forest planning: to adopt, or not to adopt?. Journal of Forestry 101 2 (2003) 24-29
5. Bettinger P., Sessions J., and Johnson K.N. Ensuring the compatibility of aquatic habitat and commodity production goals in eastern Oregon with a Tabu search procedure. Forest Science 44 (1998) 96-112
6. Bettinger P., Graetz D., Boston K., Sessions J., and Chung W. Eight heuristic planning techniques applied to three increasingly difficult wildlife planning problems. Silva Fennica 36 (2002) 561-584
7. Boston K., and Bettinger P. The economic impact of green-up constraints in the Southeastern U.S.A. Forest Ecology and Management 145 (2001) 191-202
8. Boston K., and Bettinger P. Combining tabu search and genetic algorithm heuristic techniques to solve spatial harvest scheduling problems. Forest Science 48 (2002) 35-46
9. Boston K., and Bettinger P. Development of spatially feasible forest plans: A comparison of two modelling approaches. Silva Fennica 35 (2002) 425-435
10. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2003. California forest practices rules, Title 14, California Code of Regulations. Sacramento, CA. http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/fpa/reg/4art3.html (Accessed Nov. 17, 2003).
11. Clements S., and Dallain P. An operationally, spatially constrained harvest scheduling model. Canadian Journal Forest Research 20 (1990) 1438-1447
12. Dahlin B., and Sallnas O. Harvest scheduling under adjacency constraints-A case study from the Swedish sub-alpine region. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8 (1993) 281-290
13. Daust D., and Nelson J. Spatial reduction factors for strata-based harvest schedules. Forest Science 39 (1993) 152-165
14. D'eon R.G. Forest fragmentation and forest management: a plea for empirical data. Forestry Chronicle 78 (2002) 686-689
15. Department of Sustainability and the Environment, Forest and Lands, Victoria 2003. Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production. Department of Conservation, Forest and Lands, Victoria, Australia. p. 57. http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/4A25676D00235B51/BCView/4A25676D00235B544A2 5679A0014E4D9?OpenDocument (Accessed Nov. 17, 2003).
16. Donovan T.M., Jones P.W., Annand E.M., and Thompson III F.R. Variation in local-scale edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78 (1997) 2064-2075
17. Enoksson B., Angelstam P., and Larsson K. Deciduous forest and resident birds: the problem of fragmentation within a coniferous landscape. Landscape Ecology 10 (1995) 267-275
18. Geoghegan J., Wainger L.A., and Bockstael N.E. Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological Economics 23 (1997) 251-264
19. Hulshoff M. Landscape indices describing a Dutch landscape. Landscape Ecology 10 (1995) 101-111
20. Kouki J., Löfman S., Martikainen P., Rouvinen S., and Uotila A. Forest fragmentation in Fennoscandia: linking habitat requirements of wood-associated threatened species to landscape and habitat changes. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 3 (2001) 27-37 (Supplement)
21. Kremsater L., and Bunnell F.L. Edge effects: theory, evidence and implications to management of western North American forests. In: Rochelle J.A., Lehmann L.A., and Wisniewski J. (Eds). Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management implications (1999), Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, Netherlands 117-153
22. Lindenmayer D.B., Cunningham R.B., Donnelly C.F., and Lesslie R. On the use of landscape surrogates as ecological indicators in fragmented forests. Forest Ecology and Management 159 (2002) 203-216
23. McArdle R.E., Meyer W.H., and Bruce D. The yield of Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Technical Bulletin vol. 201 (1961), USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC 72 p.
24. McGarigal, K., Marks, B.J., 1995 FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351. 122 p.
25. McGarigal K., and McComb W.C. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Monographs 65 (1995) 235-260
26. McIntosh B. The UK experience in forest design planning. In: McLaren J. (Ed) (1999), Miller Freeman, San Francisco, CA 231
27. McIntyre N.E. Effects of forest patch size on avian diversity. Landscape Ecology 10 (1995) 85-99
28. Murray A.T. Spatial restrictions in harvest scheduling. Forest Science 45 (1999) 45-52
29. Oregon Department of Forestry, 2003. Oregon forest practices rules. Salem, OR. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_629/629_605.html (Accessed Nov. 17, 2003).
30. Tasmania Forest Practices Board. 2002. Tasmania Forest Practices code. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. http://www.fpb.tas.gov.au/pdf_files/fpcode_c_harvesting.pdf (Accessed Nov. 17, 2003).
31. Turner M.G. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20 (1989) 171-197
32. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Chapter 222 WAC. Olympia, WA. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/rules/wac222-30.pdf (Accessed Nov. 17, 2003).